Interesting read by Thom Hogan

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
GaryW
Veteran MemberPosts: 6,772Gear list
Like?
Re: Room for both? Like view cameras, maybe, maybe not.
In reply to Russell Evans, 5 months ago

Russell Evans wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

...dslr's may not literally die out any more than view cameras have, although due to their manufacturing complexity they are at much greater risk.

Not really. The manufacturing cost of mirror, or no mirror, is pretty negligible when you consider the cost of adding the extra electronics needed for an EVF.

Are you sure? It seems to me like there are lots of bits that need precise alignment. Moving parts, parts that can get dirty, lots of points of potential failure. Having said that, it sure seems pretty reliable. I've got really old mostly mechanical film cameras that still work. If made today, I can't imagine how much they would cost! I think a lot of the cost is the assembly, and the fewer fiddly parts to work on, the cheaper. The cost of an EVF has to be weighed not just against a few plastic and glass parts, but the labor involved. Plus a good pentaprism has to have some cost. And the PDAF sensor. And associated electronics. Surely?

For all I know somebody still makes typewriters, even though had I made my statement about typewriters three years after the PC came out, I would have been as correct about that as I am about this. That took probably 15 years? This won't take that long.

Personal computers made people more productive, made work easier, and increased profits. There's nothing that is driving the adoption of mirrorless cameras other than personal preference.

Some brands of personal computers died out completely, some of which were quite good.  It is almost as if it's difficult to have 3 or more competitors, whether it's computers or videogames or cameras.  Weird.

Anyway, while I hated to see the other computer brands die off, we get better economies of scale the way things are now.

Here's the thing, if any company in the industry is telling themselves your kind of razor story, they are certainly dead. Over and over again this story plays out. Suppose I had told you in 1995 that Kodak was dead? The giant of the industry. Gone.

Did the microwave kill the stove?

The electric stove replaced the wood-burning stove. ??

I've read that people often say things like buggy-whip manufacturers were put out of business due to technology changes, but yet there are buggy-whip manufacturers today. Well, there are still horses today, but it isn't exactly the mode of transportation that it once was. DSLRs may be like that -- only for the high-end, special purpose jobs.

I'll bet that the margins on the A3000 when retailed at the sale price of $300 are 2x those of the D3200 sold at $439, and it takes better pictures.

The D3200 and D5200 are probably made of 90% of the same materials and probably 70% of the parts in the other Nikon DSLR bodies are common. Nikon sold what, 7 million DSLRs last year? We know DSLRs outsell mirrorless at, what is it 4 or 5 to one? That's a lot of economy of scale to make up by removing the mirror and throwing a cheap LCD and EVF in a box.

This sounds like an argument for Sony to throw in the towel and not bother trying to compete with Canikon.

Furthermore, Nikon has to pay Sony for the chip in that thing. Sony can put the retail price squeeze on Nikon at the low end to the point that the only margins in the Nikon camera are being realized by Sony. Do you realize what a miserable competitive position that is to be in? Nikon has Sony supplying them with sensors top to bottom while Sony is putting those same sensors into cameras that cost half a much to make using many of those same sensors. That is a classically horrible competitive position to be in.

Cuts both ways. Sony can't keep its sensor factories open without someone buying them. Nikon with Toshiba probably caused more than a few sleepless nights for Sony executives.

Yes, Nikon should have to keep the pressure on Sony so as not to be taken advantage of.  However, it is interesting that the core of the machine is the sensor, and Nikon often uses Sony.

Hogan is clueless. Bowing his violin while his city burns.

I agree that he is not seeing the entire picture , but DSLRs aren't going to die out.

They don't have to die out completely.  If they're pushed to a tiny niche and the vast majority of cameras look like DSLRs but have EVFs and OSPDAF, then effectively, the mirror is dead.  Not that it should matter if people are able to use the new cameras effectively.

The photography market is simply going to be more diverse, where more of the pie is split more ways. Nikon might fail if it can't deal with it's previous debt in a shrinking market, but it won't disappear. It will restructure, blah, blah, blah...

Thank you
Russell

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Cyber-shot DSC-V3 Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX5 Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 +10 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
YepNew
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow