[monochrome]

Sigma not making lenses in K-mount. In the long run, that's probably more sales for Pentax.

I was just today developing a thought line that Ricoh must view their opportunity set differently than we traditional camera users must view it. Our response to Ricoh not behaving as we expect they would is to stamp our feet and demand they make what we want and threaten to leave and posit dire consequences if Ricoh doesn't shape up.

Many have said they want a different camera company - maybe we're getting it. I'd bet they're pretty smart cats.

[ElJamoquio]

The Mirrorless Revolution:
The Mirrorless Revolution

Not everyone has the same equipment needs as Kevin Raber and Michael Reichmann but they both talk about their personal migration from medium format, to full-frame DSLR, and now to mirrorless cameras. The market is changing and I just hope Pentax has more than a rainbow of colors to offer customers. Sony is rumored to be launching 15 new lenses for the FE mount over the next year. Sony has thrown so much mud on the wall the last few years, they may have finally found something that sticks.

People talk about the size advantage of APS-C over full-frame, but the reality is that the advantage only exists for longer glass. Pentax users are always quick to point out that most of the small DA Limited lenses will cover a FF image circle, and the 31mm, 43mm, & 77mm lenses are all very compact even by APS-C standards. It's not until you get to longer glass and zooms that you see a size advantage for APS-C. Zack Arias did the recent video where he explains that the size difference between APS-C and FF is just not that much, and the APS-C apologists all jumped for joy. The A7 sells for about the same price as the Fuji X-T1. The camera bodies are practically the same size. With the Sony A7 however, you get 50% more mega pickles and a sensor that has 2.33x the surface area than APS-C. I actually prefer the Fuji system as it exists today over the Sony FE system, but that may change. If Sony ever hires an engineer who understands camera ergonomics, and adds the A6000 AF to the A7 line they will have a very appealing system.

I love, love, love the Sony ergonomics.

[Winder]

I love, love, love the Sony ergonomics.

I really want to love the A7r. Sony is doing a lot of things right with the A7 line and in many ways its exactly what I'm looking for. The 55mm lens is excellent and more high end glass is on the way. I want to see the next generation with improved ergonomics and AF. The 24MP sensor in the more robust A7r body.

[Uluru]

..
Many have said they want a different camera company - maybe we're getting it. I'd bet they're pretty smart cats.

Maybe they are happy just the way the are? Anything more serious could mean over-stretching of their resources, chances, and they would not do it.
Then in a few years they will update that what they already have, and that's it. Maybe they abhor any more serious risk taking.
For example, they made just a bit unusual K-S1 because they have K3 and K50 and K500 already; but the K-S1 is still well within the K-mount ground and familiarity of use.

[jsherman999]

Maybe they abhor any more serious risk taking.

This.

[Uluru]

This.

The whole world is in state of some sort of "seek for an all new truth". Nothing of old seems to be good enough or desirable. It must be abandoned, forgotten. Traditional moral values, quit with them, this old institution, go away with it. Etc. It is a state of mind and prejudice very amplified through modern digital tech when it comes to tools we use.

Photography camera market is no exception from that rule of behaviour and that is why in it we have some players playing strongly on totally new and quirky and risky, and some players still being cautious and not giving up on their rich history. Those former are called progressives and those latter are then called laggards.

The issue in itself, funnily, is not in the realm of goal — the quality of the photographic experience and the image — but the whole issue in this hustle is in the "tool" and the goal is forced into that area alone. Tool is measurable, it can be objectivised and therefore "classified as such as such". But the intangibles — the final aesthetic product and the experience — cannot. Objective truth one can share with anyone and can be proven, but intangibles cannot — they depend on our inner vision and ability to see beyond things.

That is why companies like Sony, Olympus and Fujifilm are seen as "inventors" ready to risk enormously, and companies like Nikon or Pentax as "dinosaurs" averse to risk, which should be "far better to abandon their old lenses, mounts, etc" and embrace "the new paradigm".

It is French Revolution's mob like mindset; under the desire "for change for the better", there is a lot of pure crime and incongruent thought committed in the name of "progress", that won't turn out into anything positive for all of us, but only create confusion. If Ricoh Imaging is at least a little aware of it, they will be mindful and won't risk too much but think really hard. As Monochrome said, that may well be the case.

Of course, the comparison may not be direct, but as Mark Twin said, the history does not repeat itself, but it surely rhymes.

[Fogel70]

The whole world is in state of some sort of "seek for an all new truth". Nothing of old seems to be good enough or desirable. It must be abandoned, forgotten. Traditional moral values, quit with them, this old institution, go away with it. Etc. It is a state of mind and prejudice very amplified through modern digital tech when it comes to tools we use.

