wb2trf: Wow, Canon is in quite a pickle. The big problem is that, in addition to the chronic decline in cameras, the office copier and printer business is also terrible. Somehow I thought that their other lines of business weren't also strategically challenged.
They should make their own adapter for all Canon lenses to Sony bodies and make the adapter work perfectly.
After the dual sensor phone cams hit in 2017, the whole under $1000 dslr market will be plummeting for a few years, the way the compact market did. Mirrorless, who knows but at least its manufacturing cost structure will be better able to take volume declines.
No, of course an EVF isn't without cost. But it doesn't require the precise alignment and tight tolerances of an opto-mechanical assembly. I don't know the costs involved, but I would be surprised if a high quality EVF is more expensive than a high quality OVF/mirror assembly/AF module.
FencerPTS: "Interchangeable lens cameras now account for 49% of total unit sales and 84% of the company's revenue."
Sorry what? Total revenue: 3600 B Yen. Office: 1946 B, Imaging, 1135 B, Others 522 B. How do you get 84% from 1135/3600? My calculator shows that to be 32% of total revenue, not 84%. That's the entire imaging category overall including ink jet printers. Fun fact, Canon is an office equipment company that also makes imaging systems, not a camera company primarily.
Another editorial note: did nobody notice that the effects of foreign exchange rates is the principal reason for the decline? The depreciation of the USD and EUR means that exports result in less revenue - this will be true of every Japanese manufacturer (Sony, Nikon, Olypus, Fujifilm, etc...).
Yet another editorial note: did nobody notice the HUGE cash flow going into investing, i.e. the acquisition of Toshiba Medical Systems Corp? 930 B Yen is even bigger an impact on cash flow than exchange rates.
Yes, the Imaging division accounts for 32% of the company's revenue, but that's not what DPR meant. They meant that interchangeable lens cameras account for 84% of the Imaging division's revenue. They shouldn't have used the term "the company" without explaining what they were talking about.
Take away the OVF, the prism and mirrors, and the AF module, and the DSLR basically becomes a mirrorless camera. Surely the manufacture and precise assembly and alignment of those mechanical and optical components must add some cost?
qaz111111: Well, where is the medium format camera? We are all buying into the high end results. There are zillions of people who want and pay for L glass so they are all ready for the Medium format step up. Rumors have flown for years but nothing has materialized. Let's have it already!
I recall reading that digital medium format sells about 20k units a year. That would presumably include Phase One, Mamiya Leaf, Hasselblad, Leica and Pentax. So, would it be worth the trouble for Canon to enter such a small and crowded market? I'm not so sure.
Marty4650: For God's sake.... exactly how many digital cameras does someone need?
I have around six or seven, plus at least a dozen lenses, and they all work pretty well. How many more cameras do they think they can sell me without offering some truly spectacular improvement over what I already own?
The technology has matured, the market is saturated, and everyone who ever wanted a camera now owns one that works well enough for them. And many people today don't even feel they need cameras because their smart phones are good enough for them.
The digital camera boom ended five years ago.
The number of people who upgrade automatically to get improvements they can't see is rapidly diminishing. Today, the only way to sell a new camera is when an older camera breaks beyond repair or gets stolen or lost.
Yes, but the steep decline we have seen in the compact camera market isn't typical for a saturated market, it's typical for a disrupted market. And there's no question that the smartphone is the culprit there.
I guess the more moderate decline of the ILC market may be more consistent with market saturation.
RJ46: It's no wonder compact sales are down when they aren't even making an effort. Take the Canon S200 for example, it's video was a pathetic 720p24! No wonder people aren't buying it! It's video should have been at least 1080i50 and have the ability to pause during recording in order to provide something better than the average phone.
The fact that smartphones has all but killed the compact camera market, is because they are more convenient, portable and connected, and takes images and video that are good enough for the general public. And yes, some phones take better images and video than many compacts, which doesn't help the case for the compacts.
fotogrofur: No surprises.
But isn't that still a niche market that really can't help compact camera sales reach their former volume?
And the action cam market seems to be pretty saturated at the moment too, with GoPro having reported disappointing sales numbers.
tonyC1994: How are the other two guys doing in terms of profits?
Hard to tell if it's a good or bad thing that cameras are a "hobby business" for Ricoh. Since the imaging division has such a small impact on their overall business, they can afford to run it even at a loss, but otoh they can just as easily shut it down without hurting the corporation as a whole.
Indeed, compact camera sales are down for everyone. It's an industry-wide decline that has nothing to do with individual brands.
Canon still has the largest market share in compacts (and also in system cameras), though, so they aren't really doing any worse than the other camera makers.
TN Args: Are we investors? Never understood the passion for 'market watch' discussions. If, as consumers, we are obsessed with minimizing resale losses, then fear has overtaken passion, And buying gear that is 'less right' because it might resell better (in digital tech for goodness sake!) is a sure sign that you have taken up the wrong hobby.
Or maybe some of us just find it interesting to read about the state of the camera market and of its major players? It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the money we 'invest' in camera gear.
itaibachar: How about Nikon, Sony, Pentax sales?Are they on the rise?
