[Mistral75]

Seems like Fuji just has lost half of its profits from last year to this.
I wonder if their figures include the margin rich analog medium format instaxes or not.

Yes they do but the revenue from Instax cameras (and very profitable Instax paper cartridges) is going down too.

Fujifilm \ Imaging Solutions = Photo Imaging (films, photographic papers, services and equipment for photofinishing, instant photo systems) + Electronic Imaging (digital cameras, interchangeable lenses and accessories) + Optical Devices (projectors, cinema lenses, industrial use lenses).

The Imaging Solutions segment recorded revenue of ¥74.6 billion, down 15.1% year-on-year, due to such factors as decreased sales of photographic paper and digital cameras, whose market conditions are severe, and a drop-off period before new products’ launches for instant photo systems.

Operating income totaled ¥4.5 billion, down 63.2% from the previous fiscal year.

In the photo imaging business, revenue decreased due to such factors as declined sales of photographic paper, a drop-off period before new products’ launches and inventory adjustments by some U.S. retailers for instant photo systems.

In the electronic imaging business, overall revenue decreased from the previous fiscal year due to a decline in the sales of entry-level mirrorless digital cameras under severe market conditions. However, the sales of middle- and high-end models were strong.

In the optical device business, revenue decreased, reflecting a declined demand for industrial use lenses such as vehicle-mounted lenses due to an economic slowdown in China.

Source: https://ir.fujifilm.com/en/investors/ir-materials/earnings-presentations/mai...1_001_note.pdf

[Larrymc]

I don't think it's that unreasonable to think they could have anticipated some backlash from the following sequence of events:

1) For almost 15 years they sold only APS-C bodies, and a very large number of APS-C specific lenses
2) The K-3 series sold for under $1000
3) The K-1 is a bigger, slower, $2000 FF camera that isn't optimized for most of those APS-C lenses
4) They decide that the K-1 is now the flagship camera that APS-C users will jump to en masse.

Many or most people bought into the K-5 or K-3 series because they're sub-$1000 cameras with a lot of features they like and they had built up a bunch of APS-C lenses to go with them. It's not rocket science to think that telling K-3 owners that their upgrade path is a much more expensive camera that is either 15Mp or heavily vignettes with most of their lenses might not go so well.

Car analogies only go so far, but would be like if BMW discontinued the $40k+ 3-series, and then was very surprised that everyone didn't just jump up to the $60k+ 5-series. "But it's a nicer car and everyone on the internet said they wanted one!"

Nothing like a bit of exaggeration to make your point! It seems I recall the K-3 introductory price was well above $1000 for just the body alone. As a matter fact the introductory price was $1299 for the body only and didn't get below $1000 for several months. So please stop with the exaggeration it gives your arguments very little credibility.

[ThorSanchez]

Nothing like a bit of exaggeration to make your point! It seems I recall the K-3 introductory price was well above $1000 for just the body alone. As a matter fact the introductory price was $1299 for the body only and didn't get below $1000 for several months. So please stop with the exaggeration it gives your arguments very little credibility.

I bought my K-3ii six or seven months after it was released for $769. The K-1ii is several years old and still costs $1700 new.

You can choose to focus in on little details like this, but it no way changes the overall message that a FF camera that's more than twice as expensive as the APS-C flagship is not a reasonable option for many or most of the people who previously bought into the APS-C system.

[DagT]

For me, personally, I have chosen to fill in gaps in the lens line up with older lenses. So getting a 20mm f2.8 and a 135mm f2.8 lens on the used market is not too expensive. I use the FA 77 instead of an 85mm portrait lens and I guess I am fine with that. At the same time, I will be looking to purchase a new 20mm lens (I don't need f1.8 but whatever) and 85mm lens when they hit the market.

I do the same. The FA20 is OK, with some distortion and FA77 is OK for portraits, but I'm looking forward to a 85mm. My 135mm f/2.8 isn't that great but I doubt if there is a market to make a newer version so I may try the new D-FA70-210 f/4.

[Kunzite]

I don't think it's that unreasonable to think they could have anticipated some backlash from the following sequence of events:

1) For almost 15 years they sold only APS-C bodies, and a very large number of APS-C specific lenses
2) The K-3 series sold for under $1000
3) The K-1 is a bigger, slower, $2000 FF camera that isn't optimized for most of those APS-C lenses
4) They decide that the K-1 is now the flagship camera that APS-C users will jump to en masse.

Your "following sequence of events", particularly #4, is speculation (and there are issues with the other points, too).

The fact is, we do not know why the K-new wasn't launched earlier. I would say that both Ricoh's own troubles - they've gone through a reorganization where every business was evaluated, likely Pentax had to go on tip toes during that period - and the (likely) decision that only a completely new camera would do are factors in the apparent delay.

OTOH, far from deciding that APS-C users wishing for a flagship should go K-1, they're differentiating each format's strengths.

[reh321]

I bought my K-3ii six or seven months after it was released for $769. The K-1ii is several years old and still costs $1700 new.

You can choose to focus in on little details like this, but it no way changes the overall message that a FF camera that's more than twice as expensive as the APS-C flagship is not a reasonable option for many or most of the people who previously bought into the APS-C system.

I really do not think that price was the primary issue - performance was. The complaints I have heard about using the K-1ii to shoot action shots have focused on
1. K-1ii is "slow" when in native mode
2. K-1ii is "small" when in 'crop' mode.

[ThorSanchez]

I really do not think that price was the primary issue - performance was. The complaints I have heard about using the K-1ii to shoot action shots have focused on
1. K-1ii is "slow" when in native mode
2. K-1ii is "small" when in 'crop' mode.

In my opinion price is always a factor. If you double the price you probably quarter the market.



---------- Post added 02-14-20 at 10:21 AM ----------

Your "following sequence of events", particularly #4, is speculation (and there are issues with the other points, too).



The fact is, we do not know why the K-new wasn't launched earlier. I would say that both Ricoh's own troubles - they've gone through a reorganization where every business was evaluated, likely Pentax had to go on tip toes during that period - and the (likely) decision that only a completely new camera would do are factors in the apparent delay.



OTOH, far from deciding that APS-C users wishing for a flagship should go K-1, they're differentiating each format's strengths.

I will be sure to preface my posts with "in my opinion" or "this may be somewhat speculative." That was implied, but that doesn't always come across.

[reh321]

In my opinion price is always a factor. If you double the price you probably quarter the market.

Why are we having this discussion anyway? Pentax has been very slow to replace the K-3ii - that is a fact. I have speculated that Ricoh thought people would purchase either the K-1ii or the KP, but that is just speculation, and everything else is our opinions. Looking at price of the D500, arguing price is in the wrong neighborhood in my opinion.

[TwoUptons]

In my opinion price is always a factor. If you double the price you probably quarter the market.

Your point is probably nearly always true in a sensible market (the specific multipliers will change, but the point is valid).

I think the problem is that we're working in the other direction...
If you quarter the market, you have to double the price...

-Eric

[RGlasel]

If you quarter the market, you have to double the price.

I haven't been annoyingly pedantic for a while, so here goes. The inverse relationship you are referring to involves gross margin, not net price and is assuming that fixed costs are constant. In that case, your equation is true if gross margin was 50%, then doubling the price when sales volume decreases by 75% will result in the same gross profit. Fortunately, for price sensitive consumers at least, fixed costs seldom stay the same if sales volume decreases by 75%, so a relatively small increase in price can make up the difference in most cases. The other consideration is that most manufacturers cannot turn the tap on or off at will, so the primary concern is to cover ongoing costs in order to keep the lights on, as opposed to shutting down as soon as net profit declines.

