[mecrox]

The pieces went down but the prices went up. Overall it was a 4.6% reduction in value, for DSLR's. Doesn't seem so terrible to me, especially given the major launches in 2012/early 2013, whereas thus far in 2014 it's been fairly quiet on the DSLR front.

I can't see this on the figs, where did you get it? Overall the CIPA page for May says that the cash value of DSLR shipments worldwide is running at 86.2 per cent of the same period for last year (Jan-May). The cash value of total MILC shipments worldwide is running at 138.5 per cent of the value over the same period compared to last year. If I have read this right ... and within the figures there is considerable regional variation (Asia not bad, Americas not good, etc).

However, I am bearing in mind that these are shipments. The products have yet to sell and sell at a good price too - or the figures go down of course. It's perhaps too early to tell whether some kind of massaging is going on - e.g. the camera-makers are inflating their expectations of higher unit prices and hence their turnover to keep their stockholders happy whereas the reality later in the year might be sales, price cuts and all the rest, leading to figures even more dire than those here.

We really need someone with the background experience to assess these figures. I'm just a layman. But they don't look all that good to me. Tough times, surely.

[ElJamoquio]

The total number of pieces went down, say it's a .86 multiplier. The total value went down, say it's a .95 multiplier (not looking at numbers).

.95/.86 = approx 1.09.

[eyeswideshut]

Oh, and how did that strategy of not trying to offer pro cameras in the 35mm area work? Oh right, Canon and Nikon absolutely dominate the market, and Pentax was in the meantime sold a few times and is on life support.

Assuming Pentax' declining fortunes were attributable to not attacking the professional market, is there anything in Pentax' posture now that makes you think they are changing their strategy? And do you have any idea how difficult that would be to do now that the steaks are claimed and the claims are staked?

Remember how long Canon tried to get where they are today?. They started with professional 35mm slrs in the early seventies and were finally considered Nikons equal when? In the 1990's or maybe even only ten years later in the digital age. Anyway you look at it, and even if you only start to count after the introduction of the eos mount, it took them years and years and years of dogged, tenacious trying. Not sure that is in the cards for Pentax.
It's just too easy to throw words like "professional" into a discussion - but it takes real determination and cash to actually place as many Pentax cameras into the Stadium in São Paulo as there were CaNikons during tonight's game Argentina vs. Switzerland. I did not see a single one.

Ok. I'm saying Pentax should go after pros, yes, which means doing stills and video (IMHO a K-3 is perfectly capable for professional work, except for a few areas, and as long as video isn't a requirement (I know Lauren is a pro videographer using Pentax, and I can understand her reasons, but Pentax is not common in the video field, for good reasons)).

If they have done that on the video side, they can do the same camera with a FF sensor (more or less) and have a differentiator that can drive sales towards the FF Pentax to make it profitable.

A FF Pentax A7 would have minimal development costs (even production would be outsourced), so that it does not distract Pentax from doing APS-C and perhaps other exciting things. I simply don't think a FF Pentax, alongside new lenses, developed from scratch (or at least from the K-3) would at this point be profitable. If they get down those costs and the impact on Pentax' R&D department then why not? I do see advantages to them offering FF. It's just not worth it in the end.

I'd put my money on mirrorless. It's a growth market.

I'm just as dubious about video as I am about Pentax catering to the 35mm professional market. The marriage of Video and Stills will play itself out in the area of mirrorless cameras, not in the area of the dslr. These were brought into the picture only because Canon doesn't do mirrorless at the ff level yet and they did such an excellent job on the 5d for video. The future belongs rather to Sony and Panasonic and anyone else following down the mirrorless track. Of course, that could include Pentax too, and personally I am convinced that an aps-c and/or ff mirrorless camera with a new mount is only a question of time. But professional video too?

As regards rebadging Sony's A7, I was convinced everyone was joking, but now I get the sense you are serious! Wouldn't it be easier for Pentax to just offer an adapter with pdaf integration like Sony did for it's legacy a mount lenses?

In the meantime I'm quite happy with the OM-D to quench my mirrorless thirst. And if I should ever want professional equipment (whatever that actually means) I might save up for a Leica

[mecrox]

The total number of pieces went down, say it's a .86 multiplier. The total value went down, say it's a .95 multiplier (not looking at numbers).

