[IchabodCrane]

Product prices are publicly available. You can also take sales charts and average the prices, for DSLRs/MILCs.
Commodity products could be profitable with enough volume, but does a traditional photographic company want to be in such a market? To make themselves their strengths irrelevant, having instead Android, 4G connectivity, touch screens and so on in a Galaxy Camera shape; that's shooting oneself in the foot.
For now IMO the current approach is the best: priority on DSLRs, but also have a foothold into MILCs (in a manner which won't hurt the main market).

Olympus failed with their DSLRs; they had to try something new in order to continue. Their 4/3 promise didn't realize; they weren't cheaper, nor smaller, nor better (they had some top-notch lenses, though). Sony also tried hard, without much success - so they transformed a photographic product into something more in their area of expertise.
Let's see first companies which didn't failed, giving up on their DSLRs and jumping to MILCs (that means Canon, Nikon or Pentax).

As far as Sony's area of expertise, one can make the argument that outside of P&S, their area of expertise was dSLR with the Minolta 5D and 7D. They chose to stop making them.

Olympus didn't have to do something new any more than Pentax had to make a better camera than the K-10. Olympus chose to stop developing new offerings for the dSLR market, or at least it appears they have.

And yes, traditional camera makers (Canon, Nikon) do want to be in the commodity end of the market otherwise they wouldn't be selling gobs of D3100/3200s and Rebels. Let's remember they are the ones who have the most to lose by diving into MILCs so it's no surprise they are lagging Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus. BTW, both Canon and Nikon have gone into the MILC market but with different sensor sizes (so far).

That all said, intuitively the FF segment of the market seems less likely (or last) to go to MILC than the rest. This end of the market demands the best and often needs the best of everything a camera can do. So until you can get really fast and reliable AF at something like -3 EV straight off the sensor, why would someone prepared to spend $3000 to $6000 on just the body want to give that up?

[hangman43]

As far as Sony's area of expertise, one can make the argument that outside of P&S, their area of expertise was dSLR with the Minolta 5D and 7D. They chose to stop making them.

Olympus didn't have to do something new any more than Pentax had to make a better camera than the K-10. Olympus chose to stop developing new offerings for the dSLR market, or at least it appears they have.

And yes, traditional camera makers (Canon, Nikon) do want to be in the commodity end of the market otherwise they wouldn't be selling gobs of D3100/3200s and Rebels. Let's remember they are the ones who have the most to lose by diving into MILCs so it's no surprise they are lagging Sony, Panasonic, and Olympus. BTW, both Canon and Nikon have gone into the MILC market but with different sensor sizes (so far).

That all said, intuitively the FF segment of the market seems less likely (or last) to go to MILC than the rest. This end of the market demands the best and often needs the best of everything a camera can do. So until you can get really fast and reliable AF at something like -3 EV straight off the sensor, why would someone prepared to spend $3000 to $6000 on just the body want to give that up?

Actually Sony's expertise is more in the video world not Dslr that is why they only aspect of their FF A99 that surpasses any of its competition is in the video department it does not compare IQ and ISO performance wise of even the entry level D600 and 6D full frames.

[Kunzite]

Indeed, I was referring to video and electronic products.

Pentax' K-mount development strategy was much less ambitious than that of Olympus; well, we also had Hoya who said nothing else matters, but margins.
Olympus started 4/3 as a "pro" system, with lots of promises (read: marketing lies) which failed to materialize. They used the wrong sensor size, thus not having access to the latest technologies. They just failed.
For Sony, even having a FF wasn't enough; Pentax is right to think about how they would do it.

Neither Canon, nor Nikon and not even Pentax gave up on the DSLRs for MILCs, this is what I was talking about. Their MILC attempts are designed to avoid competing with the main lines.
Even cheap DSLRs are closer to the SLR as a classic photographic tool, than to gadgets running some funky and inefficient OS, and being connected to social sites.

I agree with many (most?) FF customers demanding "the best", and thus MILCs not being an appropriate solution.

