Interesting read by Thom Hogan

Started Feb 14, 2014 | Discussions thread
wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,078
Re: Room for both? Like view cameras, maybe, maybe not.

Russell Evans wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

Russell Evans wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They are powerless, as the technology and the market will put an end to mirrors in the light box, just as surely as it did to every other mechanical contrivance for which an electronic substitute was developed.

What do you use to shave with? I would bet the razor market is larger than the electric market, but I can't find any data in searching. There is room for both though, and that's how it will be with DSLRs and mirrorless. Neither is going to die out or rule.

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.

You're wildly wrong, I believe.  Read the disassembly of the A7 on Lensrentals and how many parts there are by comparison to dslrs, just the screws, which require assembly.  Labor of assembly and number of parts is where the cost is.  Furthermore a dslr is defined as having an ovf, but lots of mirrorless can be sold without evf at all.

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.

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?

It does require judgment to see that the dslr is going to either be a niche product or gone, but I'm telling you that if Canikon believes what you are saying, they're dead in this market.  No one ever argued that the microwave will replace the stove.  The judgement in this case is because the dslr has fewer long term advantages than view cameras had compared to slrs and far more complexity. They have no long term advantages and many functional disadvantages, in addition to cost of manufacturing.  Just a few years ago it was, evf will never be as good as ovf and pdaf is exclusive to dslrs.  Both of those are greatly faded now. One hears those claims much less now and they will not only vanish but instead the advantages of evf and ospdaf are and will continue coming to the forefront.

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.

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.

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. The photography market is simply going to be more diverse,

That might happen if the whole market were growing, but the camera market is under huge pressure from phone cams that is sucking revenue out of it. The A3000 and less expensive versions of it from many manufacturers will suck revenue out of mass market dslrs. Dslrs at the low end are bottomed out on price based on cost, I suspect, but I think we'll see $150 ILCs that offer just as good IQ or better very soon.  I also think that we'll see strong runs on that strategy from Samsung and then from some Chinese makers, who'll probably buy a dead camera brand from the Japanese.

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...

Agreed Nikon as an entity is different from the dslr business.

I do think that everything about Hogan's thinking and his column reek of a rapidly fading era.  As is pointed out by others here, the whole camera "system thinking" (one camera for all purposes, many lenses) is losing its grip, and he doesn't see that either.  I expect him to fade into the sunset like some Newtonian physicist after the ether vanished from the universe.

Thank you

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow