[monochrome]

Well put. Small may be helpful and good for survival but the flip side is what you said.



I guess we have all heard about the looming storm. Luxury goods and stuff that could be updated at a later time are the first casualties of a downturn. Pentax was ok as long as Ricoh sold enough copiers. If that well dries up, then Pentax might be the child that goes hungry!

Actually luxury goods do OK in a mild recession because rich people are still rich, just not as rich. It’s the next slice down that suffers - discretionary items for the marginally wealthy but not truly rich, such as camera upgrades, new cars when the old one is still good, redecorating, new electronic equipment, a larger house when this one will do, etc.

Of course a deep recession is another matter. That’s when you should buy stock, instead of consumer items at desperation prices.

[RonHendriks1966]

Nikon not so much, but has Mitsubishi Bank and the other Mitsubishi companies to call on for support.

Well Nikon is lucky since they had a settlement with ASML and Carl Zeiss where they receive 150 million euro over a patent fight.

Chipmachinemaker ASML moet aftikken bij zijn Japanse rivaal Nikon | Quote

That is a nice present for Valentine's day I guess.

[monochrome]

Markets will soon be what they were pre-digital. Looks like mirrorless never actually caught up.

I owned 6 cameras, 3 SLRs and a 645 and a couple waterproof sealed cameras in the first 40 years of shooting. I've owned 10 in the last 10. The camera industry should never have expected this to go on for ever.

See my post #11. 2013 was the same as 1983 - a feeding frenzy of new technology, followed by retrenchment. If you dig into the studies of the individual brands you can see that there were occasional 1,000,000 unit technology advances but most auto exposure bodies sold 200,000 or 300,000 units. By the 90’s the entire industry was only selling a few million SLR’s a year, down from the glory days of 12,000,000 unit product runs and 15,000,000 units for the industry as a whole. The entire western world emerged from the 1979-1982 recession(s) with a burst of enthusiasm, and then there was gradual decline.

The past is prologue.

[beholder3]

I agree that probably thing go back to "normal" saturated market.

What I do not see is that the companies adjust with a sustainable strategy.

a) They mostly stopped growing new customers in the lower price segments

b) The now all are jammed into the same tiny niche of wealthy amateurs with prices going upward and upward

c) versus the mobile phone camera impact they just evaded with b) above. Until today online / phone integration into cameras is abysmal. It is slow. Clumsy. Offering only a fraction of interface options.

[beholder3]

Here is an 4 year old article on the subject with some additional intersting graphics in the beginning:
Is There Really Anything 'Wrong' with Digital Camera Sales Volumes? - Photography Life

[monochrome]

Here is an 4 year old article on the subject with some additional intersting graphics in the beginning:
Is There Really Anything 'Wrong' with Digital Camera Sales Volumes? - Photography Life

That’s essentially the pattern depicted in my above thread linking to early 80’s unit sales when AE was introduced. I imagine the same thing happened (or the upgrade cycle continued) when AF was introduced. The problem for Pentax is they missed the opportunity to develop an significant installed base of K-mounts (the mount matters, not the camera body). Once lost, market a share I’d lost forever.

Note this radical concept:

I may be viewed as a bit of a lunatic for saying this but I don’t think smartphones compete directly in the camera market at all. I think they represent a completely different market of ‘digital communication devices’ which just happen to include digital imaging capability. The evidence of this stems from the fundamental motivation that consumers have when they make a purchase. When you or I buy a camera we do so with the specific and primary intent of taking pictures. I would find it hard to believe that anyone buying a smartphone does so with that same, primary intent. I think they buy a smartphone because they want to connect to the world around them and communicate digitally. This is a very different motivation and need than that of a camera buyer, and as such they represent a different market. That’s not to say that a lot of people that bought compact digital cameras in the past haven’t ditched them and now take all of the images they need with their phones. They have and do. What I am suggesting is that their initial need for a compact digital camera to fulfill their imaging requirements has been supplanted by a need for the much more powerful and broad-based digital communication capabilities of their smartphones. I believe that unless companies like Canon, Nikon, Olympus and others re-define themselves as manufacturers of ‘digital communication devices’ rather than camera companies or digital imaging companies they will never develop the integrated digital communication devices that those consumers want and need. This leads me to think that smartphone owners do not represent a meaningful marketing target for camera companies.

[beholder3]

I believe that unless companies like Canon, Nikon, Olympus and others re-define themselves as manufacturers of ‘digital communication devices’ rather than camera companies or digital imaging companies they will never develop the integrated digital communication devices that those consumers want and need. This leads me to think that smartphone owners do not represent a meaningful marketing target for camera companies.

I think what you describe is essentially meaning that the makers are incapable of bridging the gap between the two approaches and slowly paint themselves into a corner, a niche.
Living in a niche is perfectly ok and can be a sound business tactics, but that certainly means we will see a whole bunch of casualties until the niche stabilizes.

And I do believe "the phone buyers" actually put a lot of emphasis on photo and video capabilities these days. It might have begun as nice little add-on feature but photo today is a defining part of the smartphone experience.

Plus: I do miss the "bridge" products which lead from phone to ILC. This bridge used to be $300 DSLRs.

[monochrome]

I think what you describe is essentially meaning that the makers are incapable of bridging the gap between the two approaches and slowly paint themselves into a corner, a niche.
Living in a niche is perfectly ok and can be a sound business tactics, but that certainly means we will see a whole bunch of casualties until the niche stabilizes.

And I do believe "the phone buyers" actually put a lot of emphasis on photo and video capabilities these days. It might have begun as nice little add-on feature but photo today is a defining part of the smartphone experience.

Plus: I do miss the "bridge" products which lead from phone to ILC. This bridge used to be $300 DSLRs.

Agreed, The article, being several years old, did not anticipate the evolution of the smartphone into a primary image capture device. OTOH the smartphone, at least the iPhone, might well be nearing peak penetration and entering the maturity / declining unit sales phase. China seems to be the final market not fully developed - and China is quite complex for western manufacturers to exploit.

[lesmore49]

I believe that unless companies like Canon, Nikon, Olympus and others re-define themselves as manufacturers of ‘digital communication devices’ rather than camera companies or digital imaging companies they will never develop the integrated digital communication devices that those consumers want and need

I agree and think perhaps as Cell Phones continue to evolve ..that camera companies that avoid this direction, possibly do so at their peril. I think of the history of point and shoot cameras .

I see my kids who are in their late 20's and early '30's use their cell phones...quite adeptly...use their phones as their primary integrated digital communication devices...but also as their prime cameras. They do some wonderful work in their photography...transport it...here, there and everywhere to family and friends..all through their cell phones. The picture quality is to me, surprisingly good and their pictures enhance their communication with friends/families/ work colleagues.

They have little interest in my DSLR cameras...frankly...although they haven't said this to their dear old dad...but I believe they see my obsession with digital DSLR's as an anachronism, much like their dad.

Which is some ways it is. Aside from taking photos what do my DSLR's do. I think I can transfer my pix to a cell phone (well I can't but others...more technologically skilled probably could) but wouldn't it be better if somehow I could have a 'real' camera ...a DSLR...or mirrorless...that I could use as my primary integrated digital communication device , which would do all that a top level cell phone could do. I know I represent a tiny part of the market that would want a full frame camera...with interchangeable lens capability that could also function as a sophisticated cell phone. I know there would be inevitable comparisons to Agent 86, Maxwell Smart talking to his shoe. But I think I could weather those.

It's probably too ridiculous to contemplate....or is it ? Maybe it already exists...I wouldn't know as I'm not on the cusp of knowledge of the latest technology. I think it might be something I would consider.

[monochrome]

@beholder3 We’d need a slot in the camera for s SIM card and every camera would need a proper antenna and an IMEI number (telephone number) and a carrier data plan to make a dSLR into a phone. Camera companies could purchase excess carrier capacity in bulk and offer the data plan, which means Cash Flow . . . . . First Mover Advantage opportunities abound . . . . . But aren’t likely IMO,

Hopefully with 5G coming camera makers will figure out a way to use WiFi or whatever other technology works to automatically and quickly transfer images to the photo folder on the user’s device. They could then be embedded in any app the user wishes.

My son uses a 7D and L lenses to shoot college lacrosse for his business. During breaks he uploads grab shots to Instagram semi-real time after the WiFi transfer, then does our customary Card download, edit and post routine that evening. That’s the principal marketing effort for his retail lacrosse equipment store.AFAHC the proccess works just fine He has thousands of followers.

—————-

Hgh School students use his shots, with his permission, when they make their recruiting Albums (either in the Cloud with an emailed link to college coaches or on a mailed DVD). College Athletic departments here license his images for a small fee with watermark or purchased the rights for their own use.

I believe that sort of commercial compromise is where we are going. It feels like the end of the film camera era.

—————

Apple has several new category killing products coming that are 5G dependent, as do Huawei and Samsung..

.:

[reh321]

You are absolutely correct. After all, how many FF 24, 36 and 46MP cameras or systems do we need? Or MF, APSc and M43 for that matter. I think we are hitting a saturation point. In practical terms we have all the MP we need to produce the most demanding work.

I think at this point it is becoming a marketing game. Try to sell people on the idea that they need more megapixels and video beyond 4K. As we know there is 8K in the wings and who knows what is next...16K, 24K, 48K! To spoil the party for everyone

In the first ten years of the digital age, it was a megapixel count game. You are correct that we have probably reached an end of that, but that end does not necessarily mean that it all reverts to a marketing game. 3 years and 8 months ago I purchased a K-30, planning to use it for at least five years; I 'retired' that camera 2 months ago, not because of the Dark Image Syndrome {over the past year I acquired the AF + aperture-ring lenses I needed to cope with that}, but because I just could not resist the allure of the freedom provided to me by a KP. At age 71, I don't plan on purchasing another camera, but I can't "promise" that - I would happily purchase yet another camera if the wizards who produced the KP come up with more special features that I "must have"; this advancing use of technology is not 'dinosaur' behavior..

[ZombieArmy]

I believe we will continue to see a drop in sales. I've gone from a K10D - K20D - K5 - K3 - K-1 - KP. Most of those purchases were business driven for me but the image quality from any of them was always good enough. With the K-1 and KP now, I really don't see a big need to purchase another camera anytime soon. (maybe if they come out with a KP type camera with GPS). Lenses I buy as I see a need for them. And I am also an atypical purchaser with the means to buy new equipment.

I always wondered how long the sales volume would continue, now it's who is in a position to survive a drop.

I agree. The KP was so much more camera than I was expecting and it shall serve me well for quite a while.

[twilhelm]

I agree. The KP was so much more camera than I was expecting and it shall serve me well for quite a while.

I agree. For image quality and high ISO, the KP is a killer camera. It’s going to take something I really want in a camera to make me want to upgrade in the next two years.

[Wheatfield]

The camera market has been in a sustained growth bubble for so long that people have decided that its normal. Just as we hit peak film, digital came along and while film’s bubble burst 15 or so years ago, the digital bubble took its place.
Now we have passed peak digital. The technology is mature, improvements are more incremental than revolutionary, and not coming at us like gangbusters with some huge improvement being tossed at us seemingly weekly. There just isn’t much reason to buy new cameras on an annual basis like there used to be.
Also, don’t forget about the smartphone effect. They have to be disrupting the camera market to some extent.

This next part may be construed as crossing into forbidden territory, but the world is a less sure thing these days as well. Both the European/ British economy as well as the Americas are under economic siege. For most people, photography is recreation, and falls under the category of discretionary spending. In economically troubled times, people tend to gather their money close in case they need it to buy groceries.

So there you go. Given the circumstances, it isn’t terribly surprising that the camera market is retracting. It would be more surprising if it was growing.

[monochrome]

Its all about lenses now.