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

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
This thread is locked.
VideoPic
VideoPic Senior Member • Posts: 1,335
Why post this on the MFT forum - why reply to this here?
-- hide signature --

See my Blog for short articles on the Olympus and Panasonic cameras.
https://myolympusomd.blogspot.com/
Tech developments to wipe sensor size arguments, 3yr death countdown started Jan 2019

 VideoPic's gear list:VideoPic's gear list
Olympus PEN-F Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 Panasonic Lumix G X Vario 35-100mm F2.8 OIS +4 more
Mark Ransom
Mark Ransom Veteran Member • Posts: 5,734
Re: Why post this on the MFT forum - why reply to this here?

While the interview was with Fuji, everything said was applicable to m4/3 - it was even called out by name. The point is that the FF revolution is overblown if you look at the actual numbers.

 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
OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,162
Re: BS?

golfhov wrote:

odd things on these forums these days.......

Agree fully. The market is in a constant state of flux. The bottom of it seems to have largely turned into an area to recycle old technology

recycle old tech maybe true but take A6000 as an example

i do landscape so no need all tracking AF tech, with sigma 16mm f1.4 that is professional top IQ on the cheap

i really hope low end won't disappear as some predict

but it may if the public is really not using camera in even tourist site

golfhov Forum Pro • Posts: 10,464
Unchained

Jefftan wrote:

golfhov wrote:

odd things on these forums these days.......

Agree fully. The market is in a constant state of flux. The bottom of it seems to have largely turned into an area to recycle old technology

recycle old tech maybe true but take A6000 as an example

i do landscape so no need all tracking AF tech, with sigma 16mm f1.4 that is professional top IQ on the cheap

I didn't mean it in a negative light. The a6000 is a conundrum. Despite it's age it just keeps going.......

i really hope low end won't disappear as some predict

It won't. It seems standard practice now to keep pumping out older bodies at a discount. I guess that makes more sense than updating cheap starter models

but it may if the public is really not using camera in even tourist site

They aren't. We are more and more becoming a niche pursuit. You could use the "BS" moniker for any format. They will all be here for a while but more and more a cellphone is the average Joe's "good enough"

 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
OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,162
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?

the reverse is true

good photographer can take good pics with even a phone

Yandrosxx Regular Member • Posts: 129
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 believe folks are grossly underestimating how important bulk and size are going to be going forward in any ILC market that develops and how much less MPX and IQ are going to matter to consumer decisions.

James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 4,989
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Whatever Fuji are saying and funnily enough they do not have any FF cameras Not that long ago they were predicting massive market share declines for Canon an Nikon meanwhile back on planet earth . Canon and Nikon accounted for 74% of all ILC sold worldwide

https://photorumors.com/2018/08/01/2018-canon-nikon-and-sony-market-share-latest-nikkei-bcn-and-cipa-reports/

. The FF market is multiple times larger than the entire m43 market both in volume and especially in value. And given that all the big players are now in the FF mirrorless game I fully expect the market share of FF to grow. Given that m43 market share is if anything in decline I am not sure I see how your gleeful post matters here

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
(unknown member) Senior Member • Posts: 1,176
Real story: brutally competitive market

Fuji is the real danger for m43 system.
Fuji offers at least equivalent cameras at cheaper prices.
We do not need to discuss the quality of their lenses.
Even Sony, Canon and Nikon must fear Fuij because they have much less APS-C lenses on offer.

OP Jefftan Veteran Member • Posts: 3,162
Re: Will China save the camera market?

onlyfreeman wrote:

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?

in China most are poor so just use phone

but those 1% are real rich can afford anything

with China population even 1% is a huge number

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,245
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.

My thoughts exactly.

But I think that there is room for high performing compact cameras as well.

Mobile phones are a basic camera device that are more than good enough for more casual users and appears free.  No basic capability compact camera can compete with this.

But I that it is a mistake for manufacturers to effective retreat into larger camera bodies.

The only benefit is the “pricing by kilogram weight” theory where larger cameras and larger lenses can be sold for higher prices.  This theory flows from the adulation of the dslr as a “proper camera” and all this stems from perceived status whereby most will pay more for a camera that reeks of status.

