for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower Locked

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
Tommi K1 Senior Member • Posts: 6,927
Profits with lenses for minor market share, profits from bodies in smaller formats.

Jefftan wrote:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/15/fujifilm-qa-cpplus-2019-af-tidbits-lenses-100-mp

TI: Yes, yes. I think the customers should have different options. We don't believe that all of the customers will go to full-frame. At the moment, I think the proportion of full-frame is probably one-third of the market by value.

DE: Oh, by value actually. So in terms of unit sales, it would be much lower.

TI: Yes, so two-thirds of the market is non-full frame, which is predominantly APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, and some medium-format as well.

A few years old market statics, the FF sales from the Canon was around 15%, rest was the APS-C. For Nikon it was little less than that, closer to 10% and rest were APS-C.

The main profits came from the APS-C, the grocery and general electronic store sales of the $400-500 kits, and then the major sales boost from a super zoom lens like 18-200mm or 18-135mm kind ones.

But where does the main profit come from Canon and Nikon? It is not the bodies, it is the lenses. 24-70, 70-200, 300mm, 400mm, 500mm, and then 16-35mm. And then goes all the rest of the 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm etc. Why they can't produce a great APS-C lens line ups as it would eat the FF lens sales, and so on the profits to sell the glass. It is not the bodies, it is the lenses that generate the sales. You hook the customers with lenses, you update the lenses and you just throw the new bodies now and then with minor updates, as anyways the users will skip one or even two models of the bodies but get new lenses to improve their photography. Canon and Nikon offers great deals for swap programs, where you return a old body and you pay exchange to new one and that is very cheap exchange.

The main money is done on the APS-C format, there is bigger exchange in the bodies than on FF side, but many is required to buy those FF lenses to compensate the lack of the choices.

And yet considering the amount of the sales of the FF, it is way overhyped format. And when it comes to as well for the lens collections, it is reflecting the lack of great APS-C lenses from the big two.

richarddd
richarddd Veteran Member • Posts: 3,299
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

CharlesB58 wrote:

If a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer says he does fine with m4/3, and a guy who spends more time doing youtube videos than actually working photo jobs tells me I must use FF, who has more credibility?

I'm going to guess that most people are closer in photographic talent to a random youtuber than a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer.

A question is then which format is better for a less talented photographer, including producing better jpgs or easier to fix in processing.

 richarddd's gear list:richarddd's gear list
Sony RX100 III Olympus OM-D E-M5 Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm F4 ASPH Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 +4 more
petreluk Senior Member • Posts: 1,496
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

CharlesB58 wrote:

CIPA data and other figures point to overall FF sales being around 16% of all ILC sales by unit. I've been pointing this out by years in response to the "FF will rule" crowd.

People must understand that a lot of the chatter comes from "enthusiasts" who view FF as a badge of honor. Many of them really don't need FF (in fact some of them can't take photos that match the capability of FF). But owning FF is a way of showing others they are "serious photographers" (meaning they think they are better photographers than those who don't own FF).

That's not to say that all FF owners are this way. Many FF owners who post on this forum also own m4/3 and other formats. They rightly cite certain advantages of FF, but don't come across as though FF owners are inherently better photographers.

When you stir in the blogger/vlogger divas, whose main goal in many cases is to get hits (not give accurate information) then things get messier. I watch some youtube stars go on and on about FF, then do some research, and find out they are not the "experts" or have the level of success as pros that they want people to believe.

If a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer says he does fine with m4/3, and a guy who spends more time doing youtube videos than actually working photo jobs tells me I must use FF, who has more credibility?

I agree with your sentiments but in the end this is about money and marketshare. It's just business. The camera market is nearly 90 per cent controlled by just three large companies, and the FF market is I'd guess more than 95 per cent controlled by the same three outfits.

So these three outfits - Canon, Nikon and Sony - are in a very strong position to get what they want and to drive consumers towards it. What they want are strong margins and good profits. At present it appears all three have decided to do that by pushing FF and by aiming their product ranges much more towards a smaller number of higher-priced items. They are going up the market because the received wisdom is that down the market means decimation by smartphone.

All three have now piled into mirrorless FF. That represents a huge investment for them, one they'll be looking to pay off bigtime. More FF pressure. Bear in mind that none of the smaller camera outfits are in a position to grow more than very slowly. They are too small and very probably lack access to capital. Staying small is what they do, deliberately in the case of Olympus and Ricoh, probably Fuji too. So even if consumers become iffy about FF, the big three companies will continue to call nearly all the shots and the smaller outfits won't be taking up any of the slack.

I'm not saying you are mistaken - after all, no one one knows. And it is certainly nonsense to suggest it is the camera not the photographer which makes the image. However, thinking that FF will be a hollow promise and a false dawn is betting straight against the market and the three companies which own 9/10ths of it. That might be a very wise thing to do, and fortunes have been made this way, but best to know it first.

I should emphasise that this is little or nothing to do with what brand or format suits someone. Buy whatever you want and enjoy it. Life is too short for anything else.

-- hide signature --
onlyfreeman
onlyfreeman Senior Member • Posts: 1,453
Will China save the camera market?

Whichever company can appeal best to the Chinese might become very successful, even as the market shrinks in the rest of the world?

I wonder cameras they prefer currently?

 onlyfreeman's gear list:onlyfreeman's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DC-G9 Panasonic 20mm F1.7 II FastStone Photo Resizer Paint.net +1 more
SpinOne Veteran Member • Posts: 3,924
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Jefftan wrote:

Uhhh... What?

Fuji's execs aren't telling us anything new. Fuji decided years ago to go with APS and MF, and they did that based on what they thought would sell, and what would make a profit. Part of that calculation is that APS, M43, 1", etc sensors aren't going to disappear tomorrow.

I think you're just letting the local gearheads get to you.

snowsurferDS
snowsurferDS Regular Member • Posts: 135
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

Why the hell is everyone replying about Chinese market? The replies by the Fuji representative never talked about Chinese market specifically. This may come as a YUGE suprise to you people, but there are more countries in Asia, several of them with very strong markets (Japan, Korea, India, etc).

 snowsurferDS's gear list:snowsurferDS's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 Pro Olympus 7-14mm F2.8 Pro Panasonic Lumix G 42.5mm F1.7 Pentax K-7 +4 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,711
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Jefftan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Simplistically, it is the lower end that get wiped out first. It's probably unlikely that the size of that 30% will change much, but in a few years it could be closer to 70-90%. Which is also not to say that there is not still potential life in the remaining 30-10%.

In that context, you can understand the game Panasonic is playing.

i am not so sure u are correct

A6500/M100..etc now sold a lot of units

wiped out by phone?

all use phone? even in holiday trip?

really?

I think somewhere you omitted to notice that I was talking about future trends. Of course, I cannot predict them, but given the R&D turnround on these products is likely a couple of years, you can see that today's product developments depend on the likely state of the market in a couple of years time.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,750
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

petreluk wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

CIPA data and other figures point to overall FF sales being around 16% of all ILC sales by unit. I've been pointing this out by years in response to the "FF will rule" crowd.

People must understand that a lot of the chatter comes from "enthusiasts" who view FF as a badge of honor. Many of them really don't need FF (in fact some of them can't take photos that match the capability of FF). But owning FF is a way of showing others they are "serious photographers" (meaning they think they are better photographers than those who don't own FF).

That's not to say that all FF owners are this way. Many FF owners who post on this forum also own m4/3 and other formats. They rightly cite certain advantages of FF, but don't come across as though FF owners are inherently better photographers.

When you stir in the blogger/vlogger divas, whose main goal in many cases is to get hits (not give accurate information) then things get messier. I watch some youtube stars go on and on about FF, then do some research, and find out they are not the "experts" or have the level of success as pros that they want people to believe.

If a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer says he does fine with m4/3, and a guy who spends more time doing youtube videos than actually working photo jobs tells me I must use FF, who has more credibility?

I agree with your sentiments but in the end this is about money and marketshare. It's just business. The camera market is nearly 90 per cent controlled by just three large companies, and the FF market is I'd guess more than 95 per cent controlled by the same three outfits.