[northcoastgreg]

Unfortunately, the only evidence that Thom uses in that article is that DSLR and MILC sales were flat recently. There is no evidence of profitability of one or the other. I suppose that ILC systems are profitable mainly because of the lens sales. I don't think that the body sales are the money makers, but I may be wrong

I think you have misread Hogan. I don't believe Hogan is basing his claim that DSLRs have the highest margins on flat sales. (He know where explicitly says such a thing, as far as I know.) Hogan writes about talking to insiders, and presumably that's where he gets his information. In any case, it's generally well known that the higher end stuff makes the most money, due to higher margins. For example, it appears that the Fuji X system generates a profit, and, indeed, is about the only product line that does generate profits in Fuji's camera division. With the possible exception of the D600, FF cameras are making a lot of money for Nikon and Canon. But the larger and more certain point is this: camera companies make money by getting people to invest in a system. The success of MILCs may be fairly broad, but how deep has it been? How many people have invested in those systems? And how many more have invested in DSLR systems? I suspect many more have invested in the DSLR systems, particularly outside of Asia. I visit various national and state parks on a regular basis, and run into many people with cameras. I've seen hundreds, maybe thousands of cameras, yet have never seen an Olympus, Fuji, or Samsung MILC. I've seen about three or four Panasonics and one Sony NEX. And worse: the handful of MILCs I've seen all sported kit lenses! Yet on the other hand I've seen hundreds of DSLRs with large, expensive zoom lenses dangling from their mounts.

That is one opinion. I have used an E-PL2 with no EVF for almost a year and it has been the most rewarding experience I had since getting serious about digital photography. I compared the experience with that of using a DSLR, I found it superior, and I will never buy a DSLR again (and no, I am not the only one feeling that way - I know several people that went through the same steps - try it, you might be next).

I tried the E-PL1 for several months and found it a very frustrating experience. I just couldn't see what I was doing, even indoors. Most serious photographers that I know, either in person, or through blogs and podcasts, share my distaste for an VF-less camera. And while there are always exceptions (i.e., people who choose the hard way to get good results), I suspect that in the majority cases, viewfinders are the best means to attain good composition in photography.

But In the end, this aspect is academic as most customers do not seem to particularly care about a VF of any kind. That is what led to the disappearance of VFs in P&S cameras. The decision to ship entry level MILCs without an EVF is based on that. And it works fine as far as I can tell.

But if they're not making any profits on these products, then it's not working very well. An MILC without a viewfinder is little more than an over-glorified P&S; and P&S cameras are not profit makers -- that's fairly well acknowledged on all sides.

Yet there is a larger error assumptin in the assertion that MILCs, and particularly compact MILCs, will replace DSLRs -- an assumption shared by many of the FF-ophiles as well; and it is this: that one size fits all. The camera market is very large and growing. Why then should we all be herded into a mirrorless or FF corral? Isn't their room for everybody at the table? Shouldn't those of us who like OVFs and mid-sized cameras that natively support the glass we have invested be allowed to continue with our APS-C DSLRs?

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

Apparently, Pentax believes they can sell that lens, in limited quantities of course (they're making 400 units per month). Would you be so kind to explain them how wrong they are, how nobody would ever buy it? Sorry for the sarcasm, but you should realize that even if nobody here would buy this lens, it doesn't mean there isn't a market/purpose.

No, but it is embarassing if no user on PF is using the lens and can provide samples about it. How would you argue the value of Pentax mount with a Canon user?

CU: So do you guys have any longer lenses that I can use?
PU: Oh yeah, we have this 560/5.6
CU: Wow cool - how good is it, can I see some samples from it?
PU: Uhmmm .... uhhhh ..... I don't really know anyone that uses it, but ... uhhh ... but it must be awesome - Pentax makes great stuff for affordable prices, so if we cannot even afford it, this must be amazing.

About the reason why there is no FF MILC (excluding certain rangefinders): maybe it wouldn't be profitable?

How could it be worse than the 560/5.6? You can bet that there would be some users on PF that would buy a FF camera from Pentax - more of them than there will be users getting the 560/5.6.

They still have lenses!

Yes, but there is a difference between being a camera maker (a system maker, a first party maker) and being a lens maker (a third party supplier of accessories). mecrox made a very good point. With the exception of Olympus, all companies invested in MILCs are electronic companies - Panasonic, Samsung, Sony. MILCs are their strength.

but does a traditional photographic company want to be in such a market?

