As usual I agree whole heartedly and differ on some points.
The big factor here is that only the companies that will keep their commercial cool will survive. There is every reason to believe in the first instance that they will keep their commercial cool. This means “no serious trade price war”. Of course the consumers are licking their lips and dreaming of discount bonanzas. In this scenario the biggest discounter might have the largest sales and be going out of the camera business soon enough after their bankers say “enough”. Nothing to do with quality of product or size of sales. (Just a sort of Beta-Max or IBM PC scenario).
In these sorts of conditions only the companies with the deepest pockets and sources of income elsewhere could survive. The financial size of the investment and risks involved were likely too much for Olympus to contemplate. Nikon has no choice. They have obviously already dumped their Nikon 1 system as too much of a financial distraction.
My presumed scenario:
Nikon and Canon wish to exit the dslr gracefully. This would entail keeping their all their dslr product on the market and probing the new FF ML market with an expanding range of that type of camera. Mid rage capability first then some cheaper entry level models to get more ML bodies in the field to generate a market for mount oem lenses. In their ideal scenario the big-margin pro-level dslr bodies would be last to go FF ML as they are still in a protected market and represent a good unassailed source of profits.
Sony is now well established - frankly a lot of would be FF ML owners bought the series I camera bodies “despite” what they offered as they were determined that they needed a FF ML camera body. From series II the Sony product has matured and is a force to be reckoned with. Despite all the hoopla about new made for mount format lenses I would not be surprised if many Sony FF ML body users are still using adapted EF mount lenses and maybe with Canon’s entry into FF ML some of these EF users in Sony-land can optionally cross back over the border and try Canon FF ML.
L-Mount? I doubt if it was an accident that Leica developed ths mount and maybe there was a backroom deal with Panasonic and Sigma some years ago. In any case Leica did the toe-dipping, brought out some “experimental” product and a few lottery number lenses. A lot more discrete and innocent than if Panasonic had done much the same thing. Leica in its own well known manner could openly develop the SL cum L mount whereas the expectant public would have counted a similar move by Panasonic an abject failure if it failed to immediately set the market on fire with huge sales.
This has been quite clever - Leica running the “stalking horse” for the L-Mount system. All innocence
I'm curious as to whether there is room for yet another FF manufacturer? It's looking rather crowded and competition is fierce.
Will L-Mount make a dent in the Sony express train?
The new L-mount probably won't have much impact on Sony full frame market share. At most it could result in Sony losing 1% market share.
Anyone actually on business can agree that profit = sales margin x volume less carrying cost (including financing). Steady sales are more important than oscilating ones. Cutting margin requires an inceasing exponential increase in volume as anyone with a business head and a pocket calculator could figure out.
The company with the deepest pockets would be the one that survives and as there are some major size corporations involved cost cutting would be messy. Oligopolic corporations with a tied market such as Nikon and Canon don’t directly compete on price other than to adjust market share to what are tacitly agreed to as “their share”. Sony joined their club quite obviously when they had bought what they regarded as a reasonable market share - the price of their product went up to relieve further price competiton. Pentax with its FF dslr was/is still in the process of trying to get that significant share and is probably the best bargain in the dslr market at the moment.
If deep pockets are going to be required then Nikon is going to be the the corporation at greatest risk. If pirating market share is concerned then Canon is at greatest risk because the EF mount seems to have accidentally become the common conversion mount. EF lens owners are going to be spoiled for choice between posibly four (five if you count M4/3) mount system camera bodies.
The L-Mount can exist on low sales if indeed it is mainly targeting the high end sales. The very same high end dslr sales that Canon and Nikon were hoping would be left alone for them to prosper on for some years to come. High end sales promote aura via visiible pro-shooter use and have the highest margins to play with. Surely Panasonic could sell into the pro-market at lower prices than wannabe pro shooters now pay and still leave good margins. Why in the heck would they want to directly fight in the bar-room brawl between Canon-Nikon-Sony for the big volume lower margin entry/mid level market? Especially if the cost of new lenses is always going to be high. That is: “ok to fall in love with FF ML but you are going there to get great images and entry level lenses for such gear is a sort of oxymoron”. So going FF ML is to say that you are truly serious about this and spend appropriately. Or buy a twice superseded A7 camera, adapt a cheap old EF lens to it, and the sensor will carry all before it?
There are no cheap superseded FF ML cameras from any other corporation. There may never be any current release “cheap in the shops” FF ML camera kits ....
In fact it might help Sony if it moves a few more Sony full frame sensors.
This will work as long as Sony sensors are still bought.
But business success isn't always measured by market share. Many products with small market shares are hugely profitable and successful for their makers. Profitability is really the only thing that matters.
There is always a point where market share and selling price point make it worth while doing. The trouble with a niche is that larger rivals have a habit of trying to grab that niche off you. As a Ricoh user and watcher it was easy to see various attempts to grab a portion of Ricoh’s niche. Panasonic was the main culprit and eventually won me over. Nikon tried with their A1 camera and Ricoh (a much larger corporation with deeper pockets) sent Nikon off wth a flea in their ear. But Ricoh contracted models sold and stopped making what I wanted to buy and Canon, my other principal supplier, “refused” to make the FF ML camera I wanted to buy now ten years since. My buying intentions have flowed towards the companies that have made the cameras that “I” wanted to buy and “brand loyalty” has been replaced by “brand aversion”.
Despite having relatively large market shares companies like Nikon, Pepsi and GM have struggled, while companies with very small market shares, like Leica, Red Bull and BMW have done pretty well. The key factor is the return on investment and not relative market share.
Agree - as long as your niche is not so small as to be rendered “invisble” like Pentax/Ricoh has become. Whatever else is considered it is a truism that most people buy “visible” product and don’t “go hunting for that better mousetrap”.
L-mount can be successful if it develops a market niche and can command some sort of price premium. And I think this is likely since each partner brings something unique to the table:
- Panasonic brings video expertise and excellence in electronics
Hey! Here is nothing wrong with Panasonic stills expertise either
- Leica brings status and prestige with a luxury brand image
- Sigma brings lens making expertise and their unique Foveon sensor
On that third point, many have expressed concerns about third party lens support. Well Sigma is the largest third party lens maker on earth, and would very likely support to their own L products.
Sigma is “a survivor” I have seen comments about Sigma that they seem to have seriously lifted their previous quite acceptable game in recent years. They have been releasing some quite exoticly specified lenses.
This has had more regard to performance than actual physical size. Many have noted that the Sigma DC 18-35mm f1.8 in EF mount will adapt or focal reduce to M4/3 mount. The 50-100mm f1.8 likewise even though it is avery large lens I think that it is unique in its specifications - focal reduced these lenses project their full image circle on to 4/3 sensors. This is not much use for FF ML except for crop capture - but there are other similar offerings from Sigma which are FF capable.
Which brings me back to the question of “new Sigma lenses”. To the extent that they might be remounts of existing made for dslr bodies then surely an EF mount veron adapted to a L-Mount body makes more sense and gives the user more choices? Of course those shorter FFL lenses made for Sony E/FE mount would need to be remounted completely.
But the fact is that the L-Mount consortium has been obviously in gestation fro quite some time and not a “cobbled up yeaterday afternoon over some beer and sake” affair. So the three main plalyers have worked out and approach and each has been using everyday sales of new product to effectively prototype product. In this regard the “excessive sized” camera bodies that Panasonic has been selling in M4/3 mount guise could be seen as a working paid-for prototyping of what might come for the L-Mount.
Of course, they will also make lenses for FE, Z, and R mounts too, but it is insane to imagine that the L-mount will be lacking in lens support.
If Nikon and Canon had indicated that they might make access to their new mount systems difficult for third party vendors then it might have driven Sigma into the arms of the L-Mount consortium.
The L-mount will never have the largest market share. In fact, it will probably have the smallest. But it could be very successful if it finds it's market niche and serves it well.
Agreed. I await with some amusement the cries of “too much” once the S1/SR1 are announced - the S1 might be within the reach of the everyman wannabe FF ML user though.
As I have said before the S1/SR1 “had better be good” .... really good, no mistakes or unfinished business like Sony got away with in their series 1 A7 products.
Even Canon has been getting some stick over their “not quite good enough” first R mount body. Canon should know better, but have always tried to protect their dslr camera body sales by not making alternative product that seriously challenges it in any way.