.95/.86 = approx 1.09.

ah, I can see where you're coming from but that only works if your company has held on to its sales or even improved them. If sales are down industry-wide, not every company will have held on to its share. The multiplier is mitigation but the pain is still going to land somewhere, I'd imagine.

And bear in mind that the DSLR figures for 2013 we are comparing to 2014 are themselves down on the figures for 2012, so the shrinkage is definitely there.

[ElJamoquio]

ah, I can see where you're coming from but that only works if your company has held on to its sales or even improved them. If sales are down industry-wide, not every company will have held on to its share. The multiplier is mitigation but the pain is still going to land somewhere, I'd imagine.

Yup, and it looks like the pain is at the bottom end of the market. I'd assume that to be the cameras from $400-$1200... hey, isn't that where Pentax is?

[philbaum]

The pieces went down but the prices went up. Overall it was a 4.6% reduction in value, for DSLR's. Doesn't seem so terrible to me, especially given the major launches in 2012/early 2013, whereas thus far in 2014 it's been fairly quiet on the DSLR front.

I don't think that's accurate, the 4.6% loss of value is listed under the "Production" heading, under the "Shipment" heading, they show a loss of DSLR Shipment value as 13.2% Even the 13.2% shipped reduction in value is probably hokey - because when they sell these dslrs, they may have to discount them even more. Sony seems to be doing a lot of discounting in recent months.

[ElJamoquio]

I don't think that's accurate, the 4.6% loss of value is listed under the "Production" heading, under the "Shipment" heading, they show a loss of DSLR Shipment value as 13.2% Even the 13.2% shipped reduction in value is probably hokey - because when they sell these dslrs, they may have to discount them even more. Sony seems to be doing a lot of discounting in recent months.

OK, but I'm arguing that the DSLR market is getting higher-end. If you want to use 'shipment' rather than 'production' numbers, that's fine.

The increase in average price of a produced camera went up 8.9%. The increase in average price of a shipped camera went up 7.8%.

Whether you pick 8% or 9%, it seems pretty obvious that the DSLR's that are actually produced/sold are MORE expensive this year than last, even though, in 2014, there weren't any notable DSLR releases.

The conclusion is the same.

[philbaum]

I thought this was the Pentax forum. Did I somehow wander into the Minolta forum?

Nope, you're in the Pentax Forum - but the thread says: Full Frame Not Practical in the Long Run. One can't really discuss the practicality of Pentax issuing a FF without discussing what's happening in the marketplace and to other makers. Especially when any number of former Pentax owners have gone into two systems or left Pentax all-together. To pretend that Pentax is unaffected by what other makers are doing, is just a fantasy discussion in my opinion. And of course, the discussion branches off to: If FF is going to be made - what should it look like.

You've been around a while - you know the drill of any number of these discussions.

---------- Post added 07-01-14 at 02:00 PM ----------

OK, but I'm arguing that the DSLR market is getting higher-end. If you want to use 'shipment' rather than 'production' numbers, that's fine.

The increase in average price of a produced camera went up 8.9%. The increase in average price of a shipped camera went up 7.8%.

Whether you pick 8% or 9%, it seems pretty obvious that the DSLR's that are actually produced/sold are MORE expensive this year than last, even though, in 2014, there weren't any notable DSLR releases.

The conclusion is the same.

I'm not sure what they mean by Production Value. Perhaps Production Value means the list price for the manufactured cameras and Shipment Value means what the dealers paid for them at shipping time. Probably what you and I would like to know is the "sales value"

Why would you say that they are more expensive this year than last - just asking - i don't have an opinion on this one. Sure the higher end dslrs are more expensive, but then there are also a lot of entry level cams that are sold for lower prices. You may well be right.

[ElJamoquio]

Nope, you're in the Pentax Forum - but the thread says: Full Frame Not Practical in the Long Run. One can't really discuss the practicality of Pentax issuing a FF without discussing what's happening in the marketplace and to other makers. Especially when any number of former Pentax owners have gone into two systems or left Pentax all-together. To pretend that Pentax is unaffected by what other makers are doing, is just a fantasy discussion in my opinion. And of course, the discussion branches off to: If FF is going to be made - what should it look like.

You've been around a while - you know the drill of any number of these discussions.

Pentax makes mirrorless cameras! The post I was responding to said this was an SLR manufacturer forum. It's not, it's PentaxForums. Pentax makes SLR's, and MILC's, and I think by reasonable definitions, P&S cameras too. Even if someone is an ultra literalist, Pentax is not just a maker of SLR's.

---------- Post added 07-01-14 at 02:03 PM ----------

I'm not sure what they mean by Production Value. Perhaps Production Value means the list price for the manufactured cameras and Shipment Value means what the dealers paid for them at shipping time. Probably what you and I would like to know is the "sales value"

Why would you say that they are more expensive this year than last - just asking - i don't have an opinion on this one. Sure the higher end dslrs are more expensive, but then there are also a lot of entry level cams that are sold for lower prices. You may well be right.

If the number of units shipped goes down by 50%, but the total value of shipments only goes down by 25%, the average value per piece shipped has gone up, correct?

[Kunzite]

Pentax makes mirrorless cameras! The post I was responding to said this was an SLR manufacturer forum. It's not, it's PentaxForums. Pentax makes SLR's, and MILC's, and I think by reasonable definitions, P&S cameras too. Even if someone is an ultra literalist, Pentax is not just a maker of SLR's.

I never said that Pentax only makes SLRs. But, they're traditionally a SLR brand and their main systems - K and 645 - are SLRs. They have no large sensor mirrorless mount capable of supporting a "full frame" sensor. They show no sign of entering the large sensor mirrorless market. They stated that a Pentax "full frame" should be a SLR.
Choosing Pentax then complaining about the lack of a large sensor mirrorless (usually disguised as the "DSLRs are dying, MILCs are the future" mantra) is absurd.

[eyeswideshut]

I never said that Pentax only makes SLRs. But, they're traditionally a SLR brand and their main systems - K and 645 - are SLRs. They have no large sensor mirrorless mount capable of supporting a "full frame" sensor. They show no sign of entering the large sensor mirrorless market. They stated that a Pentax "full frame" should be a SLR.
Choosing Pentax then complaining about the lack of a large sensor mirrorless (usually disguised as the "DSLRs are dying, MILCs are the future" mantra) is absurd.

In fairness, just because "Pentax" don't have a "large sensor mirrorless mount", doesn't mean that Ricoh don't Mirrorless is kind of at the heart of Ricoh Cameras.

[Kunzite]

There's a Ricohforums just for that
(or is it?)

[eyeswideshut]

There's a Ricohforums just for that
(or is it?)

That division is a bit of a legacy perhaps?

[ElJamoquio]

I never said that Pentax only makes SLRs. But, they're traditionally a SLR brand and their main systems - K and 645 - are SLRs. They have no large sensor mirrorless mount capable of supporting a "full frame" sensor. They show no sign of entering the large sensor mirrorless market. They stated that a Pentax "full frame" should be a SLR.
Choosing Pentax then complaining about the lack of a large sensor mirrorless (usually disguised as the "DSLRs are dying, MILCs are the future" mantra) is absurd.

It can be argued Olympus, Canon, Nikon, etc, were all traditionally SLR brands.

So what? I think most people are like me, and think of all of them as camera manufacturers, not SLR manufacturers.

[Kunzite]

Olympus gave up on being a SLR brand long time ago (well, their fixed lens IS series were SLRs - but that was a way of avoiding to build and support a system); then restarted with the 4/3 and gave up again. Canon and Nikon are dominating the SLR market, so I'm not sure why are you mentioning them?

Oh, yes - and the "most people" (a synonym for you and perhaps few others?) would think of Lamborghini as a car manufacturer, not a supercar manufacturer. Then they would go to Lamborghini forums and complain why they're not making economic hybrids, because that's the future.
Sorry, but a brand identity is most important as it's allowing you to choose the one that fits your needs and preferences. It makes no sense whatsoever to consider all brands "the same", randomly go with one then spent time "explaining" why that brand should make other types of products.