Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering

Started May 17, 2013 | Discussions
Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
No one hopes that.
3

Mjankor wrote:

Yay. If you're lucky then only one company will survive and we can stop arguing.

I don't think anyone wants that and the only argument is those that believe that DSLR is antiquated and will be the one disappearing and that there will be only mirrorless left.

I hope mirrorless gets better and much more needed less expensive, it will have to if it wants to survive. If it were in the 200-300 dollar price range with lens like it should be, I would get one. Until then it will only be a niche market or it will not be able to survive.

Abrak Veteran Member • Posts: 4,126
Re: Mirrorless successfully established a foothold
1

Thorgrem wrote:

Yes... funny... that is a good find. It shows the actual CIPA figures for 2012 so the slide must have been taken from at least February of this year.

It shows that Panasonic as well as Olympus are being ludricously optimistic about growth prospects in the current year.

Panasonic are forecasting 25% growth for mirrorless and 10% growth for DSLRs in 2013!

We already have the published CIPA numbers for the first 3 months and they are terrible.

DSLRs down 23.2% at 2.60m

Mirrorless down 18.5% at 0.60m

If you were to multiply 1Q x 4 = FY you find that DSLRs are looking at 10.4m and mirrorless 2.4m. Throw in an extra quarter for Xmas so that FY = 1Q x 5 and you are still looking at 13m DSLRs and 3.0m mirrorless.

It really isnt pretty and its going to come to a sorry ending. Olympus looking for 33% growth in their mirrorless business, Panasonic looking for 25% growth in the mirrorless market when the market is actually down nearly 20% in the year to date.

Richard Veteran Member • Posts: 4,858
Chef Ramsey.. (Bleep) me
3

Jorginho wrote:

In stead of picking the rotten cherries handed to you by Thom and neglecting his fresh ones does not seem so wise. Moreover it is better to do your own research. it is not that difficult.

minutes 12, 26, 36, 40 about imaging.

- In short:
1) CCs will get less resources, mirrorless will get much more focus

People who want camera phones or CCs don't want mirrorless, too big.

2) Mirrorless sales are on the rise from Q1 2012 to Q1 2013 with 25%, Over the fiscal year it is 15%

Doesn't matter if you can't make a profit on them. The biggest thing holding back mirrorless is price. If it was 200-300 dollars, I would buy one, but when they cost the consumer more than a DSLR with lens, they at best will only remain a niche market, or they will take down the imaging dept of the companies that sell them through no profit.

3) Mirrorless sales were profitable because of OMD

You need to read the report it was not from Thom. Oly struggles and the OMD is not helping enough to overcome.

4) CCs that WILL get developed will only be so if they are synergetical with mirrorless (mFT CC? Don't know)

It would appear CC's have a place, mirrorless is a tweener camera that struggles in the market place because 1, it costs more than low end DSLRs (at least the OMD which is a decent camera). 2. It is too big (I should say the lenses are). 3 it is being covered by CCs and DSLRs.

5) Oly is doing good with mirrorless in East Asia, but less well than competition in Asia and Europe. They will change their business model in Europe and America

The culture there is different, These people are the king of niche markets. That does not make it a good or profitable products.

6) They will not rise the prise and will not aim at growth in numbers, but growth in rpofit by becoming more efficient.

They need to lower the price and make it smaller (at least the lenses) so it is truly a compact system. But you are saying do not raise the price some say they need to raise the price for more profit. It appears to be a dying product.

7) They do not expect a netprofit in the camera busniess 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017. So do not call out when you see this. It is expected.

Really, if I owned a company and my exec told me don't expect net profit. I would tell them to make it profitable or dump it. You are in business to make a profit, not support a failing format. I could see Chef Ramsey now on a new show called Camera Company Nightmares. Don't expect a profit for 4 years? (Bleep) me!

Most positive thing to us is of course their effort put into mFT cams and their aim not to let unitprice rise.

Which would for sure kill an already struggling format.

