[Pål Jensen]

Impressive engineering if the article is correct - and a compelling argument for simplified manufacturing processes.

The cost of the DSLR assembly is overstated. Eg. a complex blu ray drive with servos, motors, laser and open/shut mechanism + control electronics costs about $3.

What cost money in a digital camera is the sensor and the shutter unit. And lets not forget the developing and marketing/distribution costs. Apparent complexity has very little to do with the final price.

[Aristophanes]

The cost of the DSLR assembly is overstated. Eg. a complex blu ray drive with servos, motors, laser and open/shut mechanism + control electronics costs about $3.

What cost money in a digital camera is the sensor and the shutter unit. And lets not forget the developing and marketing/distribution costs. Apparent complexity has very little to do with the final price.

I agree. DSLR tech is mostly a sunk cost, paid for generations ago. The mirrors, prisms, PDAF, etc. are all dialled in to the point where they are still the dominant professional capture equipment.

Also, consumer-grade DSLR's are cheaper than many mirrorless systems. The D3200 at Best Buy for $399 with kit lens is pretty good value. Add $60 and it comes with a long zoom, too. Hard to beat. So somewhere in that value chain there is money.

[Uluru]

Great part of many company’s loss in this industry is hidden in immobility of dedicated production lines. In times of great production and demand, lines were very busy and new were opened. Now when market is saturated to a point, they are not busy, the cost of expansion is not fully amortised yet, and lines are not used for something else. That transition of unamortised cost of expansion to switching to something else hurts, and represents an opportunity cost which is then deducted from sales.

So in fact no one can claim that sales are “truly bad”, but what is never explained is the situation behind the curtain, and in accounting books not meeting the target reads as “a loss”. Readers read “a loss” and think camera market disappears totally, and the world is doomed. Brainless, fatalist society.

For example Sony wanted to achieve sales of 15+ million cameras because they can, but they achieved only 10+ million, and suddenly, the “market is sinking”? No, it is simple Sony’s inability to plan accordingly, they forced a wrong marketing forecast, and dedicate lines were not switched to something else. Because that costs more than doing a different kind of cameras, and that is why Sony's is expanding in a myriad of models. To some users it seems to be great, but to smarter users it seems like throwing things at a rapid pace and choosing whatever sticks to a wall. They did not have any available and smarter contingency in place.

Same goes for Nikon and Canon, but withe extra complications unique to them, as both were deliberately overproducing for several years to saturate the market. The market is so saturated with their cameras that this crisis is partly due to their ability to overproduce. Like Toyota, they were too efficient and too haste to overproduce in order to stop innovations from others. What was their contingency plan, is unknown and if they have any, I think they started working on it too late. Sometimes some companies deliberately act in order to destroy its own market and make their possible competitors entrance difficult. But partly it strikes me as a serious management fault as well.

[clackers]

Sometimes some companies deliberately act in order to destroy its own market and make their possible competitors entrance difficult. But partly it strikes me as a serious management fault as well.

Well, I think good management is willing to cannibalize its own products before the opposition do it anyway eg iPhone to the iPod.


Innovator's dilemma, etc.


Sony were prepared to sacrifice SLT sales for mirrorless eating into Canikon, the gamble you say is 5 million total camera sales short of what the strategy aimed for.


Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji don't have legacy formats like the K-mount worth preserving but still the fine new products they're turning out - possibly final efforts - have been rejected by the public.

---

Last edited by clackers; 05-28-2014 at 05:20 PM.

[woodywesty]

Well, I think good management is willing to cannibalize its own products before the opposition do it anyway eg iPhone to the iPod.


Innovator's dilemma, etc.


Sony were prepared to sacrifice SLT sales for mirrorless eating into Canikon, the gamble you say is 5 million total camera sales short of what the strategy aimed for.


Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji don't have legacy formats like the K-mount worth preserving but still the fine new products they're turning out - possibly final efforts - have been rejected by the public.

There is a lot of interesting insight and discussion on this thread into manufacturing and management aspects of getting product to consumers but to me the real problem that we're struggling with is that nobody in Ricoh management talks to us so we really don't know whats going on. It seems like this is a game to them keeping us guessing, wondering and hoping. What an awful way to treat dedicated consumers. If they did this to their business copier clients they would be replaced by the competition in short order but with us no communication....

[JimmyDranox]

There is a lot of interesting insight and discussion on this thread into manufacturing and management aspects of getting product to consumers but to me the real problem that we're struggling with is that nobody in Ricoh management talks to us so we really don't know whats going on. It seems like this is a game to them keeping us guessing, wondering and hoping. What an awful way to treat dedicated consumers. If they did this to their business copier clients they would be replaced by the competition in short order but with us no communication....

That a very good point, and something quiet disturbing for a lot of us.

Some of us want to know if we can trust that we could go to a more advanced level in the Pentax system, without braking the bank for a 645 camera and lenses.

[Uluru]

There is a lot of interesting insight and discussion on this thread into manufacturing and management aspects of getting product to consumers but to me the real problem that we're struggling with is that nobody in Ricoh management talks to us so we really don't know whats going on. It seems like this is a game to them keeping us guessing, wondering and hoping. What an awful way to treat dedicated consumers. If they did this to their business copier clients they would be replaced by the competition in short order but with us no communication....

Of course they would jump the mountains to preserve large users of their copiers. The would invite them in halls, development facilities, show future progress, etc. It was well stated in Ricoh's annual reports, from time to time, how they ensure customer loyalty.
However, when it comes to small end users like Pentax users, well, you summed it up well.
What is saddening is that their representatives openly bragged that everything in Ricoh's business model starts from a customer, and that a customer is even more involved in total production and service than what is was with Pentax (see 2012 Photokina interview) .. well, yes, we can clearly see that. If there were no persistent interviews that demanded some explanation to unclear and confusing behaviour of Ricoh, we'd get nothing.

---

Last edited by Uluru; 05-28-2014 at 06:40 PM.

[Aristophanes]

Well, I think good management is willing to cannibalize its own products before the opposition do it anyway eg iPhone to the iPod.


Innovator's dilemma, etc.


Sony were prepared to sacrifice SLT sales for mirrorless eating into Canikon, the gamble you say is 5 million total camera sales short of what the strategy aimed for.


Panasonic, Olympus and Fuji don't have legacy formats like the K-mount worth preserving but still the fine new products they're turning out - possibly final efforts - have been rejected by the public.

Pentax and almost all the major camera makers made on heckuva transition from film to digital. Kodak was the main casualty along with Konica, Minolta, Contax, etc.

---------- Post added 05-28-14 at 10:36 PM ----------

There is a lot of interesting insight and discussion on this thread into manufacturing and management aspects of getting product to consumers but to me the real problem that we're struggling with is that nobody in Ricoh management talks to us so we really don't know whats going on. It seems like this is a game to them keeping us guessing, wondering and hoping. What an awful way to treat dedicated consumers. If they did this to their business copier clients they would be replaced by the competition in short order but with us no communication....

Mmm.....different products and systems. Copiers are based on long-term maintenance contracts. They've now turned into combined output stations, which, ironically, has increased the need for dedicated servicing.

Cameras are a consumer item with only brand loyalty and lens investments. Ricoh's camera biz is an intensely Japanese production effort. Hard to say what they think of the rest of the world.

[jatrax]

If they did this to their business copier clients they would be replaced by the competition in short order but with us no communication....

Hang on, let's not get carried away here. I have been a business copier/printer/network services client of Ricoh's for almost 8 years. Not once has anyone invited/mentioned/discussed ANYTHING about future copier direction/new models/future plans. In fact I have worked with 4 different sales people and 3 different repair techs and NONE of them have had any idea what is happening at Ricoh beyond what model they are told to sell this month.

And though I don't have first hand knowledge I seriously doubt that is any different at any other company. What the sales people know will be communicated to clients/prospects who will in turn pass that info on to the competition's sales person when they stop by with donuts. Anything sales knows the world knows very quickly, so you don't tell sales any more than they need to know. And you tell your customers even less. Why on earth would I tell potential clients about the new whizbang copier coming out next year when I need to sell them a copier NOW.
/rant
Sorry for the rant but I am tired of everyone complaining that Ricoh (or any other company) should be open and sharing with it's 'loyal' customers. Never going to happen and they would be stupid to do it.

[JPT]

Hang on, let's not get carried away here. I have been a business copier/printer/network services client of Ricoh's for almost 8 years. Not once has anyone invited/mentioned/discussed ANYTHING about future copier direction/new models/future plans. In fact I have worked with 4 different sales people and 3 different repair techs and NONE of them have had any idea what is happening at Ricoh beyond what model they are told to sell this month.

And though I don't have first hand knowledge I seriously doubt that is any different at any other company. What the sales people know will be communicated to clients/prospects who will in turn pass that info on to the competition's sales person when they stop by with donuts. Anything sales knows the world knows very quickly, so you don't tell sales any more than they need to know. And you tell your customers even less. Why on earth would I tell potential clients about the new whizbang copier coming out next year when I need to sell them a copier NOW.
/rant
Sorry for the rant but I am tired of everyone complaining that Ricoh (or any other company) should be open and sharing with it's 'loyal' customers. Never going to happen and they would be stupid to do it.

I think the rant is entirely justified. Ricoh would be crazy to announce its plans too far in advance because:
1) it would damage sales if current models, like the K-3
2) it would tip of the competition to their plans and schedules
3) it risks disappointing customers if a delay out cancelation occurs

The thing is that people have incredible delusions of entitlement and believe they have the "right" to know everything there is to know, even a company's confidential plans.

[HYS]

Entropy photography.

Yes, increaseing entropy. So many words for nothing.

[mecrox]

... [snip] ...
Cameras are a consumer item with only brand loyalty and lens investments. Ricoh's camera biz is an intensely Japanese production effort. Hard to say what they think of the rest of the world.

Yes, I've always thought that the Japan angle was the key to what goes on with Ricoh and photography. It doesn't seem to be a multinational effort in the way that, say, Canon and Nikon are (for example, the majority of Nikon's employees are not Japanese nationals and they do not live in Japan). if Ricoh ever announced some bold new hires in their photography marketing and sales divisions then we'd know that their focus is changing but until then, not really. The purchase of Pentax has enabled Ricoh to transform their camera operations in a way that could have been much harder otherwise, so in that regard the purchase price of Pentax looks as if it may have been an absolute bargain and has started to pay off (in terms of visibility and public perception, at least) pretty darn quickly. In just over two years, Ricoh have gone from a moribund and barely visible GXR, which was hardly obtainable in many parts of the world, to headline-makers like the GR, the K3 and the 645z. If you want to find them online at least, "Ricoh" far more than "Pentax" is the search term which will get you there. It was a canny deal, at least looking in from the outside which is all we can do. We'll never know how the financial figures add up.

Unlike many perhaps, I don't think the next big hurdle is going to be APS-C versus FF but OVF versus EVF and all that goes with it. The industry is driven by technology and as more and more aspects of a camera can be put into the sensor and a circuit board with its controller rather than bolted on and connected Heath Robinson style, so the economic/production advantages of pursuing that route will increase. It will be interesting to see whether Ricoh see a core role for Pentax in that transition or whether Pentax was the means by which Ricoh got to it. I'm not suggesting that's about to happen next week but it will happen to the industry eventually. APS-C versus FF is simply a change of format, one that can even use nearly the same body shell and the same production methods. But OVF versus EVF and camera-on-a-chip changes the whole way something is designed and fabricated. Maybe those idle production lines at Nikon and co referred to in another post are about as useful today as rusting old farm machinery in a yard.

I saw a post on another forum pointing out that Sony's imaging operations - including video, conferencing stuff and the like as well as conventional cameras - now turn over more $$$ than do Nikon's. Nikon has no presence at all in stand-alone video, I think (could be wrong). The industry is likely not what we all think it is anyway. We only look at still cameras. But a chunk of the tech in them and the R&D behind it wouldn't be possible without all the other things.

[Kunzite]

if Ricoh ever announced some bold new hires in their photography marketing and sales divisions then we'd know that their focus is changing but until then, not really.

PENTAX - Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation Expands Team with Appointment of Brian McIntosh as Director of Marketing

[Aristophanes]

Unlike many perhaps, I don't think the next big hurdle is going to be APS-C versus FF but OVF versus EVF and all that goes with it. The industry is driven by technology and as more and more aspects of a camera can be put into the sensor and a circuit board with its controller rather than bolted on and connected Heath Robinson style, so the economic/production advantages of pursuing that route will increase. It will be interesting to see whether Ricoh see a core role for Pentax in that transition or whether Pentax was the means by which Ricoh got to it. I'm not suggesting that's about to happen next week but it will happen to the industry eventually. APS-C versus FF is simply a change of format, one that can even use nearly the same body shell and the same production methods. But OVF versus EVF and camera-on-a-chip changes the whole way something is designed and fabricated. Maybe those idle production lines at Nikon and co referred to in another post are about as useful today as rusting old farm machinery in a yard.

I saw a post on another forum pointing out that Sony's imaging operations - including video, conferencing stuff and the like as well as conventional cameras - now turn over more $$$ than do Nikon's. Nikon has no presence at all in stand-alone video, I think (could be wrong). The industry is likely not what we all think it is anyway. We only look at still cameras. But a chunk of the tech in them and the R&D behind it wouldn't be possible without all the other things.

1. Sensor size will be an issue because it will certainly differentiate from smartphones. Big sensor = real camera. Bigger sensor = pro camera.

2. EVF vs OVF will define the pro and prosumer markets. eventually, over time, it will all move to EVF, but there will long be room for the OVF. In fact, I predict something of a resurgence of simpler OVFs in mirrorless cameras; small but significant.

3. Wireless will be necessary. No sales without. Flu card and Eye-Fi are already dead tech.

4. Mandatory to link to non-PC OS's like iOS and Android. Current implementation is sub-par and late to the game.

5. In-camera processing combined with wi-fi will substantially reduce PC use to a tiny fraction of all users. Yes, they will be high-margin prosumers and pros, but even they will economize by much less PP. Adobe went cloud to extract every last bit from the Photoshop ingrained time vampire.

[mecrox]

PENTAX - Ricoh Imaging Americas Corporation Expands Team with Appointment of Brian McIntosh as Director of Marketing

Yes, that's great. But I meant in the mothership in Japan where (I am guessing) all the big decisions are taken.

---------- Post added 05-29-14 at 03:43 PM ----------

1. Sensor size will be an issue because it will certainly differentiate from smartphones. Big sensor = real camera. Bigger sensor = pro camera.

2. EVF vs OVF will define the pro and prosumer markets. eventually, over time, it will all move to EVF, but there will long be room for the OVF. In fact, I predict something of a resurgence of simpler OVFs in mirrorless cameras; small but significant.

3. Wireless will be necessary. No sales without. Flu card and Eye-Fi are already dead tech.

4. Mandatory to link to non-PC OS's like iOS and Android. Current implementation is sub-par and late to the game.

5. In-camera processing combined with wi-fi will substantially reduce PC use to a tiny fraction of all users. Yes, they will be high-margin prosumers and pros, but even they will economize by much less PP. Adobe went cloud to extract every last bit from the Photoshop ingrained time vampire.

I do agree with you. What I really meant when I mentioned "hurdle" was changing how things are done with Ricoh in mind in particular. Yes of course sensor size is very important but l presume not a huge amount has to change if all one is doing is fitting a bigger sensor with uprated electronics to an existing design (the Pentax line of K-mount cameras) where pretty well all the kinks have been worked out. A lot would have to change if one needed an new design with an EVF (K-mount or not) predicated on a camera-on-a-chip. That in turn, again I presume, would mean a different kind of production line, new machinery on it, new software and a lot besides. It's all the back-end stuff, not only the front of house material we get to see.

Yes, that Flu card. Started here at 99 pounds. Now being offered for free bundled with the K3. Name here doesn't help. if someone offered a brand of baked beans called Rabies it wouldn't sell very well either.

I have no idea how you can predict #5, however. Perhaps not many users have ever done much PP and even fewer do it with Adobe Cloud Services. The screen on the back of any camera is just too small to allow more than pretty rough and ready PP. I can see a lot of PP moving to tablets, perhaps, but not just disappearing. Actually if it does that's fine by me, since the few folks who do take care with their PP will stand out markedly from the crowd. And those who want to post a jpeg straight to online will be able to do so from the camera, which is still a bit of a rarity with many cameras.