They clearly don't want that. But this is not about what they want. They are getting pushed by electronic companies. Unless you expect all electronic companies to go bankrupt and get purchased by photographic companies, you cannot expect photo companies to win in the long run - they don't have much to offer in camera making anymore. What special things do they do other than the DSLR mirror contraption?

Olympus started 4/3 as a "pro" system, with lots of promises (read: marketing lies) which failed to materialize. They used the wrong sensor size, thus not having access to the latest technologies. They just failed.

Yes, they failed because they were going at it alone. Founding the MFT consortium and getting Panasonic and a bunch of 3rd party manufacturers in it worked better for them. It's like Pentax opening the K mount and having Ricoh produce K mount cameras in addition to them, but it's more successful than that.

Neither Canon, nor Nikon and not even Pentax gave up on the DSLRs for MILCs, this is what I was talking about.

Canon and Nikon have a good reason - they are too big to switch direction. Pentax was good at refining thing, not at redefining things, so if they change, it has to come from outside - now this is possible because they're owned by Ricoh. Whether Ricoh is able to redefine the Pentax brand is what will be interesting to see.

I think you have misread Hogan. I don't believe Hogan is basing his claim that DSLRs have the highest margins on flat sales.

I think you've misread me - I didn't speculate at all on what made Hogan say that. I just said that he doesn't provide any data to support his statement.

I tried the E-PL1 for several months and found it a very frustrating experience.

It might very well have been. The E-PL1 was a less expensive version of a V1 product. You should have another look at the progress made since then. And if you really require an EVF, you should consider investing in one.

But if they're not making any profits on these products, then it's not working very well.

If you start by assuming a false premise to be true, you can get anywhere you want.

Yet there is a larger error assumptin in the assertion that MILCs, and particularly compact MILCs, will replace DSLRs -- an assumption shared by many of the FF-ophiles as well; and it is this: that one size fits all. The camera market is very large and growing. Why then should we all be herded into a mirrorless or FF corral? Isn't their room for everybody at the table?

Sure, there is room at the table for everyone. Leica is still making rangefinders. Perhaps Ricoh/Pentax can reserve for themselves a seat at the table and make APS-C DSLRs covered with crocodile leather and encrusted with diamonds, which they can pair with Limited titanium K-mount lenses with emeralds for the mounting bump.

Shouldn't those of us who like OVFs and mid-sized cameras that natively support the glass we have invested be allowed to continue with our APS-C DSLRs?

As long as there are enough of you to provide a viable market and there is a company interested in catering to your market ... sure.

Unfortunately, Pentax has not been able to stay in business so what does that tell you about your chances?

[hangman43]

As long as there are enough of you to provide a viable market and there is a company interested in catering to your market ... sure. Unfortunately, Pentax has not been able to stay in business so what does that tell you about

Tells me that there was very poor management.

So your idea for Pentax to survive is to alienate the customers that they do have in hopes that they will get new customers by changing directions completely and concentrated their efforts on MILC's. I can promise you one thing they would lose at the least 50% of the customers that they have if they even just changed away from the K-mount probably more than that. A lot of what is keeping people using Pentax is the K-mount and the lens the already have I for one would switch to Nikon if they do away with the K-mount. It is a lot easier to keep customers than it is to get new ones .

[northcoastgreg]

What's clear is that the MILCs (or CSCs if you prefer) are a very vibrant and active sector, far more so than traditional DSLRs.

However active and vibrant the MILC sector may be, it still plays second fiddle to the DSLR market when it comes to professionals and advanced amateurs. What I think is really going on is that technological advances in DSLRs have slowed down, which has made that segment of the market uninteresting to the gearhead contingent that so many of the photo magazines cater to nowadays. Meanwhile MILC makers have bungled the development of their systems so badly that when finally they come close to getting it right (as with the Olympus E-M5 or the Fuji X-Pro) people who are into the tech side of photography get very excited. It's fresh, it's new, it tickles our inner gearhead, therefore it's "the future." But meanwhile thousands of professional and advanced amateurs have invested millions of dollars in SLR glass, and most of these people are going to want DSLRs so they can make use of their investment. Sure, a few of these serious photographers will sell their DSLR systems and move to a MILC, but then the people that buy that used SLR glass will need DSLRs to shoot with it. Not every photographer is obssessed with every little technological advancement or whether a camera system is fully digitalized or not (why is that important?). Most of the serious photographers I know aren't all that interested in the newest tech. When they talk gear, they usually talk about lenses. If they show an interest in MILCs, it's not as a replacement for their DSLR, but merely as a replacement for their compact camera.

