[Kunzite]

Yes, sorry, I understood that. What I'm trying to add is that this "normal" could also mean its shape/segmentation, and perhaps the two are linked.

[Aristophanes]

I meant (and should have been clearer) in the numbers produced.
Indeed, segmentation will be different but back to normal reasonable numbers, hence bigger margins, less mass products.

But that can lead to a cyclically declining aggregate consumer base, and room for less competition. AKA the Leica rangefinder lock.

And why this discussion belongs in the "financial" thread .

[surfar]

I just don't like their interface.

OK,fair enough....but it is relatively simple,the quick menu button puts everything u need on the screen(that doesn't have a dial).Then just adjust with 4way controller.

Pentaxians are spoilt with our interface,its the easiest to use(I also use Panasonic/Samsung as well as Fuji).

[Rondec]

OK,fair enough....but it is relatively simple,the quick menu button puts everything u need on the screen(that doesn't have a dial).Then just adjust with 4way controller.

Pentaxians are spoilt with our interface,its the easiest to use(I also use Panasonic/Samsung as well as Fuji).

Sure.

I have said many times, but I don't think there are bad cameras out there. Some are a little better in one respect or another (video, high iso, dynamic range, jpeg engine) but, if you have a camera produced in the last two to three years and aren't satisfied, the problem is probably not the camera. At the same time, I think people should shoot with what makes them happy and is most comfortable and for my style of shooting that is Pentax.

If they went away tomorrow, I would probably get a Nikon D810 and figure it out from there. Certainly if I shot with Fuji for awhile, I would probably figure it out, but I'm not a straight out of camera jpeg shooter and my impression is that if you are post processing much, it is pretty equivalent with regard to performance to other APS-C cameras of a similar generation.

---

Last edited by Rondec; 08-15-2017 at 11:51 AM.

[reh321]

it is more important to have a fast apperture un the 35-85mm range than in the 18-35mm range.

That depends entirely on who you are. Wide angle is much more important to my photography than wide aperture is {now that I no longer shoot @ ISO 25}

---------- Post added 08-15-17 at 02:35 PM ----------

.@reh321 My KP ISO performance is so good that - accustomed as I am to a dozen years of Pentax APSc dSLR's - I must take great care to lower my usual ISO setting or I blow all the highlights. I typically want to shoot between f/5.6 and f/8 and faster than 1/125, adjusting ISO to compensate. An outdoor shot that I would typically judge to need ISO 800 - or 1/4 fill flash at ISO 400 - in P Mode (HyperP) @ f/5.6 starts at 1/1000 and still blows higlights. Indoor shots in natural window light are bright @ ISO 3200 with no flash shadow - and virtually no artefacts or color noise in shadows.

Another reason for me to desperately want the KP that just won't fit into our budget right now.

[Nicolas06]

It seems to be like a grand experiment. Aristophanes said something like it a few posts ago. The argument is that some of the old-established camera companies bet that FF was the natural terminus of the market with everything else a sideshow which would gradually fall away in most cases. Instead rapid technological progress and the arrival of video and mobile platforms has delivered a "good enough" bar far below FF. This may have left a smaller pool of high-end customers than anticipated. In addition, the decline of the camera market has shrunk the pool at the same time. So now we have a lot of camera outfits with their $$$ FF offerings all piling in, hoping that the pool is big enough to sustain the show. Every time this comes up, though, I recall that stat: compared to the same period in 2014, in 2017 the Jan-Jun cash value shipments in Asia of DSLRs are down about a fifth and of mirrorless cameras are up by more than double.

2012 CIPA figures for the whole year:
79.3 millions built-in lenses camera unit produced for 617 billion of yen.
16.8 millions DSLR produced for 472 billion of yen
4,3 million non DSLR ILC for 99 billion of yen.

2016 CIPA figures show for the whole year:
12.4 millions built-in lenses camera unit produced for 162 billion of yen.
8.3 millions DSLR produced for 264 billion of yen
3.2 million non DSLR ILC for 99 billion of yen.

The build in lens camera market doubled the price unit, DSLR are sold at the same price as before. and mirrorless are sold for 30% more.

My analysis is that all people saying it is a good idea to go high end for DSLR doesn't make sense. At least for camera bodies, the market didn't go to high end at all there. High end DSLR didn't sell. pure failure there.

What I think is that overall the additional value of highend was mostly taken by FF Sony mirrorless, and by Sony fixed lens compact camera RX100 line. The other are just loosers. They maybe tried the high end trick, but it failed. There maybe disparity, maybe Fuji managed well, maybe Pentax took a greater share of highend at the expense of no low end sales... We don't know.

But the whole idea let's all go highend is just terible and mean that everybody is struggling more in a market that doesn't buy highend except for Sony clients that benefit of a new market: FF mirrorless where it is basically alone with Leica.

[biz-engineer]

My analysis is that all people saying it is a good idea to go high end for DSLR doesn't make sense.

What would make sense? What would you do?

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 08-15-2017 at 12:48 PM.

[Kunzite]

Sorry, Nicolas, but your analysis is sketchy. It's based on incomplete data, and the conclusion is just a wild guess, at best.
The data actually shows an increase in the average DSLR value, from ~28k to 31.8k yen - of about 13.5%.
As for the mirrorless - how many high-end options were there, in 2012? The GH3? That had a lower MSRP than the K-5II. What you're seeing is rather the MILCs maturing, and the MILC makers putting less emphasis on the entry level. The Sony FF which you're praising had a contribution, but overall the MILCs still are less in average value than DSLRs.

[Aristophanes]

2012 CIPA figures for the whole year:
79.3 millions built-in lenses camera unit produced for 617 billion of yen.
16.8 millions DSLR produced for 472 billion of yen
4,3 million non DSLR ILC for 99 billion of yen.

2016 CIPA figures show for the whole year:
12.4 millions built-in lenses camera unit produced for 162 billion of yen.
8.3 millions DSLR produced for 264 billion of yen
3.2 million non DSLR ILC for 99 billion of yen.

The build in lens camera market doubled the price unit, DSLR are sold at the same price as before. and mirrorless are sold for 30% more.

My analysis is that all people saying it is a good idea to go high end for DSLR doesn't make sense. At least for camera bodies, the market didn't go to high end at all there. High end DSLR didn't sell. pure failure there.

What I think is that overall the additional value of highend was mostly taken by FF Sony mirrorless, and by Sony fixed lens compact camera RX100 line. The other are just loosers. They maybe tried the high end trick, but it failed. There maybe disparity, maybe Fuji managed well, maybe Pentax took a greater share of highend at the expense of no low end sales... We don't know.

But the whole idea let's all go highend is just terible and mean that everybody is struggling more in a market that doesn't buy highend except for Sony clients that benefit of a new market: FF mirrorless where it is basically alone with Leica.

Uhhh....no.

High-end DSLR did salvage revenues.

472 of 16.8 is lower margins than 264 of 8.3.

So the market did spend more per unit (assuming CIPA inflation is as flat as Japanese inflation has been for....oh...22 years now).

It's easier to run a dedicated high-end line than multiple lower-end lines. Ask Leica, or Swiss watchmakers.

More per unit generally means upselling. But is that a sustainable trend and market shift?

And, more importantly, is a market sub-10 million units enough to sustain a bit player like Pentax?

Last, ILC margins leapt up, even as unit sales decreased as part of the overall trend. This is the market to watch as it will be the beneficiary of those who find out that smartphone optics and sensor hit their limits and the law of diminishing returns comes to bear on the smartphone camera segment.

[Nicolas06]

Sorry, Nicolas, but your analysis is sketchy. It's based on incomplete data, and the conclusion is just a wild guess, at best.
The data actually shows an increase in the average DSLR value, from ~28k to 31.8k yen - of about 13.5%.
As for the mirrorless - how many high-end options were there, in 2012? The GH3? That had a lower MSRP than the K-5II. What you're seeing is rather the MILCs maturing, and the MILC makers putting less emphasis on the entry level. The Sony FF which you're praising had a contribution, but overall the MILCs still are less in average value than DSLRs.

How much was the worldwide inflation for the same 4 years? 2.8% for 2013, 2.8% for 2014, 1.6% for 2015 and 2016 for a total of 9% I don't considered a 4.5% increase on top of inflation to be significant. (Inflation, consumer prices (annual %) | Data) Even Japan the cumulative inflation rate was 4%. So depending how you see it price increase 5-10% actually.

That doesn't match at all a go highend trend for DSLRs. With 10% more than the 800€ of a K5 back it time, I doesn't get a 2000€ K1. I get at best a KP that overall a much better camera but that is actually considered mid level, not the flagship.

Now the 2X increase in value for fixed lens design and 30% for mirorless are significant.

[Nicolas06]

High-end DSLR did salvage revenues.

472 of 16.8 is lower margins than 264 of 8.3.

Counting inflation even of japan that 9.5% increase, wordlwide inflation that 5% increase. That 1-2% per year. This is negligible and will not save the market.

But if actually is going highend, there indeed a huge opportunity to go low end with great products. What is stupid is for all player to go for the same tiny sub niche, even more some when most buying don't start highend but low end and grow.

Mirrorless kept it value with less units. This is were the thing really worked and mostly for SOny. They gone from selling entry level Nex body to high end A7 FF mirrorless. This is were the grow was the last 4 years. And even it was not that fantastic anyway.

Surely not for Pentax and not for Nikon seeing the financial results. Neither from Panasonic.

[Kunzite]

We're talking about yen here, so shouldn't you use the inflation in Japan?
More important than the inflation, is the evolution of the cameras' prices. For example, the 6D was launched for $2100, and that was in 2012; its replacement was launched for $1999. Despite the inflation.
Maybe camera makers are forced to target higher end just to keep the value of their products?

I'm not sure what you're trying to say... that only mirrorless makers should target higher value cameras? DSLR makers would be stupid to do the same? Don't forget, they have much better data than we do... can we really teach them lessons?

Pentax has a low market share, so you cannot attempt to match their strategy with the global production trends. Obviously, the Pentax line did increase in value thanks to the K-1 - and obviously, that was the right strategy for them.

[Aristophanes]

Counting inflation even of japan that 9.5% increase, wordlwide inflation that 5% increase. That 1-2% per year. This is negligible and will not save the market.

But if actually is going highend, there indeed a huge opportunity to go low end with great products. What is stupid is for all player to go for the same tiny sub niche, even more some when most buying don't start highend but low end and grow.

Mirrorless kept it value with less units. This is were the thing really worked and mostly for SOny. They gone from selling entry level Nex body to high end A7 FF mirrorless. This is were the grow was the last 4 years. And even it was not that fantastic anyway.

Surely not for Pentax and not for Nikon seeing the financial results. Neither from Panasonic.

The low end is disappearing, so there is no "grow". The low end has evaporated to smartphones who do with software what the low end did with optics and unfriendly interfaces. The floor of discrete camera product productions costs cannot match that at all. A smartphone can dedicate maybe $40 to consumer friendly cost while the minimum buy-in for a dedicated camera could be $200, and that is with communication and integration issues, software editing capacity, etc. There are no inexpensive optical products that can match a smartphone and most apps. Even Lensbaby is costly, and they creatively wreck IQ.

All optical camera makers are forced to go high end. But look at their dependence problem. They rely on their user base to do lens correction in post, through third party, costly software, like Adobe. Without lens correction, their output is near useless in RAW on the growing dominant mobile OS devices, or even using the base Photos software on a Mac. Buying a camera should not mean buying an Adobe subscription just to use a lens. And lenses are the core of these companies. Their optics and the laws of physics are what differentiate them from the app/sensor dynamic. Are people going to buy $1,000 cameras to pop JPEGs?

Both DSLR and mirrorless markets lost aggregate revenues but stability improved by moving up the value chain. They all did this while they completely lost the P&S market. Admirable when you think about it. Automakers would have screamed for a bailout.

[reh321]

All optical camera makers are forced to go high end. But look at their dependence problem. They rely on their user base to do lens correction in post, through third party, costly software, like Adobe.

I do zero lens correction - I choose to leave that completely to my Pentax cameras.

[Nicolas06]

I do zero lens correction - I choose to leave that completely to my Pentax cameras.

+1, all cameras do corrections now.