Japanese DSLR sales

I am sure the word of mouth on review didn't help much. The noise at 1600 in tests I saw looked pretty shabby.

Tim in upstate NY said:

....on the A100 after the initial introduction because there was a
pent up demand by KM owners who had KM lenses and had been wanting
to upgrade and who were waiting for SONY to satisfy their needs
with a DSLR successor to the KM line. This pent up demand wasn't
enough to sustain those early introductory sales numbers for very
long as that graph clearly shows.

Click to expand...

mpixel said:

digital_ray_of_light said:

mpixel said:

digital_ray_of_light said:

mpixel said:

lak said:

mpixel said:

It's not so much a matter of how many units can they produce per
month rather it's more a matter of how many units do they think
they can sell a month.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is. The production facility for Pentax simply cannot
compare with that for Canon or Nikon. The initial production of
K10D is probably 10 to 15% that of D80. Considering the sales of
K100D and the reception of K10D so far, Pentax could have sold 3 or
4x that number easily. Therefore, I would expect K10D's sales
chart not to be that much different from K100D because of
production limitations.

Click to expand...

It cannot compare to Canon or Nikons but do you really think that
Pentax could sell 180,000 K100Ds per month even if they could make
them? I don't and I don’t think that anyone else does either.

Pentax chose to only make 15,000 K100Ds per month, yet when they
made the *ist DS they produced 20,000 black units per month and

Click to expand...

I think what people are trying to point out is the order of
magnitute in current production capacity. Whether Pentax chooses
not to produce more, or simply does not have the production
capacity I do not know. But you seem to imply that you know that it
is simply a matter of choice, not limitiations in production
capacity. Do you know that for a fact or just speculating based on
numbers?

If you look at their historic monthly numbers they seem to average
well below the monthly average of a D-Rebel or the entry-level
Nikons...

Click to expand...

That's right, however they were unable to sell the *ist DS in the
numbers they had originally planned and produced an overall sales
estimate for 2005-2006 that was only 20,000 units more than the
estimate for the last five months for 2004-2005.

Click to expand...

Is this *istDS "unable to sell" factoid based on the production
outputs or estimates/numbers/actualsales given by Pentax?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Click to expand...

Yes to which one? or both?

mpixel said:

mpixel said:

Production runs do not necessarily run all year long so they are
only a rule of thumb. They probalby wouldn't have produced a silver
edition if they were having trouble selling the DS?

Click to expand...

Unless they were trying a different tactic and possibly reduced or
ceased production of the black unit. The DS sold well initially
then dropped off pretty quickly - it was too expensive when
compared to the competition but it was a LOT cheaper than the *ist
D. So as well as picking up some new customers it would have
offered existing film customers a digital upgrade.

Click to expand...

That is also possible obviously but we have to separate actual data -vs- speculations/derivations based on trends and such, because some people who read this are not intimately familiar and they tend to jump to conclusions... I don't have any DS sales numbers so I can't make a definite statement either way.

[... removed for readability ...]

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

When a company properly plans ahead their production runs and their various models, "cannibalization" may be part of the plan. So it's not always a bad thing (assuming that's how it was planned)

Chubly said:

DougJGreen said:

The issue for Canon was never how easily they could make a new
Rebel with a 10 MP sensor. The problem they faced was in the
market positioning and pricing. I am willing to bet that they
ended up largely killing the sales of the 30D, quite early in it's
life cycle in order to do this.

They may well have had to sacrifice some profitability in order to
keep their market share here.

Right now, until they bring out a new 10 MP (or even 12 MP) 40D,
they have a major hole in their product line. And if they bring
out the 40D this year, they will clearly have admitted that they
took a hit on the 30D.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

freddyNZ said:

Digital cameras in Japan - Product sales ranking / market share for
most recent recorded sales week:

1 Canon IXY800 7.8%
2 Canon IXY70 5.0%
3 Casio EXZ600 4.3%
4 Casio EXZ1000 3.9%
5 Nikon Coolpix S5 2.9%
6 Panasonic FX 07 2.1%
7 Olympus u750 1.7%
=8 Olympus Fe180 1.7%
=8 Sony T10 1.7%
=8 Fuji F30 1.7%

So Panasonic share of "top 10" is small.
Top 10 models only account for 1/3 of digital camera market.
Surprise for westerners may be the high ranking of Casio - a name
associated with making calculators - but their small cameras are
very very good for the target market. (heh - ask Ken Rockwell)

Click to expand...

No one claimed that Panasonic "owns" the top 10

The numbers and models change from week to week, especially when new releases come out etc, etc. I haven't been following them every week, but I have been looking at snapshots of those numbers for a few years. The "bijou" models from Casio and Panasonic have consistently been top sellers in Japan, even before Panasonic put MegaOIS on their ultra-compacts - before the rest of the world started buying them.

For those looking at Japan numbers for years, Casio is by no means a surprise. I am not sure what the Ken Rockwell reference was (he probably said something outlandish? )

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

zygh said:

every panny defender says that "the l1 is not intended..." and
frankly that is a little on the pathetic side. so, what fellows
like you are saying is that the l1 (just like the lc-1) are
products designed and produced for museums, as there are so few
people buying, what else could it be?

Click to expand...

I am not a "panny defender" The L1/LC1 seem to be attempting to be Leica-Lite, small production runs, higher than average price, quite a few in museums or behind glass showcased by proud owners ;-) The production numbers don't lie Basically Panasonic wants to show that they can do it too. Indirectly those models help sell their mass-market cameras as they improve the brand name - assuming they don't have any embarassing bugs cough buffer cough

To give a different perspective, the production numbers for those two cameras were in the same ballpark as the Canon 1D/1Ds production numbers. Just to be sure, I am not saying those cameras are in the same market segment, just that their production numbers are similar!!

I am not defending their technical issues, those are a totally different story...

zygh said:

as far as "mass market dslr" for panny goes, just take a look at
neighbouring oly. they have attempted at that for a few years now
and look where that's got them. wish 'em all, luck though ('cuz
they're gonna need it).

p.s. i must confess that i am drawn to the shape of the l1 and that
i'm darn offended at the price especially as the l1 is NOT worth
it. though,... i would want one for my museum... even though i'd
never use it (well, except for the times i'd be taking it out in
town to impress artsy chicks and the sorts).

digital_ray_of_light said:

I sound like a broken record, but the Panasonic L1 is not intended
to sell in big numbers. Panasonic is only making a few thousand of
them per month, and combined with their high price, it is clear
that Panasonic is not expecting them to make a dent in the market
share charts. Just like the LC-1, the primary purposes appears to
be a flagship camera for technical/marketing/advertising purposes,
to establish themselves in the eyes of the market, etc, etc, etc...

We have to wait for Panasonic to produce a mass-market DSLR before
we can make any statements such as the ones below...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

BJL said:

Are these numbers factory shipments or retail sales? I have heard
that factory shipments is the common measure published in Japan.
And to get weeklyt datsa lke this, it is probably far easier to go
on reporting from factores than to have to gather data from
numerous retailers of thier sales for the week.

And as shipments, they make sense, along with the prevous figures
for June and July. In each case, there are rapid spikes for newly
released products (shipping faster than retail sales to fill the
supply channels).

If they are shipments, all that these numbers do is identify which
companies had new mass market DSLRs during the reporting period:
the June-July figures had spikes for the Sony A-100 and Pentax
K100D and K110D; the more recent figures have spikes for the Canon
400D and Nikon D80.

Click to expand...

I think these are weekly numbers based on sales in Japanase stores (not sure which stores or how many stores or which region). This is different from the CIPA numbers that report quarterly/semi-annual/annual shipments and forecasts.

I agree, these numbers are by means not conclusive since they are affected by a variety of factors (on a weekly basis), but they can provide some interesting tidbits...

BJL said:

I will wait for corporate quarterly and annual reports to get a
real idea of DSLR sales levels.

Click to expand...

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

DougJGreen said:

To me as a photographer. In fact, I am both in the business, AND
a photographer - but I happen to separate the two. I am very
cognizant of the fact that Canon is far more successful in the DSLR
business than Olympus. But I also do not believe that the most
successful business by definition makes the best cameras.

Case in point, Leica and Rollei are both in very deep doo doo as
businesses right now. But that does not alter the fact that some
of the particular cameras that these companies have made might well
be the most utilitarian, dare I say, the best, cameras ever built,
for serious photographers.

There is, in almost any market, a difference between the products
that best tap into the needs of the mass consumer market, the the
working pros, and the genuine artists. I have no doubt that Canon
makes the best DSLRs for the mass consumer market, and I would even
grant that they make the best DSLRs for most pros (although, I
would contend that Nikon might be better for some segments). But
that does not, in any way, tell me that Canon makes the best
cameras for everyone. Just that they make the best cameras for
many or most, and as a result, they are the most successful. But
that's like saying that Van Gogh was an inferior artist to Thomas
Kinkade, because Van Gogh couldn't sell any paintings, while
Kinkade cranks them out by the thousands.

Click to expand...

You may not be aware of this, but Canon makes cameras for the mass market as well as the high end pro market. They are the only company in the market that offers high resolution full frame DSLR cameras for photographic "artists" who still remember what it's like to shoot 35mm full frame lenses at their full, intended, uncropped perspective. For example, they are the only camera brand in the market that can use Leica R, Olympus OM, Nikon F, Leica Visoflex, Pentax M42, Pentax K, as well as Canon EF lenses in their complete full frame glory. They offer the high resolution sensors without compromising noise performance, and they do so by offering larger sensor formats that can better accomodate those higher pixel counts, as opposed to compromising noise performance by trying to cram more pixels onto smaller sensors.

Yes, it costs them more to produce those larger FF sensors, but they are willing to go where other manufacturers are reluctant to go in order to offer the photographic formats for those photographic artists who aren't willing to compromise by going with smaller mass market formats like APS. Yes, Canon does offer mass market cameras with the mass market small APS format (just like everyone else does), but they also the ONLY brand that offers the non-mass market larger FF format. Basically, for the sake of economic and manufacturing convenience, other brands have chosen to go exclusively with the "crank-them-out-by-the-thousands" smaller formats (the mass market "Kinkade" route, I guess you can say), while Canon is the only one choosing to still offer FF format (in other words, the non-"crank-them-out-by-the-thousands" Van Gogh route) for the serious users. So in actuallity, Canon are doing the opposite of what you are criticising them for. You should be praising them for being the only brand NOT going exclusively with the "crank-them-out-by-the-thousands" format/direction.

Certainly, Nikon, Pentax, Leica, and Olympus, (assuming that they DO build an E-3), and Fuji, among others, still build cameras that are more than capable of serious crative results, and even ongoing professional work

Not to mention the handful of companies like Leaf, Phase One, Sinar, and Imacon that make digital backs for Medium and Large Format cameras.

I agree, that Canon, in addition to it's massive presence in consumer DSLRs, also has a solid business in professional cameras. But they are hardly the only player, just the biggest, and they dominate the segment of sports photography and photojournalism. But I don't see what that has to do with art, other than, just like all these other companies, Canon's cameras are capable of producing art in the right hands.

DougJGreen said:

I agree, that Canon, in addition to it's massive presence in
consumer DSLRs, also has a solid business in professional cameras.
But they are hardly the only player, just the biggest, and they
dominate the segment of sports photography and photojournalism.
But I don't see what that has to do with art, other than, just like
all these other companies, Canon's cameras are capable of producing
art in the right hands.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that Canon wasn't merely going the mass-market route with smaller-format sensors, like other manufacturers are doing. They also put quite a lot of effort and resources into less-than-mass-market products like full frame format cameras. In fact, Canon is probably the company that puts more money and resources into the non-"Kindade", non-"mass market" end of the photography market than any other DSLR manufacturer. There's nothing "Kinkade" about Canon offering the 11mp FF Canon 1Ds back in 2002, or the 16.7mp Canon 1Ds MKII back in 2004, or the 13mp FF Canon 5D in 2005. They are for those photographic artists (the non-"mass market") who understand that the format size accounts for something (depth of field control, sensitivity performance, higher resolution capacities, lower noise, lens selection, etc.). So rather than just looking at Canon's successes in the "mass market", you should take a look at the bigger picture and acknowledge their successes in putting out products for the non-"mass market" as well.

