[juu]

With all due respect juu, you need to learn basic econ and how to read an Annual Report or Quarterly Report. Some basic terminology might help as well.

With all due respect, Aristophanes, you need to learn to read what I write instead of running off with incorrect assumptions, setting up strawmen, then knocking them down.

Net sales is revenue, not units. You seem to have this confused the way you ask your questions.

I'm very clear about these two basic terms. I asked you about volumes, which means units. You're the one who has confused them and keep referring to net sales. Yet you have the audacity to claim that I'm confusing the two terms.

This is what you wrote:

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

Exactly, and this is what I meant. Answer the question. Thanks.

Referencing abstract statements or net sales doesn't count. As you just explained yourself, they are different.

You are the one who used the word "frantic" to describe Canikon.

Once again you're not reading what I write. Reread second to last paragraph in post #253.

When they come to market with mirrorless it will be precisely to capitalize on those efforts and leverage their lens base preying on the weaknesses of M4/3 which happens to be sensor size and quality.

You appear to be saying here that Canikon will:
a. use APSC+ in their first mirrorless cameras (or at least will announce an APSC+ mirrorless not long after their first mirrorless)
b. keep compatibility (including comparable AF speeds) with their legacy lenses.
c. through this, easily regain the lost marketshare to m43/NEX

Please confirm/deny. If you deny, please provide specific predictions, preferably for this year (just saying "some day Canikon will come with a larger sized mirrorless and crush competition" doesn't count).


You have also failed to answer the following questions I've asked:
* Did the K-7 "fail the IQ test" for you? Yes or no? [asked 3 times now]
* Where do you get the 35.5% DSLR sales growth from CIPA, if they don't appear to track that information?

Please answer them. kthx bye.

---

Last edited by juu; 02-10-2011 at 06:25 AM.

[raz]

So when does this evil will show up ? I though I heard rumours about February ? But I see is not the case...

[johnmflores]

Hey guys, this is starting to feel personal. I think it's time to accept that there's a difference of opinion that won't be resolved here.

Methinks it's time to chill - it's just the Interwebs after all...

[uccemebug]

Hey guys, this is starting to feel personal. I think it's time to accept that there's a difference of opinion that won't be resolved here.

Methinks it's time to chill - it's just the Interwebs after all...

Well said, John.

Back to the subject at hand, does anyone have a reasonably firm idea when we might learn more about the release of this year's Pentax MILC's?

[Aristophanes]

juu, I've answered your questions and proved you cannot read an Annual Report. I said "net sales" and you misinterpreted this as unit sales because that's what you wanted to hear. I specifically pointed out that the numbers were net sales and you asked me to confirm the increase as unit volume. It's very clear from your own posts you did not know the difference until I pointed it out to you. hence your backtracking.

As for sales growth, the 2011 projections from CIPA I also posted, but again:

http://www.cipa.jp/english/pdf/press110209_e.pdf

Please note the 30% growth of SLR's for 2010. M4/3 has been taking a modestly larger share of that, but it still proves unequivocally that production of non-mirrorless DSLR's are *increasing*, not decreasing despite the presence of mirrorless in the market. All you have to do is read Nikon's AR which I also posted. And I have continuously stated that the key determinant here is likely a combination price advantage for the low-end DSLR and loyalty by the installed lens base especially at the higher end

CIPA further says that growth will be over 20% for this segment for 2011. Canikon can readily take some market share loss because their products are *still* increasing in sales volumes. It means that millions of consumers still made decisions *not* to purchase an M4/3 or other mirrorless despite both products sitting on the shelf side-by-side. If they did not, there's be no Pentax! Back of the envelope says that out of 10 people buying an ILC, 1.6 went for mirrorless and the rest for SLR, more in Japan, much less in the rest of the world (again, price being the likely determinant).

Nikon is posting significant growth YOY in DSLR's (more in lenses) and over 30% net sales for its Imaging division. Wow!

Sales data like that is precisely why Canikon and Pentax are not "franticly designing" but are waiting to see how the market unfolds and where best to place their products while maintaining brand loyalty, the core of their identity. OTOH Olympus and Panny, both have recent histories of abandoning their installed base. With increasing traditional DSLR sales and increasing profits resultant there is no rush for Canikon to spend capital until market trends and tech trends are economical. Nikon is expected to announce their mirrorleess (first of 2 models) next month. A few points of market share in the short term are a small price to pay for long-term investments, particularly when current DSLR sales are strong and increasing. Sony certainly did not see a reason to panic but instead diversified their market with both MILC and pellicle mirror designs alongside traditional DSLR's. There's lots of room if the pie is growing.

For Canikon technically their challenge to retain loyalty and leverage their installed base will probably mean some form of backward compatibility. We are likely to see APS-C mirrorless from Canikon in the future, perhaps alongside a shift in the superzoom, small sensor segment towards some form of MILC (like what Pentax did with Auto 100 back in the day). The latter may be announced first, hard to say. And the DxOMarks comparisons I posted clearly showed that APS-C has an objective (if not subjective) IQ advantage, something 4/3 could not overcome and I doubt M4/3 can as well. Advantage to APS-C for the hearts and minds of the mirrorless IQ debate. Combined with the APS-C mass production cost advantage and installed lens base, that's a pretty fearsome combo.

I fall into the Thom Hogan camp that sees mirrorless including M4/3 as a replacement for dedicated P&S cameras, and not higher IQ DSLR's. The smartphone will displace the low-end compact but compact mirrorless cannot replace the larger sensors, APS-C and up. they'll take some market share, but IQ and lens issues will stall that cannibalization. The real question is whether smaller mirrorless (M4/3 and down) will take apart a big chunk of the P&S segment. At some point we'll see mirrorless everywhere including FF, but with strong DSLR sales and large lens bases, there's not an evident capital case for that shift yet. When it does happen it will be extraordinarily respectful of the glass investments by brand loyalists. My 2 bits, non-refundable.

I had a K-7 for a few months and was not impressed with the IQ at higher ISO compared to my gratis K-x. At ISO 100-200 the K-7 was excellent but I reiterate for indoor candids I needed better ISO performance.

[eddie1960]

I think you have nailed a number of Relevant points Aristophenes
I think it is pretty evident that mirrorless is going to replace the higher end and superzoom p/s sooner rather than later. I'd buy an entry Oly before i'd drop the equivalent amount on the G12 or the nikon variant. the biggest hit all the manufacturers are going to take will be the point shoot market. Cell phone cameras are getting progressively more sophisticated and it won't be long before the standard under $300 p/s is rendered pretty much obsolete by the new phoens coming into the market (Panasonic has already reacted with the pending Lumix phone so has Sony)
this isn't a bad thing over all as p/s are pretty much now commodity items with commodity pricing so though they sell in huge numbers the ROI on them is very low. Pentax probably won't introduce a phone, but there will be phones with Pentax tech (the lg phone that is on the horizon for instance.)
Mirror-less may also eat a little of the low end SLR market, but like you I think a lot of consumers will still buy SLR or concepts like the Sony Pellicle as the form factor of the smaller mirror-less is not to everyone's taste.
Canon, Nikon and Pentax will all eventually launch into mirror-less but rather than rush to market they are probably being wise and looking to make sure it fits with their current market base as well as looking for ways to expand that.
the ridiculous Little Kenko actually is a good target for capturing some of the p/s market (and the rumoured Pentax brother to it)
If pentax does 2 mirrorless cameras as rumoured then i think one as a compliment to the sister company kenko and one that is apsc or close in size that can support legacy lenses is maybe a good marketing plan

[juu]

juu, I've answered your questions and proved you cannot read an Annual Report. I said "net sales" and you misinterpreted this as unit sales because that's what you wanted to hear. I specifically pointed out that the numbers were net sales and you asked me to confirm the increase as unit volume.

lol. You show basic reading comprehension issues. My question was never about net sales. My question was always about unit volumes. Let me quote the conversation for you.

Canikon still massively increased their volumes on 5 year-old designs merely tweaked with sunk costs and at profit margins Oly can only dream of.

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

Emphasis mine.

It's very clear from your own posts you did not know the difference until I pointed it out to you. hence your backtracking.

Show me one post where I don't know the difference. Exact quote, please.

I've just showed you were you refer to volumes and I ask you a question about volumes. You continued providing net sales examples in answer to this, thus clearly showing you confuse the two.

Show me one example where I do the same. Go ahead.

As for sales growth, the 2011 projections from CIPA I also posted, but again:

http://www.cipa.jp/english/pdf/press110209_e.pdf

Where in that document is the 35.5% DSLR growth number which you mentioned? Which page? It's not there - it is likely another number, like the 48% Nikon growth which you just flat out fabricated.

Please note the 30% growth of SLR's for 2010.

There is no such number there. The 30% refers to all interchangeable lens cameras. That includes mirrorless so cannot be called "growth of SLRs". They say so on page 1 - "cameras with interchangeable lenses (including digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras, as well as so-called mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and interchangeable unit cameras)".

What good is pasting a bunch of different statistics here, Aristophenes, if you don't even know what they mean?

You've also failed to answer the following question I've asked previously:
* Did the K-7 "fail the IQ test" for you? Yes or no? [asked 4 times now, this is now your cue to claim you have answered it 3 times already, but still refuse to provide a clear yes/no answer]

Let me ask you another which I've asked before, but will now ask differently:
* Do you think Canikon APSC mirrorless will support their DSLR APSC lenses (with comparable AF speeds)? Yes or no?

---

Last edited by juu; 02-10-2011 at 12:24 PM.

[mattdm]

[eddie1960]

nice one Matt

[juu]

[Aristophanes]

lol. You show basic reading comprehension issues. My question was never about net sales. My question was always about unit volumes. Let me quote the conversation for you.

Emphasis mine.

Show me one post where I don't know the difference. Exact quote, please.

I've just showed you were you refer to volumes and I ask you a question about volumes. You continued providing net sales examples in answer to this, thus clearly showing you confuse the two.

Show me one example where I do the same. Go ahead.

Where in that document is the 35.5% DSLR growth number which you mentioned? Which page? It's not there - it is likely another number, like the 48% Nikon growth which you just flat out fabricated.

There is no such number there. The 30% refers to all interchangeable lens cameras. That includes mirrorless so cannot be called "growth of SLRs". They say so on page 1 - "cameras with interchangeable lenses (including digital single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras, as well as so-called mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and interchangeable unit cameras)".

What good is pasting a bunch of different statistics here, Aristophenes, if you don't even know what they mean?

You've also failed to answer the following question I've asked previously:
* Did the K-7 "fail the IQ test" for you? Yes or no? [asked 4 times now, this is now your cue to claim you have answered it 3 times already, but still refuse to provide a clear yes/no answer]

Let me ask you another which I've asked before, but will now ask differently:
* Do you think Canikon APSC mirrorless will support their DSLR APSC lenses (with comparable AF speeds)? Yes or no?

How am I supposed to know the esoteric details of Canon's mirrorless offering? All I have said is that they will likely need backwards compatibility to retain customers.

I commented on the K-7. It is the height of netiquette rudeness and Forum manners to try and compel a "yes" or "no" from someone.

And no, you did not know the difference between nets sales because when I stated the net sales increase you then interpreted that as unit sales. I clearly referenced the net sales from the Nikon AR and the unit sales from CIPA because that is respectively where the data originates. It is you who crossed them over.

The Nikon Q4 update you posted states unequivocally that Nikon has seen significantly increasing unit DSLR sales. Thank-you again for making my point.

Nikon's (and Canon's) data is reflected in the CIPA growth rates which clearly demonstrate that since the 2009 anomalous year we are looking at about 51% net growth in volumes for all SLR classes, of which M4/3 has maybe a total of 9% of that using a little regression. I conflated a post-2009 Thom Hogan comment wrongly, but the data points to phenomenal sales growth in both units and revenues since the credit crunch. 91% of 50% increase is owned by DSLR sales all while competing with M4/3 side-by-side on the store shelves. None of that justifies the hyperbole such as "franticly designing". You are the one tinging the analysis with emotional comment, not I.

With cash flow like that, who is exactly supposed to be frantic? It is a fiction that the minor market share increase for mirrorless is causing a decline in unit volumes for DSLR's. I have only pointed out that price is the likely buoyancy here because M4/3 cannot compete on price as yet. Canikon's answer to M4/3 has been to flood the market with cheap D3000's and T1i's. Nikon was even selling D40's until mid-2010 sub-US$300 prices. Yet they still posted a 30% increase in net sales. That's what makes this market very hard for Pentax, much less pricey M4/3.

I am simply pointing out that the DSLR market is growing substantially despite mirrorless options in the market as the financials unequivocally state. There's this fictional meme out there that DLR sales are tanking because of mirrorless. Nothing could be further from the truth, not with financials like those of the last Q from companies that have no mirrorless option in the game or even formally announced.

With mirrorless becoming a driving tech in the industry, what direction should Pentax take? I say that Pentax will likely start with a smaller sensor MILC system a la Auto 110 as a superzoom sub, but will eventually have to move mirrorless to their APS-C line either alongside or replacing their DSLR's. The small sensor model will exist to hit price points well apart from APS-C and a or below M4/3. I predict Pentax will not go below APS-C to M4/3 on their DSLR-equivalents because the lower IQ output from M4/3 sensors would alienate their installed base. Ideally all APS-C DSLR makers will likely try and leverage their current lens base rather than risk losing customers to other brands in any mass switch (Sony salivates at that possibility). Canon did that 30 years ago and it cost them. They will not make that mistake again. Nor will Nikon with their 50 million Nikkors, and Pentax is the Don of backward compatibility. Brand loyalty in this market is built entirely around lens investments.

APS-C mirrorless will be extremely formidable to M4/3 because it has proven qualitative and cost advantages, especially if future mirrorless designs can leverage the existing user lens base. There's also room for small sensor MILC at the bottom where the first forays are likely to occur. One thing M4/3 has not been able to do is compete on price as between low-price DSLR's that still sell very, very well and lower end MILC offerings as the rumour mills indicates M4/3 is in for some serious challenges. Objectively M4/3 produces sensors with 17% less DxOMark IQ. It looks like that's what you bought. If this whole argument is about buyer's remorse, I am sorry. Personally I think M4/3 is an IQ downgrade and I can point to the DxOMarks as empirical evidence as posted earlier and I did foray into the PEN series briefly because I have a soft spot for old Olympus rangefinders and was looking to scratch an itch. You can exert your market choice to disagree.

Nice cartoon. Cute cat. I get the message. I am home with the flu.

[Regular guy]

OK guys, I have been watching all this some puzzlement. I am relatively new here, and I am not like most of you. I am the market for m43. I love photography, but I don't have a DSLR. I have almost purchased one many times, but I can't make myself do it. They are just too big and clunky. If they are any good, they tend to be too heavy too. Throw on a decent lens, and you might need a cart with wheels.

That just doesn't work for me. Photography is something that I do while I am doing other things. It is rare for me to set out to take pictures. Photography is largely a matter of capturing a moment, a place or a scene. But it is the moment or place that matters.

I am painfully aware of the limitations of my cameras. A lot of my friends have nice system cameras, and they love them. But when we go to a little league game, I put my camera in my jacket pocket, and they lug around a case that they are afraid to set down. Their cameras own them.

Their pictures are better than mine, but not in a way that anyone I show them to would notice. The people who look at my photographs are looking at the moment or place, not at the finer details of the pictures.

Those soccer moms? My wife is one. I guess she does not mind carrying her DSLR around because she is used to carrying a purse, but if she had the option of a small system that still produced better than P&S images, she would be all over it in a second.

The point is that there is a huge chasm between a typical P&S sensor less than one square centimeter and a DSLR sensor over 3 square centimeters. There is a sweet spot in between those two where portability and image quality intersect. Not for you perhaps, but for us.

As far as people like me are concerned, whether the camera has a mirror is irrelevant. The size and ergonomics are key, along with image quality. It seems to me that there are potential advantages and disadvantages to both electronic and optical viewfinders.

I don't question that for many of you the quality difference between APS-C or FF and m43 does make a real difference. In any endeavor, those at the extremes (in a good sense) will always make distinctions that the majority will not and cannot make. I marvel at that ability or talent, but I don't have it.

As a simple matter of physics, the larger of two identical sensors will have the capacity to produce a better image. I don't see how anyone could really begin to question that. So smaller sensors will always come with a quality compromise, and better sensors will come with a portability compromise.

I don't see the high end cameras getting smaller anytime soon. First, there is no need because the size is not an impediment for many uses. Second, you guys bought glass instead of houses, and you understandably want to use it.

I get the feeling that the true pros and artists don't get why we want smaller system cameras. That is because image quality (in aspects that I can can barely discern) matter more to them than the relatively modest improvement in portability. If you are in a studio, you can't really complain about the size of a full frame camera.

So just recognize that we want and need different things. As technology advances, m43 and other similar systems are just going to get better and better, but the larger sensor cameras will always be better yet. As Rodney King said, can't we all just get along and have fun taking pictures? Or something like that.

[juu]

How am I supposed to know the esoteric details of Canon's mirrorless offering? All I have said is that they will likely need backwards compatibility to retain customers.

Whether they will do AF with their legacy lenses are not esoteric details. Do you see why?

I commented on the K-7. It is the height of netiquette rudeness and Forum manners to try and compel a "yes" or "no" from someone.

lol. You just don't want to answer. And you know why?

Because if you say "no, K-7 passes the IQ test" then I will say - in that case modern m43 pass your IQ test as well. Congratulations, you just flunked your own argument.

And if you say "yes, K-7 fails the IQ test" then I will say that there are very very very many people on these forums who apparently disagree, so your opinion is quite irrelevant.

So your argument gets disproven either way lol. Which way do you pick?

Hence your avoidance to give a straight answer, now appealing to netiquette (which is funny from a guy who keeps insisting I confuse basic terms akin to shutter speed and aperture in photography, despite having confused them himself instead - or at least misread my question).

And no, you did not know the difference between nets sales because when I stated the net sales increase you then interpreted that as unit sales.

I never did. As I said, provide quotes.

I provided the quote where you referred to unit volumes and I asked about them. In fact, let me do that again, lol:

Canikon still massively increased their volumes on 5 year-old designs merely tweaked with sunk costs and at profit margins Oly can only dream of.

Are you arguing Canikon massively increased their volumes last year?

See? Read the word in red. Did that help you understand what my question was always about?

The Nikon Q4 update you posted states unequivocally that Nikon has seen significantly increasing unit DSLR sales.

a) Technically, there is no Q4 update yet, but whatever
b) It does not mention a "significant" increase, but a "steady" increase. Yes, there is a difference.
c) As I already posted, QOQ sales volume increases were 1250 to 1200, or 4%. Given Q3 of FY2010 was amidst all the doom and gloom, that's not significant. It is not even that great. It is certainly not the "massive" you claimed.

And I wonder what the numbers are in locales like Japan and UK, where mirrorless has actually concentrated their marketing efforts. I'd guess they've lost volumes significantly. No proof, as they don't publish the data.

I'm reading the rest of what you wrote and see no actual support for the 35.5% CIPA number. I gather that is an admission you made it up.

Ideally all APS-C DSLR makers will likely try and leverage their current lens base rather than risk losing customers to other brands in any mass switch (Sony salivates at that possibility). Canon did that 30 years ago and it cost them. They will not make that mistake again. Nor will Nikon with their 50 million Nikkors, and Pentax is the Don of backward compatibility. Brand loyalty in this market is built entirely around lens investments.

Yes, of course, ideally they would like to. But what they would like to is somewhat irrelevant, the question is what they are able to.

Hence my original question at the very start - do you think they will fully support their legacy lenses on their mirrorless, including comparable AF speeds?

Or will they do what Sony did (support the A-mount, but most lenses have slow AF speeds or MF only)? In which case existing lens base matters a lot less.

For some reason you draw this completely unrealistic picture where Canikon, after years of churning out the same products slightly reheated, will suddenly be able to turn around and produce not one but two revolutionary mirrorless platforms each, of which one will even be fully backwards compatible with their DSLR lenses.

If we're living in such a dream world of hyperbole and wishful thinking, I could argue that Panasonic and Olympus will suddenly start producing m43 sensors which exceed FF IQ. NOW THAT WILL SHOW THEM. CANIKON ARE DOOMED. lol.


Overall, to summarize, Aristophanes, I think a lot of your argument boils down to you buying an early Olympus PEN ~2 years ago and not being satisfied with the IQ. "Ergo, m43 is doomed." I find even the first part a bit surprising, because from the pictures you have published (which may not be a representative set) there is nothing that couldn't be done as well on the PEN. And don't get me wrong, that's not a bad thing.

The other part of your argument is assuming that Canikon will play it perfectly and produce perfect mirrorless products which will work perfectly with their old lenses, be cheaper than m43 and not be significantly larger/heaver at the same time, and thus essentially be clearly being superior. That makes a lot of assumptions which, given their current mirrorless track record (none) and their current approach (600D = 550D + flip screen yay!) do not seem reasonable.

You are essentially comparing products which only exist in your one-sided imagination with real products with known strengths and weaknesses. That is quite unfair.

However, if Canikon (or better yet Pentax!) will prove me wrong, nothing precludes me for buying into their system. It's just that right now, in my opinion, m43 provides the most complete and thus best mirrorless system around, and there are no indications this should not remain the case at least for the next 2 years.



I also appear to have missed your reaction to the link Art provided earlier:
http://www.fluidr.com/groups/micro4thirds/interesting

Do these all fail the IQ test too?


And actually, just for you, a couple of my own pictures (landscapes only, I don't share family portraits publicly), made on a GF1 (so the weakest m43 sensor around, GH1/GH2 are better) and all but the first with the kit lens (some with a 0.8x adapter on):
http://bit.ly/gWsFyj

Which of these fail the IQ test? Please provide constructive critique - it will be much appreciated.

I am home with the flu.

Yeah me too, actually . Get well soon and so shall I, so we have less time for this.

[juu]

Regular guy, well posted, and you make excellent points.

I don't question that for many of you the quality difference between APS-C or FF and m43 does make a real difference.

I do question. Of course, there are people for whom it does make a difference. But they are a small portion of the people who only think it makes a difference.

Generally the people on the Pentax forums are well aware of that, given the Pentax FF situation. Turns out in case of APSC vs. m43 the same principle suddenly no longer applies, despite the much smaller sensor size difference.

[stanleyk]

Regular Guy- I would go with either the Olympus E-P2 or the EPL2. The Panasonic is a very good camera also. I prefer the E-P2, but the EPL2 is less expensive.

Personally I love M4/3. I am a K5 user so I do know about DSLR's, but I find that I use the Olympus much more the DSLR because it's lighter.

As for the image quality issue, quite frankly unless you are pixel peeping or printing on paper larger than 13x19, I really don't think you will be able to tell the difference.

Kirk Tuck (who by the way is a real professional photographer) has done a great review of the EPL2. I just got that one so I will defer to him:

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Olympus EPL2. Final Installment. Kirk's Definitive Opinion.

He very nicely summarizes the good and bad points of M4/3 that avoids the rather arcane discussions found here.

And for what it's worth the Panasonic lenses might be a bit better than the Olympus ones right now. I have the Panasonic 20mm and 45mm and they are quite good. If you like zooms I would try out the Panasonic 14-45mm. The Olympus 40-150mm is also a very good lense.