Also: mirrorless is more than Olympus. Nikon wants to take 25-35% marktetshare over the next few years. That does not point towards less effort or negative expectations by Nikon on the mirrorless market.

Even with the facts in your face you still try to say this format is better than DSLR and DLSR will go away because it is big and antiquated and this format will raise to the top. Again (Bleep) me. LOL

I do not hope the format goes away. I would prefer it stay, even only as a niche market because choice is  but it is a bleak outlook for mirrorless and in the business world, only the strong survive.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,048
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
2

Abrak wrote:

ed2002 wrote:

Olympus plans on selling 300,000 interchangeable lens cameras this year, and was profitable this quarter.

Olympus might have been profitable overall last quarter but the imaging division made a 'record loss'. In fact it lost more in 4Q than in the previous 3Qs combined. On sales of 19.9bn yen, the imaging division made a pretty staggering loss of 14.3bn yen.

And what must be kept in mind is that a money-losing division cannot be supported indefinitely by the profitable divisions of the company - which exists to make money, not to subsidize money-losing divisions. Every division of any business needs to be operated as its own profit (or loss) center and dealt with on its own. There's no 'Well, yes our division is losing money, but the XYZ branch of the company makes even more than we are losing so we are OK.' Eventually the money loser must be made profitable, sold or liquidated.

I am not hoping for that to happen to any company, just pointing out that if a camera division loses money while the company as a whole makes money, the camera division is not going to be propped up indefinitely by the rest of the company.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

justmeMN Veteran Member • Posts: 7,093
Mirrorless, not m4/3
3

There m4/3 efforts are healthy. To bad you are scared for some competition.

The chart you posted is titled "Mirrorless Composition Ratio". It is *not* titled "M4/3 Composition Ratio".

Of the 14.3% claimed mirrorless camera share in North America, I suspect that most of them are Nikon 1 and Sony NEX. One reason I say that, is that they are visible and backed by an advertising budget. In the USA, m4/3 is a pretty obscure niche.

"Panasonic expects a net loss of 765 billion yen ($7.8 billion) for the year to March 2013". They are not exactly a powerhouse that generates fear in others.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,048
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
1

ed2002 wrote:

nikkorwatcher wrote:

maybe the problem is that mirrorless is following developments in sensors too closely and the product lines change too fast? Every time they design a camera and fabrication process they have to make the money back. For a production run of a year that's difficult. They're squeezed in the middle re price and quality.

I think you are making the same false assumption as the OP.

The sub $200 P&S lines of olympus lost a great deal of money.  In the news item that followed Olympus's decission to exit that market segment it said it would concentrate on high margin sales of of interchangable lens cameras.  That seems to say that given the great lack of evidence, that Olympus did not in fact lose a great deal of money on the m4/3.  They simply did not sell as many as forecast.

You have to sell at least X amount in order to make the first bit of profit. Until you do that, you are still paying back the R&D and startup costs for the product you sell.

Suppose a camera has a profit margin between labor and materials and selling price, of $100. If the company needs to sell 100,000 of these to cover the R&D and startup costs, until they sell camera 100,001 they have not made any profit, they're running a loss. If they predicted selling 150,000 cameras and only sell 90,000, they have not just made 60% of their targeted profit. They've made a loss.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,048
Re: Mirrorless, not m4/3
1

justmeMN wrote:

"Panasonic expects a net loss of 765 billion yen ($7.8 billion) for the year to March 2013". They are not exactly a powerhouse that generates fear in others.

Watch out, they'll run you over with their wheelchair!

Sorry, couldn't help saying that. I like Panny and I think they make great stuff. They're being candid about their finances at least.

-- hide signature --

It's nice to say that nice pictures are nice.

Abrak Veteran Member • Posts: 4,126
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
1

Midwest wrote:

Abrak wrote:

ed2002 wrote:

Olympus plans on selling 300,000 interchangeable lens cameras this year, and was profitable this quarter.

