[mecrox]

Post a link to this bloody balance sheet.

Sony's camera division has been hurting because of A-mount and the implosion of the P&S market. Pentax moved to #3 in DSLR sales because Sony A-mount sales have sunk. The Sony A7 line however has sold much better than they expected. Sony has moved resources away from A-mount to mirrorless because of the falling DSLR sales. The A7R mark 2 is expected to be released in less than 2 months. The A7 line has been a huge success for Sony even with the pathetic native lens line-up.

The Fuji XT-1 is specifically listed in Fuji's 2014 financial report for its strong sales. It sold so well they produced a titanium edition that sold for a $200 premium. Companies don't make special edition premium models for cameras that don't sell well. Fuji's 2014 report says camera division was up 8% over 2013 even after the decrease in sales of P&S. Fuji cites strong sales from X-mount and instant cameras. After a .8 billion Yen loss in 2013 the imaging division was 3.6 billion Yen in the positive in 2014. Hardly bleeding.

Sony and Fuji APS-C and FF MILC represent direct competition for ASP-C and FF DSLRs. Olympus and Panasonic are not really direct competition. They laid the ground work for mirrorless, but because of the small sensor they aren't really able to compete directly. Panasonic focuses on HD and 4K video. Olympus targets a very unique niche of photographers. Both companies are struggling in the camera market and have been passed by Sony. Sony and Fuji MILC are the direct competitors of the DSLR. Both of those companies have done good job in gaining market share and pulling away DSLR buyers.

Lots of people here seem to understand that Pentax is probably not going to sell enough FF bodies and lenses in year one or year two to recover the initial R&D costs. It will take 5+ years to build the customer base and lens line up for FF to really be profitable. The same applies to new systems like the Sony A7 line and Fuji X-mount. Fuji has done an outstanding job of putting top quality glass on the market and growing its system. From 0% MILC market share to 8% in just a few years and they expect to double that over the next 2 years. Sony is in the first 2 years of the FE system. Its going to take a couple more years before they will have a decent lens system. In the next 3 years you are going to see big moves by Sony and Fuji.

Yes, I think that makes it pretty clear that in broad terms and barring a disaster, Sony and Fuji are going to be a more and not less prominent part of the camera biz over the next few years. As for Olympus and Panny, well we'll see. The idea that mirrorless cameras will fail and pretty well disappear is completely implausible, it really is. All the logic and tech of going digital points towards them even if the sector is still in the working it out and moving up phase. It's not a mature platform in the way the DSLR is, but that doesn't mean it's no good. Companies don't make investments like this on a wing and a prayer. In any case, it is in absolutely no one's interests for Canon and Nikon to sweep all before them. That will simply mean a complete duopoly and stagnation. On those grounds alone, mirrorless camera competitors should be welcomed. One thing often left out here, imho, is the third-party lens-makers like Sigma and Tamron. These seem to be going from strength to strength and must be taking a hefty chunk of earnings away from the DSLR-makers too. It's not just mirrorless cams that are chewing at the foundations.

---

Last edited by mecrox; 03-19-2015 at 09:07 AM.

[Zygonyx]

What was the expected growth rate of mirrorless from 2010 - 2014? Where are you getting that data?
What was the actual growth rate of mirrorless from 2010-2014?
What was the actual growth rate of DSLRs from 2010 - 2014?

You might have missed this :





Figures may vary, as periods and possibly sources/counting methods differ also.

Don't take it for you, but i now resign wasting more time in any argument in this thread re. DSLR / DSLRsatz.

[philbaum]

Here's the CIPA data that some of the above chart was based on:

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2014_e.pdf

While the data confirms that there was no mirrorless increase in shipments in 2014 vice 2013, there was a 12.6% increase in revenue from mirrorless systems. I think some of that revenue increase is probably due to Sony's higher end models being sold like the A7 series.

In the America's section, we've always lagged on mirrorless sales, so it was interesting to me that mirrorless shipments increased by 18.5% and mirrorless revenue increased by a whopping 44%. Which may mean that "Americas" population was enamored by the FF mirrorless.

In the "Other" section, which i think includes Australia and ?, mirrorless changes were even more dramatic, an increase in shipments by 40.8% and revenue by 53.6%

The CIPA stats only track Japanese cameras, so the Samsung and Chinese data are not known.

"Water finds its own level" - which is one way of saying that unit and revenue magnitude changes may diminish when we discover the new normal - if there is one.

[robjmitchell]

It would be plain silly for pentax to try and compete with a similar product (not Q) in the mirrorless market. The market may be growing but it is 1/3 the size of the DSLR market with twice the competition. Once the market is mature in terms of EVF tech (cheap parts) they can always drop an EVF into a KS1 type camera with K mount. They are probably better off waiting till the market shakes itself out first.

[Clavius]

It would be plain silly for pentax to try and compete with a similar product (not Q) in the mirrorless market.

With that logic, it would be even sillier for Pentax to try to compete in the FF DSLR area. That area may be bigger (for now) but there's twice the competition there, so the actual free market room is smaller. And it's competition from very well established competitors who are already not able to give each other any room. You state that the mirrorless market isn't mature yet, that is true and it means that not all seats have been taken yet. There's still room to grow. Although Sony is closing that at an insane speed.

[mecrox]

With that logic, it would be even sillier for Pentax to try to compete in the FF DSLR area. That area may be bigger (for now) but there's twice the competition there, so the actual free market room is smaller. And it's competition from very well established competitors who are already not able to give each other any room. You state that the mirrorless market isn't mature yet, that is true and it means that not all seats have been taken yet. There's still room to grow. Although Sony is closing that at an insane speed.

That's only one way of looking at it. A K-3 or K-S2 successor with a hybrid viewfinder would close one gap, if such a thing is technically possible, without compromising the K-mount. On the other side, Ricoh are potentially well placed with the GR line if they wish to develop it further. A kind of turbo GR with a built-in VF and a 35mm lens would be right up my street, haha. In any case, perhaps a bit of brand building needs to go on first around the world, so that the market is already primed when new products do appear. I've noticed that Ricoh are making a big push at the UK's main annual imaging fair next week, and they are majoring on seminars and demos around the 645z (according to their marketing shot anyway). This is playing by far their strongest suit and is a complete reversal of the do-nothing Hoya years when they didn't turn up at all. It suggests Ricoh have plenty of plans but are not going to rush to implement them before they consider the whole picture complete. In some regards, they do need to become better known around the world and are clearly trying to do that. The 645z is a very, very good vehicle for all of this: it's a great success financially, one imagines, and at the same time it's about the best brand ambassador anyone could have. Nikon, Canon and Sony have nothing like it. Imho, Ricoh/Pentax are on something of a roll at the moment.

[robjmitchell]

With that logic, it would be even sillier for Pentax to try to compete in the FF DSLR area. That area may be bigger (for now) but there's twice the competition there, so the actual free market room is smaller. And it's competition from very well established competitors who are already not able to give each other any room. You state that the mirrorless market isn't mature yet, that is true and it means that not all seats have been taken yet. There's still room to grow. Although Sony is closing that at an insane speed.

Huh? There is pentax, Samsung, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, and Fuji all with mirrorless systems at the moment, compared to only three FF. When you consider that Canon and Nikon have been effectively operating under a high margin duopoly system, they are clearly ripe for the taking. The fact that Sony is making waves with their e mount system despite a lack of lenses and a awful record of messing around their customers just shows you how overpriced the big two are. Now that sensors are not going to be rapidly improving the product cycle can become much longer. Ricoh just needs to make one good FF model, price it competitively and then make it for 5 years. Then they have spent a fraction of the R&D compared to the half dozen models the big two have. They also have a decent starting lens line up when you consider they have 7 designated FF primes, plus the 5 zooms on the roadmap, plus the DA lenses that are FF compatible. Whether or not Ricoh is smart enough remains to be seen, but they do have a good track record.

[Clavius]

Huh? There is pentax, Samsung, Sony, Olympus, Panasonic, Canon, Nikon, and Fuji all with mirrorless systems at the moment, compared to only three FF.

In the mirrorless FF segment, there is only 1 new player that's not fully established yet in a growing market. In the DSLR FF segment there are two veterants fighting over a shrinking market... Not very difficult.

When you consider that Canon and Nikon have been effectively operating under a high margin duopoly system, they are clearly ripe for the taking. The fact that Sony is making waves with their e mount system despite a lack of lenses and a awful record of messing around their customers just shows you how overpriced the big two are. Now that sensors are not going to be rapidly improving the product cycle can become much longer. Ricoh just needs to make one good FF model, price it competitively and then make it for 5 years. Then they have spent a fraction of the R&D compared to the half dozen models the big two have. They also have a decent starting lens line up when you consider they have 7 designated FF primes, plus the 5 zooms on the roadmap, plus the DA lenses that are FF compatible. Whether or not Ricoh is smart enough remains to be seen, but they do have a good track record.

You really think it's a high margin duopoly? That would be great indeed! But compare a Pentax APS-C DSLR price to any comparable APS-C MILC. There's no high margin duopoly to blame there, but the price difference still remains. That's because, to my knowledge, the difference is caused by the cost of the optical VF system of DSLRs. The mirror, mirror mechanism, focussing screen, prism, VF optics all need very carefull manual calibration and checking. In other words, if the price of the e.g. D810 could have been any more affordable, Nikon would have done it to outcompete Canon and vice versa. Therefore, I don't think the price of the K-mount FF DLSR can be very far off-beat either. And besides, Pentax has abandoned the cheap-concept quite some time ago.

All moot points though, as Pentax has clearly chosen their path. All we can do is to keep our fingers crossed an hope they will do well.

[kadajawi]

It would be plain silly for pentax to try and compete with a similar product (not Q) in the mirrorless market. The market may be growing but it is 1/3 the size of the DSLR market with twice the competition. Once the market is mature in terms of EVF tech (cheap parts) they can always drop an EVF into a KS1 type camera with K mount. They are probably better off waiting till the market shakes itself out first.

The K-S1 with an EVF instead of a mirror, but the same mount, would not have the size advantage you'd get from proper mirrorless and new special for mirrorless lenses. And if you're late to the game you're late, and people will reject your camera because there are no lenses to go with it.

@Winder: Olympus and Panasonic have historically not been competing. They are now. Olympus is pouring in resources to improve the video functionality of their cameras, looks like people just bought Panasonic cameras over Olympus ones because the Panasonics are so much better at video. Olympus is working with professional DoPs to improve their video functionality. They want to target filmmakers it seems.

@Kunzite: A SR system that works well enough for FF (think the system in the A7 II, which isn't really fast enough) will work even better with an APS-C sensor. It will do wonders. And if they use exactly the same system, the amount of stabilization will be amazing, especially in video (if they chose to use it). An APS-C camera in the body of a FF camera might also fill a nice niche, photographers can see what is going to enter the frame soon, so they get the timing exactly right. Though I doubt Pentax is going to do that. But they could, and it would be rather innovative.

I still like the idea of a hybrid viewfinder in a DSLR. I think I'd be willing to give up on mirrorless if I could have that... yes, it would be a bit bigger and heavier, the lenses would be a bit bigger, but having an OVF when I want it, and an EVF when I want that instead...

[Kunzite]

A "sports viewfinder" (like Sigma had in their first DSLRs - they found a marketing excuse for reusing film components) means a lower magnification, e.g. 0.7-0.8x (at most) instead of the usual 0.92-0.95x for the APS-C viewfinder. So the APS-C viewfinder image will be smaller - on a format that really needs the extra magnification.
It's not innovative and there is this serious drawback, I'm afraid.

[kadajawi]

A "sports viewfinder" (like Sigma had in their first DSLRs - they found a marketing excuse for reusing film components) means a lower magnification, e.g. 0.7-0.8x (at most) instead of the usual 0.92-0.95x for the APS-C viewfinder. So the APS-C viewfinder image will be smaller - on a format that really needs the extra magnification.
It's not innovative and there is this serious drawback, I'm afraid.

Fair enough. And yeah, Sigma did those before, but no one apart from you and I remember them.

I wonder how big the screen in a hybrid camera could be... the bigger, the better, as that allows for higher resolutions.

Do you see any drawbacks with such a system, apart from the added cost (and 2 versions, with one leaving it away and replacing it with the good old regular focus point indicator could fix that)? Could such a system keep people with DSLRs who want mirrorless for the EVF, rather than size and weight? Or who like OVFs but also would like to have the features that an EVF can offer?

[Kunzite]

Hmm... I'm worried a hybrid viewfinder might compromise both the EVF and OVF parts (or just the OVF, that would be equally unacceptable).
But it depends on the implementation. If it's a contraption similar to what Sony used - some mechanism for switching between the optical and electronic image - it would be bad, probably very bad. Imaging splitting devices would steal light. However, if they can replace the matte screen with a transparent see-through display it could work pretty well - assuming they can find a panel (OLED?) with high transmittance and no color cast.
I'm no camera engineer though, so I'm waiting to be amazed.

[Winder]

Could such a system keep people with DSLRs who want mirrorless for the EVF, rather than size and weight? Or who like OVFs but also would like to have the features that an EVF can offer?

I hope Ricoh has some serious OVF technology coming. The EVF doesn't provide the experience that the OVF offers, but the advantages with AF accuracy, metering, color/WB are bigger than the experience. Its the IQ that ultimately matters the most.

Can Ricoh design an OVF system that eliminates front/back focus or focus shift?

Take shooting in the snow as an example. With the OVF and a DSLR you have to manually increase exposure because the sensors are fooled by the white scene, but with mirrorless I can see what the sensor sees. The EVF doesn't have the DR of an OVF, but neither do my prints or the digital sensor.

[Uluru]

I hope Ricoh has some serious OVF technology coming. The EVF doesn't provide the experience that the OVF offers, but the advantages with AF accuracy, metering, color/WB are bigger than the experience. Its the IQ that ultimately matters the most.

IQ of a photograph?
IQ of a camera?
IQ of a photographer?

Can Ricoh design an OVF system that eliminates front/back focus or focus shift?

All my SLRs from 1970s have that kind of OVF. Ricoh had it too.

Take shooting in the snow as an example. With the OVF and a DSLR you have to manually increase exposure because the sensors are fooled by the white scene, but with mirrorless I can see what the sensor sees. The EVF doesn't have the DR of an OVF, but neither do my prints or the digital sensor.

When you plan your trip and go out, do you check weather forecast and road reports?
Do you go boating and have no idea about the wind for that day?
Go to the beach and have no idea about UV levels?

Similarly, you never meter the reflected light and accident light when you come to the scene you want to take photographs? You never measure and adjust white balance?

I don't understand it — is this a practical joke or something? What kind of photographers are people nowadays? You people expect cameras that will do all the thinking, including how compose the photographs? And also, when to say 'cheese' with your recorded voice?

Why bother going out there at all — send a drone!

[Winder]

All my SLRs from 1970s have that kind of OVF. Ricoh had it too.

So your answer is to give up AF and everyone go back to manual focus.

Similarly, you never meter the reflected light and accident light when you come to the scene you want to take photographs? You never measure and adjust white balance?

I shoot events. I will typically be shooting in multiple lighting conditions during a given event and no time to set up my x-rite color checker or play around with a hand held meter. I need equipment that works as fast as I do. I know your just being a drama queen, but not all of us are fine are photographers with hours to setup each shot. Some of use are working with moving subjects under rapidly changing lighting conditions (STAGE LIGHTS). Maybe you're not being a drama queen. Maybe you just don't understand.