Now I know that this is just me voicing lessons learned over a long career in Silicon Valley versus a whole building in Tokyo full of accountants, analysts, and Japanese CES-trained staffers. Yet I'm pretty sure I'm right and they're wrong. They'll argue that they're "optimizing the net ROI across a product line." I'll argue that you have to be careful what you measure if you measure narrowly because that's what you'll achieve. When everything becomes an ROI cost decision, you're also making an assumption the public won't notice and it won't affect anything else in the buying cycle. I'm telling you—and I'm 100% confident in this assessment—that public perception has turned against Nikon. Thus, each new cost reduction or missing product update becomes a negative on overall ROI as people don't update or worse, sample or move to other brands.
...
Nikon is doing the opposite of what I learned to do. First, generate the excitement and volume. Then make sure you can drive costs out to produce the profits. Nikon is currently in a "first cut costs out of everything and then see what product you can still make" mode.
I feel the same way. I upgraded from my D40 to a D5100 without much thought. But it's been six months since my D5100 broke and I have yet to replace it.
Over the last few years much as changed in the interchangeable lens camera market. The so-called "mirrorless" cameras have become quite capable and in many areas are surpassing the best DSLRs. I've rented and tried many of these cameras1.
My indecision is because I am not sure buying a new Nikon -- I considered the D500 -- is the right choice. I am more informed about the capabilities of other camera brands than I was before previous buying decision. Perhaps I should look elsewhere.
