FZ 50 - "preliminarily end of sales status"

MusicDoctorDJ said:

The profit margins on DSLR's and lenses are really very small in
comparision to the mass produced P&S's.

Click to expand...

interesting, do you have any hard data to back that?

--
Manu

Trevor Carpenter said:

I couldn't agree more. Panasonic have a captive audience because the
cameras that appeal to me have no serious competition. If I were to
go down the SLR road, and I don't want to, what could Panasonic, in
the short term, offer me that I can't get already from Canon and Nikon

Click to expand...

Trevor....

I wonder..... The Panasonic L1, which until very recently sold for around $1500 was pretty much an improved version of an Olympus E330, which sells for around $550 with a two lens kit. Granted... the L1 has a much better lens.

Odds are, the L2 will similarly be a much better version of the E510.
Will it be worth $1000 more?

The market will decide that question.
--
Marty
Panasonic FZ7, FZ20, FZ30
Olympus C7000

linuxworks said:

I don't have numbers, but why don't you believe that lenses are such a
high profit item? look at their raw materials and tell me that there's
really $1k worth of 'stuff' in there, even including time to assemble.
its my guess (along with a lot of other people) but I see lenses as
SUPER high profit items.

Click to expand...

Hey, Brian! Been awhile since you and I shared a thread!

While I agree with your theory, it makes me wonder: Why doesn't some upstart company come along and usurp (or maybe get in on) such a high-markup market? I;'m just guessing, but maybe it's standard barrier-to-entry market forces - I would guess that the start-up costs for a lens company may be high.

But are we saying then that it's basically an oligarchy? That these companies are in a sort of collusion, to artificially keep profit margins up?

Since making the jump to a DSLR, it's been driving me crazy how that last 10% of lens quality ups the price four to six times (or more)! I can get "consumer-grade" glass for $150-$200, make a mid-jump for $400-$600, and then it's sky-rocket city!

Like you, I often think, "How much did it really cost to put together that lens?" Even including the R&D, patents, etc., I still don't know why I can't get a good 100-400mm f/4 zoom lens for a reasonable price...

Sigma 300-800 5.6: $4,000+
Sigma 120-300 2.8: $2,000+
Sigma 100-300 4: $3,000+
Canon 100-400 4.5-5.6: $1,400+
Nikon 200-400 4: $5,000+

Sigh....

--Greg

if you're making money with your photos then the several-K priced lenses aren't totally out of reach. but just very hard for amateurs who don't write this off as a business expense to justify.

the entry level lenses are the ones to 'prove' to the consumer that slr's should be his camera of choice. the mid grade ($500) ones are for the next step up and often people who don't make their living doing this will stop here. the next level up ($1k and beyond) is the fast glass and big heavy glass. some hobbiests have those but again, the pros can justify it as an expense if their jobs need it.

but I don't think the prices are fair per price-point. the low end stuff shows how cheaply the labor can be to assemble cheap parts and generally its the poor parts and not the poor labor that makes it a cheap lens. so I kind of write off the cost of labor since cheap lenses and really high end lenses can't take -that- much time diff on an assembly line.

materials can certainly vary but by THAT much? really? seems suspect to me, dunno.

--
Bryan (pics only: http://www.flickr.com/photos/linux-works )
(pics and more: http://www.netstuff.org ) ~

at least for foreseeable future.

Pana is unlikely to drop it because they are going into entry level DSLR market. FZxx and DSLRs are two very different market segments and they don't compete against each other for most part. Lets see who are the buyers of FZxx
1. People who own DSLR and want a more compact backup.

2. People who have used DSLR/SLR and now they want to settle for a versatile fixed lens compact.

3. Folks who want to upgrade from smaller P&S but not willing to carry all those lenses or pay extra for a serious collection of lenses.
4. New buyers who want to have 'all' in one camera.
5. People who want image stabilized long zoom in a compact.

5. Buyers who are 'on the fence' ... they spend a lot of time making up their between FZxx type cams and entry level DSLRs ....a lot of them end up buying FZxx.

Except for #5 segment FZxx is not competing against entry level DSLRs. So, the argument that pana will abandon FZ50 type camera because it may compete against its upcoming DSLR is not very strong.

Moreover, as others have mentioned pana is yet to establish themselves in the DSLR market, so I don't expect them to abandon FZ50+upgrade.