Not that smaller camera bodies cannot be very capable - the GM5 is a good example of what can be done.  It will be criticised for lack of features but the reality is that the GM5 can actually do all the basic things that are expected of a camera - gee-whizz misses out.

The GM5 was not a success - in my mind it was simply because it was classified as “a toy” by much of the market on the basis: small compact cameras are not capable and therefore they are cheap - the GM5 hit the market at a price where it was not cheap enough.  It did sell reasonably well at prices that were less than Panasonic had obviously intended.  So what did Panasonic do - thinking that this was a price point at which they could still sell entry level compact cameras if they rolled much of the technology form the GM series into a cheaper to make body and marketed it as a fun camera for newbies.  Of course they end up downgrading a very serious attempt to make a very small fully functional M4/3 camera body into “the toy” that “everyone” expected it to be.

So there is a bit of love-hate going on in M4/3 system - it has been proved that the 4/3 sensor can be used quite well as a systems camera in a body the size of a Pentax Q or Nikon J1 and yet M4/3 buyers prefer more “features” whether they use them or not in larger camera bodies.  Whilst the industry continues to shun smaller cameras as larger camera gear can elicit both higher prices and the higher margins that flow from this.

To be sure I am not saying all M4/3 cameras have to be smaller - just that M4/3 can make fully functional cameras smaller than FF cameras could ever be.  The camera body size diversity that M4/3 is capable of achieving is a big plus for M4/3 and to ignore the capable tiny size is a mistake as the system needs a full range of (very capable) camera body sizes to difference it from other sensor size mount systems.

The issue in my book is the theory widely held that “compact” cameras are “entry level toys” and that they should not be expensive.  So the only ones that are marketed are dumbed down to the price that the market will pay.  As a result mobile phone cameras (being “free”) can likely out-perform the compact camera for “basic duty” - so what is the point?

The GM series are fully functional state of the art cameras (somwhat lacking in the gee-whizz department but not in the image capture area) which can use <<all>> the lenses that can be mounted on the M4/3 mount and it is self restriction of their use to entry level “toys” that made them look expensive.

Until the general thinking of the camera user market can appreciate that compact cameras <<can>> be made to out-perform mobile phone cameras by being “systems cameras” then we are doomed to being given ever larger and more feature laden camera bodies as the manufacturers thrash around trying to out-status their full frame sensor cousins.

This theory came to a head with me when I first made a truly good dslr/EF-lens kit and realised that this great kit was not suited to be packed for airline travel.

The one camera body - many lenses theory still reigns supreme so a single larger camera body and multiple small lenses might still seem a good idea.  But consider that the GM5 is only “a pack of cards” larger than a lens it is attached to then a series of GM5 bodies each attached to a lens can be pro-like used and also easily fit inot one carry on bag that might struggle with one “large” camera body and just a couple of spare lenses.

... and so multiple expensive tiny camera bodies get to be a $ hill to climb over - so they might become “pro-level” tinies and a joke for anyone to use if they have any appreciation of status-value.  The very public preception of “toy camera” will assuredly kill off the use of multiple GM5 size bodies except for the fringe area of photography - even a large expensive lens on a GM5 cannot change perceived opinion that the dslr size/shape is king.

Anyway - “won’t work” as long as “compact cameras” are considered “toys” and large cameras still radiate “status” and reflect the “professional intent” of the user.

Maybe “one day” the very small camera body will be sold as a premium product but I am not holding my breath

Meanwhile if mobile phone cameras somehow came free in a compact car body it might make things tough for compact BMW and Audi cars where you had to actually buy your own camera.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,245
Why worry about the instant gratification market?

bobn2 wrote:

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.

If you have paid a lot of money for instant communication gratification and get a “free camera” in the process .... add a lack of serious interest in photography as a craft ,,,

Then why not use your free camera that you had in your pocket anyway?

Furthermore - the intended use is simply to share your touristic or personal moment with all your friends who will give it a glance, maybe tell you that it was “wonderful” and move on ....