Olympus might have been profitable overall last quarter but the imaging division made a 'record loss'. In fact it lost more in 4Q than in the previous 3Qs combined. On sales of 19.9bn yen, the imaging division made a pretty staggering loss of 14.3bn yen.

And what must be kept in mind is that a money-losing division cannot be supported indefinitely by the profitable divisions of the company - which exists to make money, not to subsidize money-losing divisions. Every division of any business needs to be operated as its own profit (or loss) center and dealt with on its own. There's no 'Well, yes our division is losing money, but the XYZ branch of the company makes even more than we are losing so we are OK.' Eventually the money loser must be made profitable, sold or liquidated.

I am not hoping for that to happen to any company, just pointing out that if a camera division loses money while the company as a whole makes money, the camera division is not going to be propped up indefinitely by the rest of the company.

Well absolutely....

To put Olympus's imaging division losses in perspective they lost US$250m last year which means that it will take them not much over 2 years to burn through the US$500m equity cash injection that Sony gave them last year.

I happen to be a bit of an Olympus fanboy so dont really like seeing them in this current predicament. Personally I think they should sell the business (Sony might take it?) while there is value left in the business to sell. I dont want to hear that they are closing the business - but in a couple of years they may be left with no choice.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,048
Re: Chef Ramsey.. (Bleep) me

Richard wrote:

Jorginho wrote:

In stead of picking the rotten cherries handed to you by Thom and neglecting his fresh ones does not seem so wise. Moreover it is better to do your own research. it is not that difficult.

minutes 12, 26, 36, 40 about imaging.

- In short:
1) CCs will get less resources, mirrorless will get much more focus

People who want camera phones or CCs don't want mirrorless, too big.

2) Mirrorless sales are on the rise from Q1 2012 to Q1 2013 with 25%, Over the fiscal year it is 15%

Doesn't matter if you can't make a profit on them.

If in order to increase those sales a company has to spend large sums on R&D and re-tooling for new models, all of those costs must be recouped and that just moves the finish line for a profit further down the road. Sales may go up but there are always costs in maintaining those sales. Stop releasing new models and updated features and your market dwindles away.

Tech products have R&D costs to keep them alive. On the other hand, this year's wheat is no different than last year's. If the sales go up by 25% so does the profit.

Abrak Veteran Member • Posts: 4,126
Re: Mirrorless, not m4/3

justmeMN wrote:

There m4/3 efforts are healthy. To bad you are scared for some competition.

The chart you posted is titled "Mirrorless Composition Ratio". It is *not* titled "M4/3 Composition Ratio".

Of the 14.3% claimed mirrorless camera share in North America, I suspect that most of them are Nikon 1 and Sony NEX. One reason I say that, is that they are visible and backed by an advertising budget. In the USA, m4/3 is a pretty obscure niche.

"Panasonic expects a net loss of 765 billion yen ($7.8 billion) for the year to March 2013". They are not exactly a powerhouse that generates fear in others.

I have absolutely no idea what 'mirrorless composition ratio' is but I suspect that it is Mirrorless as a % of the ILC (DSLR + mirrorless) market.

Based on the Cipa data mirrorless sold 743k of units in the US last year which accounted for 15.4% of total ILC units sold and 13.1% in terms of value. For the whole North American digital camera market (so including compacts) mirrorless accounted for 2.55% of the total in terms of units and 5.81% in terms of value.

It isnt really surprising that you dont see a lot of them about.

thorkilry
thorkilry Contributing Member • Posts: 874
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
1

It is funny how people se things  diffrently.

The stock holders reaction to the 2013 year end result, was a +500p from 2715 to 3215...

 thorkilry's gear list:thorkilry's gear list
Olympus C-765 UZ Olympus E-510 Olympus E-620 Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +3 more
Jorginho Forum Pro • Posts: 14,294
Re: Chef Ramsey.. (Bleep) me

Now Oly has answered those questions raised an I provided you and other with those answers. You are free to assume or believe whatever you like of course. I rather stick to facts.

 Jorginho's gear list:Jorginho's gear list
Olympus PEN E-PL5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH4 Olympus E-M1 II Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 14-45mm F3.5-5.6 ASPH OIS +8 more
TrapperJohn Forum Pro • Posts: 16,488
Establishing another niche
5

It's been interesting to see what Thom Hogan has done with sansmirror. Lately, it's been pretty much a shower of poo, aided by some selective cherry picking of numbers, plus iffy statistical analysis.

My guess is - that site wasn't as profitable as he expected, so he has decided to cater to a different audience, those who want to hear that their more traditional camera is still 'the right camera'. Site traffic is money.

So, very much in the Chris Matthews/Bill O'Reilly manner, the site now selectively grabs the worst possible indicators, filters out any context or mitigating facts, and - presto - site traffic is up, at least in the short term. Eventually, the traditional dslr will fade into niche status, just as the MF camera did many years ago.

This is how society in general is moving - not towards what is, but what you want to hear. Catering to a narrow mindset has turned out to be quite profitable. Two of the most popular news agencies today have a distinct political slant, both engage in the same sort of cherry picking and suppression to cater to their audiences. The traditional news sources? They're not doing so well, economically.

As for what mirrorless is actually doing... it has a bright future. It's where all the really cool things are happening - revolutionary IBIS, rapidly evolving EVF, tiny and precise lenses, great diversity in body design, even two major manufacturers building to the same lens mount specification.

I thoroughly enjoy the OMD, it's as powerful as a dslr, at considerably smaller size and weight. May not work for everyone, but it sure works for me.

MichaelKJ Veteran Member • Posts: 3,466
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering

thorkilry wrote:

It is funny how people se things  diffrently.

The stock holders reaction to the 2013 year end result, was a +500p from 2715 to 3215...

Given that Olympus is, for all practical purposes, a medical equipment business, you comment is irrelevant as far as the issue of the health of mirrorless cameras is concerned.

The following is from an interview with the CEO in the annual report:

Question:

The competitive environment facing
the Imaging Business and the profit
structure seem more adverse than
those facing the other core business
domains. In such circumstances,
what reasons are there for Olympus
to continue the Imaging Business?

Answer:

As I mentioned previously, the Imaging Business is simultaneously a brand driver and an optical and
imaging technology driver. An important purpose of the Imaging Business is to apply imaging
technologies created in an adverse competitive environment to the medical and life science fields

.....

If we didn’t have the Imaging Business, a seven-year gap would occur in imaging technologies
that might make it difficult to introduce the latest innovations into the medical field.

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/common/pdf/ar2012e.pdf (see page 26)

 MichaelKJ's gear list:MichaelKJ's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus PEN E-PL1 Olympus OM-D E-M5 +1 more
ed2002 Regular Member • Posts: 254
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering
1

Abrak wrote:

ed2002 wrote:

Abrak wrote:

Olympus expects 'strong growth' in mirrorless 'in conjunction with market trends'. (yeah right!) They are forecasting mirrorless sales to increase from 38bn yen to 50bn yen (ho, ho, ho).

I guess you don't believe the yen is much weaker this year than last year?

Well according to CIPA for the first 3 months of 2013, global mirrorless shipments were down 18.5% YOY in unit terms and 17.9% in value terms (yen). So the depreciating yen helps a bit but a 32% growth forecast against a market declining 18% seems pretty jolly to me.

Thanks for that.  I pulled up CIPA and the slides you generously linked.

In Q4 of the japanese fiscal year 2013(Q1 2013 calander year)

-47.6%  Fixed Lens

-23.4%  DSLR

-18.5%  mirrorless interchangable

According to Olympuses report from the year ending march 2013, m4/3 increased sales.