Photography camera market is no exception from that rule of behaviour and that is why in it we have some players playing strongly on totally new and quirky and risky, and some players still being cautious and not giving up on their rich history. Those former are called progressives and those latter are then called laggards.

The issue in itself, funnily, is not in the realm of goal — the quality of the photographic experience and the image — but the whole issue in this hustle is in the "tool" and the goal is forced into that area alone. Tool is measurable, it can be objectivised and therefore "classified as such as such". But the intangibles — the final aesthetic product and the experience — cannot. Objective truth one can share with anyone and can be proven, but intangibles cannot — they depend on our inner vision and ability to see beyond things.

That is why companies like Sony, Olympus and Fujifilm are seen as "inventors" ready to risk enormously, and companies like Nikon or Pentax as "dinosaurs" averse to risk, which should be "far better to abandon their old lenses, mounts, etc" and embrace "the new paradigm".

It is French Revolution's mob like mindset; under the desire "for change for the better", there is a lot of pure crime and incongruent thought committed in the name of "progress", that won't turn out into anything positive for all of us, but only create confusion. If Ricoh Imaging is at least a little aware of it, they will be mindful and won't risk too much but think really hard. As Monochrome said, that may well be the case.

It's not about abandon the existing market, it's about embracing new markets TOO. When camera segment get divided in several new segments, it might not be enough to keep the market share in one of the segments to survive. In less than decade a dominating segment might become a niche segment, and if you are a small player you might not survive this shift.

A market share of 5% of the whole ILC market might be good enough, but 5% of a niche segment that are 25% or less of the whole market might not be enough to survive on.
As it take 4-5 years do develop a new platform, it might be too late to start the design for a new market segment when you already lost a major part of your market share in the previous segment.

Nikon and Pentax was once among the leader in innovation of cameras. This was done in the SLR segment as it was the segment in the front on technology development. Today the market is more diversified and innovation is split in several markets. Where the future is heading is uncertain, so it's important to be present in many different markets.

In the case on Nikon they once started camera manufacturing in Range Finder segment, then a decade later they embraced something new and trendy called SLR. I bet there where lots of existing users moaning about that too. But where would Nikon be today if they didn't believe in embracing new markets.

Pentax (Asahi) have changed mounts twice on SLR cameras as the old one became too obsolete and was not possible to support future development. If Ricoh want Pentax to be something close to what it once was, they need to expand into new markets. They need to make Pentax an interesting brand for everyone looking for new cameras. They need to make the Pentax and Ricoh brands much stronger in the imaging/camera business. Not just a brand that is remembered by senior citizens as once among the greatest.

[mecrox]

The whole world is in state of some sort of "seek for an all new truth". Nothing of old seems to be good enough or desirable. It must be abandoned, forgotten. Traditional moral values, quit with them, this old institution, go away with it. Etc. It is a state of mind and prejudice very amplified through modern digital tech when it comes to tools we use.

Photography camera market is no exception from that rule of behaviour and that is why in it we have some players playing strongly on totally new and quirky and risky, and some players still being cautious and not giving up on their rich history. Those former are called progressives and those latter are then called laggards.

The issue in itself, funnily, is not in the realm of goal — the quality of the photographic experience and the image — but the whole issue in this hustle is in the "tool" and the goal is forced into that area alone. Tool is measurable, it can be objectivised and therefore "classified as such as such". But the intangibles — the final aesthetic product and the experience — cannot. Objective truth one can share with anyone and can be proven, but intangibles cannot — they depend on our inner vision and ability to see beyond things.

That is why companies like Sony, Olympus and Fujifilm are seen as "inventors" ready to risk enormously, and companies like Nikon or Pentax as "dinosaurs" averse to risk, which should be "far better to abandon their old lenses, mounts, etc" and embrace "the new paradigm".

It is French Revolution's mob like mindset; under the desire "for change for the better", there is a lot of pure crime and incongruent thought committed in the name of "progress", that won't turn out into anything positive for all of us, but only create confusion. If Ricoh Imaging is at least a little aware of it, they will be mindful and won't risk too much but think really hard. As Monochrome said, that may well be the case.

Of course, the comparison may not be direct, but as Mark Twin said, the history does not repeat itself, but it surely rhymes.

The CIPA stats for July are just out. So far as I can tell, they continue the story this year: overall sales well down; DSLR sales down, not so much in Japan and Asia but noticeably so in Europe and the Americas; MILC/non-reflex sales up again noticeably so in Europe and the Americas but NB they are from a very much lower base than DSLRs. The gap between DSLRs and MILC sales is pretty wide in Europe and the Americas (5.5:1, e.g.) but not so wide in Asia and smallest in Japan (2:1 or so). In value terms, DSLR sales in Japan and Asia are slightly up on last year which is a good performance, I think. The markets which have tanked are Europe and the Americas.

Anyway, if DSLR sales are falling (for example, running at 68 per cent by volume and 73 per cent by value compared to last year in the Americas), then the growth is coming from MILCs even if in total cash terms it's still pretty puny (in the Americas, MILC/non-reflex sales are running at 125 per cent by volume and 167 per cent by value over last year but are still only about a fifth of the cash value coming in from DSLR sales).

Overall, the industry has lost around 33 per cent by volume and 15-17 per cent by value over the same period last year.

The industry's shipment's are now running at 38 per cent by volume and 59 per cent by value compared to 2012. In the case of DSLRs only, shipments are running at 61 per cent by volume and 67 per cent by value compared to 2012. In the case of MILC sales only, shipments are running at 92 per cent by volume and 119 per cent by value compared to 2012. Total shipments of MILCs are now 29-30 per cent of the total value of DSLR shipments.

(Since cash is king, that last ratio might be a good one to watch. It might be no surprise if Ricoh have decided to run HMS DSLR until she sinks of old age - she can still carry passengers and they won't notice she's running with a skeleton crew on low-cost fuel - and in the meantime prepare a MILC line to replace it. The sooner that is out, the less trouble they will have establishing it when/if Canikon decide to switch their lower-end offerings to a new form factor.)

E&OE. I'd check these figures if I were me.

[Jean Poitiers]

The CIPA stats for July are just out. So far as I can tell, they continue the story this year: overall sales well down; ...

Thanks for your post ... interesting trends if they keep going in their directions. Salut, J

[GlassJunkie]

The CIPA stats for July are just out. So far as I can tell, they continue the story this year: overall sales well down; DSLR sales down, not so much in Japan and Asia but noticeably so in Europe and the Americas; MILC/non-reflex sales up again noticeably so in Europe and the Americas but NB they are from a much lower base than DSLRs. The gap between DSLRs and MILC sales is pretty wide in Europe and the Americas (5.5:1, e.g.) but not so wide in Asia and smallest in Japan (2:1 or so). In value terms, DSLR sales in Japan and Asia are slightly up on last year which is a good performance, I think. The markets which have tanked are Europe and the Americas.

Anyway, if DSLR sales are falling (for example, running at 68 per cent by volume and 73 per cent by value compared to last year in the Americas), then the growth is coming from MILCs even if in total cash terms it's still pretty puny (in the Americas, MILC/non-reflex sales are running at 125 per cent by volume and 167 per cent by value over last year but are still only about a fifth of the cash value coming in from DSLR sales).

It would be no surprise if Ricoh have decided to run HMS DSLR until she sinks of old age - she can still carry passengers and they won't notice she's running with a skeleton crew on the cheapest fuel Ricoh can find - and in the meantime prepare a MILC line to replace it. The sooner that is out, the less trouble they will have establishing it when Canikon decide to switch their lower-end offerings to a new form factor.

Overall, the industry has lost around 33 per cent by volume and 15-17 per cent by value over the same period last year. Where I live, some companies are deemed in crisis and turn-around doctors sent in if their performance dips by 3-5 per cent.

The industry's shipment's are now running at 38 per cent by volume and 59 per cent by value compared to 2012.

For those of us that don't have time to ferret out the gems, we appreciate what you posted. I agree with most of your analysis. I would add the deflation in price and currencies may be affecting the sales dollars by 8-10% of the gap, meaning that your comment on "well down" is surely true. I am not surprised and since there are "plateaus" in most technologies that exacerbate these plateaus (look at laptop, tablet, cell phone lifecycle charts), I suspect we are in one now. The ramp up of resolution to ~24mp in APSc has forced a plateau. Funny thing is one needs 50mp in a 36x24mm sensor to resolve as well. I suspect that Pentax knows there is a FF saturation rate and went with 645z as the high end alternative.

A 24mp FF sensor is dead technology (equivalent resolution to a 12mp APSc in pitch/resolution, and a 36mp FF is a roughly 18mp APSc equivalent. Both are old news. The math tells me that the 645z is between a 24mp APSC and a 36mpFF in resolving power.