So I see no bother in using a mobile phone camera if you only wish to have a lightweight interest in photography - these are the modern day Box Brownies or Kodak Folders made even more simple and always there.  This is a boon but the camera/lens industry wil simply return to where it should be for those that take their photographic interests.

At this level it is a case of a picture that would otherwise not be made as there is not enough interest or incentive to actually carry a real camera - so I really wonder why more serious camera users should be bothered worrying about it.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,245
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

James Stirling wrote:

Whatever Fuji are saying and funnily enough they do not have any FF cameras Not that long ago they were predicting massive market share declines for Canon an Nikon meanwhile back on planet earth . Canon and Nikon accounted for 74% of all ILC sold worldwide

https://photorumors.com/2018/08/01/2018-canon-nikon-and-sony-market-share-latest-nikkei-bcn-and-cipa-reports/

. The FF market is multiple times larger than the entire m43 market both in volume and especially in value. And given that all the big players are now in the FF mirrorless game I fully expect the market share of FF to grow. Given that m43 market share is if anything in decline I am not sure I see how your gleeful post matters here

Jim, if fashion follows precedent I imagine that many FF ML purchasers will buy an expensive body and a few lenses and keep them “forever” as a potetnial family heirloom - much as once there were entry level film cameras but most wished for some defining level of camera body and one or two lenses which they both when their finances eventually permitted and kept for the rest of their lives.

I doubt if there will be strict parallel experience but the reality is that those who buy expensive camera gear and churn it over regularly are, and will increasingly, become rare rather than mainstream.

It defies belief that the present churnover market will continue to be as busy as the cost of camera body entry gets higher, new updated models get fewer (unless Canon has its way ) and lenses get more expensive as variety increases and smaller market sales occur for each type in due natural course.

One might wonder if there is room for four or more big players scattered over four incompatible mount systems (for FF ML) to expand to full systems - probably too big to actually fail but the resolve to be a fully fledged system player might weaken if they don’t get anough market share.

Going back to precedents I am not at all convinced that FF ML will become the de-facto future standard but will serve more for photography as the “Medium Format” served for film.  There is a place for the “new digital version of 135 film gear” and I think it is more like 4/3 and aps-c sensor although if the market hankers for the most expensive FF sensor solution (when only the best will do) I am sure that the manufacturers will be happy to oblige and run with the craze until the market itself decides that FF is kind-of expensive and a bit harder to cart around when travelling.

It still has a way to go before the reality sets in ....

Meanwhile “new” is exciting until “new” runs out of puff because the manufacturers run of of puff-$$ to keep regularly adding more of this exciting new product to their inventory.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,245
Re: Why post this on the MFT forum - why reply to this here?

Mark Ransom wrote:

While the interview was with Fuji, everything said was applicable to m4/3 - it was even called out by name. The point is that the FF revolution is overblown if you look at the actual numbers.

Also even though Martin or I could have sent it somewhere else where the M4/3 forum does not shine so brightly it seems to have produced some interesting debate - enough to say that there are people on this forum who are interested in the subject.

(Agreeing)

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

James Stirling
James Stirling Senior Member • Posts: 4,989
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Tom Caldwell wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Whatever Fuji are saying and funnily enough they do not have any FF cameras Not that long ago they were predicting massive market share declines for Canon an Nikon meanwhile back on planet earth . Canon and Nikon accounted for 74% of all ILC sold worldwide

https://photorumors.com/2018/08/01/2018-canon-nikon-and-sony-market-share-latest-nikkei-bcn-and-cipa-reports/

. The FF market is multiple times larger than the entire m43 market both in volume and especially in value. And given that all the big players are now in the FF mirrorless game I fully expect the market share of FF to grow. Given that m43 market share is if anything in decline I am not sure I see how your gleeful post matters here

Jim, if fashion follows precedent I imagine that many FF ML purchasers will buy an expensive body and a few lenses and keep them “forever” as a potetnial family heirloom - much as once there were entry level film cameras but most wished for some defining level of camera body and one or two lenses which they both when their finances eventually permitted and kept for the rest of their lives.

When you look at the CIPA numbers over the years will mirrorless has bobbed along reasonably steady , it has in no way covered the massive decline in DSLR numbers. In 2012 the first year they had full mirrorless numbers between them and DSLR's 21million cameras were shifted last year the total between them both was just under 11 million.

I doubt if there will be strict parallel experience but the reality is that those who buy expensive camera gear and churn it over regularly are, and will increasingly, become rare rather than mainstream.

I agree I think that the market for non mobile phone photography is going to be in retreat in coming years . Most of us are in the or near to the the old fart crowd as opposed to young bucks. While they do of course exist the volume of young people with for lack of a better word "real" cameras is not a huge growth area to say the least

It defies belief that the present churnover market will continue to be as busy as the cost of camera body entry gets higher, new updated models get fewer (unless Canon has its way ) and lenses get more expensive as variety increases and smaller market sales occur for each type in due natural course.

I think a smaller choice of higher end higher profit margin products will be the future for all brands. I think that the market for lower end mass market gear is not enough to sustain it or the companies moving forward

One might wonder if there is room for four or more big players scattered over four incompatible mount systems (for FF ML) to expand to full systems - probably too big to actually fail but the resolve to be a fully fledged system player might weaken if they don’t get anough market share.

Going back to precedents I am not at all convinced that FF ML will become the de-facto future standard but will serve more for photography as the “Medium Format” served for film. There is a place for the “new digital version of 135 film gear” and I think it is more like 4/3 and aps-c sensor although if the market hankers for the most expensive FF sensor solution (when only the best will do) I am sure that the manufacturers will be happy to oblige and run with the craze until the market itself decides that FF is kind-of expensive and a bit harder to cart around when travelling.

Given that all the big players and a few smaller high end makers are all playing in FF land . I can see the remaining market moving that way. The cart about thing rather depends on what you tend to shoot my typical travel serious photo option as opposed to just casual where my wife's miniscule RX100 IV serves enough.

Consists of a camera { very handy for photos } an uwa zoom a standard zoom and a small more discrete lens for social shooting . I have the A7rIII along with 12-24mm F/4 , 24-105mm F/4 and the dinky Samyang 35mm F/2.8 { a surprisingly capable hunk of plastic } . To get a similar set up in m43 I would use my GX8 , 20mm Panasonic and I would need the 7-14mm F/2.8 and PL 12-60 F/2.8-4 to get similar abilities. Size and weight differences are pretty small . Now If I was going on holiday to shoot tropical birds or some distant exotic critter , for me the advantages in light gathering etc of good quality FF tele lenses would not be worth the disadvantages in size and bulk, m43 would be my first choice no question

It still has a way to go before the reality sets in ....

Meanwhile “new” is exciting until “new” runs out of puff because the manufacturers run of of puff-$$ to keep regularly adding more of this exciting new product to their inventory.

Other than the evolution of features and change towards mirrorless I am not sure that since the 2012 E-M5 and D800 that there has really been a huge gain in image quality per se. I am likely to be moving to Nikon Z7 for my FF mirrorless not because it offers better results or image quality than my current Sony FF but rather for the much better for me ergonomics. The rumoured Sony FE to Nikon Z adapter will make the jump less painful as I can hold on to my favourite Sony lenses such as my 90mm macro. Assuming it works reasonably well , I do not need AF so it should hopefully do the trick.

-- hide signature --

Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

 James Stirling's gear list:James Stirling's gear list
Sony RX100 IV Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 Nikon Z7 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm F2.8 Macro Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 +8 more
K1W1 55
K1W1 55 Contributing Member • Posts: 626
Re: Why worry about the instant gratification market?

Tom Caldwell wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

So I see no bother in using a mobile phone camera if you only wish to have a lightweight interest in photography - these are the modern day Box Brownies or Kodak Folders made even more simple and always there. This is a boon but the camera/lens industry wil simply return to where it should be for those that take their photographic interests.

At this level it is a case of a picture that would otherwise not be made as there is not enough interest or incentive to actually carry a real camera - so I really wonder why more serious camera users should be bothered worrying about it.

