[monochrome]

MILC’s have fewer parts than DSLR’s and require significantly fewer persons to assemble, thus MILC cost of manufacture in non-trivially less than DSLR. Add the premium pricing for the “superior MILC features” (MILC’s have apparently equaled DSLR’s on a money share basis according to the charts, at a smaller unit volume*) and the profit margin for MILC is a magnet for traditional camera manufacturers.

Given that ROIC in the mature part of the camera/lens business is 8% it is easy to understand the motivation for manufacturers to want a new paradigm.

* see Mistral’s observations regarding low-price Canon bodies

I don't think it is irrelevant where manufacturers are making their money.

Profit potential guides their actions.

I don't follow the numbers but it was probably a rise in MILC profits lead by Sony that convinced Canikon to finally create some competition.
If Canikon are now encouraged by good MILC sales, they will direct further investments into this area, more so than they would have naturally done to give people the chance to spend more money.

Overall, that's not good for further advancing DSLR technology.

However, as I wrote in my previous post, it positions Ricoh well to capitalise on the fact that they didn't spend a lot of money to join the mirrorless race.
They just need to believe in the success they could have and cease a great opportunity.

---

Last edited by monochrome; 10-13-2019 at 03:35 PM.

[luftfluss]

However, as I wrote in my previous post, it positions Ricoh well to capitalise on the fact that they didn't spend a lot of money to join the mirrorless race.
They just need to believe in the success they could have and cease a great opportunity.

I think your fingers were too fast you mean, "seize", I believe.

[Class A]

I think your fingers were too fast you mean, "seize", I believe.

That or a Freudian slip...

Maybe deep down I don't believe in Ricoh being capable of seizing the opportunity.

[Mistral75]

(...)
I don't follow the numbers but it was probably a rise in MILC profits lead by Sony that convinced Canikon to finally create some competition.
(...)

There have been several factors:

- continuous decline in DSLR sales
- higher ROI with mirrorless cameras, as @monochrome pointed out earlier (higher selling price, lower manufacturing costs)
- the prospect of making enthusiast people renew their lenses -don't forget that the bulk of profit comes from lenses and accessories, not cameras.

They were late to the party because, having a large footprint on the DSLR market, they feared they could upset their user base and loose loyal customers in the process. In the end they had to make a real move after the half hearted attempts that the Canon EOS M and Nikon 1 systems had been. I think (it's only a guts feeling) that Sony's success in the lucrative 24x36 market was the trigger.

'If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will' (Steve Jobs)

[Zooland]

Looks like the cycle has reversed and is now moving upward.

[Rondec]

There have been several factors:

- continuous decline in DSLR sales
- higher ROI with mirrorless cameras, as @monochrome pointed out earlier (higher selling price, lower manufacturing costs)
- the prospect of making enthusiast people renew their lenses -don't forget that the bulk of profit comes from lenses and accessories, not cameras.

They were late to the party because, having a large footprint on the DSLR market, they feared they could upset their user base and loose loyal customers in the process. In the end they had to make a real move after the half hearted attempts that the Canon EOS M and Nikon 1 systems had been. I think (it's only a guts feeling) that Sony's success in the lucrative 24x36 market was the trigger.

'If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will' (Steve Jobs)

I think the huge thing is that new mounts mean new lenses. And honestly, if we are looking at the new mounts, many of their lenses are very expensive. Sometimes they are ones that can't be matched on traditional SLRs (f2 zooms, sub f1 primes), but I think there is a strong hope in the brands that even though people can shoot their existent lenses on the new MILCs, that over time they will update their lenses and that means more money for the brands making them.

[Mistral75]

Looks like the cycle has reversed and is now moving upward.

How so? Since the beginning of the year:

• DSLRs went down 36% in units and down 44.3% in ¥
• mirrorless cameras went down 12,9% in units and up 5.8% in ¥.

In August 2019 compared to August 2018:

• DSLRs went down 35.2% in units and down 40.8% in ¥
• mirrorless cameras went down 0.8% in units and up 21.3% in ¥.

Source: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201908_e.pdf

[Serkevan]

I think the huge thing is that new mounts mean new lenses. And honestly, if we are looking at the new mounts, many of their lenses are very expensive. Sometimes they are ones that can't be matched on traditional SLRs (f2 zooms, sub f1 primes), but I think there is a strong hope in the brands that even though people can shoot their existent lenses on the new MILCs, that over time they will update their lenses and that means more money for the brands making them.

Except Sigma made their 18-35 f/1.8 zoom back in 2013. Canon had their 50/1.0 decades back. The problem is not that they are unfeasible, it's that they are impractical or compromise; Sigma's is a crop sensor offering, Canon's is optically less-than-perfect, weighs 985 grams (That's more than the D FA* 50/1.4!) and cost a whopping $1800 in 1989. That's $3750 adjusted for inflation.

Sure, a wide-throat mount with lower distance to film plane might give you a higher maximum (theoretical) aperture, but that comes with another set of compromises. Corner aberrations because of oblique incidence what's that? Can you eat it?

[Mistral75]

Let's say that a wider-throat mount (Canon EF and Contax N for SLRs, Canon RF, Leica L and Nikon Z for mirrorless cameras, to quote 24x36 mounts only) gives you additional opportunities that you can choose to take advantage of or not to.

[Kunzite]

Maybe we should remember what happens when the mount diameter is not large enough - Canon needed to launch a new mount - the RF - despite already having the EOS-M; and Fujifilm will not be able to make a FF X-mount camera; Pentax Q cannot use 1" sensors.
As always, this is a compromise and too large is also bad. But, IMO allowing both FF and APS-C on the same mount is an advantage.

[The Squirrel Mafia]

Interesting trend. Even though I'm not opposed to a really good mirrorless body, I still prefer my classic OVF DSLR. Hopefully Ricoh delivers an insanely good APS-C DSLR flagship.

[edri]

I believe that with the entry into the ML market of the two big Canikon sellers, in 2020 more MLs will be sold than DSLRs. In 2022 Pentax will have fabulous sales because most ML users will return to DSLRs and only here will find them

[Kunzite]

Mirrorless fans will like September's results...

[Mistral75]

September 2019 shipments: DSLRs / mirrorless cameras 52% / 48% in units and 36% / 64% in ¥.

Americas is the only region where DSLRs are sensibly (almost 2 to 1) ahead of mirrorless cameras in units (but behind in ¥): God bless the soccer moms and their Rebels!

[Mikesul]

I suspect that someday some sociologist will use these figures to support broader conclusions about early 21st century NA.