On the other hand FZ50's competitor is likely to be its longer zoom cameras such as FZ18 and its younger cousins FZ7/8. My feeling is that Pana will use its newly developed (or under development) 1/1.8 12 sensor in its FZ50 upgrade and add other features to make it distinctively more attractive for people who want to pay a bit more than FZ18.... now, how much economic sense that makes I don't know.
Its fun to speculate though.
aftab
--
All Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
Selected Photos
http://aftab.zenfolio.com/

ManuH said:

MusicDoctorDJ said:

The profit margins on DSLR's and lenses are really very small in
comparision to the mass produced P&S's.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

ManuH said:

ManuH wrote:
interesting, do you have any hard data to back that?

Click to expand...

I guess I could ask the same question . . .

Anyone here got the hard numbers on how camera manufacturer's are making all of their big profits off of DSLR and lens sales?

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Some people have a theory that a manufacturer will "drop a product line" so as to not compete with some new product line they are about to introduce. Like people saying "Panasonic will drop the FZ superzooms, so it won't hurt the sales of their DSLRs."

Well... that theory is patently absurd.

Because:

If you don't "compete with yourself" then someone else surely will. You are better off losing sales to some other product you manufacture than losing them to those made by your competitors.

Also. some folks think "Panasonic will drop the FZs to focus their energy on marketing DSLRs"... and this too is silly,

Because:

Panasonic is not a tiny company with limited resources. This company makes everthing from vacuum cleaners, to widescreen flat panel TVs, to notebook computers, to video camcorders, to electric rice cookers and toaster ovens. Panasonic can walk and chew gum at the same time. If Canon can market 50 different cameras, then so can Panasonic.

--
Marty
Panasonic FZ7, FZ20, FZ30
Olympus C7000

At one time, Panasonic (Matsushita) was the largest corporation in the world . . .

I think that is still true.

Canon and Nikon both combined are small fry compared to the size of Panasonic Corporation.

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator



Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

Very wise analysis aftab.

I hope people at panasonic are thinking the same way and you are right.

Gerd
--
----------------------------------------------------------
Let your own reasoning be your guide, not other people's opinions.

aftab said:

at least for foreseeable future.
Pana is unlikely to drop it because they are going into entry level
DSLR market. FZxx and DSLRs are two very different market segments
and they don't compete against each other for most part.

Click to expand...

If there are truly two different market segments, then surely price/cost is a key element in defining the two segments.

The FZ-XX line has always debuted at around US$600. There are several low-end DSLR's with two kit lenses that run around US$750. (Pentax and Nikon both have IS in at least part of the zoom range.) The DSLR 2-lens kits generally cover from 28-300mm zoom. Obviously this is not enough reach for everyone....but it would cover a vast majority of shooting situations for most people. I am not sure that two market segments exist if the price difference is only US$150.

Nikon, Canon, Oly, and Sony all killed their bridge cameras when they brought out DSLRs under $1000. We can guess at the reasons...but cannot know for sure. The same uncertainity applies to Panny and what they intend for their $600 digicam. If they upgrade the FZ-50, then they will be the first low-end DSLR manufacturer that has done so.

It's certainly possible that Panny will upgrade the FZ-50.....but it is far from certain. It's also worth noting that there is no evidence that dropping their high-end digicams had a substantial negative impact on Sony, Nikon, Oly, or Canon.

Steve82 said:

aftab said:

at least for foreseeable future.
Pana is unlikely to drop it because they are going into entry level
DSLR market. FZxx and DSLRs are two very different market segments
and they don't compete against each other for most part.

Click to expand...

If there are truly two different market segments, then surely
price/cost is a key element in defining the two segments.

The FZ-XX line has always debuted at around US$600. There are
several low-end DSLR's with two kit lenses that run around US$750.
(Pentax and Nikon both have IS in at least part of the zoom range.)
The DSLR 2-lens kits generally cover from 28-300mm zoom. Obviously
this is not enough reach for everyone....but it would cover a vast
majority of shooting situations for most people. I am not sure that
two market segments exist if the price difference is only US$150.

Nikon, Canon, Oly, and Sony all killed their bridge cameras when they
brought out DSLRs under $1000. We can guess at the reasons...but
cannot know for sure. The same uncertainity applies to Panny and
what they intend for their $600 digicam. If they upgrade the FZ-50,
then they will be the first low-end DSLR manufacturer that has done
so.

It's certainly possible that Panny will upgrade the FZ-50.....but it
is far from certain. It's also worth noting that there is no
evidence that dropping their high-end digicams had a substantial
negative impact on Sony, Nikon, Oly, or Canon.

Click to expand...

I think Panasonic is in a different position than all those other companies. Canon, Nikon, Oly, Pentax are well known camera makers. Sony sells a rebadged Minolta. Panasonic is a brand new player. How many DSLRs would they sell?? Sure some people would buy Panasonic DSLR, but most people probably would go for Canon or Nikon if they want a DSLR. People might think like this: What is the best bridge camera on the market? FZ50. Awesome - I'll get one of those. And what is the best cheap DSLR on the market? Nikon D40 (for example). Cool - I'll buy me one of those. What I'm trying to say is that Panasonic would sell more FZ50 cameras than DSLRs. There are way too many DSLR makers on the market - will established customer base - meaning - people with lenses from their previous cameras. Sony got all the Minolta people. Panasonic - how are they gonna get people to dump their old glass and switch to them? I just don't see how they would get any sizable chunk of DSLR market. If anything - they would lose money on all the R&D for their DSLR, and killing off the FZ50 (if they kill it) - and then not selling too many DSLRs. I'm in love with my FZ - but it doesnt mean I worship every product that Panasonic makes. Anyways, time for breakfast now
--
FZ50, FZ7, D40 (in the order they were purchased)

Steve82 said:

The FZ-XX line has always debuted at around US$600. There are
several low-end DSLR's with two kit lenses that run around US$750.
(Pentax and Nikon both have IS in at least part of the zoom range.)
The DSLR 2-lens kits generally cover from 28-300mm zoom. Obviously
this is not enough reach for everyone....but it would cover a vast
majority of shooting situations for most people. I am not sure that
two market segments exist if the price difference is only US$150.

Click to expand...

Steve... think about this. We COULD see the price of bridge cameras drop significantly. So.. the spread could end up being a lot more than $150.

Remember.... this is technology, and over time it always gets cheaper and better. I paid $1000 for my first VCR, and $40 for my last one, and the last one was a WHOLE LOT better than my first one. I am posting this from my sixth computer. Each one was cheaper and better than the one it replaced.

I don't mean to suggest that manufacturers will want to drop prices. I am saying that the market may force them to. Sure, Panasonic would LOVE to sell the FZ60 for $650... but what if they could sell it for $400, and still make a nice profit? Would they NOT want to sell that camera?

Certainly... the price of digital cameras has fallen somewhat in the last ten years.... but nothing even remotely close to the percentage that priced droped of other technologies as they matured.

..... I paid $400 for my Olympus C-4000,
then paid $470 for my FZ20 two years later,
then paid $450 for my FZ30 two years after that.

This doesn't look like much of a downward trend when you compare it to the way prices plummeted on DVD players, Personal Computers, video camcorders, and those VCRs.
--
Marty
Panasonic FZ7, FZ20, FZ30
Olympus C7000

I imagine a significant chunk of the cost of the fz50 was the lens, though, and those aren't getting significantly cheaper.

It's, what, a very sharp 5-89 f/2.8-3.7 IS? That can't be terribly cheap to manufacture.

Marty4650 said:

Steve... think about this. We COULD see the price of bridge cameras
drop significantly. So.. the spread could end up being a lot more
than $150.

Click to expand...

If you compare current prices, then the FZ-50 is about $300 less than the two lens DSLR kits. How siginificant that price difference is depends on each individual's budget and what you are interested in shooting. The most recent DSLR sales numbers suggest that Nikon's D40 has been a huge successs (driving Nikon past Canon in sales)....which shows that Nikon's decision to offer a crippled DSLR at a bargain price was a good financial move.

The bottom line is that dropping prices of DSLR kits is seriously impacting the number of people interested in a super-zoom, high-end digicam. How much the low end DSLR sales are affecting Panny is the key question.

Marty4650 said:

but what if they could sell it for
$400, and still make a nice profit? Would they NOT want to sell that
camera?

Click to expand...

Given your assumptions, the answer is clearly yes. However, your conclusion is dependent on the accuracy of those assumptions.

I don't have the price drops documented for each year, but I have a friend who bought the FZ-20 for US$425 shortly after the FZ-30 was announced. Today the FZ-50 is selling for around US$450. These price drops we see ech year with the FZ-XX make me wonder about sales....which ultimately feeds profit.

In any event, I have seen no evidence that tells whether Panny is making a nice profit on the FZ-50 or not. I guess that we will be able to tell how much profit there is when we see what Panny does with the FZ-50/60.

