Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
11-13-2016, 10:20 AM   #226
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Not. It was less than 10 millions in 2015 already. Current prognosis is anywhere between 7 and 8 million.
By Cipa statistics it was signifcantly more than that, check for yourself. 10 million is more what we will get this year.

11-13-2016, 10:42 AM   #227
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
The NRE for a new sensor is several million dollars and the NRE for a new fab line counts in several hundred of million dollars. The price of a new fab facility between 1 and 2 billion dollars. So, if a company buy a cmos sensor off the shelf, as Ricoh imaging did, the development cost is order of magnitude lower than others. If Ricoh imaging was doing development with the cost structure of Canon, they would have gone bankrupt for a long time already. Ricoh imaging and Nikon have much less fixed costs than Canon , and if the camera market size shrinks, Canon is going to be hit much harder than every other brand, but we don't know the truth about Canon because of all the sunk costs that are spread across the Canon group.

I never said that Canon sell less full frame camera than Pentax. I said, since Ricoh imaging cost model is different from Canon, it is not sure who is the most profitable. Obviously, Canon sells many more camera than Ricoh imaging does. But what does matter to investors is the return on equity and not the revenue per say. If I invest my money into enterprise equity, between equity of a company making $10M revenue with +10% EBIT and a company making 1Billion revenue and -10% EBIT, I chose to invest my money into the assets of the smaller company. And if I know that Canon sensor tech is 10 years old and they are going to have to bite the bullet to upgrade to a new fab line to compete with Sony sensors, I won't put my money into Canon camera stocks.
You said initially that Canon could not sell its high end bellow its current price otherwise they would not make money.

For their factory, as they are owner of it, the cost is almost the same even if the factory does nothing. So you can't really attribute the cost of it to 5DMark IV or a rebel entry level. At best the cost could be shared by volume. But the real cost would be really, how much they'd loose (on the long term) if anything, if they used somebody else sensors. Honestly they are a bit worse at iso 100 but they are on perfectly on par starting iso 800, even beating D810 on dynamic range then by 0.5 to 1EV starting iso 800. The 5D mark IV is a great camera with a great sensor. Not that I care, but that's how it is.

For Pentax what they loose is obvious: they always get old sensors from Sony. They do all they can to get the most of out of them and they are very good for that. Sony isn't for some reason. Maybe because they always take the latest greatest, they don't have the time to tune? Anyway, K1 hasn't the 42MP BSI sensor for example, neither anybody else. Like nobody has 6300/6500 sensor on APSC. it seems that certain range of sensor are for Sony only and honestly if a few other sensor manufacturers were not there we would be in a real monopoly. Higher price, worse performance, no choice.

So for Canon the deal is obvious: they would loose on the long term their leaderchip if they were to stop making sensor and that why they continue. As long as they have their own, they can choose, once they stop, Sony can eat everybody else market, including Canon.

I have no plan to buy a Canon, I don't care, but I care that they contribute to keep a competitive market.

As for what company is best, this is complex. Pentax sale are not relevant if you have any significant money to invest on. Anyway the market is shrinking but you can't invest on Pentax. You can only invest on Ricoh that has a very minor activity in photography. And if you were able to invest in Pentax alone, that would be so small with so little volume that you wouldn't be able to buy/sell enough. You'd prefer much bigger even if the profit is a bit less in exchange of volume and fluidity.

But honestly as a consumer I don't care one bit what the company make for money as long as they stay in business. Sony always had issues for year, they are still there and will continue. Amazon almost never make benefit because they invest everything to grow. Apple make lot of money but that by selling at high price. What the interrest for me? I could has well pay much cheaper and donate money to them if really I wanted them to invest.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-13-2016 at 10:48 AM.
11-13-2016, 11:02 AM   #228
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,705
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
For Pentax what they loose is obvious: they always get old sensors from Sony.
Should I remind you, that the K-5 was launched simultaneously with the D7000 and with Sony's 16MP APS-C cameras?

QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
Anyway, K1 hasn't the 42MP BSI sensor for example, neither anybody else.
Even if the 42MP sensor was available, it wasn't an option for the K-1 - as it would've raised the price.
As for Nikon, the D810 was launched in 2014 - and its successor is not here yet.
11-13-2016, 11:50 AM - 1 Like   #229
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,098
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
For their factory, as they are owner of it, the cost is almost the same even if the factory does nothing. So you can't really attribute the cost of it to 5DMark IV or a rebel entry level. At best the cost could be shared by volume. But the real cost would be really, how much they'd loose (on the long term) if anything, if they used somebody else sensors.
Lets say Canon share their fab line for all of their camera models. And Sony semiconductors share their 300mm 0.13um CMOS fab for image sensors with Pentax , Nikon, Fuji, and others, and many other products unrelated to cameras. If the camera market shrinks, keeping Canon camera market share equal, the total quantities of wafers would drop, they could not keep their fab line loaded at 100%. Two models: fix costs , variable costs. The more fix cost you have the most losses you make in a downturn. Having a fab line that does only image sensors is very risky. Having a fab that fabricate wafers for miscellaneous applications and markets (with different manufacturing recipes) is much more robust. The wider a technology can be shared the larger the economies of scale. Canon show us that they are stuck in a trap for their camera sensors: despite efforts, the DR of all Canon sensors is inferior to the DR of Sony sensors. Since Canon have to load their fab , they can't source sensors from Sony. Now, if you consider Nikon and Pentax, they can evaluate sensors from Sony and Samsung and eventually other and select the best sensor and any point in time. Canon can't do that because Canon have to load their fab line first , otherwise, loading of the fab line drops and sensor cost increases.

Anyway, sooner or later, Canon will outsource their sensors, and when they will do so, your arguing will fall apart ;-)


Last edited by biz-engineer; 11-13-2016 at 12:03 PM.
11-24-2016, 04:58 PM   #230
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by biz-engineer Quote
Lets say Canon share their fab line for all of their camera models. And Sony semiconductors share their 300mm 0.13um CMOS fab for image sensors with Pentax , Nikon, Fuji, and others, and many other products unrelated to cameras. If the camera market shrinks, keeping Canon camera market share equal, the total quantities of wafers would drop, they could not keep their fab line loaded at 100%. Two models: fix costs , variable costs. The more fix cost you have the most losses you make in a downturn. Having a fab line that does only image sensors is very risky. Having a fab that fabricate wafers for miscellaneous applications and markets (with different manufacturing recipes) is much more robust. The wider a technology can be shared the larger the economies of scale. Canon show us that they are stuck in a trap for their camera sensors: despite efforts, the DR of all Canon sensors is inferior to the DR of Sony sensors. Since Canon have to load their fab , they can't source sensors from Sony. Now, if you consider Nikon and Pentax, they can evaluate sensors from Sony and Samsung and eventually other and select the best sensor and any point in time. Canon can't do that because Canon have to load their fab line first , otherwise, loading of the fab line drops and sensor cost increases.
The day Canon outsource (for now they sell sensors to other on the contrary), is the day we have a monopoly basically and we all pay more for less. This will encourage Sony to go sloppy if that happen, make no effert and be replaced by somebody else with a different novative approach. But in the meantime, less innovation and higher prices is what we will have.

As of SOny they outsourced sensor already to themselve as this is now a separate entity.
11-24-2016, 05:21 PM   #231
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 8,088
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
The day Canon outsource (for now they sell sensors to other on the contrary).
Company boards can only put up with inefficient methods for so long until they insist on change.

I bought a Canon G7x as my new compact the other week (it replaces my Nikon Coolpix, there's no chance of me getting a Pentax Q or MX or whatever, all jokes aside I'm simply not a brand zealot) and my guess is the 1" sensor is from Sony.
11-26-2016, 08:09 AM   #232
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Company boards can only put up with inefficient methods for so long until they insist on change.

I bought a Canon G7x as my new compact the other week (it replaces my Nikon Coolpix, there's no chance of me getting a Pentax Q or MX or whatever, all jokes aside I'm simply not a brand zealot) and my guess is the 1" sensor is from Sony.
That may be and you can be apple, outsource 100% and get 91% of the whole market benefit. Or like Dell, once everything was outsourced, the subsidiary got the technology and the factories, they started to sell under their brand and it hurt dell quite heavily. The company is not what is was before...

In fact on the long term, if apple doesn't make something outstanding, it is quite likely the chineses will get most of sales and even on long term, benefits. The problem is outsourcing mean you are no longer in control and that basically, you don't have an added value there anymore. Other provide the value, you are just a brand and packaging things together? Tell me honestly can you see any difference between smartphones today? They are all clones of each other! Why not them take the cheaper from the chineses? Samsung learned that the hard way. I think this will be apple turn in the next 5 years.

Back to Canon, this about if they can or not differentiate their sensor and make them an asset and if they can lower cost by giving up their own capacity. For now they have catched up with Sony for performance overall (a bit better iso 800 and up, a bit worse at iso 100-200) and they have a unique feature with dual pixel technology. It can be argued they have the best of what exist, by a small margin. But this isn't enough I think to really make the difference. But if they give up, they may get reduced cost from Sony the 2-3 years, but after? Why Sony would ever give them their best sensors? Why would the price stay low? If I was sony, I'll promize everything, sign for 2-3 years low prices and 1-2 great sensors, maybe even exclusivity, and then I'll rise price, and keep the best for me. This is already what they do to others, at least the second part.

Ricoh is already mostly doing a puzzle with part from different providers to basically serve K-mount. This work well, keep cost down and maybe that's the best in current times of reduced sales.

But I don't think Canon can't put low price if they want. That the big argument there. Canon more expensive because they have to. Reality is Canon more expensive because they are worldwide leader, so they have no reason to price like the challenger.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 11-26-2016 at 08:14 AM.
11-27-2016, 07:33 AM   #233
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 913
The reason to outsource manufacturing is to take advantage of changing technologies or pooled advancements. That is, the company wants to avoid getting trapped owning a factory that makes yesterday's stuff. For example, Apple can design their own CPUs and GPUs (tweaked versions of ARM cores) but it can't hope to compete on the Moore's Law semiconductor fabrication race on feature size so it has Samsung and TMSC make the chips. There's even been talks that Apple might convince Intel to make it's chips.

As a camera company would you rather be forced to buy all your sensors from one and only one organization (i.e., the in-house sensor division) or would you rather be able to buy sensors from almost any sensor supplier who happened to be best on the technical and cost parameters you were seeking?

11-27-2016, 08:09 AM   #234
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,231
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
For now they have catched up with Sony for performance overall (a bit better iso 800 and up, a bit worse at iso 100-200) and they have a unique feature with dual pixel technology.
Canon has still some years of catching up to do on bayer sensor technology. While they are not the leagues behind they were for 5-6 years, they are no more than meh with their newest and outrageously overpriced cameras.

And dual pixel technology is anything but unique. Current Sony sensors use the same, for example in the S7 (Samsung's Dual Pixel auto focus explained and why it's the best out there right now - GSMArena.com news).
12-01-2016, 06:13 AM   #235
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,604
QuoteOriginally posted by beholder3 Quote
Canon has still some years of catching up to do on bayer sensor technology. While they are not the leagues behind they were for 5-6 years, they are no more than meh with their newest and outrageously overpriced cameras.
They still manage better than for example K1 for high iso...
12-01-2016, 06:45 AM   #236
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,705
Original Poster
They do? What Canon is that?
12-01-2016, 08:03 AM   #237
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 761
6D, 1Dx, 1Dx2 and 5D4. ISO3200 is practical limit for Sony 36MP chip. After that the images start to fall into web usage -category only. This is why Sony 42MP chip would have been vastly better for K-1. Reason for that is AT usage.
12-01-2016, 08:15 AM   #238
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,705
Original Poster
I'm looking at DPReview's Studio Scene Comparison Tool - ISO 12800, low light, image size: comparison - and I don't see any advantage for the Canons. Where is it?
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
12-01-2016, 09:11 AM   #239
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 761
That is not practical comparison. Practical comparison is to expose milky way and try to get it pop. Sony chip hits the wall after ISO3200. Canon 6D goes to ISO6400 just fine. This is my experience with 6D and 1Dx versus D800E, D810, A7r1 and now K-1.

Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting

That is more useful.
12-01-2016, 11:00 AM   #240
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,231
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
I'm looking at DPReview's Studio Scene Comparison Tool - ISO 12800, low light, image size: comparison - and I don't see any advantage for the Canons. Where is it?
Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review
Nowhere.

The only crappy recent sensors are the Nikon D5 and Sony 7r2 sensors which are two generations backward for dynamic range.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
business, camera sales, cameras, company, design, figures, k-1, k-70, logistics, ltd, ltd., money, pentax, pentax k-70, pentax news, pentax rumors, people, products, profit, ricoh, ricoh financial results, sales, segment, sensor, service, tamron, thread, time
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Financial year report Ricoh. RonHendriks1966 Photographic Industry and Professionals 21 04-30-2016 02:50 PM
Q3 Ricoh financial report Imp Photographic Industry and Professionals 6 02-10-2016 12:00 PM
Financial result Ricoh RonHendriks1966 Pentax News and Rumors 72 11-04-2015 06:39 AM
Ricoh Imaging is not doomed (or: Ricoh Financial Results Q1 2016) Kunzite Pentax News and Rumors 69 10-24-2015 10:31 AM
Ricoh Financial Results Q3 2014 JPT Photographic Industry and Professionals 18 02-16-2014 12:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:04 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top