[Dan Rentea]

Does anyone have numbers for Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Ricoh? Looking for some perspective on volume.

Canon is doing fine, at least the financial report for the 9 months from 2017 say so.

Attached Images

 

[zapp]

CIPA number shows that the sales of 2016 are very similar to the sales of 2002: ? CIPA: production of digital still cameras 1999-2016 | Statistic
A lot of money was made in between, but the market is still strong. Market share may be in interesting number for comparison. I don't like this 12 month fiscal year thinking.

[Rondec]

CIPA number shows that the sales of 2016 are very similar to the sales of 2002: ? CIPA: production of digital still cameras 1999-2016 | Statistic
A lot of money was made in between, but the market is still strong. Market share may be in interesting number for comparison. I don't like this 12 month fiscal year thinking.

The problem isn't the absolute number of sales, it is a combination of trends (slowing when companies like Sony are trending the opposite way), market share (Nikon seems to be losing market share while Canon and Sony are keeping it or even growing), and overall expectations. I don't know if mirrorless is the answer, but certainly those cameras seem to be trending up while SLRs are trending down.

[bm75]

The market is shifting. High-end DSLRs will survive, entry level APSC DLSR sales will decrease because mirrorless now can replace them (and not only them). custromers are attracted by hypes like less weight and the cool look of those cameras. FF and APSC DSLR have their own specs and many thing to ay for many years more. Why the hell someone would choose between an entry level Canon/Nikon instead of a cool OLy /Fuji/Sony mirrorless (small format) with more features for the same price? People buy kit with 18-55 /16-50 lenses and initially don't bother about new lenses.

---

Last edited by bm75; 01-07-2018 at 03:34 AM.

[beholder3]

From both a buyer perspective and from a investor perspective with regards to strategy I find the unit number sold much more telling:



As a user I can only express my unwillingness to pay more for the same product level. And that is what most people think and do. They simply do not buy the products after the recent price hikes. I do not see why I need to shell out > 2,000 EUR for a fully featured FF camera. At least in the last 30 years there was not a single model out there that provided the quality to justify that amount of money for me. For most enthusiasts I guess the barrier is much lower at around 1,000 EUR or so. Too little gain for the money. So I don't mind if companies who try to rip off their customers go bankrupt.

As an investor I would ask the company management two questions:
a) now all competitors target the same small and still shrinking market of the rich enthusiasts. How on earth will that be sustainable for even 5 years?
b) how do you generate enough new customers, when you loose millions of customers on the low end each year (where new customers enter)?

None of the makers seem to have any concept for any of those issues.

[normhead]

From both a buyer perspective and from a investor perspective with regards to strategy I find the unit number sold much more telling:



As a user I can only express my unwillingness to pay more for the same product level. And that is what most people think and do. They simply do not buy the products after the recent price hikes. I do not see why I need to shell out > 2,000 EUR for a fully featured FF camera. At least in the last 30 years there was not a single model out there that provided the quality to justify that amount of money for me. For most enthusiasts I guess the barrier is much lower at around 1,000 EUR or so. Too little gain for the money. So I don't mind if companies who try to rip off their customers go bankrupt.

As an investor I would ask the company management two questions:
a) now all competitors target the same small and still shrinking market of the rich enthusiasts. How on earth will that be sustainable for even 5 years?
b) how do you generate enough new customers, when you loose millions of customers on the low end each year (where new customers enter)?

None of the makers seem to have any concept for any of those issues.

Especially for folks like me who don't want any of the new high priced offerings as much because of weight as cost. You could give me a 15-30, a 24-70, and a 70-200, but odds are, I won't use them because weight is always at a premium. For the first time in a long time, I'm not thinking "new lens" with my tax return.

[beholder3]

And the makers get what they deserve:
November CIPA report: system camera shipments down again compared to last year | Photo Rumors
further sales shrinkage in ILC. In November about -20% versus 2016.

I bet in their "minds" it will be clear that now they "must" raise prices by further 20% to compensate...

They seriously need some degree of innovation and not the same-same like in 2017, where we didn't see any real interesting new camera.
Otherwise ILC are really going to go the way of the Dodo.

[bm75]

As a user I can only express my unwillingness to pay more for the same product level. And that is what most people think and do. They simply do not buy the products after the recent price hikes. I do not see why I need to shell out > 2,000 EUR for a fully featured FF camera. At least in the last 30 years there was not a single model out there that provided the quality to justify that amount of money for me. For most enthusiasts I guess the barrier is much lower at around 1,000 EUR or so. Too little gain for the money. So I don't mind if companies who try to rip off their customers go bankrupt.

This is very true for many customers out there. The problem is that Nikon has choosen to put low specs in mid-range products (i.e. : APSC d7500, FF d610, d750). You pay >2000 Eur for apsc d500 with premium features (AF in primis) , not to say >3500 Eur for d810/850 . So the markeing is splitting the customer base in two. In this scenario, Pentax has a rising value ,because offers BEST quality at a very competitive price. Finally, I find some used K1 in this small market (K1 quite new for 1600 Eur...I'm just About to pull the trigger....)

[photoptimist]

From both a buyer perspective and from a investor perspective with regards to strategy I find the unit number sold much more telling:



As a user I can only express my unwillingness to pay more for the same product level. And that is what most people think and do. They simply do not buy the products after the recent price hikes. I do not see why I need to shell out > 2,000 EUR for a fully featured FF camera. At least in the last 30 years there was not a single model out there that provided the quality to justify that amount of money for me. For most enthusiasts I guess the barrier is much lower at around 1,000 EUR or so. Too little gain for the money. So I don't mind if companies who try to rip off their customers go bankrupt.

As an investor I would ask the company management two questions:
a) now all competitors target the same small and still shrinking market of the rich enthusiasts. How on earth will that be sustainable for even 5 years?
b) how do you generate enough new customers, when you loose millions of customers on the low end each year (where new customers enter)?

None of the makers seem to have any concept for any of those issues.

There's no evidence that Nikon and the rest are ripping off customers. As unit volumes drop, price per unit must rise to cover overhead. I don't think any of the camera makers are especially profitable at the moment.

You are right about strategy but none of the choices facing these companies will be nice for either camera buyers or investors.

In an era of shrinking unit sales, the only way to offer low-price low-end cameras is to dramatically boost the price of the high-end ones. The people buying the full-featured FF cameras have to subsidize the low-end or there can be no low end. Rich enthusiasts (and a few pros) must pay for all the R&D, marketing, dealer incentives, pro-services, etc. And the fewer high-end units they sell, the higher the price. But if competition forces camera makers to cut prices on the high-end, then either low-end prices must rise substantially or the company must cut R&D, marketing, pro-services, etc.

I think Ricoh is ahead of the curve on this issue although then we complain about Ricoh's lack of spending on marketing, R&D, pro services, dealer incentives, etc.

[Rondec]

There's no evidence that Nikon and the rest are ripping off customers. As unit volumes drop, price per unit must rise to cover overhead. I don't think any of the camera makers are especially profitable at the moment.

You are right about strategy but none of the choices facing these companies will be nice for either camera buyers or investors.

In an era of shrinking unit sales, the only way to offer low-price low-end cameras is to dramatically boost the price of the high-end ones. The people buying the full-featured FF cameras have to subsidize the low-end or there can be no low end. Rich enthusiasts (and a few pros) must pay for all the R&D, marketing, dealer incentives, pro-services, etc. And the fewer high-end units they sell, the higher the price. But if competition forces camera makers to cut prices on the high-end, then either low-end prices must rise substantially or the company must cut R&D, marketing, pro-services, etc.

I think Ricoh is ahead of the curve on this issue although then we complain about Ricoh's lack of spending on marketing, R&D, pro services, dealer incentives, etc.

Don't you think that a lot of the issue is that "entry level" has gotten too good. A D5600 series camera can do 5 frames per second, has 39 auto focus points and only cost 700 dollars. The number of people who need more focus points or faster frame rates than that dwindles considerably and yet, the cost of designing top end cameras has gone up as it gets harder to one-up the specs of the last generation. I don't honestly know what Nikon can do to one up the D500 specs. 6K video? 18 fps? I guess the A9 does 20 frames per second so there is always that, but in the end, you spend a whole lot of R and D resources to come up with cameras that aren't particularly appealing or needed by most photographers. But they still cost a bundle to produce.

Pentax is lucky, in a sense, since they never got into the specification wars that top end Sony/Nikon/Canon cameras get into. They just pick out a niche, design the camera for that niche and then put it out at a reasonable price. That's what they did with the K-1 and as far as I can tell, it was pretty successful.