Anyone want to know why CanNikon has no 50mp FF yet? My take (IMHO), their glass cant take it (out resolved)

[mecrox]

For those of us that don't have time to ferret out the gems, we appreciate what you posted. I agree with most of your analysis. I would add the deflation in price and currencies may be affecting the sales dollars by 8-10% of the gap, meaning that your comment on "well down" is surely true. I am not surprised and since there are "plateaus" in most technologies that exacerbate these plateaus (look at laptop, tablet, cell phone lifecycle charts), I suspect we are in one now. The ramp up of resolution to ~24mp in APSc has forced a plateau. Funny thing is one needs 50mp in a 36x24mm sensor to resolve as well. I suspect that Pentax knows there is a FF saturation rate and went with 645z as the high end alternative.

A 24mp FF sensor is dead technology (equivalent resolution to a 12mp APSc in pitch/resolution, and a 36mp FF is a roughly 18mp APSc equivalent. Both are old news. The math tells me that the 645z is between a 24mp APSC and a 36mpFF in resolving power.

Anyone want to know why CanNikon has no 50mp FF yet? My take (IMHO), their glass cant take it (out resolved)

Lol, I've no dog in the crop vs FF barkfest come ruffhouse howl party. Either or neither is fine by me. Ringside seat (with ear muffs just in case). I do however think that no presence in larger-sensor MILCs is a greater challenge for Pentax long-term since unless they simply give up on the sector they need competitive products in the $400 to $1100 or so range, the bread and butter belt. DSLRs for now maybe, but not for much longer perhaps.

There may be quite a few things which are possible in a buoyant market, like taking regular, mainstream-format cameras up to 50mpx, with lenses to match. But in a contracting market with investors and bankers on your case, perhaps they are no longer worth it.

[philbaum]

The Mirrorless Revolution:
The Mirrorless Revolution

Not everyone has the same equipment needs as Kevin Raber and Michael Reichmann but they both talk about their personal migration from medium format, to full-frame DSLR, and now to mirrorless cameras. The market is changing and I just hope Pentax has more than a rainbow of colors to offer customers. Sony is rumored to be launching 15 new lenses for the FE mount over the next year. Sony has thrown so much mud on the wall the last few years, they may have finally found something that sticks.

Thanks for posting the link. Its an amazing discourse, coming from 2 guys who have purchased it all, from Canon, Nikon to today's mirrorless. It will be fascinating to see what is presented at Photokina compared to the mirrorless revolution. How many Brontosaurus manufacturers will maintain their course - unchanged?

[monochrome]

Interesting numbers, but important to view the current market in context of the previous massive increase in dSLR shipments from a steady base. Conclusions drawn by comparing current shipments versus a hyperbolic historic increase bears risk if misinterpreted, especially when measuring at the factory shipment reporting point instead of the retail sale reporting point..

Not to be a pollyanna - there's plenty of smoke in the dSLR market. I suspect predictions of the death by attrition of the mirror box are premature.

[normhead]

A 24mp FF sensor is dead technology (equivalent resolution to a 12mp APSc in pitch/resolution, and a 36mp FF is a roughly 18mp APSc equivalent. Both are old news. The math tells me that the 645z is between a 24mp APSC and a 36mpFF in resolving power.

I think you might be losing it. I understand what you're saying I think.... but separating resolving power by pitch irrespective of the size of the sensor is pretty much pointless.
You could also say 24 MP APS-C is almost the same as 24 MP FF in that they both resolve roughly the same number of line pairs, across the whole sensor... your statement is so dependant on context it's almost misleading.

Your use of the term "resolve" is not the context in which it is usually used.

[mecrox]

Interesting numbers, but important to view the current market in context of the previous massive increase in dSLR shipments from a steady base. Conclusions drawn by comparing current shipments versus a hyperbolic historic increase bears risk if misinterpreted, especially when measuring at the factory shipment reporting point instead of the retail sale reporting point..

Not to be a pollyanna - there's plenty of smoke in the dSLR market. I suspect predictions of the death by attrition of the mirror box are premature.

You would have to go back to pre-digital days to find a "steady base". The figures climbed until 2012 and are now declining, but where is the floor? During the digital era, companies have taken on $$$ in infrastructure and overheads and are now faced with trying to shift their lines upmarket and reduce costs to maintain revenue even if they cannot maintain volume. There's not room for everyone to do that even if some companies manage to do it extremely well, I would argue. And some will likely do it well, too. And those overheads! Plenty of smoke there. I think a broad brush for all this is fine, TBH. My guess would be that retail receipts are a bucket of cold water in the circs. Nikon, for example, seem to be in a habit of issuing forecasts which they then have to revise down some months later.