So these three outfits - Canon, Nikon and Sony - are in a very strong position to get what they want and to drive consumers towards it. What they want are strong margins and good profits. At present it appears all three have decided to do that by pushing FF and by aiming their product ranges much more towards a smaller number of higher-priced items. They are going up the market because the received wisdom is that down the market means decimation by smartphone.

All three have now piled into mirrorless FF. That represents a huge investment for them, one they'll be looking to pay off bigtime. More FF pressure. Bear in mind that none of the smaller camera outfits are in a position to grow more than very slowly. They are too small and very probably lack access to capital. Staying small is what they do, deliberately in the case of Olympus and Ricoh, probably Fuji too. So even if consumers become iffy about FF, the big three companies will continue to call nearly all the shots and the smaller outfits won't be taking up any of the slack.

I'm not saying you are mistaken - after all, no one one knows. And it is certainly nonsense to suggest it is the camera not the photographer which makes the image. However, thinking that FF will be a hollow promise and a false dawn is betting straight against the market and the three companies which own 9/10ths of it. That might be a very wise thing to do, and fortunes have been made this way, but best to know it first.

They wish.

If they could control the market to the extent you suggest, then smartphone cameras would never have happened, and the point-and-shoot market would still exist.

These companies are behaving like dinosaurs shortly after the asteroid hit.  What, they don't like our products?  Well, let's make products that are even more amazing ... let's make 'em bigger, more expensive. If they don't like 40 MP, well we'll give 'em 100MP.  After all, the biggest, baddest dinosaur will be the one that survives.

Give a young person a Nikon 850, and the first thing they'll look for is the button to upload their images to the favorite cloud service.  Then next thing they'll do is look for the app to edit their photos.  Then they'll want to put it their back pocket.  And what about the purchase plan?

Frankly, I'm not sure we have yet seen the end game of the camera industry.  With a few exceptions (mFT, Fuji among them), they have not embraced faster, better, cheaper.  In fact, they've largely run the other direction.

I seriously doubt that there will be 5 FF manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Panasonic) in five years.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,750
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

bobn2 wrote:

Jefftan wrote:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/15/fujifilm-qa-cpplus-2019-af-tidbits-lenses-100-mp

TI: Yes, yes. I think the customers should have different options. We don't believe that all of the customers will go to full-frame. At the moment, I think the proportion of full-frame is probably one-third of the market by value.

DE: Oh, by value actually. So in terms of unit sales, it would be much lower.

TI: Yes, so two-thirds of the market is non-full frame, which is predominantly APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, and some medium-format as well.

TI: We really just cannot believe that projection of Canon's.

DE: Yeah. What are your projections, what do you think the market will do overall?

TI: I think it all depends on what innovation and what influence comes from the manufacturers. It's our mission to make the market viable. So I think our projection is there's a lot of room even to grow further in the camera market.

DE: It might even grow? (!)

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

DE: ...is actually going to grow as well. Wow, that's interesting. Yeah, certainly I hear from everyone that China is a huge market, and it's got to be pretty low penetration for cameras there still, so there's a lot of opportunity there.

TI: Yes.

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with micro Four Thirds, or why it's on this forum, but here goes anyway.

The specialist photographic market is on the cusp of a major change. The market is declining. The compact cameras which formed the huge majority a few years ago have been wiped out. In another few years the market will look very different from what it does now. The bet that most camera manufacturers seem to be making is that there will still be profits in the market, but with higher value, lower volume products. So, that is where the action is. The question is, not what will dominate in today's market, but what will in this new market. Simplistically, it is the lower end that get wiped out first. It's probably unlikely that the size of that 30% will change much, but in a few years it could be closer to 70-90%. Which is also not to say that there is not still potential life in the remaining 30-10%.

In that context, you can understand the game Panasonic is playing.

I think you've stated this perfectly, and agree about Panasonic's strategy.  But to take it a step further, I don't see how Panasonic can be successful by competing heads up with Sony, Canon, and Nikon for the FF market.  Bigger and more expensive is not the usual way to gain entry against entrenched competition.

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
kelstertx Veteran Member • Posts: 4,923
Here's what the Chinese want

Mark Ransom wrote:

So do you think a camera designed to appeal to the Chinese will also appeal to the rest of us?

That's easy. An APS-C model with this style: 

-Kelly

 kelstertx's gear list:kelstertx's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm F4-5.6 R Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 45-175mm F4.0-5.6 ASPH OIS +4 more
golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,127
Biznass

Offer something unique.

It looks like Panasonic's pitch is to try to offer premium everything.

That is a bit different than the big three who are trying to thread a needle of price to performance. Well......two out of three

 golfhov's gear list:golfhov's gear list
Panasonic LX10 Sony a7R II Sony a7 III Samyang 14mm F2.8 ED AS IF UMC Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD +11 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,711
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jefftan wrote:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/15/fujifilm-qa-cpplus-2019-af-tidbits-lenses-100-mp

TI: Yes, yes. I think the customers should have different options. We don't believe that all of the customers will go to full-frame. At the moment, I think the proportion of full-frame is probably one-third of the market by value.

DE: Oh, by value actually. So in terms of unit sales, it would be much lower.

TI: Yes, so two-thirds of the market is non-full frame, which is predominantly APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, and some medium-format as well.

TI: We really just cannot believe that projection of Canon's.

DE: Yeah. What are your projections, what do you think the market will do overall?

TI: I think it all depends on what innovation and what influence comes from the manufacturers. It's our mission to make the market viable. So I think our projection is there's a lot of room even to grow further in the camera market.

DE: It might even grow? (!)

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

DE: ...is actually going to grow as well. Wow, that's interesting. Yeah, certainly I hear from everyone that China is a huge market, and it's got to be pretty low penetration for cameras there still, so there's a lot of opportunity there.

TI: Yes.

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with micro Four Thirds, or why it's on this forum, but here goes anyway.

The specialist photographic market is on the cusp of a major change. The market is declining. The compact cameras which formed the huge majority a few years ago have been wiped out. In another few years the market will look very different from what it does now. The bet that most camera manufacturers seem to be making is that there will still be profits in the market, but with higher value, lower volume products. So, that is where the action is. The question is, not what will dominate in today's market, but what will in this new market. Simplistically, it is the lower end that get wiped out first. It's probably unlikely that the size of that 30% will change much, but in a few years it could be closer to 70-90%. Which is also not to say that there is not still potential life in the remaining 30-10%.

In that context, you can understand the game Panasonic is playing.

I think you've stated this perfectly, and agree about Panasonic's strategy. But to take it a step further, I don't see how Panasonic can be successful by competing heads up with Sony, Canon, and Nikon for the FF market. Bigger and more expensive is not the usual way to gain entry against entrenched competition.

I don't think Panasonic sees itself as competing for the FF market, I think it sees itself as competing in the FF market. I think it has some skills and strengths as a very diversified electrical and electronic company, even more so than Sony. That is, the cameras are one product line amongst many. They don't have to support the company on their own, they just have to make a profit - and I think there's every chance of that, since they can piggy-back on their overall business in terms of production, distribution, marketing and support.

Simply, Panasonic doesn't have to be dominant or even one of the bigger players to be able to make a turn on the camera business. It isn't a status statement for their company, simply one more product line, one that looks very strong and complementary with respect, for instance, to their broadcast camera products.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

Jeff Veteran Member • Posts: 5,750
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jefftan wrote:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/15/fujifilm-qa-cpplus-2019-af-tidbits-lenses-100-mp

TI: Yes, yes. I think the customers should have different options. We don't believe that all of the customers will go to full-frame. At the moment, I think the proportion of full-frame is probably one-third of the market by value.

DE: Oh, by value actually. So in terms of unit sales, it would be much lower.

TI: Yes, so two-thirds of the market is non-full frame, which is predominantly APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, and some medium-format as well.

TI: We really just cannot believe that projection of Canon's.

DE: Yeah. What are your projections, what do you think the market will do overall?

