Nikon D750 Buffer Capacity

“….Nobody cares about actual photography anymore. All people care about is trashing the latest technology, irrespective of whether they are going to buy it or not, becasue it can NEVER satisfy them….”

Respectfully, I disagree. Creative, visionary photographers make excellent images with a variety of equipment. They work around the limitations found in every single piece of photographic gear, from every mfr. Anything made by humans is imperfect.

I see the dissatisfaction with recent products from Nikon as largely valid. Specific and correctable-with-existing-technology shortcomings are easily found.

I believe these include:

1) Nikon attempting to position the D750 as an ‘action camera’ while limiting the frame rate to 6.5 fps. I too shot football with a motor-drive-equipped Nikon F in the 1960’s. 3.5 fps max was too low a frame rate then. Forget spray-and-pray, which didn’t work 50 years ago & doesn’t now. It’s too slow for putting together sequences with visual continuity. 6.5 fps is probably adequate for that – but please: Don’t try to sell a body as an action camera when it seems artificially limited for marketing reasons – that is, to avoid cannibalizing a higher priced product from the same mfr.

Nikon should be worried about the outright loss of sales to other mfrs. About the loss of perceived leadership & of the growing perception of being out of touch with their customers. THESE COST SALES.

2) When Nikon Inc. introduces a body that is markedly more capable than an existing product at nearly the same price (D750 vs D610) – while still trying to sell the 610, they’re still hurting their bottom line. The only way the existing 610 inventory will sell is by lowering the price – which impacts margin, cause production cost is already largely as low as it’ll go. Nikon is still cannibalizing themselves AND confusing customers as to what-the-hell they’re attempting to accomplish. Introducing FUD to your own customer base is unwise. Really unwise.

3) Both D300 and D700 replacements could be created from existing products. THEY WOULD HAVE SOLD WELL FOR THE PAST 2-3-4 YEARS, contributing to the bottom line, while helping to demonstrate that Nikon’s in touch with their customers.

The D700 wasn’t a mistake – I’d argue that the direct impact to D3 sales volume was at least, and likely more than, offset by by the impression of Nikon as a technological (and value) leader. And remember, a high percentage of D700 buyers wouldn’t have purchased a D3 if the D700 had never been made. The D3 was simply too expensive for those D700 buyers.

I’m suggesting that the D700 represented substantial incremental sales while improving perception of Nikon, which has real bottom line benefit. Win-win.

Same thing for a D300 follow on. A pro-body DX with a newer better sensor would have sold, I think, in sufficient numbers to justify itself economically, Obviously Nikon management disagrees, but when a product line (DX) is the majority of your camera revenues AND overall margin (because of volume), not even trying to deliver what the market wants. Wasting production capacity on a ton of confusingly overlapping low-end DX bodies – which are being discounted to get them to sell = A Really Bad Idea. Shooting yourself in the foot (maybe higher) in public inspires NO confidence, and buyers with doubts tend to go buy something else.

4) The incremental cost of the additional memory required to increase the buffer size of the D7100 would have been inconsequential. The ROI for Nikon Inc would have been HUGE vs the negative perception, which has also been pretty damn significant.

5) Devoting production resources to multiple 18-XX DX superzooms while failing to produce DX-format wideangle primes telegraphs to your customer base that you’re not serious about that product line. So does the proliferation of low-end, low margin DX camera models when that line is the bread and butter of your volume. That’s just plain dumb. It’s also frustrating and scary to consumers who understand that Nikon Inc. is out of touch with reality.

THAT’s why photographers who have owned, used and recommended Nikon products for a long time are upset, not because we’re Nellie Naysayers. If I didn’t have a shit-ton invested in existing Nikon glass, I probably would have already switched – cause ALL I CARE ABOUT IS THE PICTURES I PRODUCE. The gear that least interferes with the process is what I want. Intentionally-crippled and inadequately supported products ain’t that.

Like lots of other consumers, I’m not gonna invest new equipment capital in a mfr’s more expensive products when they’ve lost my trust in this manner – I’m gonna buy used, continue using what I already own, and pay increasing attention to products from other mfrs.

Multiply those actions X enough potential buyers (which Nikon seems to be actively attempting through some related combination of arrogance and self-isolation) and you’re FUBAR’d as a going concern / viable business entity / employer, etc. etc.

TL;DR: When lots of customers are unhappy with your products and service, you’re having to fire-sale multiple lines to get them off dealers’ shelves AND YOU KEEP DOING THE SAME THING, expect criticism.