[bm75]

Don't you think that a lot of the issue is that "entry level" has gotten too good. A D5600 series camera can do 5 frames per second, has 39 auto focus points and only cost 700 dollars. The number of people who need more focus points or faster frame rates than that dwindles considerably and yet

Here the price for low-end Nikons is higher - from 700 Eur on. Speaking of pure sensor performance you're right. Those cameras have sensor capable of high performance (exactly as D500, d7200). But....what about the penta MIRROR , the single dial , no lcd screen on top and above all, the missing AF-D series lenses compatibility (no motor drive for lenses built in the camera)? I mean: you pay 700 dollars for a polycarbonate pentamirror reflex while you can take much more appealing camera (mirrorless?) for that price .
More: the d700 FF camera (year 2007) still sells used for about 700 eur (shutter count from 10000 to 50000 actuations), exactly quite the same price of a quite new d600 (10000 actuations, shutter mechanism problem already fixed from service). At this point you'll better take a used FF than a new d3xxx whatsoever, while newer cameras from Nikon still sells underpriced on the used market.
Nikon plagued its products with poor pre production controls and in production QC so there come shutter mechanism problems, dust/oil on the sensor, microblur problems, et cetera. This is costing Nikon some market share.

[monochrome]

IL Cameras and Polaroids like the SX70 and earlier models have been an expensive toy for the wealthy for decades, with brief periods of faddish penetration of the lower income groups. We’ve recently exited such a fad.

500 million people uncritically will pay $800 for a multi-purpose device (phone and/or tablet) every 24 months that does nothing well and everything well enough. Those people bought Instamatics in the 60’s and 70’s, fixed lens automatic cameras and OneSteps in the 80’s and 90’s, compact digital in the 00’s and cheap dSLR kits for a few years (like the OneStep phase). They bought PC’s, then laptops (but Apple is for rich people) - then they quit those, too because the phablet does email and internet.

We’re just returning to the normal camera industry.

[pinholecam]

The bigger players like Nikon boosted production and infrastructure to cater for the boom years from 2008-2012.
I think we are seeing the rapid end of this boom and they have to scale down accordingly.

We are just going back to the old days where enthusiasts used a SLR and casual users used a compact camera.
Simply replace SLR=DSLR/MILC and compact = phone.
So I do think there is money to be made, just less than the boom years.

Prices will slowly increase each cycle, but I do think that the camera makers will play off each other and that will keep prices within certain levels.
(for the entry/mid level at least)

I am not unhappy with the development since it places photography back to enthusiasts rather than every guy with camera.
Not to mention that I really don't need Nikon D3000, D3100, D3200, D3300, etc every year.

[Dan Rentea]

I guess the A9 does 20 frames per second so there is always that, but in the end, you spend a whole lot of R and D resources to come up with cameras that aren't particularly appealing or needed by most photographers. But they still cost a bundle to produce.

It seems that Sony has to spend a whole lot of R and D resources to catch others (not only when comes to lenses)... I don't know if A9 is better build than A7R III, but if water entered in A7R III, dust will enter also. 1Dx mark II and D5 shooters will have hard time to leave the big boys for something that gets wet so easily. For this reason only and DSLR cameras will stay in business more than we think.

Water Torture: Nikon D850 vs Sony A7RIII, Canon 5D Mk IV & Olympus E-M1 II

[Rondec]

It seems that Sony has to spend a whole lot of R and D resources to catch others (not only when comes to lenses)... I don't know if A9 is better build than A7R III, but if water entered in A7R III, dust will enter also. 1Dx mark II and D5 shooters will have hard time to leave the big boys for something that gets wet so easily. For this reason only and DSLR cameras will stay in business more than we think.

Water Torture: Nikon D850 vs Sony A7RIII, Canon 5D Mk IV & Olympus E-M1 II

People say all the time that Pentaxians are too focused on weather sealing and I think that's probably true. My guess is that for most photographers, weather sealing isn't as big a deal as other attributes of a camera.

The biggest thing that traditional brands have going for them is the fact that up till recently photographers were tied to a particular mount by their lenses. That certainly has changed some since Sony has auto focus adapter for EOS lenses. I don't think anything like that exists for Nikon lenses, but certainly it probably will down the road. If your lenses were just as functional on a A9 as on a 1D series camera, it would make it a lot easier to get one.