I agree with all the information, m4/3 may decline this year, but it appears DSLR will decrease more.

ed2002 Regular Member • Posts: 254
Re: Mirrorless, not m4/3

justmeMN wrote:

There m4/3 efforts are healthy. To bad you are scared for some competition.

The chart you posted is titled "Mirrorless Composition Ratio". It is *not* titled "M4/3 Composition Ratio".

Of the 14.3% claimed mirrorless camera share in North America, I suspect that most of them are Nikon 1 and Sony NEX. One reason I say that, is that they are visible and backed by an advertising budget. In the USA, m4/3 is a pretty obscure niche.

"Panasonic expects a net loss of 765 billion yen ($7.8 billion) for the year to March 2013". They are not exactly a powerhouse that generates fear in others.

We don't have figures from the US, but we can guess it isn't way off from Japan.  Olympus leads, Sony is Number 2, Panasonic 3.  Nikon is far behind in 4th.  Canon market share is so small its not worth talking about.  m43 should have more than half the market.

ed2002 Regular Member • Posts: 254
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering

MichaelKJ wrote:

thorkilry wrote:

It is funny how people se things  diffrently.

The stock holders reaction to the 2013 year end result, was a +500p from 2715 to 3215...

Given that Olympus is, for all practical purposes, a medical equipment business, you comment is irrelevant as far as the issue of the health of mirrorless cameras is concerned.

The following is from an interview with the CEO in the annual report:

Question:

The competitive environment facing
the Imaging Business and the profit
structure seem more adverse than
those facing the other core business
domains. In such circumstances,
what reasons are there for Olympus
to continue the Imaging Business?

Answer:

As I mentioned previously, the Imaging Business is simultaneously a brand driver and an optical and
imaging technology driver. An important purpose of the Imaging Business is to apply imaging
technologies created in an adverse competitive environment to the medical and life science fields

.....

If we didn’t have the Imaging Business, a seven-year gap would occur in imaging technologies
that might make it difficult to introduce the latest innovations into the medical field.

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/common/pdf/ar2012e.pdf (see page 26)

That seems like good information.  At least R&D for ilc is strategic.  I'm sure if people would pay money for the point and shoot portion, Olympus would sell it.  Its dead weight.  They hope to cut losses from point and shoots.

ilc on the other hand are growing in market share as phones take over the low end.  In Q1 2013 all cameras fell, but ilc fell the least, giving it a growing market share in non phone-cameras as a whole.  I would expect from the anual report, where oly seems like it will continue to lose money on fixed lens cameras, but may make enough money on m4/3 to keep the division together with some broad cost cutting.

peripheralfocus Veteran Member • Posts: 4,287
where does it say that mirrorless was profitable?
3

Jorginho wrote:

3) Mirrorless sales were profitable because of OMD

I could not find this statement in Olympus's report. Could you provide a link or a screenshot of the page in the report where they say this? Thanks.

tecnoworld
tecnoworld Veteran Member • Posts: 7,208
Re: Mirrorless Takes Another Hammering

Now that samsung released the source code for nx300, many photogrphers with coding skills could be interested in adding functions to it (ala chdk, but with a much more powerful hardware). So the situation could change and samsung could become a big player in the mirrorless market.

 tecnoworld's gear list:tecnoworld's gear list
Samsung TL500 Samsung NX200 Samsung NX100 Samsung NX300 Samsung NX1 +15 more
LincolnB Veteran Member • Posts: 4,360
Re: Chef Ramsey.. (Bleep) me
3

Doesn't matter if you can't make a profit on them. The biggest thing holding back mirrorless is price. If it was 200-300 dollars, I would buy one...

These were taken with my $299 DMC-G3 with kit lens:

DMC-G3 and a $50 lens:

DMC-G3 and a $30 lens:

So are you going to buy one? The GX1 for example is on sale now for less than $250. The GF2 is $220. The EP2 goes for $210.

 LincolnB's gear list:LincolnB's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P1 Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 Fujifilm X-E1 Sony a7 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads