Originally posted by NZ_Ross I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, the camera companies included. There are a range of questions to be answered:
1. Where is the bottom of the market in terms of sales numbers?
2. How do you sell new cameras when most enthusiasts have 'good enough' cameras already - my case my K3 is good enough, why change?
3. What pricing structure is right to get people to buy?
4. Who is your market - soccer mums (use phone cameras), enthusiasts, professionals?
I don't think there are any answers to this, for any of the camera companies. Samsung would be an example - nice, well featured cameras, but couldn't sell enough of them.
There is always lots of marketing hype around certain brands/cameras and with website reviewer boosters. In the end though if you can't make a profit selling cameras then you will be out of business sooner or later.
Camera makers attached to larger imaging concerns - Canon, Ricoh, Sony, Fuji probably have a much better chance of long term survival than the others - as there are cross company advantages in research, development, patents etc. Also deeper pockets to fund the capital to get cameras to market.
We are in very tough times for camera companies - in shrinking markets the direction is typically to quality, mass numbers (although camera phones have knocked that option out), brand or niches.
Pentax have quality, brand and niche in their favour, plus a deep pocketed business imagining owner.
I remain happy they are producing quality new cameras, that are reasonably well featured, at reasonable prices.
In a very tough business environment Ricoh seem to be executing a logical, reasonable and sensible business strategy well.
I suspect that over the next few years we are probably going to see a shift in the kind of cameras the industry offers.
The reason is that significantly higher prices, which are inevitable, will force a rethink of what cameras do and what cameras need in order for a buyer to think a 2000-note camera is still really worth buying. Simply jacking the price of last year's camera by 50 per cent isn't going to work. Folks won't bite but they might well bite if the whole thing is presented in a way that makes the much higher price actually seem worth it. There is nothing wrong with asking 2000 notes for a camera but you do have to go about it in the right way.
Oly and Panasonic's new flagship cameras both have "super features" most won't need but which will certainly act as powerful attractors. And then there are much-improved warranty terms, new "pro" support programs (really aimed at consumers, in fact) and all the rest to help ease the hit to the bank account. With this also go things like regular firmware updates to add or improve features and enough spare capacity in the camera's electronics to accommodate them. Companies can moan at the associated costs, but the canny ones could persuade a lot of their users to sign up for a whizbang new "pro" support program at, say, 100 bucks a year and everyone will be happy. Canny companies will also note that they've just locked a raft of customers in for five years not two or three, thus reducing churn and offering many more opportunities for lens and equipment sales.
In fact, buying a 2000-note camera once every five years is roughly the same expenditure as buying a 1200 camera every three years. But for the camera-maker, you have to present the 2000-noter in such a way that you can get over the initial hump of a big lump sum out. Offer little more than the usual mix of features with a one-year basic warranty and no firmware goodies but with a swingeing sticker increase and consumers will stay away, quite rightly.
Companies which adapt their products to meet to the new market will probably do OK. Lazy ones which just knock out the same stuff on the same old basis will probably feel the pain. Thing is, after years of industry overproduction there is a pile of reduced-price end of line, refurb or good second-hand equipment out there the size of the Great Barrier Reef. Folks have options beyond just paying up 50 per cent more.
Just a guess.