TI: I think it all depends on what innovation and what influence comes from the manufacturers. It's our mission to make the market viable. So I think our projection is there's a lot of room even to grow further in the camera market.

DE: It might even grow? (!)

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

DE: ...is actually going to grow as well. Wow, that's interesting. Yeah, certainly I hear from everyone that China is a huge market, and it's got to be pretty low penetration for cameras there still, so there's a lot of opportunity there.

TI: Yes.

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with micro Four Thirds, or why it's on this forum, but here goes anyway.

The specialist photographic market is on the cusp of a major change. The market is declining. The compact cameras which formed the huge majority a few years ago have been wiped out. In another few years the market will look very different from what it does now. The bet that most camera manufacturers seem to be making is that there will still be profits in the market, but with higher value, lower volume products. So, that is where the action is. The question is, not what will dominate in today's market, but what will in this new market. Simplistically, it is the lower end that get wiped out first. It's probably unlikely that the size of that 30% will change much, but in a few years it could be closer to 70-90%. Which is also not to say that there is not still potential life in the remaining 30-10%.

In that context, you can understand the game Panasonic is playing.

I think you've stated this perfectly, and agree about Panasonic's strategy. But to take it a step further, I don't see how Panasonic can be successful by competing heads up with Sony, Canon, and Nikon for the FF market. Bigger and more expensive is not the usual way to gain entry against entrenched competition.

I don't think Panasonic sees itself as competing for the FF market, I think it sees itself as competing in the FF market. I think it has some skills and strengths as a very diversified electrical and electronic company, even more so than Sony. That is, the cameras are one product line amongst many. They don't have to support the company on their own, they just have to make a profit - and I think there's every chance of that, since they can piggy-back on their overall business in terms of production, distribution, marketing and support.

Simply, Panasonic doesn't have to be dominant or even one of the bigger players to be able to make a turn on the camera business. It isn't a status statement for their company, simply one more product line, one that looks very strong and complementary with respect, for instance, to their broadcast camera products.

So two questions ...

1. Will that market ... high-end FF cameras in the E, F, L, R, Z mounts ... get substantially larger, small, or stay about the same for the next 5-10 years?  (I'm thinking about the same).

2. Will Panasonic's marketshare come at the expense of current incumbants? (I'm thinking thinking Nikon is the most vulnerable for the business reasons you state in your case for Panasonic.)

 Jeff's gear list:Jeff's gear list
Olympus 45mm F1.2 Pro Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 150mm 1:2.0 +9 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,711
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jeff wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Jefftan wrote:

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/15/fujifilm-qa-cpplus-2019-af-tidbits-lenses-100-mp

TI: Yes, yes. I think the customers should have different options. We don't believe that all of the customers will go to full-frame. At the moment, I think the proportion of full-frame is probably one-third of the market by value.

DE: Oh, by value actually. So in terms of unit sales, it would be much lower.

TI: Yes, so two-thirds of the market is non-full frame, which is predominantly APS-C, Micro Four Thirds, and some medium-format as well.

TI: We really just cannot believe that projection of Canon's.

DE: Yeah. What are your projections, what do you think the market will do overall?

TI: I think it all depends on what innovation and what influence comes from the manufacturers. It's our mission to make the market viable. So I think our projection is there's a lot of room even to grow further in the camera market.

DE: It might even grow? (!)

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

DE: ...is actually going to grow as well. Wow, that's interesting. Yeah, certainly I hear from everyone that China is a huge market, and it's got to be pretty low penetration for cameras there still, so there's a lot of opportunity there.

TI: Yes.

I'm not sure what this thread has to do with micro Four Thirds, or why it's on this forum, but here goes anyway.

The specialist photographic market is on the cusp of a major change. The market is declining. The compact cameras which formed the huge majority a few years ago have been wiped out. In another few years the market will look very different from what it does now. The bet that most camera manufacturers seem to be making is that there will still be profits in the market, but with higher value, lower volume products. So, that is where the action is. The question is, not what will dominate in today's market, but what will in this new market. Simplistically, it is the lower end that get wiped out first. It's probably unlikely that the size of that 30% will change much, but in a few years it could be closer to 70-90%. Which is also not to say that there is not still potential life in the remaining 30-10%.

In that context, you can understand the game Panasonic is playing.

I think you've stated this perfectly, and agree about Panasonic's strategy. But to take it a step further, I don't see how Panasonic can be successful by competing heads up with Sony, Canon, and Nikon for the FF market. Bigger and more expensive is not the usual way to gain entry against entrenched competition.

I don't think Panasonic sees itself as competing for the FF market, I think it sees itself as competing in the FF market. I think it has some skills and strengths as a very diversified electrical and electronic company, even more so than Sony. That is, the cameras are one product line amongst many. They don't have to support the company on their own, they just have to make a profit - and I think there's every chance of that, since they can piggy-back on their overall business in terms of production, distribution, marketing and support.

Simply, Panasonic doesn't have to be dominant or even one of the bigger players to be able to make a turn on the camera business. It isn't a status statement for their company, simply one more product line, one that looks very strong and complementary with respect, for instance, to their broadcast camera products.

So two questions ...

1. Will that market ... high-end FF cameras in the E, F, L, R, Z mounts ... get substantially larger, small, or stay about the same for the next 5-10 years? (I'm thinking about the same).

I certainly don't think it will enlarge, it could contract, but I suspect less than most of the other sectors.

2. Will Panasonic's marketshare come at the expense of current incumbants? (I'm thinking thinking Nikon is the most vulnerable for the business reasons you state in your case for Panasonic.)

I think in some perverse way, Nikon's weakness is also its strength, in that it is the 'purest' camera company in this market, which is something it can exploit. My own guess is that if Panasonic finds a niche, it's likely to be at the expense mostly of Canon, but not so much that Canon is likely to notice. There's something about the R line which smacks to me that Canon's corporate heart still isn't in it, and I think perhaps that gives the others opportunities. I'd still expect Canon to be the market leader, probably Sony number two, Nikon number three and Panasonic number 4. But if you can work the unit price up over $2k, you can make a turn on a much lower volume.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

petreluk Senior Member • Posts: 1,496
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

petreluk wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

CIPA data and other figures point to overall FF sales being around 16% of all ILC sales by unit. I've been pointing this out by years in response to the "FF will rule" crowd.

People must understand that a lot of the chatter comes from "enthusiasts" who view FF as a badge of honor. Many of them really don't need FF (in fact some of them can't take photos that match the capability of FF). But owning FF is a way of showing others they are "serious photographers" (meaning they think they are better photographers than those who don't own FF).

That's not to say that all FF owners are this way. Many FF owners who post on this forum also own m4/3 and other formats. They rightly cite certain advantages of FF, but don't come across as though FF owners are inherently better photographers.

When you stir in the blogger/vlogger divas, whose main goal in many cases is to get hits (not give accurate information) then things get messier. I watch some youtube stars go on and on about FF, then do some research, and find out they are not the "experts" or have the level of success as pros that they want people to believe.

If a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer says he does fine with m4/3, and a guy who spends more time doing youtube videos than actually working photo jobs tells me I must use FF, who has more credibility?

I agree with your sentiments but in the end this is about money and marketshare. It's just business. The camera market is nearly 90 per cent controlled by just three large companies, and the FF market is I'd guess more than 95 per cent controlled by the same three outfits.

So these three outfits - Canon, Nikon and Sony - are in a very strong position to get what they want and to drive consumers towards it. What they want are strong margins and good profits. At present it appears all three have decided to do that by pushing FF and by aiming their product ranges much more towards a smaller number of higher-priced items. They are going up the market because the received wisdom is that down the market means decimation by smartphone.

All three have now piled into mirrorless FF. That represents a huge investment for them, one they'll be looking to pay off bigtime. More FF pressure. Bear in mind that none of the smaller camera outfits are in a position to grow more than very slowly. They are too small and very probably lack access to capital. Staying small is what they do, deliberately in the case of Olympus and Ricoh, probably Fuji too. So even if consumers become iffy about FF, the big three companies will continue to call nearly all the shots and the smaller outfits won't be taking up any of the slack.

I'm not saying you are mistaken - after all, no one one knows. And it is certainly nonsense to suggest it is the camera not the photographer which makes the image. However, thinking that FF will be a hollow promise and a false dawn is betting straight against the market and the three companies which own 9/10ths of it. That might be a very wise thing to do, and fortunes have been made this way, but best to know it first.

I should emphasise that this is little or nothing to do with what brand or format suits someone. Buy whatever you want and enjoy it. Life is too short for anything else.

Fazal Majid
Fazal Majid Senior Member • Posts: 1,751
Re: What will appeal to the Chinese?

Mark Ransom wrote:

Henry Richardson wrote:

Mark Ransom wrote:

So do you think a camera designed to appeal to the Chinese will also appeal to the rest of us?

What do you believe is a camera and system that will appeal particularly to the Chinese, but maybe not "to the rest of us"? I suspect all the Chinese people do not think and want exactly the same things. Just like all other people all around the world.

It would be naive to assume that every market world-wide is identical. To give just one example, I assume that the average disposable income in China is less than the average for participants of this forum. So perhaps a device targeted to that market would sacrifice functionality for a lower price. But maybe that's a prejudice I have that is not justified, so my question is legitimate - how would a product designed to appeal to Chinese tastes fail to attract a more global market? I've already seen examples of products for the Japanese market that fail to catch on internationally.

In the waning years of film cameras Kodak pinned their hopes on the Chinese and Indian markets, arguing digital cameras were too expensive for them and they would stick with film a bit longer. The Chinese and Indians did not take kindly to be patronized thusly and switched to digital even faster than the West.

One characteristic Asian markets do share is they don’t believe in the “bigger is better” mentality of the US, where pro cameras were deliberately bigger and heavier they needed to be lest they be perceived as figuratively lightweight.

-- hide signature --

Fazal Majid (www.majid.info)

 Fazal Majid's gear list:Fazal Majid's gear list
Sony RX1R II Ricoh GR III Fujifilm X-T2 Leica M10 Nikon Z7 +28 more
Gary Martin
Gary Martin Veteran Member • Posts: 4,475
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

CharlesB58 wrote:

If a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer says he does fine with m4/3, and a guy who spends more time doing youtube videos than actually working photo jobs tells me I must use FF, who has more credibility?

I'm going to guess that most people are closer in photographic talent to a random youtuber than a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer.

A question is then which format is better for a less talented photographer, including producing better jpgs or easier to fix in processing.

So, what you're saying is that for some, it's better to spend money on higher-end gear than trying to improve ability? Sadly, I think you're right.

-- hide signature --
 Gary Martin's gear list:Gary Martin's gear list
Ricoh GR III Olympus PEN-F Pentax K-1 Pentax KP Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited +10 more
petreluk Senior Member • Posts: 1,496
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Jeff wrote:

petreluk wrote:

CharlesB58 wrote:

CIPA data and other figures point to overall FF sales being around 16% of all ILC sales by unit. I've been pointing this out by years in response to the "FF will rule" crowd.

People must understand that a lot of the chatter comes from "enthusiasts" who view FF as a badge of honor. Many of them really don't need FF (in fact some of them can't take photos that match the capability of FF). But owning FF is a way of showing others they are "serious photographers" (meaning they think they are better photographers than those who don't own FF).

That's not to say that all FF owners are this way. Many FF owners who post on this forum also own m4/3 and other formats. They rightly cite certain advantages of FF, but don't come across as though FF owners are inherently better photographers.

When you stir in the blogger/vlogger divas, whose main goal in many cases is to get hits (not give accurate information) then things get messier. I watch some youtube stars go on and on about FF, then do some research, and find out they are not the "experts" or have the level of success as pros that they want people to believe.

If a Pulitzer Prize winning photographer says he does fine with m4/3, and a guy who spends more time doing youtube videos than actually working photo jobs tells me I must use FF, who has more credibility?

I agree with your sentiments but in the end this is about money and marketshare. It's just business. The camera market is nearly 90 per cent controlled by just three large companies, and the FF market is I'd guess more than 95 per cent controlled by the same three outfits.

So these three outfits - Canon, Nikon and Sony - are in a very strong position to get what they want and to drive consumers towards it. What they want are strong margins and good profits. At present it appears all three have decided to do that by pushing FF and by aiming their product ranges much more towards a smaller number of higher-priced items. They are going up the market because the received wisdom is that down the market means decimation by smartphone.

All three have now piled into mirrorless FF. That represents a huge investment for them, one they'll be looking to pay off bigtime. More FF pressure. Bear in mind that none of the smaller camera outfits are in a position to grow more than very slowly. They are too small and very probably lack access to capital. Staying small is what they do, deliberately in the case of Olympus and Ricoh, probably Fuji too. So even if consumers become iffy about FF, the big three companies will continue to call nearly all the shots and the smaller outfits won't be taking up any of the slack.

I'm not saying you are mistaken - after all, no one one knows. And it is certainly nonsense to suggest it is the camera not the photographer which makes the image. However, thinking that FF will be a hollow promise and a false dawn is betting straight against the market and the three companies which own 9/10ths of it. That might be a very wise thing to do, and fortunes have been made this way, but best to know it first.

They wish.

If they could control the market to the extent you suggest, then smartphone cameras would never have happened, and the point-and-shoot market would still exist.

These companies are behaving like dinosaurs shortly after the asteroid hit. What, they don't like our products? Well, let's make products that are even more amazing ... let's make 'em bigger, more expensive. If they don't like 40 MP, well we'll give 'em 100MP. After all, the biggest, baddest dinosaur will be the one that survives.

Give a young person a Nikon 850, and the first thing they'll look for is the button to upload their images to the favorite cloud service. Then next thing they'll do is look for the app to edit their photos. Then they'll want to put it their back pocket. And what about the purchase plan?

Frankly, I'm not sure we have yet seen the end game of the camera industry. With a few exceptions (mFT, Fuji among them), they have not embraced faster, better, cheaper. In fact, they've largely run the other direction.

I seriously doubt that there will be 5 FF manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Leica, Panasonic) in five years.

At issue is whether a combination of smartphones and three large companies with agendas will push FF to a greater marketshare than it has today at the expense of smaller formats, among them M43 - for those who still want and can afford a full-on, dedicated ILS camera. It's pretty clear the bet is that this will happen, at least to some degree. In say three years, the bet is that FF will have a larger share of the market than it has today

That may be wrong of course, and still has no bearing on personal choice of camera or format, but that looks to be the betting. Wishing it were otherwise won't make it go away. Several of the outfits you claim to be dinosaurs have large and very successful broadcast imaging businesses as well as fingers in many other pies.

-- hide signature --
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,720
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

snowsurferDS wrote:

TI: Yeah, yeah, yeah. If we look at the Asian market, there's a huge population over there. Some countries may decline, but some countries soon will change to growth. I think overall, the global camera market, you know...

Why the hell is everyone replying about Chinese market? The replies by the Fuji representative never talked about Chinese market specifically. This may come as a YUGE suprise to you people, but there are more countries in Asia, several of them with very strong markets (Japan, Korea, India, etc).

I guess that would be my fault.  Serves me right for trying to make just one more post before going to sleep.

 Mark Ransom's gear list:Mark Ransom's gear list
Pentax K-7 Pentax K-01 Olympus E-M5 II Pentax smc DA 15mm F4 ED AL Limited Pentax smc DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] DC WR +6 more
greyghost59 Regular Member • Posts: 475
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Yes i agree wether we like it or not the camera market is in decline its a fact.  Slowly the camera manufacturers will disappear in the coming years or branch into more profitable areas, wether its phones or comps or even watches now seem to be the new thing, my sister now walks around talking into her watch lol. i dont no wether it takes pic but wouldnt surprise me if it did.

But we can still enjoy using our cameras...no doubt in a few years people will be giving us strange looks like we are dinasaurs but who cares.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads