[Dan Rentea]

Exactly! Chasing competitors who have deep pockets is suicide. Let Sony be Sony and Pentax be Pentax.

Nokia on the other hand didn't chased the competition when competition start to show its strenghts and look were Nokia is now compared to where it was 10-15 years ago. Now they start to chase the competition. We will see in a few years if chasing the competition (in a much crowded market than it was 10 years ago) is/was a smart decision.

What continually amazes me is all the things the K-1 can do that the competition cannot. From my perspective and photographic needs, the K-1 really is a higher-spec camera for a lower price.

You put the accent right were it should be. "From my perspective and photographic needs" - this phrase is very important and often people forgot to mention it when they get into an argue/debate. If a photographer has a completly different opinion than mine on a given subject, there are a few things that I'm interested in:

1. If he is speaking from his perspective and photographic needs and not from what he reads on the internet
2. in what kind of photography he has experience
3. If he has some direct experience with other cameras that are in the same category as the camera he has
4. if he has a portfolio to be seen; theorists are everywere and their numbers are getting bigger year after year due to informations available on the internet, photographers on the other hand are fewer and fewer with every day that passes

K1 from my perspective is a specialised/oriented camera. It does a decent job on some areas, it doesn't do a good job in other areas, but it does a very good job in a specific area: landscapes. I choosed to think that Ricoh has found a niche which they want to explore rather than competing with the others on every level and it may be enough for them to be profitable.

Nikon for example tried to catch up Canon in sales by releasing a lot of new cameras but they end up firing a lot of employees. They realised that they are in bad position and they said that they want to concentrate in the future on the high end cameras rather than invest money in entry level cameras. And they back up their statement with the release of D500 and D850.

Despite that I'm not much of a fan of Sony cameras, their pressence in photography business had, have and will have an impact on the other camera manufacturers. And this is a good thing for us, the buyers.

---

Last edited by Dan Rentea; 04-10-2018 at 06:04 AM.

[biz-engineer]

You put the accent right were it should be. "From my perspective and photographic needs" - this phrase is very important and often people forgot to mention it when they get into an argue/debate. If a photographer has a completly different opinion than mine on a given subject, there are a few things that I'm interested in:

The problem is that customers aren't necessarily rational in their purchase decisions. Technically, mirror-less isn't the nirvana, but it gains some momentum because it's new, it differentiate from DSLRs, and there is a lot more promotional efforts being done on mirror-less and as it gains social momentum, people would buy mirrorless just because it's being recommended by peers.That's completely different from the rational/scientific view of things, and the problem is if we don't want mirror-less we may be "forced" to adopt it if there is no more innovation efforts put on Canon DSLR. Canon makes camera system with a good deal of use case rationality, but Sony takes lots of customers away from Canon just be overwhelming promotional efforts. Canon offer better systems overall but the salesman will tell you that he gets better pictures with his Fuji XT2. So if you aren't determined on what you want , you come out of the shop with a Fuji instead of a Canon, and since most people don't buy a complete system at once , they only realize later that they don't have the best system but it is too costly to switch.

[photoptimist]

The problem is that customers aren't necessarily rational in their purchase decisions. Technically, mirror-less isn't the nirvana, but it gains some momentum because it's new, it differentiate from DSLRs, and there is a lot more promotional efforts being done on mirror-less and as it gains social momentum, people would buy mirrorless just because it's being recommended by peers.That's completely different from the rational/scientific view of things, and the problem is if we don't want mirror-less we may be "forced" to adopt it if there is no more innovation efforts put on Canon DSLR. Canon makes camera system with a good deal of use case rationality, but Sony takes lots of customers away from Canon just be overwhelming promotional efforts. Canon offer better systems overall but the salesman will tell you that he gets better pictures with his Fuji XT2. So if you aren't determined on what you want , you come out of the shop with a Fuji instead of a Canon, and since most people don't buy a complete system at once , they only realize later that they don't have the best system but it is too costly to switch.

Nice story. But is it true?

Mirrorless sales have been essentially flat for 5 running years so it's hard to say there's social momentum. And for every sales person touting Sony and Fuji, there's probably one or two others saying "buy a real pro camera not a rinky-dink mirrorless toy".

And all those "overwhelming promotional efforts" cost a lot of money which is making the cameras of marketing-focused companies a lot more expensive. (Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be cheaper than DSLRs cause it sure doesn't look like they are.)

Meanwhile, Pentax keeps putting out well-built, high-IQ cameras are aren't burdened by high promotional costs.

[surfar]

Mirrorless sales have been essentially flat for 5 running years

Well did you include 2017?....far from flat, looks like a 30% increase in sales from 2016.Going back to 2012,we see an increasing market share for mirrorless.Compacts have decreased and Dslr are way way down.

The ratio Dslr to M/L was 1.8ish to 1 in 2017.....that ratio has increased most years,around 2.3 in 2016.

This year is a different year of course, but by 2020 with the rapid advancement of M/L...theres a realistic chance of 1:1.YES, when that year comes around you can quote me and say i guessed wrong.
HOWEVER, MF has the M/L invaders putting image quality into high end Dslr buyers realms and CaNiks FF M/L wont be small sellers.

Sony and Fuji

Yes, these are the expanding brands...bringing innovation and versatility for still and moving pictures.

[monochrome]

Well did you include 2017?....far from flat, looks like a 30% increase in sales from 2016.Going back to 2012,we see an increasing market share for mirrorless.Compacts have decreased and Dslr are way way down.

The ratio Dslr to M/L was 1.8ish to 1 in 2017.....that ratio has increased most years,around 2.3 in 2016.

This year is a different year of course, but by 2020 with the rapid advancement of M/L...theres a realistic chance of 1:1.YES, when that year comes around you can quote me and say i guessed wrong.
HOWEVER, MF has the M/L invaders putting image quality into high end Dslr buyers realms and CaNiks FF M/L wont be small sellers.



Yes, these are the expanding brands...bringing innovation and versatility for still and moving pictures.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like MILC sales are tapering off since spring 2017 and DSLR are recovering. The LEVEL of MILC sales has not been in a constant uptrend, but looks rather flat also, in a range of 250,000 - 350,000 units. They’re selling a fair number, but the number isn’t growing.

Numbers

[monochrome]

Well did you include 2017?....far from flat, looks like a 30% increase in sales from 2016.Going back to 2012,we see an increasing market share for mirrorless.Compacts have decreased and Dslr are way way down.

The ratio Dslr to M/L was 1.8ish to 1 in 2017.....that ratio has increased most years,around 2.3 in 2016.

This year is a different year of course, but by 2020 with the rapid advancement of M/L...theres a realistic chance of 1:1.YES, when that year comes around you can quote me and say i guessed wrong.
HOWEVER, MF has the M/L invaders putting image quality into high end Dslr buyers realms and CaNiks FF M/L wont be small sellers.



Yes, these are the expanding brands...bringing innovation and versatility for still and moving pictures.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like MILC sales are tapering off since spring 2017 and DSLR are recovering. The LEVEL of MILC sales has not been in a constant uptrend, but looks rather flat also, in a range of 250,000 - 350,000 units. They’re selling a fair number, but the number isn’t growing. Also looks like DSLR sales decline is leveling off as CaNikon exits the BIG BOX Soccer Mom market. The composition of sales is as important as the volume of sales.

Numbers Look at the trend lines, not the monthlies.

[mecrox]

Nice story. But is it true?

Mirrorless sales have been essentially flat for 5 running years so it's hard to say there's social momentum. And for every sales person touting Sony and Fuji, there's probably one or two others saying "buy a real pro camera not a rinky-dink mirrorless toy".

And all those "overwhelming promotional efforts" cost a lot of money which is making the cameras of marketing-focused companies a lot more expensive. (Wasn't mirrorless supposed to be cheaper than DSLRs cause it sure doesn't look like they are.)

Meanwhile, Pentax keeps putting out well-built, high-IQ cameras are aren't burdened by high promotional costs.

Except no one buys Pentax cameras any more (comparatively speaking).

And look at the money, not units. Revenue is the story. It’s all about the cash. Returns for that have certainly not been flat. The opposite, in fact.

I don’t have a horse in this race as I couldn’t care less what kind of camera someone uses. Almost any camera will get the shot after all and is by far the least interesting component of it. However it’s not a bad idea to consider something objectively. Much of camera sales is a fickle, fashion-led thing, I think. But if it brings in the money, no one cares. I can see that in some central London camera stores. How are things placed and presented, what stands and displays are around the likely footfall? The answer is far more biased to mirrorless cameras than the ratios of DSLR to mirrorless might suggest. These arrangements aren’t there because retailers think they will fail. No one has to like this but on my tours around camera places, that’s increasingly what I see going on. There is a simply huge wall of money pushing things along and the fact is such tactics will very probably work.

[surfar]

in a range of 250,000 - 350,000 units. They’re selling a fair number, but the number isn’t growing.

Where did you get those numbers? What period?...Monthly figures dont mean much,they can fluctuate...pre Xmas to post xmas being the prime examples.

Now, recent CIPA figures show mirrorless flattish for 2013 to 2016,but a major increase in 2017(3.1 to 4.1million units).IN a Declining (ILC)market,maintaining unit sales means greater market share.

[biz-engineer]

Yes, these are the expanding brands...bringing innovation and versatility for still and moving pictures.

Not only innovation. Mirrorless is better! We all know the little music that repeats over and over again, according to Emile Coue's method, one should repeat to oneself "Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better".

[Dan Rentea]

The problem is that customers aren't necessarily rational in their purchase decisions. Technically, mirror-less isn't the nirvana, but it gains some momentum because it's new, it differentiate from DSLRs, and there is a lot more promotional efforts being done on mirror-less and as it gains social momentum, people would buy mirrorless just because it's being recommended by peers.That's completely different from the rational/scientific view of things, and the problem is if we don't want mirror-less we may be "forced" to adopt it if there is no more innovation efforts put on Canon DSLR. Canon makes camera system with a good deal of use case rationality, but Sony takes lots of customers away from Canon just be overwhelming promotional efforts. Canon offer better systems overall but the salesman will tell you that he gets better pictures with his Fuji XT2. So if you aren't determined on what you want , you come out of the shop with a Fuji instead of a Canon, and since most people don't buy a complete system at once , they only realize later that they don't have the best system but it is too costly to switch.

Sometimes I wish landscape photography to be something that I like to shoot. I would have been very happy with K1 and just 2 lenses: 15-30mm f2.8 lens and with 100mm f2.8 macro lens. And I would have had also an additional 5.000 - 6000$ in my pocket by not having the need to buy lenses like 85mm f1.4L IS, 135mm f2L or big flashes and modifiers.

I don't know if changing systems is costly as long as you replace your used gear with a used gear from another manufacturer. There are a lot of good deals for second hand gear on the market these days. Sony helped here. I know that I tried to see how much I would lose if I replace my current gear with something similar from Nikon and if I remember correctly the Nikon second hand system would have been with 250 or 300$ more expensive. The difference would probably be more visible if you want to swich from Pentax to Canon, Nikon or Sony.

I don't know why people don't buy what they want/like, especially the ones that don't have money to go from one system to another. Not to mention the beginners. What are they thinking, that their pictures will be better if they will go home with a a6500 instead of an 80D or a D7200? The online reviewers and the marketing are washing their brains big time. Sadly, this is true also for phones, computers, etc.

[biz-engineer]

And look at the money, not units. Revenue is the story. It’s all about the cash. Returns for that have certainly not been flat. The opposite, in fact.

Fact if , Fuji (&co) claims "XT2 is very good and is better, look, Mr ABC photographer is using it with a flash gives awesome pictures" (with flash, any camera give good images because low ISO is used). Then Fuji charges 2x the price vs Pentax for physically about the same stuff inside the camera: sensor, image processor and piece a software to run the whole thing. Then the half money gotten from the first customer is injected back into getting a second customer etc... marketing bootstrap essentially. Something that Pentax never did in a so obvious way, at least. For me, that's not about innovation, that's business strategy of Sony and Fuji for buying market share.

[surfar]

Mirrorless is better!

Ha ha ha, in some areas it can be.

What will be interesting will be what CaNik bring to the game.$$$ony have won market share from those 2 mainly.Later this year we will see,so far their M/L offereings have trailed but sold OK due to their brand acceptance.

[monochrome]

Where did you get those numbers? What period?...Monthly figures dont mean much,they can fluctuate...pre Xmas to post xmas being the prime examples.

Now, recent CIPA figures show mirrorless flattish for 2013 to 2016,but a major increase in 2017(3.1 to 4.1million units).IN a Declining (ILC)market,maintaining unit sales means greater market share.

Where did you get your numbers? Did you even read the post by beholder3? The period is unit sales by month from 2012 through 2017. That’s the x axis of the chart. The y axis is units shipped, so the chart shows units shipped by month from 2012 through 2017, breaking out DLSR and DSLM.. Read the analysis constraints. Look at the numbers. Look at the trend lines. The trend lines are a polynomial analysis of the trends in unit sales by month. It’s high school math and a simple business analysis presentation The trend lines (and the composition of the units sold) are what matters. Your claim about 2017 market share represents what happened in a selected, abnormal three months from Feb - April in 2017. It is selective data mining, and it does not accurately characterize the underlying trend..

[surfar]

Where did you get your numbers?

You can see them in the Non pentax section "mirrorless versus Dslr"...theres a chart of CIPA figures.

[Clarkey]

Fact if , Fuji (&co) claims "XT2 is very good and is better, look, Mr ABC photographer is using it with a flash gives awesome pictures" (with flash, any camera give good images because low ISO is used). Then Fuji charges 2x the price vs Pentax for physically about the same stuff inside the camera: sensor, image processor and piece a software to run the whole thing. Then the half money gotten from the first customer is injected back into getting a second customer etc... marketing bootstrap essentially. Something that Pentax never did in a so obvious way, at least. For me, that's not about innovation, that's business strategy of Sony and Fuji for buying market share.

Comments offered objectively. I don't really care about the brand, but I do use Fuji (among others).

There's a lot more to the business than that. I've been on two Fuji walks locally here in Toronto, and to a couple of demo events. Gear is available to play with and coupons are typically offered by the company to attendees. This cost Fuji money up front before/after any purchases were made (they also listen to what attendees have to say - we get direct access to a senior chap who is on the international development team). We get to have the gear hands-on - a big deal now that local camera stores are "special order" for Pentax. Which brand started their mirrorless from scratch in 2012-2013 and now does much better than Pentax? Business is business, but also needs happy customers.

While agreeing that Fuji gear is somewhat overpriced, I disagree re: the technology inside the body/price ratio is as skewed as you say. Sensor aside, Fuji does a lot more to innovate (look at how their AF, and video caught up, and is now class leading). How about their lens development and line-up? Their HSS flash synch/wireless control is next, and now they will probably use the springboard of the X-H1 to develop dual IS like Panasonic (and again out-innovate Pentax). This is all in their crop bodies, and while they are building the next (cheaper) medium format camera and new lenses.