T3 said:

You may not be aware of this, but Canon makes cameras for the mass
market as well as the high end pro market. They are the only
company in the market that offers high resolution full frame DSLR
cameras for photographic "artists" who still remember what it's
like to shoot 35mm full frame lenses at their full, intended,
uncropped perspective.

Click to expand...

Don't be silly. Photographic artist didn't use 35mm in the first place....

T3 said:

They are for those photographic artists (the
non-"mass market") who understand that the format size accounts for
something (depth of field control, sensitivity performance, higher
resolution capacities, lower noise, lens selection, etc.).

Click to expand...

Isn't this just pretentious bullsh*t? As far as I know artists aren't restricted to Canon full frame but use all kinds of cameras. Whats more most people using Canon FF cameras, or any other cameras for that matter, cannot be labeled artist even with a liberal definition of the term. I seriously doubt that Canon have a larger artist percentage than other brands. Rather the oposite as they appeal more to the gearhead than the artist.

thw said:

how when the Japan sales figures for the month of July were first
shown, people were exclaiming how successful the A100 was and how
the market shares of Canon (and very slightly for Nikon) were
dramatically reduced.

And now, when the sales figure for Aug to mid-Sep are shown, people
are ascribing the initial peak sales of the 400D to Canon's big
retail channel.

I guess this is why it's so tough to be at the top.

Click to expand...

Canon stated that they would reach this shipping volume because they knew the preorder for the camera, and these preorders were in tune with the sales of its predecessor. It really says nothing. For all we know they might not sell a single one of them and eventually dump them in the Mariana trench like they did with the Canon T80 (not that I believe that).

For the Sony and the Pentax it was different; they reached a much higher initial interest than those brands had experience before; they enjoyed a serious increase in market share. Pentax is set to more than double its share. Canon is not.

Thom Hogan said:

Just so people don't get confused, those were NOT month-after-month
figures. Pentax sold what, 250,000 DSLRs last year, so those
numbers you cite have to be maximum monthly production figures, not
average.

Click to expand...

Pentax sold 100.000 DSLRs during financial year 2005 (April 2005 to March 2006).

(btw Olympus sold 250.000 DSLRs in the same time, that should say a lot about those Japanese numbers compared to worldwide sales...)

Voff said:

For the Sony and the Pentax it was different; they reached a much
higher initial interest than those brands had experience before;

Click to expand...

And then interest waned very quickly for the A100....

In case you do not know, the 350D was still on top of this Japanese chart just recently (some 1.5 years after its initial release) before the 400D was released.

Voff said:

they enjoyed a serious increase in market share. Pentax is set to
more than double its share. Canon is not.

Click to expand...

It's always easy to double your share if your starting point is low. Just look at the economic growth of developing countries vs. developed countries.

I am hoping Pentax will do well with the K10D. It's a great camera. But it's silly to draw senseless conclusions like what you just did.

-------------------------------------------
See the colors of my world in:
thw.smugmug.com

T3 said:

We were talking about Panasonic mass-market bodies canabalizing
Olympus mass-market bodies.

Click to expand...

why should the do that?

An Oly E-400 is much more similar to a Canon 400D than to a Panasonic L1 and if/when Panasonic will make a mass market camera we have to wait for the specs.
Maybe they willl just make an EVIL and "canabalize" the prosumer market...

btw, Olympus was never strong in Japan, it is their weakest market. They do not have a new entry level camera for that market, too, the last one was the E-500 which peaked at around 10% in some older sales figures...

zygh said:

every panny defender says that "the l1 is not intended..." and
frankly that is a little on the pathetic side. so, what fellows
like you are saying is that the l1 (just like the lc-1) are
products designed and produced for museums, as there are so few
people buying, what else could it be?

Click to expand...

They are simply not made for the mass market like a Canon 1Ds II.

(otherwise they would have includes a F5,6 kit lens and cut the kit prize in half)

Is that eally difficult to understand?

zygh said:

as far as "mass market dslr" for panny goes, just take a look at
neighbouring oly. they have attempted at that for a few years now
and look where that's got them. wish 'em all, luck though ('cuz
they're gonna need it).

Click to expand...

Olympus was #3 in DSLR sales in 2005, they are not strong in Japan.

zygh said:

p.s. i must confess that i am drawn to the shape of the l1 and that
i'm darn offended at the price especially as the l1 is NOT worth
it. though,... i would want one for my museum... even though i'd
never use it (well, except for the times i'd be taking it out in
town to impress artsy chicks and the sorts).

Click to expand...

So you are not the "target market"...

first of all, comparing l1 to canon 1d/1ds was a joke, right?

Cephalotus said:

Cephalotus said:

p.s. i must confess that i am drawn to the shape of the l1 and that
i'm darn offended at the price especially as the l1 is NOT worth
it. though,... i would want one for my museum... even though i'd
never use it (well, except for the times i'd be taking it out in
town to impress artsy chicks and the sorts).

Click to expand...

So you are not the "target market"...

Click to expand...

wonder who is... ...museum curators? just a thought.

zygh said:

first of all, comparing l1 to canon 1d/1ds was a joke, right?

Click to expand...

no, both camera have never been made to be attractive to the mass market. The main thing a camera needs for that usually is a low price. The L1 kit can and will not have a very low price because it comes only bundled with a very good lens.

Imho the L1 is NOT a 2000$ camera, but a 1000$ camera + a 1000$ lens. This is a big difference imho.

btw, greetings to Cluj (had been there by bike a year ago and really enjoyed your country)

Voff said:

T3 said:

They are for those photographic artists (the
non-"mass market") who understand that the format size accounts for
something (depth of field control, sensitivity performance, higher
resolution capacities, lower noise, lens selection, etc.).

Click to expand...

Isn't this just pretentious bullsh*t? As far as I know artists
aren't restricted to Canon full frame but use all kinds of cameras.
Whats more most people using Canon FF cameras, or any other cameras
for that matter, cannot be labeled artist even with a liberal
definition of the term. I seriously doubt that Canon have a larger
artist percentage than other brands. Rather the oposite as they
appeal more to the gearhead than the artist.

Click to expand...

You are completely mis-reading what I wrote. I am saying that there is a subset of photographers who want options beyond the APS formats imposed by most DSLR manufacturers. You seem to be bent out of shape over the term "photographic artists". I am not saying that only artists use Canon, or FF. I could have just as easily just said "photographers". But then you would have misinterpretted that as saying that only real "photographers" use Canon or FF. That isn't what I am saying either. I am saying that there is a subset of people (photographers, artists, tech-heads, whatever pro-noun or "label" you feel comfortable with so you don't get bent out of shape, LOL) that want something other than the mass market mainstream APS format. The only reason I chose the word "photographic artists" is because, as photographic "artists" we seek to carry out a certain aesthetic or qualitative criteria, and for that purpose some seek out certain tools that they feel allow them to betterachieve that tool, just like a painter will use a certain size of brush or a sculpter will use a certain type of chisel. Go into any art supply store and you will find brushes and chisels of an amazing array of shapes and sizes to choose from to meet different people's (artists, humans, whatever) particular preferences, techniques, etc. There isn't just one brush size or one chisel size.

Cephalotus said:

btw, Olympus was never strong in Japan, it is their weakest market.
They do not have a new entry level camera for that market, too, the
last one was the E-500 which peaked at around 10% in some older
sales figures...

Click to expand...

Well, then the question is, where ARE they strong? Denmark?