You know Tom I think these last couple of statements are probably the most true of what has become a large list of opinions. Whilst interesting to read, many of which seem to me to be from those who have "drunk of the kool aid"  and frankly have little concept of"The Art of Photography" nor how to put in the time to learn the principles and practice of photography which date back more than 150 years and are still just as valid.  Often to me it seems that many think entirely incorrectly that it is equipment, be it the latest and best that today's technology can provide is the end all to make a worthy image, to make valuable images to be savored for many years - it is not, it is just a lightproof box to record the image, these days a lightproof computer to record the image as seen by the photographer, between his or her ears, normally and correctly before the button is pressed.

As it is said in a regular contributors signature - It is photographers who take images not cameras.

-- hide signature --

Mandatory self advertising signature follows:
Some slideshows & videos of a wee bit of my work, more to be added
if I ever sort out my music rights issues & find some suitable music.
http://www.youtube.com/user/truder55/videos

 K1W1 55's gear list:K1W1 55's gear list
Sony RX100 Olympus E-1 Olympus E-3 Olympus E-510 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 +33 more
bobn2
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,997
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Tom Caldwell 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.

My thoughts exactly.

But I think that there is room for high performing compact cameras as well.

Mobile phones are a basic camera device that are more than good enough for more casual users and appears free. No basic capability compact camera can compete with this.

But I that it is a mistake for manufacturers to effective retreat into larger camera bodies.

The only benefit is the “pricing by kilogram weight” theory where larger cameras and larger lenses can be sold for higher prices. This theory flows from the adulation of the dslr as a “proper camera” and all this stems from perceived status whereby most will pay more for a camera that reeks of status.

Not that smaller camera bodies cannot be very capable - the GM5 is a good example of what can be done. It will be criticised for lack of features but the reality is that the GM5 can actually do all the basic things that are expected of a camera - gee-whizz misses out.

The GM5 was not a success - in my mind it was simply because it was classified as “a toy” by much of the market on the basis: small compact cameras are not capable and therefore they are cheap - the GM5 hit the market at a price where it was not cheap enough. It did sell reasonably well at prices that were less than Panasonic had obviously intended. So what did Panasonic do - thinking that this was a price point at which they could still sell entry level compact cameras if they rolled much of the technology form the GM series into a cheaper to make body and marketed it as a fun camera for newbies. Of course they end up downgrading a very serious attempt to make a very small fully functional M4/3 camera body into “the toy” that “everyone” expected it to be.

So there is a bit of love-hate going on in M4/3 system - it has been proved that the 4/3 sensor can be used quite well as a systems camera in a body the size of a Pentax Q or Nikon J1 and yet M4/3 buyers prefer more “features” whether they use them or not in larger camera bodies. Whilst the industry continues to shun smaller cameras as larger camera gear can elicit both higher prices and the higher margins that flow from this.

To be sure I am not saying all M4/3 cameras have to be smaller - just that M4/3 can make fully functional cameras smaller than FF cameras could ever be. The camera body size diversity that M4/3 is capable of achieving is a big plus for M4/3 and to ignore the capable tiny size is a mistake as the system needs a full range of (very capable) camera body sizes to difference it from other sensor size mount systems.

The issue in my book is the theory widely held that “compact” cameras are “entry level toys” and that they should not be expensive. So the only ones that are marketed are dumbed down to the price that the market will pay. As a result mobile phone cameras (being “free”) can likely out-perform the compact camera for “basic duty” - so what is the point?

The GM series are fully functional state of the art cameras (somwhat lacking in the gee-whizz department but not in the image capture area) which can use <<all>> the lenses that can be mounted on the M4/3 mount and it is self restriction of their use to entry level “toys” that made them look expensive.

Until the general thinking of the camera user market can appreciate that compact cameras <<can>> be made to out-perform mobile phone cameras by being “systems cameras” then we are doomed to being given ever larger and more feature laden camera bodies as the manufacturers thrash around trying to out-status their full frame sensor cousins.

This theory came to a head with me when I first made a truly good dslr/EF-lens kit and realised that this great kit was not suited to be packed for airline travel.

The one camera body - many lenses theory still reigns supreme so a single larger camera body and multiple small lenses might still seem a good idea. But consider that the GM5 is only “a pack of cards” larger than a lens it is attached to then a series of GM5 bodies each attached to a lens can be pro-like used and also easily fit inot one carry on bag that might struggle with one “large” camera body and just a couple of spare lenses.

... and so multiple expensive tiny camera bodies get to be a $ hill to climb over - so they might become “pro-level” tinies and a joke for anyone to use if they have any appreciation of status-value. The very public preception of “toy camera” will assuredly kill off the use of multiple GM5 size bodies except for the fringe area of photography - even a large expensive lens on a GM5 cannot change perceived opinion that the dslr size/shape is king.

Anyway - “won’t work” as long as “compact cameras” are considered “toys” and large cameras still radiate “status” and reflect the “professional intent” of the user.

Maybe “one day” the very small camera body will be sold as a premium product but I am not holding my breath

Meanwhile if mobile phone cameras somehow came free in a compact car body it might make things tough for compact BMW and Audi cars where you had to actually buy your own camera.

I think the problem in this kind of market is maintaining the volume that the lower end needs to be profitable. I think you're quite right, there will continue to be demand for compact cameras, the question is whether there is sufficient demand at a price which will make money. These compact cameras will be expensive by today's standards, which is,why they'll get squeezed by FF cameras. However, if they find a niche which justifies the purchase for enough people to make money, they'll work. My own view is,that mFT already has such a niche, so long as,they don't make it so big it doesn't fit in there any more.

-- hide signature --

Ride easy, William.
Bob

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,245
Re: Why worry about the instant gratification market?

K1W1 55 wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

So I see no bother in using a mobile phone camera if you only wish to have a lightweight interest in photography - these are the modern day Box Brownies or Kodak Folders made even more simple and always there. This is a boon but the camera/lens industry wil simply return to where it should be for those that take their photographic interests.

At this level it is a case of a picture that would otherwise not be made as there is not enough interest or incentive to actually carry a real camera - so I really wonder why more serious camera users should be bothered worrying about it.

You know Tom I think these last couple of statements are probably the most true of what has become a large list of opinions. Whilst interesting to read, many of which seem to me to be from those who have "drunk of the kool aid" and frankly have little concept of"The Art of Photography" nor how to put in the time to learn the principles and practice of photography which date back more than 150 years and are still just as valid. Often to me it seems that many think entirely incorrectly that it is equipment, be it the latest and best that today's technology can provide is the end all to make a worthy image, to make valuable images to be savored for many years - it is not, it is just a lightproof box to record the image, these days a lightproof computer to record the image as seen by the photographer, between his or her ears, normally and correctly before the button is pressed.

As it is said in a regular contributors signature - It is photographers who take images not cameras.

I think that it was Gary Winogrand who said “I take photographs to see what thngs look like when they are photographed”.  I thnk that this just about says it all.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 38,245
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

bobn2 wrote:

Tom Caldwell 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.

My thoughts exactly.

But I think that there is room for high performing compact cameras as well.

Mobile phones are a basic camera device that are more than good enough for more casual users and appears free. No basic capability compact camera can compete with this.

But I that it is a mistake for manufacturers to effective retreat into larger camera bodies.

The only benefit is the “pricing by kilogram weight” theory where larger cameras and larger lenses can be sold for higher prices. This theory flows from the adulation of the dslr as a “proper camera” and all this stems from perceived status whereby most will pay more for a camera that reeks of status.

Not that smaller camera bodies cannot be very capable - the GM5 is a good example of what can be done. It will be criticised for lack of features but the reality is that the GM5 can actually do all the basic things that are expected of a camera - gee-whizz misses out.

The GM5 was not a success - in my mind it was simply because it was classified as “a toy” by much of the market on the basis: small compact cameras are not capable and therefore they are cheap - the GM5 hit the market at a price where it was not cheap enough. It did sell reasonably well at prices that were less than Panasonic had obviously intended. So what did Panasonic do - thinking that this was a price point at which they could still sell entry level compact cameras if they rolled much of the technology form the GM series into a cheaper to make body and marketed it as a fun camera for newbies. Of course they end up downgrading a very serious attempt to make a very small fully functional M4/3 camera body into “the toy” that “everyone” expected it to be.

So there is a bit of love-hate going on in M4/3 system - it has been proved that the 4/3 sensor can be used quite well as a systems camera in a body the size of a Pentax Q or Nikon J1 and yet M4/3 buyers prefer more “features” whether they use them or not in larger camera bodies. Whilst the industry continues to shun smaller cameras as larger camera gear can elicit both higher prices and the higher margins that flow from this.

To be sure I am not saying all M4/3 cameras have to be smaller - just that M4/3 can make fully functional cameras smaller than FF cameras could ever be. The camera body size diversity that M4/3 is capable of achieving is a big plus for M4/3 and to ignore the capable tiny size is a mistake as the system needs a full range of (very capable) camera body sizes to difference it from other sensor size mount systems.

The issue in my book is the theory widely held that “compact” cameras are “entry level toys” and that they should not be expensive. So the only ones that are marketed are dumbed down to the price that the market will pay. As a result mobile phone cameras (being “free”) can likely out-perform the compact camera for “basic duty” - so what is the point?

The GM series are fully functional state of the art cameras (somwhat lacking in the gee-whizz department but not in the image capture area) which can use <<all>> the lenses that can be mounted on the M4/3 mount and it is self restriction of their use to entry level “toys” that made them look expensive.

Until the general thinking of the camera user market can appreciate that compact cameras <<can>> be made to out-perform mobile phone cameras by being “systems cameras” then we are doomed to being given ever larger and more feature laden camera bodies as the manufacturers thrash around trying to out-status their full frame sensor cousins.

This theory came to a head with me when I first made a truly good dslr/EF-lens kit and realised that this great kit was not suited to be packed for airline travel.

The one camera body - many lenses theory still reigns supreme so a single larger camera body and multiple small lenses might still seem a good idea. But consider that the GM5 is only “a pack of cards” larger than a lens it is attached to then a series of GM5 bodies each attached to a lens can be pro-like used and also easily fit inot one carry on bag that might struggle with one “large” camera body and just a couple of spare lenses.

... and so multiple expensive tiny camera bodies get to be a $ hill to climb over - so they might become “pro-level” tinies and a joke for anyone to use if they have any appreciation of status-value. The very public preception of “toy camera” will assuredly kill off the use of multiple GM5 size bodies except for the fringe area of photography - even a large expensive lens on a GM5 cannot change perceived opinion that the dslr size/shape is king.

Anyway - “won’t work” as long as “compact cameras” are considered “toys” and large cameras still radiate “status” and reflect the “professional intent” of the user.

Maybe “one day” the very small camera body will be sold as a premium product but I am not holding my breath

Meanwhile if mobile phone cameras somehow came free in a compact car body it might make things tough for compact BMW and Audi cars where you had to actually buy your own camera.

I think the problem in this kind of market is maintaining the volume that the lower end needs to be profitable. I think you're quite right, there will continue to be demand for compact cameras, the question is whether there is sufficient demand at a price which will make money. These compact cameras will be expensive by today's standards, which is,why they'll get squeezed by FF cameras. However, if they find a niche which justifies the purchase for enough people to make money, they'll work. My own view is,that mFT already has such a niche, so long as,they don't make it so big it doesn't fit in there any more.

Agreed.  I think GM5 because it suits me.  But we could also think Pen-F and GX9 - or the GX8 ramped up in another lifetime - just as well.

But there is a fashion statement about that is saying that if it isn’t looking like a dslr then it still isn’t a proper camera.

But things might change - I suspect that there might be a boutique, expensive, truly small, camera down the track but it might have to wait for a global shutter and an ultra compact IBIS system.  It has to be as few holds barred as possible as the market is not going to buy a tiny camera unless it is cashed right up with features as well.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Bob Janes
Bob Janes Veteran Member • Posts: 3,150
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?

Well, cameras that appeal to the Japanese seem to largely appeal to the rest of the world, hence the decline in the European camera industry.

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.

Yes it would, but to go back for the Japanese example and extend it to motor transport, there are lots of models that are specifically aimed at the home market (look up Kei cars), but they also produce models that appeal outside their own markets.

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.

A lot of digital camera functionality is software based, so the additional features (such as video)  don't add much to the price. In the old days the features that people paid extra for were motor drives, depth of field preview and manual controls, none of which are expensive to provide on digital mirrorless models.

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?

Chinese, Japanese and Korean tastes are probably not that far apart. I think we probably get more variety in tastes in the west - in general (*stereotype alert*)North America goes for a larger product (I think more US posters complain about cameras being too small that Europeans) This seems to hold out for other products as well (cars, refrigerators, restaurant portions...)

I've already seen examples of products for the Japanese market that fail to catch on internationally.

..but if your internal market is that big, you are likely to be able to sell those locally, while still being able to produce stuff that appeals for export. Maybe the rest of the world needs to look to pander to those local Chines tastes if we want to export our stuff to them - could have big benefits for balance of trade.

-- hide signature --

Save a life, become a stem-cell donor.
Hello to Jason Isaacs!
https://bobjanes.smugmug.com/PoTB/

 Bob Janes's gear list:Bob Janes's gear list
Sony Alpha NEX-7 Sony Alpha a99 Sony a7 II +3 more
Yandrosxx Regular Member • Posts: 129
Re: for all FF BS, fuji told the real story, 1/3 market by value, by unit much lower

Tom Caldwell wrote:

James Stirling wrote:

Whatever Fuji are saying and funnily enough they do not have any FF cameras Not that long ago they were predicting massive market share declines for Canon an Nikon meanwhile back on planet earth . Canon and Nikon accounted for 74% of all ILC sold worldwide

https://photorumors.com/2018/08/01/2018-canon-nikon-and-sony-market-share-latest-nikkei-bcn-and-cipa-reports/

. The FF market is multiple times larger than the entire m43 market both in volume and especially in value. And given that all the big players are now in the FF mirrorless game I fully expect the market share of FF to grow. Given that m43 market share is if anything in decline I am not sure I see how your gleeful post matters here

Jim, if fashion follows precedent I imagine that many FF ML purchasers will buy an expensive body and a few lenses and keep them “forever” as a potetnial family heirloom - much as once there were entry level film cameras but most wished for some defining level of camera body and one or two lenses which they both when their finances eventually permitted and kept for the rest of their lives.

I doubt if there will be strict parallel experience but the reality is that those who buy expensive camera gear and churn it over regularly are, and will increasingly, become rare rather than mainstream.

It defies belief that the present churnover market will continue to be as busy as the cost of camera body entry gets higher, new updated models get fewer (unless Canon has its way ) and lenses get more expensive as variety increases and smaller market sales occur for each type in due natural course.

One might wonder if there is room for four or more big players scattered over four incompatible mount systems (for FF ML) to expand to full systems - probably too big to actually fail but the resolve to be a fully fledged system player might weaken if they don’t get anough market share.

Going back to precedents I am not at all convinced that FF ML will become the de-facto future standard but will serve more for photography as the “Medium Format” served for film. There is a place for the “new digital version of 135 film gear” and I think it is more like 4/3 and aps-c sensor although if the market hankers for the most expensive FF sensor solution (when only the best will do) I am sure that the manufacturers will be happy to oblige and run with the craze until the market itself decides that FF is kind-of expensive and a bit harder to cart around when travelling.

It still has a way to go before the reality sets in ....

Meanwhile “new” is exciting until “new” runs out of puff because the manufacturers run of of puff-$$ to keep regularly adding more of this exciting new product to their inventory.

With the advancements in sensor technologies, I find it really remarkable that folks think FF IQ is going to be the determinate factor going forward.  It's already something many folks don't think is worth it or necessary.  Size, portability and features are going to drive this conversation.

Most people forget 4/3 got to where it is today by cannibalizing larger sensor market share. It's not a fad folks.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads