Nikon in 'Dire Straits' as its Slump is Particularly Untimely: Report
This past year has not been kind to any camera manufacturer, but Nikon is reportedly in "dire straits" as it had yet to financially recover from previous
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon in trouble?
- Thread starter MacNut
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Many, many years ago I started out with my first SLR being a Minolta, followed by a couple updated Minoltas until the day I decided I was ready for the then-perceived "gold standard," a Nikon. Bought that N90 and loved it to death, and was a "Nikon Girl" for years and years after that....
Times change, priorities change, needs change.....and a year ago, on the 21st of November 2019, I became no longer a "Nikon Girl" as I traded in my Nikon gear and switched to Sony. This was not an easy decision, not by any means, and I wrestled with it for a very long time before finally arriving at the "decisive moment" and making the change..... Now, a year later in November 2020, I can wholeheartedly say that, yes, for me this was indeed the right choice, the right decision and for the right reasons. I don't exactly call myself a "Sony Girl," but wow, I am sure loving my Sony gear -- it has been and continues to serve me well and brings great joy and often new surprises as I explore my photographic options with the A7R IV and the lenses that I've purchased and used over the last year.
All that said, I would really be very very sad if Nikon does bite the dust.....I have some wonderful memories of experiences with my Nikon cameras and lenses through the years, some nice photos from those times, and, well, basically I learned photography with a Nikon in my hands..... No one can ever take that away, regardless of what happens to the company now..... I know that there are many, many others out there who feel the same.
Times change, priorities change, needs change.....and a year ago, on the 21st of November 2019, I became no longer a "Nikon Girl" as I traded in my Nikon gear and switched to Sony. This was not an easy decision, not by any means, and I wrestled with it for a very long time before finally arriving at the "decisive moment" and making the change..... Now, a year later in November 2020, I can wholeheartedly say that, yes, for me this was indeed the right choice, the right decision and for the right reasons. I don't exactly call myself a "Sony Girl," but wow, I am sure loving my Sony gear -- it has been and continues to serve me well and brings great joy and often new surprises as I explore my photographic options with the A7R IV and the lenses that I've purchased and used over the last year.
All that said, I would really be very very sad if Nikon does bite the dust.....I have some wonderful memories of experiences with my Nikon cameras and lenses through the years, some nice photos from those times, and, well, basically I learned photography with a Nikon in my hands..... No one can ever take that away, regardless of what happens to the company now..... I know that there are many, many others out there who feel the same.
While the article is supposition, obviously, it would be a shame to see hands down one of the best optics manufacturers around around go belly up. Diversification is key, as Canon has done, or as a mega-conglomerate electronics manufacturer like Sony. It would be awful if those were the only two major players left. Canon/Sony certainly have nice products and all, but Nikon has some of the best imaging IP around in its optics and in its imaging pipeline. And the Z system optics are nothing short of astonishing, in my experience. It's very difficult to get better than their optical engineering prowess. Their management is atrocious and lacks vision. Their marketing organization is atrocious and also lacks vision and skill. Their engineers are second-to-none.
Mega-closures are the way of the world, but gosh, I'm certainly tired of it these days.
Mega-closures are the way of the world, but gosh, I'm certainly tired of it these days.
The Nikon name still has market value. It will be interesting to see if their other products and services can carry them until they catch up in the mirrorless market.
This is just a thought. My crystal ball broke yesterday.
This is just a thought. My crystal ball broke yesterday.
Last edited:
Nothing new here, Nikon has been circling the drain for years.
Note that Nikon has focused heavily on still photography (like some of the participants in this thread). That's not where the world has been going.
How many of you have heard or used a Nikon video camera? Yeah, I thought so.
Both Sony and Canon have decades of experience producing camcorders.
More recently, the Associated Press chose Sony as their preferred digital imaging platform.
Note that Nikon has focused heavily on still photography (like some of the participants in this thread). That's not where the world has been going.
How many of you have heard or used a Nikon video camera? Yeah, I thought so.
Both Sony and Canon have decades of experience producing camcorders.
More recently, the Associated Press chose Sony as their preferred digital imaging platform.
I imagine Sony paid some money for that exclusive partnership.
You are probably right. My guess is that whatever Sony paid for the exclusivity rights will be worth it.
Note that Sony already has some of the core technologies that AP needs, including a long history of commercial videography, experience with telecommunications technology (they make cellphones although not marketed in the USA) and have significant PC computer experience (for years with their VAIO product family) and consumer electronics of course.
Sony is also one of the major entertainment powerhouses on the planet, not just the movie arm but also properties like videogames. This means access to a content delivery system. The latest blockbuster movie from Sony isn't being delivered to movie theaters on reels of cellulose acetate via petroleum-powered trucks.
Nikon's expertise is pretty limited to still photography and chip imaging tech.
However, if the AP moved to Sony, my guess is that other major news gathering organizations will also make a similar move to standardize equipment and workflows. It's more than a black box + lens on a camera operator's shoulder.
Note that Sony already has some of the core technologies that AP needs, including a long history of commercial videography, experience with telecommunications technology (they make cellphones although not marketed in the USA) and have significant PC computer experience (for years with their VAIO product family) and consumer electronics of course.
Sony is also one of the major entertainment powerhouses on the planet, not just the movie arm but also properties like videogames. This means access to a content delivery system. The latest blockbuster movie from Sony isn't being delivered to movie theaters on reels of cellulose acetate via petroleum-powered trucks.
Nikon's expertise is pretty limited to still photography and chip imaging tech.
However, if the AP moved to Sony, my guess is that other major news gathering organizations will also make a similar move to standardize equipment and workflows. It's more than a black box + lens on a camera operator's shoulder.
Last edited:
You are correct about both Sony and Canon. The two have always been very large companies and producers of video cameras (camcorders). While Canon also produced printers, Sony produced music and video players/recorders.
The Associated Press switched to Sony recently, but Canon had been there for many years prior. The Canon 1Dx-series has been the preferred camera for sports photography, too. But that too will probably change in years to come. On a list of the larger companies in the world I read recently, Sony is 6, and Canon 8.
Last edited:
All good points. Companies that can scale and diversify and by the nature of that scale, drive the market narrative, will certainly do better. Sony, in particular, has an exceptionally adept marketing machine. For crissake, if I hear another statement about "Eye AF", my head is going to explode . They drove that narrative and moved the market. They became the reference that everyone has to live up to. They built up an army of "influencers" that drive their marketing message to the masses. They went all-in on mirrorless tech pretty early. They have the decades of video experience as has been mentioned. And to be fair, they back all of this up with good products, and in some cases, quite exceptional ones. And even though I don't own a single Sony camera, all of the camera systems I do use have a Sony sensor. That's what I call success.
Nikon management has failed to read the market and because of their inability to scale, they haven't caught up quickly. Canon is a pretty slow mover too and in some cases doesn't read the market well either. But because they're massive, they can put a lot of resources towards making any needed shift in direction.
There will likely always be a market for boutique and specialty cameras like Leica, Hasselblad, Phase etc because they can operate at an appropriate scale for the size of the market (though they struggle too). Nikon is neither boutique nor a scalable diverse mass producer like Sony and Canon. Unfortunately, they can't win on quality alone like Leica (smaller market) and they can't win at the scale at which Sony and Canon operate.
As a long-time user, I personally feel that Nikon builds exceptional products that can easily stand up to those from Sony and Canon in the areas where they compete (allowing for "spec leapfrogging"). It's more than true in optics. It's true in the imaging pipeline that happens post-sensor. It's true in autofocus, even "Eye AF" (head explode), and they're continuing to improve in DSLR-based video. The Z-system is astonishingly good with a long runway to take advantage of should Nikon get the chance to do so. It remains to be seen whether their leadership has the skills to read the market and take the company forward and whether a greatly reduced market can support a smaller company. Only time will tell.
I like having choices on buying quality products. People settle on brands for different reasons. I settled on mine because of family history - my dad was an art director for decades - (Pentax, Nikon, Mamyia/Phase), ergonomics choices (body, UI), imaging pipeline, color science, lens rendition/optics and lens choices (vast). Others will have chosen their "brand" or "system" for similar reasons. I like having those real choices and yes, I'd be disappointed in having that universe of choice diminished. As I am sure you can tell.
. They drove that narrative and moved the market. They became the reference that everyone has to live up to. They built up an army of "influencers" that drive their marketing message to the masses. They went all-in on mirrorless tech pretty early. They have the decades of video experience as has been mentioned. And to be fair, they back all of this up with good products, and in some cases, quite exceptional ones. And even though I don't own a single Sony camera, all of the camera systems I do use have a Sony sensor. That's what I call success.Nikon management has failed to read the market and because of their inability to scale, they haven't caught up quickly. Canon is a pretty slow mover too and in some cases doesn't read the market well either. But because they're massive, they can put a lot of resources towards making any needed shift in direction.
There will likely always be a market for boutique and specialty cameras like Leica, Hasselblad, Phase etc because they can operate at an appropriate scale for the size of the market (though they struggle too). Nikon is neither boutique nor a scalable diverse mass producer like Sony and Canon. Unfortunately, they can't win on quality alone like Leica (smaller market) and they can't win at the scale at which Sony and Canon operate.
As a long-time user, I personally feel that Nikon builds exceptional products that can easily stand up to those from Sony and Canon in the areas where they compete (allowing for "spec leapfrogging"). It's more than true in optics. It's true in the imaging pipeline that happens post-sensor. It's true in autofocus, even "Eye AF" (head explode), and they're continuing to improve in DSLR-based video. The Z-system is astonishingly good with a long runway to take advantage of should Nikon get the chance to do so. It remains to be seen whether their leadership has the skills to read the market and take the company forward and whether a greatly reduced market can support a smaller company. Only time will tell.
I like having choices on buying quality products. People settle on brands for different reasons. I settled on mine because of family history - my dad was an art director for decades - (Pentax, Nikon, Mamyia/Phase), ergonomics choices (body, UI), imaging pipeline, color science, lens rendition/optics and lens choices (vast). Others will have chosen their "brand" or "system" for similar reasons. I like having those real choices and yes, I'd be disappointed in having that universe of choice diminished. As I am sure you can tell
.
Nikon needs to keep their optics and engineering staff and completely overhaul marketing and executive staff. Let's start with the marketing department, please.
I'm in a fairly large and highly regarded international women's photography forum. I can't tell you how many people ask, "I have a Nikon DXXX(X) body and want to switch to mirrorless. Which Sony should I look at?" For some reason these women are not considering the Z series at all.... I've had good luck convincing (at least in some part) some to actually buy a Z and they end up loving it. Now those same women are encouraging more, but so often the first response of Nikon users is to look at Sony. It baffles me how Nikon is losing their own customers. "Oh, you mean my lenses will work with an adapter?" OMG. They just need to hire a couple of people to bombard youtube.
I'm in a fairly large and highly regarded international women's photography forum. I can't tell you how many people ask, "I have a Nikon DXXX(X) body and want to switch to mirrorless. Which Sony should I look at?" For some reason these women are not considering the Z series at all.... I've had good luck convincing (at least in some part) some to actually buy a Z and they end up loving it. Now those same women are encouraging more, but so often the first response of Nikon users is to look at Sony. It baffles me how Nikon is losing their own customers. "Oh, you mean my lenses will work with an adapter?" OMG. They just need to hire a couple of people to bombard youtube.
Lenses. Availability of lenses. Even more than bodies, that's one key to success, and sadly, this is where Nikon is still seriously lagging. Two years after they first launched their mirrorless Z line, they still don't have any native macro lenses, nor do they have any native long lenses, either. Those are still on the "road map." Oh, sure, the consumer can just stick one of his or her old Nikon lenses on the FTZ adapter. Ehhhh..... That is not acceptable to some of us. For me that was one major factor in my decision to switch last year. Why should I sit around waiting for Nikon to cough up a macro, a long lens, when I can go to the camera shop and purchase exactly the Sony lenses I want right off the shelf?
Because why would I want to buy $5,000 worth of new lenses when the ones I already own work through an adapter? This is why I think the marketing department needs work - there are some people who are unnecessarily put off by the adapter. And lots of people LOVE the z series because you can basically adapt any lens to it with the wide flange and people are getting new use for all sorts of vintage lenses especially with focus peaking.
I'm glad you are so enamored of the FTZ adapter, Molly, but there are those of us who don't like the idea and don't choose to go that route. It's a compromise that I simply did not want to make. Sony had a wide selection of native lenses already available in their system, they also offered an excellent mirrorless body that had features which appealed to me, and that was that.....
A few of the lenses I have now are in lengths I did not have in the past with Nikon. I have to say, it really has been rather fun, starting fresh from scratch and adding lenses as the need or desire comes along..... Rather than buying everything all at once, tempting as that might be, over the past year I've been taking my time about this, and I have purchased and am happily using lenses in focal lengths which in some instances I did not have in the past.
Nikon has gradually, slowly been adding lenses to their line, and from users have said, they are indeed excellent optics, and that is good news for Nikon fans. That "roadmap" still has a long way to go, though. In the meantime the rest of us will continue purchasing, using and enjoying the native lenses we want right now from our system of choice (Sony, Canon, etc.)......
A few of the lenses I have now are in lengths I did not have in the past with Nikon. I have to say, it really has been rather fun, starting fresh from scratch and adding lenses as the need or desire comes along..... Rather than buying everything all at once, tempting as that might be, over the past year I've been taking my time about this, and I have purchased and am happily using lenses in focal lengths which in some instances I did not have in the past.
Nikon has gradually, slowly been adding lenses to their line, and from users have said, they are indeed excellent optics, and that is good news for Nikon fans. That "roadmap" still has a long way to go, though. In the meantime the rest of us will continue purchasing, using and enjoying the native lenses we want right now from our system of choice (Sony, Canon, etc.)......
Nikon going under would be bad for me personally, but bad for the market all around.
As mentioned, they are one of the premier optics manufacturers around, and not just optics themselves but also optical glass. They pretty well trade blows with Olympus and Zeiss in the microscope market, and of course more and more their semiconductor division is super relevant. Not that it affects any of us here directly, but I don't see those divisions, or Nikon optics in general, going away regardless of what happens to the parent company.
Nikon SLRs are an interesting study in and of themselves. On one hand, their staunch adherence to the F mount since 1959 has been a selling point for a long time. On the other hand, while Canon and others went to a larger throat diameter and some other significant changes(i.e. all electronic communication) has given them freedom to go places that Nikon really can't with the F mount. Nikon has phased out legacy stuff over the years, and other than the 3 lugs and locking pin the modern F mount only has a little in common with the 1959 F mount. You can take, just for example, a 70-200mm f/2.8E FL, stick it on your Nikon F, focus, and even get a useable(if not great) photograph provided that you are willing to use it wide open. That's kind of an exception, though.
The small diameter and long backfocus has limited the practical maximum aperture to f/1.2 on a 50mm lens, plus made wide angle design somewhat more complicated. Aperture rings, for a long time, inhibited weather sealing relative to other brands, and working within the constraints of the AI system has limited the minimum aperture of lenses(the AI system permits a minimum aperture 7.5 stops from wide open). Screwdriver focusing is fine(ish) for normal lenses, but can be slow with larger lenses, or alternatively if a body like an F5 or D2H can focus an 80-200mm f/2.8D quickly, it makes one heck of a racket doing so. Nikon lens compatibility nearly needs a book to describe fully. Nikon did manage to pull off one body that is fully operational and gives open aperture metering with every non-invasive auto aperture lens made in the F mount, but they did so by stocking surplus D4 sensors together with D600 electronics and wrapping it in a body that one local camera store owner describes as looking like an "FM designed behind the iron curtain."
The S mount is a really solid execution, and of course Nikon went to the other extreme by making the largest diameter and shortest backfocus distance of any other 35mm-format system. Still, though, even though the system has been fleshed out considerably in the past 2 years and there's a lot of great stuff in the roadmap, it's still not complete. Nikon seems reticent to make long lenses, presumably on the logic that their F mount equivalents do adapt very well and it lets them cover both mounts with a single lens(see the new 120-300mm f/2.8), but many folks will not want to deal with the adapter. They also still lack an equivalent of the A9, and considering that the D6 just dropped a few months ago it seems unlikely in the near future.
I WANT Nikon to succeed, but I think they need to get themselves out there more and actually sell people on the Z system.
As mentioned, they are one of the premier optics manufacturers around, and not just optics themselves but also optical glass. They pretty well trade blows with Olympus and Zeiss in the microscope market, and of course more and more their semiconductor division is super relevant. Not that it affects any of us here directly, but I don't see those divisions, or Nikon optics in general, going away regardless of what happens to the parent company.
Nikon SLRs are an interesting study in and of themselves. On one hand, their staunch adherence to the F mount since 1959 has been a selling point for a long time. On the other hand, while Canon and others went to a larger throat diameter and some other significant changes(i.e. all electronic communication) has given them freedom to go places that Nikon really can't with the F mount. Nikon has phased out legacy stuff over the years, and other than the 3 lugs and locking pin the modern F mount only has a little in common with the 1959 F mount. You can take, just for example, a 70-200mm f/2.8E FL, stick it on your Nikon F, focus, and even get a useable(if not great) photograph provided that you are willing to use it wide open. That's kind of an exception, though.
The small diameter and long backfocus has limited the practical maximum aperture to f/1.2 on a 50mm lens, plus made wide angle design somewhat more complicated. Aperture rings, for a long time, inhibited weather sealing relative to other brands, and working within the constraints of the AI system has limited the minimum aperture of lenses(the AI system permits a minimum aperture 7.5 stops from wide open). Screwdriver focusing is fine(ish) for normal lenses, but can be slow with larger lenses, or alternatively if a body like an F5 or D2H can focus an 80-200mm f/2.8D quickly, it makes one heck of a racket doing so. Nikon lens compatibility nearly needs a book to describe fully. Nikon did manage to pull off one body that is fully operational and gives open aperture metering with every non-invasive auto aperture lens made in the F mount, but they did so by stocking surplus D4 sensors together with D600 electronics and wrapping it in a body that one local camera store owner describes as looking like an "FM designed behind the iron curtain."
The S mount is a really solid execution, and of course Nikon went to the other extreme by making the largest diameter and shortest backfocus distance of any other 35mm-format system. Still, though, even though the system has been fleshed out considerably in the past 2 years and there's a lot of great stuff in the roadmap, it's still not complete. Nikon seems reticent to make long lenses, presumably on the logic that their F mount equivalents do adapt very well and it lets them cover both mounts with a single lens(see the new 120-300mm f/2.8), but many folks will not want to deal with the adapter. They also still lack an equivalent of the A9, and considering that the D6 just dropped a few months ago it seems unlikely in the near future.
I WANT Nikon to succeed, but I think they need to get themselves out there more and actually sell people on the Z system.
I bought my first Nikon Camera in 1971. Glass in the Nikon cameras was excellent but not any better than say Minolta or Canon and not quite as good as Leica. However their cameras and lenses were extremely rugged. As a bonus those original F-mount lenses were still usable with newer Nikon Cameras long after Canon and most other competitors had changed mount styles at least once. That also meant being able to buy newer lenses while keeping older and perfectly serviceable camera bodies.
Back then I thought of cameras as a lifetime investment. Nowadays I think one would be wiser to think in terms of a five year rollover so one needs to look at other areas beyond reliability and lens interchangeability.
The one gaping hole I see is in the waterproof camera range. I love these guys because they are affordable, light, rugged and reliable. Display the images on an iPhone or laptop or even a regular larger monitor and they are great. But with the typical small 4.8x6.4mm CMOS sensor, the data actually captured is around 2-3MP, everything above that is interpolated. The images won't consistently display well on even a 1090x1920 monitor let alone the newer 4 or 5MP monitors.
I would love to see even a 6.9x9.2mm sensor in these cameras. That would continue to allow a reasonably compact size even with a 3-4x zoom, and images that should display well at 4-5MP. Hopefully they could even keep the price in line.
I keep remembering how quickly Kodak went from blue chip to bankruptcy. Movie film was the backbone of their business, and the digital changeover in the movie industry when it came was incredibly rapid. Kodak simply got left behind. It is possible this will happen with Nikon as well.
Back then I thought of cameras as a lifetime investment. Nowadays I think one would be wiser to think in terms of a five year rollover so one needs to look at other areas beyond reliability and lens interchangeability.
The one gaping hole I see is in the waterproof camera range. I love these guys because they are affordable, light, rugged and reliable. Display the images on an iPhone or laptop or even a regular larger monitor and they are great. But with the typical small 4.8x6.4mm CMOS sensor, the data actually captured is around 2-3MP, everything above that is interpolated. The images won't consistently display well on even a 1090x1920 monitor let alone the newer 4 or 5MP monitors.
I would love to see even a 6.9x9.2mm sensor in these cameras. That would continue to allow a reasonably compact size even with a 3-4x zoom, and images that should display well at 4-5MP. Hopefully they could even keep the price in line.
I keep remembering how quickly Kodak went from blue chip to bankruptcy. Movie film was the backbone of their business, and the digital changeover in the movie industry when it came was incredibly rapid. Kodak simply got left behind. It is possible this will happen with Nikon as well.
Last edited:
The sad thing is, I think a lot of Olympus owners left for Nikon when the JIP news came out. When people were asking "where should I go?" I had mentioned then that I was worried Nikon might have the same fate coming, and a few people scoffed at the thought (in another forum). Fuji also hasn't done well lately. It was a really tough year, one that accelerated the issues of companies not well prepared, or ones where they didn't have a tight belt to begin with. Olympus was long in the mirrorless world, but they took a beating with an executive scandal in the past. Nikon just didn't move soon enough on mirrorless--it almost seemed like they tried to survive off the "mirrorless vs mirrored" argument too long, and they didn't prepare themselves for the rise of mirrorless. Sony marketed themselves well, and Sony is so large they were able to spend on marketing, and even make power plays, like with the AP. If they successfully choke out competition, that would end this hobby for me. Sole players in the market is incredibly bad for the consumer. We'll be paying more for less.
Fortunately, the used market will be around for a long time, and modern camera bodies can have hundreds of thousands of shutter clicks in them before failure. At least we are now well past "adequate" on image quality on anything made in the last 5 years.
Fortunately, the used market will be around for a long time, and modern camera bodies can have hundreds of thousands of shutter clicks in them before failure. At least we are now well past "adequate" on image quality on anything made in the last 5 years.
I actually don’t buy the argument that people move to Sony for their native lenses. Sure, some people do in fact make the full switch. But most people I know who move to Sony can’t afford a new body AND all new lenses, so they are adapting their current lenses to Sony. Most often they are coming from Canon. But lots of people adapt various other lenses.
Again, this is where I think Nikon has gone wrong in not marketing the advantages of sticking with Nikon glass and using the adapter. Some people will balk. Some people may have a one off lens that won’t AF with the adapter (??♀️). But the vast majority of the people transitioning from Nikon dSLR to Nikon mirrorless can have a seamless transition with little cost other than a new body. There are plenty of legacy lenses for Nikon to take their time engineering new lenses.
Again, this is where I think Nikon has gone wrong in not marketing the advantages of sticking with Nikon glass and using the adapter. Some people will balk. Some people may have a one off lens that won’t AF with the adapter (??♀️). But the vast majority of the people transitioning from Nikon dSLR to Nikon mirrorless can have a seamless transition with little cost other than a new body. There are plenty of legacy lenses for Nikon to take their time engineering new lenses.
I don't know about Sony and Nikon Z-series cameras, but the Canon RF lenses allow for greater image stabilization than other "adapted" EF lenses that have IS. Then there is more image stabilization on adapted EF lenses that have IS, than EF non adapted lenses that don't have IS. These last ones benefit only from the body IS.
While one can continue using the older EF lenses, photographers still want new lenses such as the Canon RF 35mm Macro lens. These new Canon lenses come in two versions, just like the EF-L (expensive) and EF USM (relatively cheap). But the RF lenses have a larger and protruding rear element that is in close contact with the sensor. Also, the new lenses are lighter and better balanced.
That said, while I don't plan to buy but one Canon RF lens (800mm), the cheaper RF macro is outstandingly sharp. I do agree with Clix Pix about new macro and other lenses that are designed to mount on the camera without an adapter. More than likely new photographers will buy the new cameras and lenses, while a lot of others-who are already invested on the older lenses-will use the adapter and slowly migrate to the new lenses.
Last edited:
Kodachrome
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
They give us those nice bright colors
They give us the greens of summers
Makes you think all the world's a sunny day, oh yeah
I got a Nikon camera
I love to take a photograph
So Mama don't take my Kodachrome away
To be fair, there are a whole bunch of Nikon lenses, some even in current production, that won't AF on Z cameras. They also won't AF on most current DX format digitals. The lack of AF on something like a 14mm f/2.8 is a big deal for the target D3xxx buyer(much as a lot of older, lower end film cameras won't AF with AF-S/AF-I lenses since those were fairly exotic and expensive when the cameras were current). In every criteria but weight and angle of view, the 14-24mm f/2.8(which is fully functional on the FTZ) is a better lens. You also have what is arguably the most high tech film camera ever built, and it's only partially function with the latest and greatest Nikon lenses like the 24-70mm f/2.8E AF-S VR and the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL. There again, I go back to the fact that Nikon lens compatibility doesn't need a chart, it needs a book.
Still, though, with Nikon most lenses introduced in the last ~20 years are fully functional on the FTZ. Adapting across mounts from different manufacturers is hit or miss-heck even 3rd party F mount lenses often need firmware updates for newer camera bodies.
To be fair, I'm not particularly enamored of the adapter. But I don't see it as some ugly stepsister to be banished to the basement, either. It's a tool that has a specific purpose that is well designed and does a job. And buying it with my camera allowed me to use all but one of my existing lenses. I've done the entire switch brands things before and I have no desire to do that again unless absolutely necessary. With your specific lens lineup you found it to be a compromise, but for countless others it opened up an entirely new way of shooting their old lenses. I know *so many* Sony users who are using adapters with their old lenses. The Z series is no more compromised than any other system.
This is true, but I also know of people who start out with a DX frame and move to full frame then need to buy all new lenses again since their crop lenses don't work on the full frame. Sometimes early research pays off in the end, and well, no technology is 100% future proof.
I read last night that Nikon is actually planning two new dSLRs for 2021 as well as several F mount lenses, in addition to the Z mount cameras and lenses.
The truth of the matter is that camera sales across all brands are down for various reasons this year and the stupid virus certainly didn't help matters in terms of supply chain or sales. It's just that the "news" outlets for whatever reason like to single out Nikon's dipped sales, all the while ignoring that Canon and Sony also have slower sales. It makes for a more interesting, if slightly off balance, story. Sure, Canon and Sony are bigger, but I really don't think Nikon is just going to close up shop soon. They may soon be the last dSLR maker and some people really don't want to move to mirrorless.