Digital = software and connectivity.

Maybe for the consumer segment of the market, but for professionals and advanced amateurs? Not likely. Event shooters (mainly journalists) might be able to use connectivity; but the last thing they want is their cameras freezing up over software. Neither software or connectivity would be of much use to landscape photographers. Until I get a chance to see and work on my images on a computer monitor, I don't want anyone looking at them. I would bet that most serious nature photographers, and nearly all wedding and portrait professionals, think likewise. Software and connectivity appeal mostly to snapshot shooters, who don't have particularly high standards and are eager to share their snaps. Keep in mind: the technology has been around for years, and none of the camera makers has been eager to make use of it. Also note: the Japanese are terrible at software. Samsung, not Sony, Panasonic, or Olympus, will likely be the first company to try out an android MILC; and that's probably a good thing, as Samsung is least likely to bugle it badly.

[cali92rs]

Tells me that there was very poor management.

So your idea for Pentax to survive is to alienate the customers that they do have in hopes that they will get new customers by changing directions completely and concentrated their efforts on MILC's. I can promise you one thing they would lose at the least 50% of the customers that they have if they even just changed away from the K-mount probably more than that. A lot of what is keeping people using Pentax is the K-mount and the lens the already have I for one would switch to Nikon if they do away with the K-mount. It is a lot easier to keep customers than it is to get new ones .

Depends on what Pentax wants to do. If they want to grow past the low single digit marketshare, they have to make hard decisions. 40 yeard old manual focus used glass, although still very nice and can produce wonderful results, will not increase their marketshare. Pentax seems to be content nibbling around the edges, catering to their current user base by releasing niche products and iterations of old hardware, ie the K-5II. And even then, with their current lens pricing, are alienating current users.

[Kunzite]

No, but it is embarassing if no user on PF is using the lens and can provide samples about it. How would you argue the value of Pentax mount with a Canon user?

I wouldn't say so.
First, that no user on PF would buy one (and that's not necessarily counting only current users, and not necessarily right after its introduction) is not a given. Second, I presume the no. 1 reason against eligible people buying this lens is that they already own the FA* 600mm, maybe for not much less. Third, some Japanese photographer is probably using it right now.

How could it be worse than the 560/5.6? You can bet that there would be some users on PF that would buy a FF camera from Pentax - more of them than there will be users getting the 560/5.6.

You're comparing sales for a long (specialized, expensive) lens with those of a camera. If you think targeting better sales than 400 units per month is enough reason to make the FF MILC...

Yes, but there is a difference between being a camera maker (a system maker, a first party maker) and being a lens maker (a third party supplier of accessories). mecrox made a very good point. With the exception of Olympus, all companies invested in MILCs are electronic companies - Panasonic, Samsung, Sony. MILCs are their strength.

Then, why would a traditional photographic company willingly compete with electronic companies, by giving up to their own strengths and concentrating on their weaknesses (which are their competitor's strengths).
Of course electronic companies are pushing MILCs hard; except for Sony who bought the know-how (Minolta) they can't make classic products. So what?

They clearly don't want that. But this is not about what they want. They are getting pushed by electronic companies. Unless you expect all electronic companies to go bankrupt and get purchased by photographic companies, you cannot expect photo companies to win in the long run - they don't have much to offer in camera making anymore. What special things do they do other than the DSLR mirror contraption?

I don't think it's a "who eats who" situation.
So far, with all the money the huge electronic companies have, the best photographic tools are those made by photographic companies.

Yes, they failed because they were going at it alone. Founding the MFT consortium and getting Panasonic and a bunch of 3rd party manufacturers in it worked better for them. It's like Pentax opening the K mount and having Ricoh produce K mount cameras in addition to them, but it's more successful than that.

Not because of their cameras not being better/smaller/cheaper? Not because attempting a pro system with the smallest sensor? How would a FT consortium (which existed, by the way, except that only Olympus made final products) have solved such issues?
Canon, Nikon, Pentax were alone as well. Pentax even started in DSLRs after Olympus E1, and put much less effort into it; yet they didn't fail.

Canon and Nikon have a good reason - they are too big to switch direction. Pentax was good at refining thing, not at redefining things, so if they change, it has to come from outside - now this is possible because they're owned by Ricoh. Whether Ricoh is able to redefine the Pentax brand is what will be interesting to see.

Yes, it's a matter of size - the huge incomes from a still growing market, they're too big to abandon them. Pentax
Redefining means "stop doing what you're good at, instead just copy electronic companies"? I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced by buzz words. Pentax isn't, either - read the interviews, they don't see much benefit in going MILC.

Unfortunately, Pentax has not been able to stay in business so what does that tell you about your chances?

What are you talking about? Pentax is still making DSLR products.

Depends on what Pentax wants to do. If they want to grow past the low single digit marketshare, they have to make hard decisions. 40 yeard old manual focus used glass, although still very nice and can produce wonderful results, will not increase their marketshare. Pentax seems to be content nibbling around the edges, catering to their current user base by releasing niche products and iterations of old hardware, ie the K-5II. And even then, with their current lens pricing, are alienating current users.

How would giving up of that "low single digit market share", to start again from scratch with MILCs, help them achieve double digit market share?
What's the risk, how big the investment, how long it would take? The "success" of the MILC makers could be taken as a clue.

The Pentax now, i.e. Pentax Ricoh, is definitely not content nibbling around the edges; they said so, even giving us glimpses of their plans. Guess what... the only MILC in there is the Q.

By "current lens pricing" you mean your corner of the world, am I right? You're talking about alienating current users, but what effect would abandoning them have?
By the way, "lenses they already have" doesn't necessarily means 40 years old manual focus used glass, could be even brand new DA*s and Limiteds.

[mecrox]

However active and vibrant the MILC sector may be, it still plays second fiddle to the DSLR market when it comes to professionals and advanced amateurs. What I think is really going on is that technological advances in DSLRs have slowed down, which has made that segment of the market uninteresting to the gearhead contingent that so many of the photo magazines cater to nowadays. Meanwhile MILC makers have bungled the development of their systems so badly that when finally they come close to getting it right (as with the Olympus E-M5 or the Fuji X-Pro) people who are into the tech side of photography get very excited. It's fresh, it's new, it tickles our inner gearhead, therefore it's "the future." But meanwhile thousands of professional and advanced amateurs have invested millions of dollars in SLR glass, and most of these people are going to want DSLRs so they can make use of their investment. Sure, a few of these serious photographers will sell their DSLR systems and move to a MILC, but then the people that buy that used SLR glass will need DSLRs to shoot with it. Not every photographer is obssessed with every little technological advancement or whether a camera system is fully digitalized or not (why is that important?). Most of the serious photographers I know aren't all that interested in the newest tech. When they talk gear, they usually talk about lenses. If they show an interest in MILCs, it's not as a replacement for their DSLR, but merely as a replacement for their compact camera.



Maybe for the consumer segment of the market, but for professionals and advanced amateurs? Not likely. Event shooters (mainly journalists) might be able to use connectivity; but the last thing they want is their cameras freezing up over software. Neither software or connectivity would be of much use to landscape photographers. Until I get a chance to see and work on my images on a computer monitor, I don't want anyone looking at them. I would bet that most serious nature photographers, and nearly all wedding and portrait professionals, think likewise. Software and connectivity appeal mostly to snapshot shooters, who don't have particularly high standards and are eager to share their snaps. Keep in mind: the technology has been around for years, and none of the camera makers has been eager to make use of it. Also note: the Japanese are terrible at software. Samsung, not Sony, Panasonic, or Olympus, will likely be the first company to try out an android MILC; and that's probably a good thing, as Samsung is least likely to bugle it badly.

All interesting points, many thanks. But two things. First it is precisely because the Japanese camera-makers have been so inept at software that folks are beginning to wonder whether the camera-makers are fully aware of what may be about to happen to their industry at the hands of people who understand software only too well.

Second, I really doubt there are anything like enough "serious photographers" to go around. Operations like Canon, Nikon or Sony are entirely based on selling huge volumes of kit over all parts of the market. It is this which allows the development of the high-end stuff for "The Serious" (a collective noun for photography enthusiasts, perhaps). Nikon would not survive if their only product were the D800 any more than Pentax would if their only product was the 645D. I don't see how these companies can afford not to see the lower-end as lifeblood. What the big DSLR-makers have done so far is try to protect an industry model which suits them and their products, a model continued from the analogue years, but you can only force a market to go your way, rather than its own way, for so long. This struggle has, after all, happened in industry after industry over the past two decades thanks to new technology and we know the result in almost every case: the incumbents adapt or are run out of town.

Who knows what will transpire, of course. No one does. But writing off MILCs is kind of crazy in my view. They are a serious business even if they are not for you or I and they may turn out to be the key business over the next decade because they are the best vehicle for bringing new technology to the broad mass of the market. If the market then says "Me Wants More", which is quite likely, then camera-makers without a presence in cameras of this kind may well have a very difficult time indeed.

[Kunzite]

Now, by having some experience with Android and knowing what Java can(not) do, I can't help but thinking: maybe it's better to be inept at software

I'd rather chose writing off MILCs than writing off photographic tools.

[Schmidlapper]

to get the good deal on an off loaded K5 IIs and some DA LTDs, sooner the better, maybe I can get two. .

[cali92rs]

The Pentax now, i.e. Pentax Ricoh, is definitely not content nibbling around the edges; they said so, even giving us glimpses of their plans. Guess what... the only MILC in there is the Q.

By "current lens pricing" you mean your corner of the world, am I right? You're talking about alienating current users, but what effect would abandoning them have?
By the way, "lenses they already have" doesn't necessarily means 40 years old manual focus used glass, could be even brand new DA*s and Limiteds.

The proof is in the pudding...what has Ricoh/Pentax given us since Ricoh taken over? The Q, came from Hoya, and they iterated that into the Q10. The K-5 came from Hoya, and they iterated that and gave us the K-5II. Both great products...how much buzz have they generated? Then you have the 560mm. May be a great lens, but how many are they going to actually sell? We are talking dozens, maybe a few hundred. Hardly any excitement in the grand scheme of things. A re-badged Tamron for $800. Very exciting stuff here

My corner of the world buys more stuff than any other corner in the world, therefore, one should pay attention to our consumers. Take a look at the number of posts on Adam's petition regarding repealing UPP, and you will see that I am not the only one who won't buy DA*s until this scheme is ended. Alienation of its current base at its finest.

[IchabodCrane]

....

How would giving up of that "low single digit market share", to start again from scratch with MILCs, help them achieve double digit market share?
What's the risk, how big the investment, how long it would take? The "success" of the MILC makers could be taken as a clue.

The Pentax now, i.e. Pentax Ricoh, is definitely not content nibbling around the edges; they said so, even giving us glimpses of their plans. Guess what... the only MILC in there is the Q.

By "current lens pricing" you mean your corner of the world, am I right? You're talking about alienating current users, but what effect would abandoning them have?
By the way, "lenses they already have" doesn't necessarily means 40 years old manual focus used glass, could be even brand new DA*s and Limiteds.

I didn't think anyone was talking about Pentax getting out of DSLRs. Instead, I think it's all about whether Pentax should get serious about the MILC market. To move beyond the barely noticeable market share they currently have, I believe they must.

[Kunzite]

And I still don't see any advantage in fighting on yet another front, instead of pushing forward their existing 3 systems.
A dedicated MILC system would hurt the K-mount, badly, by the way.

cali92rs:
There was less than a year since Pentax Ricoh was founded, at Photokina. Only after evaluating the business and formulating a strategy could've they start with new, Pentax Ricoh products. Why are you surprised we only saw products started by Hoya Pentax?

I already said, the initial monthly production volume for the 560mm is 400. That's for the current market share, with the current cameras (i.e. lacking a higher end solution); but expect for that lens to be on the market at least for a decade or so.

The US is actually on the 3nd place after Europe and Asia (CIPA numbers, for the entire DSLR market). I'm not saying it's unimportant - on the contrary - but your problems should still be considered local, not world-wide. Same would be true for an European pricing problem, of course.
My point stands: no matter how bad the (US-only) UPP is, abandoning the K-mount users altogether would be much worse.