Nikon has apparently lost market share recently, so Canon's #1 position has actually been strengthened, relatively speaking.
photomedium: Oh FuJ! Incredible sloppiness for the amount of $$$ they charge.
It's actually interesting to think about how few stupid cameras we get these days. Every manufacturer used to release a dozen or more compact cameras a year, and now most of them don't even release half that amount. Some don't even make cameras at all. And the cameras that we do get nowadays are generally much better imaging tools than those that were released during the heyday of the digital compact camera.
JonB1975: Did they deliberately wait to do this until the camera has been discontinued? (The X-30 is no longer available in the UK at least)....
The X70 is clearly not intended as a replacement for the X30. A fixed FL camera with an APS-C sensor and no EVF clearly occupies a different position in the market than a zoom lens camera with a much smaller sensor and an EVF. There are really too many differences for them to have the same target market, or be intended to satisfy the same customers.
Ansel Spear: Why do some of you across The Pond insist on referring to lenses and bodies as 'copies' of lenses and bodies?
They are not copies of lenses and bodies. They ARE lenses and bodies in their own, original, genuine bona fide right.
There isn't a 'master' lens or body from which all others are copies. You don't buy a copy of a car or a copy of a can of beans, so why a lens or a body.
Not that I feel strongly about it! :-)
"Using 'copy' in the context of referring to an identical item in a manufacturing production run is plain incorrect. "
No, it is not. It's just that 'copy' in that sense doesn't mean the same thing as in its original sense. Think about buying/comparing/testing two lenses versus buying/comparing/testing two copies of a lens. Do those expressions mean the same thing?
I agree that it's unnecessary to say that you buy a copy of a lens, if you only buy one, but if you buy several, then there's a distinction between several lenses and several copies of a lens.
Like many other words, the word 'copy' has several meanings and usages. Here are two of the meanings from the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
1. an imitation, transcript, or reproduction of an original work
2. one of a series of especially mechanical reproductions of an original impression; also: an individual example of such a reproduction
A camera or lens is not a copy in the first sense, but it is a copy in the second sense. Both are very common, and correct, ways to use the word in English, so this is a non-issue, I think.
Edit: As usual, someone else typed faster than I did.
Marksphoto: Can somebody tell me what jobs I can shoot in order to pay off an investment into this cameras system?
If we're talking hobbyists, it's certainly true that the higher the disposable income, the more money one can afford to spend on the equipment. And in the case of, say, Leica's rangefinders, I do think that doctors, lawyers, pilots and other well-paid people are a large part of the customer base.
However, in the case of the Hasselblad and Phase One MF systems, I think that most of the buyers are actually professionals, many working in the advertising and fashion industries, or running very successful businesses shooting weddings and portraits of celebrities and other "high-end" customers.There are also many professionals who rent the equipment when they feel they need it. Many MF cameras are probably sold to rental houses.
Richard Murdey: 'serious issues with the integrated circuit for image processing'
Unusually blunt and specific language for a company to use. Must have been pretty catastrophic.
But why? They use these ICs all the time, you'd think it was completely known quantity by now.
The lack of sugar coating perhaps indicates that it isn't Nikon's fault, but rather that a parts supplier screwed up somehow?
noflashplease: I wonder how much longer Lytro can stagger along with the $50 million in funding raised back in February of 2015, when they fired 50 of their 130 employees? Maybe they've raised more money? Maybe they are revenue neutral or somehow profitable, although I'd be very surprised?
This new product looks absolutely ridiculous, a bit like a TV camera from the early 1950s. Unless they already have it sold and in service, I don't see any future for it. It's a cumbersome implementation of a kooky concept.
Looking back, Lytro did produce real products and even had a retail presence. Oh well, so long and farewell.
I doubt they will produce many of this behemoth. And they will likely rent it to studios, so I wouldn't expect a retail presence at all. If they make a smaller version perhaps.
mxx: Hope everything will be back to normal as soon as possible. I wonder if camera manufacturers with factories in less earthquake prone countries are better off regarding production interruptions?
Both Nikon and Sony make some of their cameras in Thailand, and the floods a few years ago caused massive damage to their factories there, with production delays as a result. Natural disasters occur outside Japan too.
Marty4650: Here's the MAIN problem with cell phone add ons.... cell phones are disposable commodities. This device will only work with iPhones, and probably with ONLY their current model. Apple is notorious for making new phones that don't work with accessories you bought for your last iPhone.
Fortunately this thing seems reasonably priced, but you would be foolish to buy any expensive add on that cannot be used with your NEXT cell phone.
And an even bigger problem might be that ANYTHING that makes a cell phone into a better camera defeats the whole purpose of having "one small, convenient, and pocketable device that can be used as a camera." Because once you have to carry around extra parts they become just as inconvenient as real cameras are.
This is like trying to turn a blender into a meat grinder. You are better off buying a meat grinder if you want it done right.
Had I seen your comment first, I wouldn't have bothered writing my own.