[Aristophanes]

Flickr has a huge amount of data on camera trends. Worth a look if you are interested in the increase in use of µ4/3 cameras.
Flickr: Camera Finder: Sony

Flickr is useful, but it lists the Olympus EP-1 as a P&S.

Flickr: Camera Finder: Olympus: E-P1

Want to know why Nikon will stick with f-mount?

From Flickr, # of items (not to be confused with # of bodies sold, but a decent proxy for aggregate sales and after-market endurance):

D40 55,656,212
D50 45,749,423
D40x 21,001,688
D70 37,685,227
D70s 22,766,322
D80 72,403,206
D90 48,546,125
D200 37,402,873
D300 35,469,521
D300s 5,078,675
D3000 9,227,672
D3100 930,212
D5000 13,258,990
D7000 957,316

Olympus E-P1 1,795,427
E-P2 410,307
E-PL1 986,054

Panasonic GF1 3,574,295
G1 1,221,706
G2 211,985
GH1 653,932

What the data suggests is that m43 does OK at mid-price range, but poorly at higher ones, like in the D90 range. This partially explains why the GH2 is in short supply from Panasonic as they probably have trouble competing at price points and so curtail production until demand is proven. One thing that may be intuited from Panasonic's Flickr data is the GF1 may be taking from Panasonic's line of superzooms, so cannibalization can go both ways.

This also explains why Nikon continues to release low-end DSLR's. Body size is not a barrier to market growth. Just because a smaller camera type has been on the market for a couple of years (i.e. m43) does not mean that sales of Nikon lower-end, larger cameras have suffered as to make them unprofitable. The not-very-good or well-rated D3000 looks to have more activity (i.e. outsold) all m43 units combined. There's no mass market move towards m43 mirrorless, but a move at the margins. Price point again will have a lot to do with that. Canikon tend to leave older gen products in the pipe a long time for ROI and gross revs. They get $350 kits out there and make it very difficult for m43 (or Pentax) to get traction.

It also shows the extensive installed base of Nikon glass and APS-C bodies. Same metaphor for Pentax leveraging their installed base.

[juu]

# of members who uploaded a photo to Flickr yesterday:

Nikon:
D90: 4903
D80: 2276
D3000: 2147
D5000: 2119
D40: 1975

Canon:
450D: 4033
5Dmk2: 3579
500D: 3346
400D: 3260
1000D: 2959

Panasonic:
GF1: 502
G1: 135
G2: 62
GH1: 55
GH2: not present (surprising, as obviously there are people posting pictures from it there)

Olympus:
E-510: 241
E-PL1: 218
E-520: 195
E-500: 191
E-P1: 189

Pentax:
K-x: 353
K20D: 239
K10D: 237
K-7: 196
K200D: 137
K-5: 101

Sony:
A200: 455
A230: 292
NEX-5: 291
A100: 282
A350: 278
...
NEX3: 152
A55: not present (surprising, as obviously there are people posting pictures from it there)

Apple:
3G: 4791
4: 3069
3GS: 1726

[juu]

BCN rankings from #1 to #50, SLT and mirrorless for the peculiar market of Japan:
GF2: #7, #14, #20
NEX5: #9, #18, #32
EPL-1(s): #10, #26, #30, #36, #41, #44, #47
NEX3: #13, #28
A55: #15, #23
G2: #22
EPL-2: #27, #36, #46
A33: #33, #50

Only other non-Canikon cameras in the top #50 are:
K-r: #31, #34
K-5: #35, #42

The rest are Canikon DSLRs.

[Aristophanes]

My comment is the K-x is doing very well and the D90 is the camera that caused Nikon to go to #1.

I cannot explain the missing A55 and GH2 as I looked for them as well. Must be an EXIF read thing. Some Samsung's are missing as well, yet there are posted photos. Maybe it's averaging:

"About these graphs
These graphs show the number of Flickr members who have uploaded at least one photo or video with a particular camera on a given day over the last year.

The graphs are "normalized", which is a fancy way of saying that they automatically correct for the fact that more people join Flickr each day: the graph moving up or down indicates a change in the camera's popularity relative to all other cameras used by Flickr members.

The graphs are only accurate to the extent that we can automatically detect the camera used to take the photo or shoot the video (about 2/3rds of the time). That is not usually possible with cameraphones, therefore they are under-represented." Flickr: Camera Finder


Nikon = 13,420
Canon = 17,177
Sony = 1,750
Pentax = 1,263
Olympus = 1,034
Panasonic = 754

Nikon and Canon are under-represented (e.g. no D40x, D50, D60, D70 and some Canon models).

Mirrorless (m43 + NEX) = 1,604
m43 = 1,161
DSLR = 33, 794

Granted many of these DSLR's have been on the market 1-2 years longer than any mirrorless, but then again, the DSLR's are severely under-represented. You'd also have to take into account the nearly 20 million D700 photos posted and the FF/APS-H impact on the aggregate.

To be accurate to 43 one would have to chart 43 decline vs. m43 upswing, especially for Olympus as they might be cannibalizing their own system to a large extent rather than taking existing customers from the other brands based on the form factor "smaller is better" mantra. m43 growth may be coming (as surmised before) from 2nd system sales and new entrants. But obviously when one looks at the Nikon D5000/3000/3100 data alone you see a lot of sales dwarfing everyone else combined: Sony, Pentax, m43, you name it. And that's before adding Canon equivalents in entirely.

My point is the same: No need with sales like these for Canikon or Pentax to panic over mirrorless. It's less revolution than evolution. (Moderately) older tech is selling very, very well (and D90 video is lousy compared to almost every other model from any brand that followed; so it cannot be the video factor).

[Michael Barker]

So you think all those people who bought a DA 70/2.4 are going to stay loyal to Pentax who just knocked 2 stop equivalent off their DOF of that $500 lens? And knocked DR down a notch as well?

Agreed. Pentax MUST continue to update APS-C format bodies.

They had to keep K-mount compatibility to bring users from digital to film.

They don't have to have compatibility when adding a new, even smaller format. There's no point. Why would someone buy a smaller camera just so they can lug around their current collection of lenses with it? To go from film to digital? Yeah, that was a special case. The point of the smaller format would be to generate new customers and sell new lenses.

I'm not sure whether a 2.5x crop represents an acceptable DOF compromise or not. In a situation of shooting a casual interior portrait, many people expect to be able to abstract the background with OOF, and many people don't want to, and many people want the option, and many people insist on having the option. It's a big deal. Camera size is a big deal too. One thing's for sure, all over the place you see people deluding themselves that they can have it all now.

[junyo]

Why would someone buy a smaller camera just so they can lug around their current collection of lenses with it?

Why would a person commit to a completely redundant body/lens system, and how much weight/size would you really save on the total system when you need multiple versions of mutually exclusive lens, not to mention cost?

And an even better question is why would someone buy into a new fringe system from Pentax when more mature systems exist, and if size saving were your only consideration why would you not have already moved into an EVIL or big sensor compact?

[aleonx3]

Agreed. Pentax MUST continue to update APS-C format bodies.

They had to keep K-mount compatibility to bring users from digital to film.

They don't have to have compatibility when adding a new, even smaller format. There's no point. Why would someone buy a smaller camera just so they can lug around their current collection of lenses with it? To go from film to digital? Yeah, that was a special case. The point of the smaller format would be to generate new customers and sell new lenses.

I'm not sure whether a 2.5x crop represents an acceptable DOF compromise or not. In a situation of shooting a casual interior portrait, many people expect to be able to abstract the background with OOF, and many people don't want to, and many people want the option, and many people insist on having the option. It's a big deal. Camera size is a big deal too. One thing's for sure, all over the place you see people deluding themselves that they can have it all now.

No, I don't want a different lens system since I have the FA limited... and the DA* lenses. I would like to use a smaller camera (2.5x crop may be) with my 77mm. That way, I can have a k-7 or k-5 and the new MILC for traveling.

[Michael Barker]

Why would a person commit to a completely redundant body/lens system, and how much weight/size would you really save on the total system when you need multiple versions of mutually exclusive lens, not to mention cost?

And an even better question is why would someone buy into a new fringe system from Pentax when more mature systems exist, and if size saving were your only consideration why would you not have already moved into an EVIL or big sensor compact?

A new fringe system from Pentax could appeal to those who want to get into the photo hobby, want a system that fits in their purse or laptop bag, and for whatever reason prefer Pentax to Olympus and Panasonic. m43 system is not all that mature. They keep making mistakes. It's a mish-mash of lenses. They have no rugged / water resistant options.

Nothing's redundant or mutually exclusive if you're a person who's not interested in a body over a certain size.

Yes, a new system would be redundant and the lenses mutually exclusive to someone who is already to committed to Pentax's existing system. Which exactly proves my two points: a) that there is no reason to provide K-mount compatibility on an entirely new system and b) that they must keep the APS-C system and continue developing it.

No, I don't want a different lens system since I have the FA limited... and the DA* lenses. I would like to use a smaller camera (2.5x crop may be) with my 77mm. That way, I can have a k-7 or k-5 and the new MILC for traveling.

Yes, eventually there will be an APS-C MILC, I'm sure of it. It's only a matter of time, but Sony has jumped in with both feet very early with a total EVF-only strategy. Pentax is wise to be cautious with limited resources.

If you don't think there's an additional opportunity in smaller format ILC then I agree to disagree.

[aleonx3]

Yes, eventually there will be an APS-C MILC, I'm sure of it. It's only a matter of time, but Sony has jumped in with both feet very early with a total EVF-only strategy. Pentax is wise to be cautious with limited resources.

If you don't think there's an additional opportunity in smaller format ILC then I agree to disagree.

With precious limited resources that Pentax have, I agree that they may be wise to take the wait-and-see approach to ensure the right direction is taken.

[junyo]

A new fringe system from Pentax could appeal to those who want to get into the photo hobby, want a system that fits in their purse or laptop bag, and for whatever reason prefer Pentax to Olympus and Panasonic. m43 system is not all that mature. They keep making mistakes. It's a mish-mash of lenses. They have no rugged / water resistant options.

People that want a body of a certain size, for some reason hate all of the existing options, and are willing to try an unproven system seems like a very thin market segment. Rugged/WR would seem like the only distinguishing factor.

Nothing's redundant or mutually exclusive if you're a person who's not interested in a body over a certain size.

Yes, a new system would be redundant and the lenses mutually exclusive to someone who is already to committed to Pentax's existing system. Which exactly proves my two points: a) that there is no reason to provide K-mount compatibility on an entirely new system and b) that they must keep the APS-C system and continue developing it.

This is a circular argument, that depends on your accepting that there's not point to maintaining compatibility.

Pentax's existing market largely leverages their existing user base, therefore most of their initial potential customers are "someone who is already to committed to Pentax's existing system". Giving that user base no compelling reason to prefer a new Pentax system to anyone else's offering would be irrational. If you shoot any FF or APSC format system, and buy into a small format system, any angle of view/focal length that you have to buy in the new system fundamentally is a redundant lens. Oly/Nex recognized this, thus there's at least some nod to avoiding it with a level of backwards compatibility to the existing full size system mount. Samsung was never committed to K mount and didn't have a huge lens library to abandon, and nothing to lose by abandoning it - which is not the position Pentax is in. Yet Pentax can somehow be magically devoid of backwards compatibility concerns.

[juu]

With precious limited resources that Pentax have, I agree that they may be wise to take the wait-and-see approach to ensure the right direction is taken.

I've heard that worked wonders for the move from film to digital for many companies.

[uccemebug]

So small MILC buyers are either:
a) those who care about using larger/older lenses on them.
b) those who don't, and who'd demand an array of new lenses.

Does Pentax follow suit in serving both markets because m43 and E-mount already serve group a)?

It makes more sense to me to preserve the K-mount for APS (and larger) bodies where the glass is appreciably used. Frankly, attaching a lens designed for 135 systems on a 2.5x crop sensor strikes me as a bit comical. Charming, but comical.

[Kunzite]

I've heard that worked wonders for the move from film to digital for many companies.

Indeed. Kodak was the first; but where are they now? And where are Canon and Nikon?

[junyo]

So small MILC buyers are either:
a) those who care about using larger/older lenses on them.
b) those who don't, and who'd demand an array of new lenses.


Does Pentax follow suit in serving both markets because m43 and E-mount already serve group a)?


It makes more sense to me to preserve the K-mount for APS (and larger) bodies where the glass is appreciably used. Frankly, attaching a lens designed for 135 systems on a 2.5x crop sensor strikes me as a bit comical. Charming, but comical.

I don't see Pentax having the wherewithal to only do B. In a perfect world, photographers would have endless cash to upgrade and try new products at will, and camera makers endless R&D budgets. Pentax would be free to launch a new system and take their chances. In the real world, Pentax is a minor player, that doesn't have unlimited funds for R&D and experimental products. Customers don't have the funds to experiment with systems, they pick one with the best perceive value proposition and stick with it until that position is untenable. Companies have to constantly bolster that proposition in order to retain those customers into subsequent product cycles.

So who are the customers for a potential Pentax mini-system? Assuming Pentax makes a WR system, ok, there's that. But that's a limited segment upon which to base the investment in entirely new development, tooling, and manufacturing processes.

Customers who simply want a small system and either don't have a full size system or don't care about compatibility? This is the least compelling argument for me. Those customers already have an ever increasing list of options. To expend resources just to join an ever more crowded market space, and to wait this long to do so seems well, stupid.

Existing users? Companies largely rely on their userbase. And not having a product in a hot segment means losing some sales from from your users that want this type product to competing systems. A system that keeps those users home, and tries to poach new users and users from competeing systems makes sense. But does an all out new system accomplish this? Sure, it's technically appealing to start from scratch, but if I have to buy into another system, what keeps me home? Simple brand loyalty? Being purely pragmatic, while Pentax makes great lens, they don't make them quickly and they don't make them cheap. They don't make tons of peripherals. The TCA/TCO would likely be higher, making competing systems more affordable/attractive unless they can come up with some exclusive killer feature that made the new product stand out from the pack. Maintaining K mount compatibility might not be ideal in terms of size, and it might be "a bit comical" but it does make the system substantially cheaper than any competitor's product to their existing customer base (and let's face it, the only people who are actively care about this potential product are Pentaxians), it creates a full fledged system without stressing Pentax's design or manufacturing capability, and it would be the only system that offered such a feature.

In any case, they'll do what they do. And I'm sure they have access to all kinds of data and expertise far beyond anything here.

[juu]

Compact system camera success story continues

22% of interchangeable lens cameras [sold in UK in January 2010] were CSC models - a 160% rise on the same month the previous year

Suggested responses:
a. That's UK, not representative of anything,
b. 22% is not a whole lot and is just taking over sales from fixed-lens compacts and 4/3 cameras, probably there was still a "massive increase" in DSLR sales so DSLR makers should not be concerned or anything,
c. Whatever, companies are still wise to sit this out and see how it develops so that the right direction is taken,
d. Err... CF 2.5x = good. CF 1.5x = good. CF 2x = bad. What was the question again?

Popularity of Compact System Cameras soars worldwide

According to the latest GfK Retail and Technology data, sales of Compact System Cameras (CSCs) are going from strength to strength in Changeable Lens markets around the world.

CSC sales in Japan accounted for one third of all changeable lens cameras sold during December and one quarter for 2010 as a whole. The global share of CSCs almost quadrupled in 2010 compared to the previous year to stand at 11%, or almost one million of all changeable lens cameras sold.

Whilst Japan leads the way, other regions have seen consumers rush to adopt this new camera type. Western Europe (8%), LATAM (19%) and Asia Pacific (18%) have all witnessed a significant increase in share for CSC products.

Suggested responses - same as above, but substituting Japan for UK and 1/3 for 22%.