[RonHendriks1966]

There is a good reason why it was Nikon who had to fire every 6th employee last year. Considering that Imaging is only half of Nikon and the DSLR lens and P&S factory closing was only impacting Imaging, probably about every 4th or 5th photography guy at Nikon had to leave in one year.

Canon is performing best and they actually extended their low end portfolio.

Well probably not only Nikon had to cut costs and employees over the past 5 years. Ricoh-Imaging has seen sales cut in halve over the past 6 years, so probably they have less staff then when they started in 2011.

[SSGGeezer]

Get ready for a return to the good old days where camera gear was really, really expensive

Good...Old...Days? I choked just typing that! Can't you tell?

---------- Post added 06-28-18 at 02:14 PM ----------

Well probably not only Nikon had to cut costs and employees over the past 5 years. Ricoh-Imaging has seen sales cut in halve over the past 6 years, so probably they have less staff then when they started in 2011.

I thought that Hoya gutted Pentax for assets they wanted to keep so there wasn't much to cut after Ricoh took over.

[BigMackCam]

Well probably not only Nikon had to cut costs and employees over the past 5 years.

I'm quite sure you're correct.

Ricoh-Imaging has seen sales cut in halve over the past 6 years, so probably they have less staff then when they started in 2011.

Quite possibly, Ron. But a key motivation of the original post was, I believe, to balance out what we hear from a small subset of our members who seem to revel in any potentially discouraging news about Ricoh Imaging - and usually without context that shows the whole industry is going through difficult times.

[RonHendriks1966]

Quite possibly, Ron. But a key motivation of the original post was, I believe, to balance out what we hear from a small subset of our members who seem to revel in any potentially discouraging news about Ricoh Imaging - and usually without context that shows the whole industry is going through difficult times.

I never been in that business. I always check my statements.


The market for januari - april 2018 is in yen just a little less then half of the shipments in that time in 2012. So unless you double your marketshare......you loose big time.

I think only Fujifilm made the cut to more then double their sales since then (but they where nowere in 2012).

[Rondec]

I'm quite sure you're correct.



Quite possibly, Ron. But a key motivation of the original post was, I believe, to balance out what we hear from a small subset of our members who seem to revel in any potentially discouraging news about Ricoh Imaging - and usually without context that shows the whole industry is going through difficult times.

I agree, I think that is the message. Currently, probably only Canon and Sony are sitting pretty. Ricoh is in better shape than some, purely because imaging is such a small part of their core business. I'm not totally sure why they bought Pentax, but they seem pretty committed to a slow but steady growth of the brand.

[BigMackCam]

I never been in that business. I always check my statements.

The fact remains, we have a minority of members (usually those who have become disgruntled for some reason) who seem intent on, and even appear to enjoy, posting any negative news about Ricoh - the motives for which I've given up trying to fathom. This thread offers some balance to their posts...

[LensBeginner]

I think negativity is better fought with positivity... still a trouble shared...

[ffking]

Just as a sort or rider - this whole crashing market for ILCs has a somewhat mythical sense to it from a long term perspective anyway, does it not?

Once upon a time well all owned film cameras and the market bumbled along happily at a predictable level with a few people changing brands from time to time, but no major movements. Slowly Nikon and then Canon became dominent in the high end market by recognising and catering for professional requirements, and this has a trickle down effect into their consumer products.

Then digital came along. At first it very was expensive and not very good, but companies worked on it hard until it took off - a far quicker transition from film to digital happened than anybody had predicted. This meant that there was a massive spike in digital sales as very few people had digital cameras up to that point.

Now almost everybody has a digital camera and the technology has matured, so quality improvements are more and more marginal.

So the market settles back into it's pre-digital days of longer replacement cycles and lower, more predictable volumes of sales.

Right?

[BigMackCam]

Right?

Right

[RobA_Oz]

Those who suggest that we’re seeing a return to a stable marketplace are pretty much on the money, I think. I’ve watched a number of well-heeled dabblers strut their monster gear for a short time, only to see it disappear, presumably into a top cupboard or a more serious user’s collection, when it was obvious they didn’t have the time or dedication to produce the sort of photos they thought it would bestow on them, automatically.

Nikon’s paying the price on over-investment, from what I read, which is a sign that they made a bad call on the future market. Sony presumably still has a cash cow that they can milk. Maybe Canon does, too.

For all we criticise Ricoh for the slow pace of recent development, their conservative (I use that term advisedly) approach to investment seems to be the right one for a small player.

The future for digital cameras is starting to look like a binary market: Professionals, who want reliability and support; and enthusiasts, who want near-professional equipment standards and value-for-money. Canon will probably continue to dominate the former, at least as far as sports and events photography is concerned. Nikon may have to be content with the latter. Pentax probably should be consolidating their position in MF studio work, and keeping up their niche in outdoor photography.

There’s still quite a bit more to play out, though, before clarity emerges.

[LensBeginner]

Right?

...until the "next best thing"

[monochrome]

For Nikon’s sake let’s hope so, but the grounds for such optimism seem dubious. What Thom describes sounds exactly like corporations behave.

how do households behave when one member loses a job (HH revenue drops dramatically)? Do they only do things that are immediately productive, like paying utilties and buying groceries?

[reh321]

how do households behave when one member loses a job (HH revenue drops dramatically)? Do they only do things that are immediately productive, like paying utilties and buying groceries?

That's how my wife and I have behaved over the years.

[reh321]

W Ricoh-Imaging has seen sales cut in halve over the past 6 years, so probably they have less staff then when they started in 2011.

I thought that Hoya gutted Pentax for assets they wanted to keep so there wasn't much to cut after Ricoh took over.

This wasn't a matter of choice. Their market has declined so presumably they have been cutting staff.

[RonHendriks1966]

Nikon’s paying the price on over-investment, from what I read, which is a sign that they made a bad call on the future market.

I think this is key. Those with to high fixed costs that didn't adept fast enough lost a lot of money. Ricoh did this to and had to write-off 9,4 billion yen on their investment on the image business. Canon saves it with selling lots of cheap camera's, but who knows how long that can go good (they still have large production facilaties). Sony changed from a company selling cheap compacts to a company selling expensive ilc's. Fujifilm started on Photokina 2012 with their x-series, so they had the good moment to change their business strategy.