I think the FZxx will also continue, but it only has so far it can go and then where does Panasonic go with it? Hey, maybe add a MP3 player and 2 hours of video and plugs to hook up big speakers. Once Panasonic puts in all the little toys that we have on our wish lists for the FZ line, then what do they do to make us want the next great line? Maybe make pink or blue ones like some of the pocket cameras. I'm not trying to be a smart guy here, just letting everyone see that you can only improve the FZ line so much and then when we all have the latest FZ120 or whatever they are going to have to move on up. I think there will always be a bridge camera, but the money (profit) is in the sale of the body and then all the other goodies that are needed to go with it. If the body is good and we want better quality we will need better lenses = more money. I doubt that I would move up to the DSLR line. I have had many film SLRs and I don't like having to haul around all that junk (neat stuff) and keep taking it apart and putting it together again. If anything saves the FZ line it will be improving the 4/3 system and low light grain. It would keep the Panasonic haters club off our backs at least. I just wish the Panasonic goodies (flash, close up lens etc) were more in the cost range as the Olympus and Raynox stuff. When we talk about cost, I think that digital is way out of line as far as cost goes. Film cameras with great lenses were way less than the digitals are. Grinding the glass can't have gone up that much in 10 years. Especially since they are being ground in countries with low wages.

Steve, the idea that high end fixed lens superzooms and entry level DSLRs represent two market segments is not solely based on price difference, although price is an important part of the equation. I think more important factor here is people's interest in 'one camera' solution ... the convenience, versatility and good IQ in a cheaper package. I think Canon and others crippled their superzoom line of cams not because they were competing against their entry level DSLRs ... they did it because by employing the same resources in DSLRs they were going to make more money. Panasonic can hardly afford to do so as they are not an important player in DSLR market yet ... and they don't need to do so because they are a huge company and they can develop both lines without needing to cripple the other.

Panasonic's aim is to gain 10% of total camera market share worldwide by 2010 ... I don't see how they are going to do it by dropping one of its popular line of cams.
aftab
--
All Photos
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aftab/
Selected Photos
http://aftab.zenfolio.com/

After looking at sites with FZ50 pictures of birds(Trevor..think that is right name...great stuff...) and others using this camera....I am back to it again...how much larger is it than the D40 with a lens to photograph wildlife, birds, etc....hard to tell by just comparing specs. Is the FZ8 as good for birds in flight....FZ50 better?...if I could have held this camera to make sure it would not be too heavy, etc....I would be ready to choose. The FZ8 was almost too small for me. Thanks again for all your help, suggestions, and especially for taking the time to send pictures..

birdermom said:

After looking at sites with FZ50 pictures of birds(Trevor..think that
is right name...great stuff...) and others using this camera....I am
back to it again...how much larger is it than the D40 with a lens to
photograph wildlife, birds, etc....hard to tell by just comparing
specs. Is the FZ8 as good for birds in flight....FZ50 better?...if I
could have held this camera to make sure it would not be too heavy,
etc....I would be ready to choose. The FZ8 was almost too small for
me. Thanks again for all your help, suggestions, and especially for
taking the time to send pictures..

Click to expand...

To me FZ50 seems a little bigger than D40. For me it is more comfortable to hold. It's heavier than FZ7/FZ8 - but I work out, so its weight doesn't bother me I realy think it's the best camera for me, and I will probably would buy one more - if they don't have a replacement FZ60/FZ70.

As far as "FZ8 as good for birds in flight" as FZ50 - I think in the daylight you wouldn't see much difference....
--
FZ50, FZ7, D40 (in the order they were purchased)

The FZ50 is not really that much larger than the D40 with 18-55 or 55-200 lens, but is a little bit heavier and does have a more solid feel.

If you like the way the D40 fits in your hands, you'll love the hold on the FZ50!

Very comfortable in the hands and the buttons and knobs are well layed out.



I'll do a side by side shot tomorrow if I get a chance for a comparison!

--
J. Daniels
Colorful Colorado
Panasonic FZ10, FZ50 & Fuji S602Z owner & operator
Remember . . . always keep the box and everything that came in it!

... Pana can't afford to drop the FZX0 line because it is widely acknowledged as the best superzoom line in existence.

There really are no competitors to the FZ50, and this is fairly well known. Even if it's not that profitable a camera to make and sell, having the dominant product in a market has to be worth something to their brand as a whole.