[normhead]

APS-c is 90% of DSLR market share, how is that "dead"?

[Pål Jensen]

At least Nikon seems to think so (see the D300s which was never updated).

You just wait and see......

---------- Post added 09-20-14 at 03:07 PM ----------

APS-c is 90% of DSLR market share, how is that "dead"?

Don't ask me. I didn't claim so....

[Digitalis]

...may the light from all the bridges I burn light the way.

[monochrome]

If one wanted to be truly sardonic, one could say if Ricoh introduces a FF dSLR then APSc is dead.

[mecrox]

I don't know. I just think about things.

I think about how the K10D was positioned features / price wise relative to the APSc competition at the time. I think about how the K-3 was positioned features / price wise relative to the APSc competition at the time. I think about how the 645D and 645Z were presented features-wise and priced versus the existing MF devices at the time,

Then I think about how a FF Pentax might be positioned features / price wise relative to the competition at the time it is introduced, if it is introduced. I think about how the apparent lenses might be positioned features / price wise at the time they are introduced (premium lenses will probably be EXPENSIVE!).

I think about what James Malcolm just said about building a product line for low volume, high margin, lower Revenue Dealer business models instead of high volume, low margin, higher Revenue Dealer business models. I think about alternative to instead of competes with.

Maybe I'm crazy, but putting these hints together doesn't suggest D610 or or even D750 to me.

I don't expect price to be a selling point per se. I expect the value to be a combination of high-spec features at a higher price with the value being better quality and more features per dollar than the competition. I expect the money saved by NOT doing volume-supporting advertising and marketing activities to show up in better features for the dollar. I expect the buyer to be more a discerning user who is 'in the know' and less someone who goes into a camera store and takes a salesman's advice.

I expect there will howls of derision when the price point is revealed.

Buy maybe I'm crazy.

I can't help feeling there's no substitute for building better cameras, widely supported through sales/marketing and available in a store near you at a price you're prepared to pay. Everyone else seems to be doing it. Maybe that's a bit of a hint? The rest is just talk really - unless it is code for Ricoh being unable or unwilling to do that, in which case somewhere not far down the line it's Goodbye and Thanks for All the Flash.

[monochrome]

I can't help feeling there's no substitute for building better cameras, widely supported through sales/marketing and available in a store near you at a price you're prepared to pay. Everyone else seems to be doing it. Maybe that's a bit of a hint? The rest is just talk really - unless it is code for Ricoh being unable or unwilling to do that, in which case somewhere not far down the line it's Goodbye and Thanks for All the Flash.

That's one business model.

It requires lots of capital (Nikon and Canon and Sony have a lot of capital tied up in factories that must be paid for whether revenue declines, stays the same or rises) that has to be serviced by lots of revenue. It requires lots of capital to hold inventory that has to be turned to service the capital. It requires lots of capital to offer Dealers financing, that has to be serviced regardless of revenue. It requires lots of Reps, and distributor support people who have to be paid regardless of revenue - and people are very expensive. It requires lots of capacity to feed the Costco/Target/BestBuy/Walmart revenue-per-cu.ft.-day contract and capacity requires capital - (you don't get paid full value if you don't deliver the volume, and you don't get paid full value if the inventory doesn't turn). Volume turn requires lots of advertising that has to be paid for just to make the revenue.

Clearly, revenue is declining. Apparently, CaNikoNy aren't making profits and apparently, Ricoh is.

It's sort of an old-school business model that everyone else has done. But if the revenue declines permanently and the already-in-place capital can't be serviced - well, what then? Overproduction, fire sales, brand destruction, layoffs, losses, angry shareholders (Nikon - Sony) - nothing good!!

What if Ricoh isn't behind the curve? What if Ricoh is actually ahead of the curve?

What if they don't actually need to compete with CaNikoNy? What if competing with CaNikoNy head-to-head is actually a bad business decision? If one camera maker leaves the market in the next five years what if is ISN'T Ricoh?

[normhead]

I've never seen a Hassy in a store... but I've seen a few in real life... I wonder how those guys got them? The day after the K-3 came out there was a sale on Nikon D3200s with a kit lens for about $400. I'm not sure that's a market Pentax wants to penetrate. Crapy camera, crappy features, great price. If he said something different than Pentax was going to avoid that market, then I'm not sure what it was.

He defintiely wasn't talking about Henries where I shop. They took my pre-order and got what Pentax was asking. No discount, no competing on price with the discounters. I fail to see how that's a negative. I'w way better than my friend wither new camera. I tried to show her how to automatically bracket a sunset. Ooops, just spent $600, but already need a new camera to try out one relatively basic concept. But hey, it's got the entire manual on help screens you can read on the little itty bitty back screen. It has what a cameras of the past didn't have, but not what cameras of the past did have. Great marketing ploy, build in something new but ignore the basic camera functions you need to be more than a snapshot shooter. I don't see Pentax ever doing that.

[Winder]

APS-c is 90% of DSLR market share, how is that "dead"?

Because there is a shift in the market. Smart phones are taking over the P&S market. Mirrorless is eating into ASP-C DSLR sales. APS-C DSLRs are being squeezed from the bottom and the top. Cameras like the Olympus OMD- EM1 and the Fuji XT-1/X Pro-1 sell for as much or more than the K-3. Cameras like the Canon 6D, Sony A7, Nikon D610 are all pushing down into the premium ASP-C DSLR range. Sensor prices have fallen significantly over the last few years and the money for a company like Nikon is in the glass. Cameras like the D750 are well within the budget for many enthusiasts and aspiring professionals who shoot events. Nikon has an excellent selection of economical FF lenses like the 50mm F/1.8 and 85mm F/1.8 for beginning photographers.

Having 90% market share today is irrelevant to the future. Just ask a company like Research In Motion. How many Blackberries do they sell today? There will always be a big market for APS-C, it just might be in mirrorless bodies. Nikon is banking on the DSLR market being dominated by FF and mirrorless being predominately APS-C or 4/3.

[luftfluss]

I can't help feeling there's no substitute for building better cameras, widely supported through sales/marketing and available in a store near you at a price you're prepared to pay. Everyone else seems to be doing it. Maybe that's a bit of a hint? The rest is just talk really - unless it is code for Ricoh being unable or unwilling to do that, in which case somewhere not far down the line it's Goodbye and Thanks for All the Flash.

+1 for the Douglas Adams reference.

[lytrytyr]

Nikon is banking on the DSLR market being dominated by FF and mirrorless being predominately APS-C or 4/3.

Hasn't Nikon banked on 1" (CX) for mirrorless?

---------- Post added 09-20-14 at 09:41 AM ----------

I can't help feeling there's no substitute for building better cameras, widely supported through sales/marketing and available in a store near you.

The thing is, for vast swathes of big continents, there's no "store near you" that people would trust for buying a "better" camera.
At best, there are big boxes that may soon go bankrupt, or that will compromise your credit card details at the point of sale.

[Winder]

Clearly, revenue is declining. Apparently, CaNikoNy aren't making profits and apparently, Ricoh is.

They are making a profit. They have had declining sales, and they missed their forecast, but they have been profitable. In 2013 Nikon had a 41% drop in operating profit over the previous year, but that just means it has less profit, not no profit.

It's sort of an old-school business model that everyone else has done. But if the revenue declines permanently and the capital can't be serviced - well, what then?

What if Ricoh isn't behind the curve? What if Ricoh is actually ahead of the curve? What if they don't actually need to compete with CaNikoNy?

Ricoh doesn't exist in a vacuum. Unless it gets out of the imaging business it will have to compete with CaNikoNy. All three of them have a slightly different business model. Canon and Nikon own the traditional sales model. Even with all of Sony's and Samsung's vast resources they have not been able to scratch the professional market. Both of made bold claims about their intentions to dominate the industry. Both have massive distribution, manufacturing, R&D, and name recognition. Sony and Samsung make a lot of noise, and they are good for the industry since they both push the envelope and try new things, but they still have a long way to go to be considered major players.

What does Ricoh have to offer that Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Fuji, Panasonic, Samsung...... can't match? All of those companies have the ability to design sensors and all of them but Nikon and Olympus have the ability to manufacture sensors. Can Ricoh design or manufacture sensors? Do they have state of the art AF technology? Right now they have the SR technology that allows for the select-able AA filter that is unique, but on a 24MP APS-C sensor it of little use since color morie is not a problem.

Under what scenario does Ricoh not need to compete with CaNikoNy, or Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic, or Samsung for camera sales?

[luftfluss]

That's one business model.

It requires lots of capital (Nikon and Canon and Sony have a lot of capital tied up in factories that must be paid for whether revenue declines, stays the same or rises) that has to be serviced by lots of revenue. It requires lots of capital to hold inventory that has to be turned to service the capital. It requires lots of capital to offer Dealers financing, that has to be serviced regardless of revenue. It requires lots of Reps, and distributor support people who have to be paid regardless of revenue - and people are very expensive. It requires lots of capacity to feed the Costco/Target/BestBuy/Walmart revenue-per-cu.ft.-day contract and capacity requires capital - (you don't get paid full value if you don't deliver the volume, and you don't get paid full value if the inventory doesn't turn). Volume turn requires lots of advertising that has to be paid for just to make the revenue.

Clearly, revenue is declining. Apparently, CaNikoNy aren't making profits and apparently, Ricoh is.

It's sort of an old-school business model that everyone else has done. But if the revenue declines permanently and the already-in-place capital can't be serviced - well, what then? Overproduction, fire sales, brand destruction, layoffs, losses, angry shareholders (Nikon - Sony) - nothing good!!

What if Ricoh isn't behind the curve? What if Ricoh is actually ahead of the curve?

What if they don't actually need to compete with CaNikoNy? What if competing with CaNikoNy head-to-head is actually a bad business decision? If one camera maker leaves the market in the next five years what if is ISN'T Ricoh?

Not sure I'm following all this; AFAIK, Canon was profitable in 2013.

Also, I find your use of the term "CaNikoNy" perhaps out of place, since even though Sony's camera-related businesses overlaps Canon & Nikon, they are different in that a) Sony supplies parts to other mfr's and b) Sony has stakes in more camera genres than Canikon. Or am I misinterpreting the term "CaNikoNy"?

But to your point about Ricoh "competing", didn't Ricoh reps at some point say something to the effect that they are not looking to exactly duplicate Canon & Nikon, but to sort of forge their own niche?

[Mistral75]

The new lenses are clearly FF lenses. They have optical stabilization. Both these features are pointless if it was for APS only.....
I said at the release of the first 645 lens with optical stabilization that Pentax would surely make an FF camera with optical stabilization. It is highly unlikely unlikely that Pentax would develop this technology only for use in the 645 line....

What makes you so affirmative?

[Winder]

Hasn't Nikon banked on 1" (CX) for mirrorless?[COLOR=Silver]

The Nikon 1 system doesn't really compete with M4/3 or APS-C. Like the Q, the Nikon 1 is a different market. All smartphones and P&S cameras a mirrorless, but that doesn't put them in the same market as APS-C or M4/3.

[monochrome]

But to your point about Ricoh "competing", didn't Ricoh reps at some point say something to the effect that they are not looking to exactly duplicate Canon & Nikon, but to sort of forge their own niche?

I think that rahter succinctly states the point, which is alternative to, not competes with.