Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
09-18-2013, 06:25 AM   #46
Site Supporter
Stone G.'s Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Zealand, Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,510
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Why not?

Make a slightly better product at a slightly lower price. How about some unique lenses (FA Limiteds and their quirky, unique FL's).

Lots of options.

Different colours?
But, will a slightly better product at a slightly lower price be profitable and affordable for RICOH/PENTAX?

Solid information is impossible to find (annual reports do their best NOT to reveal market shares, profits and trends), but if one scrutinizes the Net for whatever information there can be found and whatever the value of that information is, indicators are that the growth is to be found in the segment of more compact, mirrorless system cameras.

I realize that I am on thin ice, but it further seems that "entry level" FF cameras aren't a great cash cow for neither Canon nor Nikon??? Others in this thread have hinted that this market segment may be saturated and I have a feeling that they may be right......

........I would love to see some of RICOHs internal market intelligence reports.

09-18-2013, 08:33 AM - 1 Like   #47
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,427
QuoteOriginally posted by Stone G. Quote
Solid information is impossible to find (annual reports do their best NOT to reveal market shares, profits and trends), but if one scrutinizes the Net for whatever information there can be found and whatever the value of that information is, indicators are that the growth is to be found in the segment of more compact, mirrorless system cameras.
Except if searching the CIPA data, which shows the production and shipment volumes for different categories of cameras (and lenses). Then, one might find out there is no growth on the MILCs.
09-18-2013, 10:13 AM   #48
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Except if searching the CIPA data, which shows the production and shipment volumes for different categories of cameras (and lenses). Then, one might find out there is no growth on the MILCs.
Depending on what you are looking at... 5 years ago Jan-July shipments of interchangeable lens cameras was 5mm units worth Y295b. This year the SLR segment is up to 7.5mm units but yen value wise things are pretty much flat to 5 years ago at Y300b. The ILC is at 1.5mm and Y51b. But that's being ignorant of margins, which the companies guard.

Year over year, Jan-July shipments in the overall segment are 81.2/81.5% of last year. SLR's are 81.3/81%, ILC's 80.5/81.6%... Which means, the value of shipments fell less for ILC's than for SLR's year over year.
09-18-2013, 10:26 AM   #49
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,427
Hold your horses; your claim was that "growth is to be found in the segment of [...] mirrorless system camera"; and now you're telling us that it's at slightly over 80% over the previous year? What kind of growth is that?
And arguing about such minor differences, when the camera makers are facing an over production / over inventory crisis, come on...

09-18-2013, 11:14 AM   #50
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
LOL, go back the past 3-4 years. The market has bounced up and down... the year they first broke out ILC it accounted for 1/2 of the total category growth.

I myself did not claim that growth is to be found there; this year that's nowhere. But the ILC is less bad than the others, money value wise, and I suspect in profitability.

In a bad time, anything that helps maintain margin, or at least bring in revenue, is better than nothing.
09-18-2013, 01:41 PM - 1 Like   #51
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,427
QuoteOriginally posted by Nesster Quote
I myself did not claim that growth is to be found there; this year that's nowhere. But the ILC is less bad than the others, money value wise, and I suspect in profitability.
My apologies, it was Stone G. who made that claim. But still, you said "Depending on what you are looking at" - and it appears as you're supporting that claim.
Your belief that MILCs are doing better (or "less bad") than DSLRs is unfounded. The DSLR market continues to be much larger (4.8 times in volume, 5.9 times in value), and the DSLRs are on average about 21-22% more expensive than MILCs.

The year CIPA first separated ILCs in SLR and MILCs is 2012. More DSLRs were made/shipped that year than the total ILCs (SLRs+MILCs), in 2011; which means the DSLR growth in 2012 was bigger than the entire 2011 MILC production.
What else am I supposed to see?
09-18-2013, 04:28 PM   #52
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
My apologies, it was Stone G. who made that claim. But still, you said "Depending on what you are looking at" - and it appears as you're supporting that claim.
Your belief that MILCs are doing better (or "less bad") than DSLRs is unfounded. The DSLR market continues to be much larger (4.8 times in volume, 5.9 times in value), and the DSLRs are on average about 21-22% more expensive than MILCs.

The year CIPA first separated ILCs in SLR and MILCs is 2012. More DSLRs were made/shipped that year than the total ILCs (SLRs+MILCs), in 2011; which means the DSLR growth in 2012 was bigger than the entire 2011 MILC production.
What else am I supposed to see?
Except the reason they separated the MILC's from the DSLR's in the first place was to account for their surge in volume in the context of the entire market.
09-18-2013, 04:41 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 325
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
FF is a dead end anyway

PhotoRumors has been reporting for a long time that Canon is seriously looking at a digital MF, as is Nikon now too.

Great, even more cameras I cannot afford. Maybe in another 3 years I will be able to pick up a used 645d for a couple grand. To bad "new" lenses are so pricey. Maybe Pentax will release a budget zoom.

09-19-2013, 12:47 AM   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,427
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Except the reason they separated the MILC's from the DSLR's in the first place was to account for their surge in volume in the context of the entire market.
So what? DSLRs grew as well, and not by a small margin.
09-19-2013, 01:20 AM   #55
Site Supporter
Stone G.'s Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Zealand, Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,510
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
My apologies, it was Stone G. who made that claim. But still, you said "Depending on what you are looking at" - and it appears as you're supporting that claim.
- - - - -
Indeed, it was I who made that "claim" - - - - with all the reservations that I also made.

And I am stil kind of inclined to stick to that claim/speculation, but I might clarify as follows:

"...........whatever the value of that information is, indicators are that the future growth (if any) is to be found in the segment of more compact, mirrorless system cameras.

And I still have my doubts that "slightly cheaper and slightly better" would be a viable strategy in the current market situation and financial climate. Working in the high-tech industry myself, I know the costs of launching a new product and setting up a new manufacturing line.
09-19-2013, 03:19 AM   #56
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 8,427
Thank you for the clarification.
At some point in the future, this might (will?) become true; I won't argue about it except to say we're nowhere near there.

By the way, I'm not supporting the "slightly cheaper and slightly better" strategy. I doubt that "slightly" could make a good enough USP
09-19-2013, 03:56 AM   #57
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
... and yet, in the pre-automation 35mm era, Ricoh, Yashica, and others made a living doing slightly cheaper with features ... it's good while it lasts, but as a manufacturer you have to be ruthless in cutting costs.
09-19-2013, 06:31 AM   #58
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 8,939
QuoteOriginally posted by Aristophanes Quote
Make a slightly better product at a slightly lower price.
I don't think many people are prepared to abandon their sunk cost (lenses) and change a system just because a competitor has a slightly better product at a slightly lower price.

Also, now that Canon/Nikon have their budget FF versions out, they can adjust the price as needed. Prior to that Canon/Nikon would not have been able to tee off their premium clientèle by lowering prices of their top shelf products.

As a result, a Pentax FF will have a harder time to gain a following outside core Pentaxians. I'm not saying there is no chance to be successful anymore. Of course there is, in particular, if the new product shows some real innovation. But the easy sells should be pretty much gone by now.
09-19-2013, 06:51 AM   #59
Veteran Member
Nesster's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: NJ USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 13,047
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
But the easy sells should be pretty much gone by now.
I personally attest to that.
09-19-2013, 06:53 AM   #60
Site Supporter
Aristophanes's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Dartmouth, Nova Scotia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,790
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I don't think many people are prepared to abandon their sunk cost (lenses) and change a system just because a competitor has a slightly better product at a slightly lower price.

Also, now that Canon/Nikon have their budget FF versions out, they can adjust the price as needed. Prior to that Canon/Nikon would not have been able to tee off their premium clientèle by lowering prices of their top shelf products.

As a result, a Pentax FF will have a harder time to gain a following outside core Pentaxians. I'm not saying there is no chance to be successful anymore. Of course there is, in particular, if the new product shows some real innovation. But the easy sells should be pretty much gone by now.
Depends on how sunk they are. Nikon has a habit of over-pricing (Coolpix A). A variety of lenses aimed at lowering the total cost of ownership. Unique FL's. Modestly different styling. BTO.

Sometimes it is better not to be first.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
full-frame, pentax
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Are we really THAT rare? abmj Pentax DSLR Discussion 4653 17 Hours Ago 01:27 PM
Would you buy the first FF if it is a K-01 or wait for the FF DSLR? slackercruster Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 07-18-2012 10:09 PM
Should I wait for FF? Considering upgrade from my old SLR Hmm Pentax DSLR Discussion 44 12-27-2011 08:54 AM
How long will you wait for a Pentax FF? johnmflores Pentax DSLR Discussion 74 06-02-2010 03:16 AM
Move to K-7 or Wait for K-8/FF? henryjing Pentax DSLR Discussion 60 04-22-2010 11:49 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:43 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top