None of which has a real bearing on whether or not a particular camera manufacturer will keep producing cameras in a declining market. The people who own the manufacturer (or more realistically their proxies, whether they are other corporations or investment funds or executives who are incentivized by stock options) determine what is required to keep producing cameras. No corporation simply stops operating a line of business because it fails to meet a performance threshold; someone somewhere is held responsible for mitigating the losses involved and an escape hatch will be opened; if necessary an imaginary escape hatch will be created. Assets of debatable value are sold or traded for other assets of debatable value, accounting "adjustments" are made after a change of the guard and so on.

If I could ever get the timing of my predictions right, I would be much wealthier than I really am. The same song gets played over and over again, just in a different key and with a different tempo.

[Rondec]

Your point is probably nearly always true in a sensible market (the specific multipliers will change, but the point is valid).

I think the problem is that we're working in the other direction...
If you quarter the market, you have to double the price...

-Eric

This is the big problem. Regardless of pricing, the market is shrinking. Every camera brand is trying their hardest to move up scale -- nothing is clearer from the mirrorless numbers where the number of units shipped until recently wasn't that much more than number of SLRs shipped, but the value of those MILCs was much higher.

This is a mature market. People still purchase new gear, but only at a replacement rate, whereas ten years ago, they were purchasing it because there were new features that they "needed." MILCs are slowing too as they hit the same point as SLRs, it just took a little longer. Unfortunately, this means that you are going to pay more for your new camera than you might have a few years ago.

[Serkevan]

Many or most people bought into the K-5 or K-3 series because they're sub-$1000 cameras with a lot of features they like

I agree with the rest of the post, Ricoh made some strategic mistakes there - the K-1 clearly wasn't the upgrade action shooters wanted. However, IIRC the original K-5 released at something like $1700 right? The K-3 was also like 1200. Still very good value for money when compared to contemporary Canikon offerings.

EDIT: I should read *the entire* thread before repeating something that has already been mentioned
As I said, I agree with the points you make.

[Kunzite]

the K-1 clearly wasn't the upgrade action shooters wanted.

The K-1 wasn't supposed to be an action shooters' camera in the first place. It was supposed to be - and it was - an upgrade in image quality.
It was a high resolution camera with excellent build quality sold at entry level prices. And it worked; so calling it a "strategic mistake" is nonsense.

Going FF itself can't be called a "strategic mistake" either, seeing how the camera makers are struggling to move higher end, compensating for the falling volumes - and with the entry level hurting.

[beholder3]

If you quarter the market, you have to double the price...
-Eric

That sententence is exactly as true as
If you double price only a quarter of potential buyers will buy.

People are not all sheep, geeks.

Price is much more defined by what consumers are willing to pay than what companies see as cost.
Both concepts will always be in conflict.

Much more so in the luxury toy market we discuss here.

[Serkevan]

The K-1 wasn't supposed to be an action shooters' camera in the first place. It was supposed to be - and it was - an upgrade in image quality.
It was a high resolution camera with excellent build quality sold at entry level prices. And it worked; so calling it a "strategic mistake" is nonsense.

Going FF itself can't be called a "strategic mistake" either, seeing how the camera makers are struggling to move higher end, compensating for the falling volumes - and with the entry level hurting.

The point has been completely missed. What was a strategic mistake was to NOT have a K-3ii replacement for over 5 years. Ricoh either considered the KP/K-1 as suitable options (depending on needs - they likely assumed that most flagship users were using them because of ergonomics/IQ/build quality/features over speed) or they assumed that K-3 users were willing to wait longer because of the large numbers of people "holding on to" their K-5 cameras for a very long time¹. In any case, clearly a number of people feel their needs have gone unmet for years.

The K-1 is a fantastic camera, it has single-handedly killed any body-related GAS I could ever have ; I don't think I could be much happier with any other camera at any price level.

¹According to the interview with Mr. Farreng, Pentax users replace their equipment less often than those of other brands.