New Report States That Only Canon, Nikon, and Sony Will Survive in the Camera Market

Dalton

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
329
Location
Portland, Oregon USA
Real Name
Dan Ferrall
References...

Look the only reason you cant remember is because you have never looked up the data. Dont be so lazy and go to the www.olympus-global.com website and look it up for yourself.
You are the one who made the assertion that they have "always" predicted a profit each year. It is up to you to prove your assertion with evidence, not my responsibility to disprove the statements you have posted. Whenever someone sidesteps a question with "Don't be lazy.", an alarm goes off that gives telling insight regarding the validity of the assertion made.If you have a specific link to support your assertion, please post the link. If not, I'll assume you can't truly support your position.
Let me give you just one example. This is from the presentation of March 2012 results forecasting a profit to March 2013 on sales of 149bn yen.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Now in the event - actual sales were 108bn (so they missed their sales forecast by 30%) and the business lost 23.1bn - so they missed their profit forecast by US$250m. Now if they are forecasting a profit for a year they reported record losses, it wont really surprise you that they also always forecast a profit when losses werent so heroically bad. Anyway you have data goin g back to 2008 there so, you have plenty of opportunities to show me that Olympus ever forecast the imaging division to make a loss in the 'next financial year'. Good luck.
I never suggested, stated, or implied that Olympus forecast anything with the exception of the most recent prediction they made about a return to profitability in the imaging division. You are the one making the assertions about Olympus forecasting positions. In addition, you are ignoring the difference between a corporate "forecast" and a "target."
Dan
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,579
Location
Bangkok
Real Name
rob collins
In some respects people hold a rather romanticized view of what is happening in the camera market. As though some great market is being destroyed by the infiltration of 'good enough' cellphone cameras.

Here is the reality.
At its peak in 2008 the digital camera market was worth US$21bn in revenues. That consisted of 110m compact cameras worth US$16bn in sales and 9.7m ILC cameras worth US$5bn in sales.

In 2013, the digital camera market will shrink to US$11.5bn of sales consisting of 45m compacts worth US$5bn in revenues and 17m ILCs worth US$6.5bn.

So the cold reality is that all that has really happened is that smartphones have and continue to destroy the compact camera market. And let us not romanticize the compact camera market back in 2008 - I suspect the smartphones of today are at least as good as the compacts back then. It is not as though people moving to smartphones have lowered their standards. And the enthusiast market - the ILCs - has actually grown by 80% in volume terms principally driven by greater affordability (I suspect). So there are at least as many 'enthusiast' buyers - in fact far more - enjoying much better cameras.

The problem for the digital camera manufacturers is that they have lost the market - which has fallen nearly 50% - to cellphone manufacturers who are now the largest digital camera manufacturers in the world - not that the camera market has shrunk at all. And the problem for Olympus, Panasonic, Fuji and Pentax is that they hold only 13% of a market that has halved while Canon, Nikon and Sony hold the rest (and Sony's share is far higher than it seems because they dominate the sensor industry.)
 

RoadTraveler

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
1,026
Cell phones aren't going to take over photography. Even people with decent cell phone cameras still manage to take crappy photos. Just going by my own friends on FB, I'd say photography amongst the general populace is getting worst!
Which hopefully will make the contrast between better, artistic, and accomplished photography more obvious and clear to the few who care and/or want to view and/or pay for it. I’m not holding my breath.

I'm not a wedding photographer but I don't think wedding shooters will be using iPhones to capture weddings anytime soon [as their primary tool(s)]. However, this doesn’t mean that it will help camera companies do well selling equipment. In the recent past, before the digital camera craze, how often did enthusiasts or even professionals buy new bodies? Seems bodies last(ed) a long time.

I’m convinced that the 16mp m4/3 bodies I have (several) will continue to make good images for years to come as long as I want to use them and don’t need more or new features. Want is something totally different. Body longevity and image quality are a good things, I spent loads on money in 2012-13, mostly only lenses, changing from FF Canon to m4/3.
 

Gary Ramey

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Dec 27, 2012
Messages
240
Location
Aurora Colorado
That's exactly my thoughts. Our generation today is one of instant chat, instagram, facebook etc.... the photo that can be taken and instantly shared is more valuable to most than the one that takes time to get from lightroom to facebook. What I like about the EM1 is its ability for my iphone to sync with the wifi and load a photo instantly to it. So if I capture something worthy of posting, I don't have to wait. My thoughts are that the first company that auto uploads to a cloud for distribution, will win a lot of younger converts. The weakness of camera phones is overwhelming and even the cheapest of compacts will outdo most of them, Nokia excluded. However, their ability to be anywhere, anytime and share instantly overrides the desire for a better photo. A partnership with Samsung or Apple to seamlessly integrate photos...a winning approach.
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,579
Location
Bangkok
Real Name
rob collins
You are the one who made the assertion that they have "always" predicted a profit each year. It is up to you to prove your assertion with evidence, not my responsibility to disprove the statements you have posted. Whenever someone sidesteps a question with "Don't be lazy.", an alarm goes off that gives telling insight regarding the validity of the assertion made.If you have a specific link to support your assertion, please post the link. If not, I'll assume you can't truly support your position.

I never suggested, stated, or implied that Olympus forecast anything with the exception of the most recent prediction they made about a return to profitability in the imaging division. You are the one making the assertions about Olympus forecasting positions. In addition, you are ignoring the difference between a corporate "forecast" and a "target."
Dan
1) Now wait a minute that makes absolutely no sense. I have said that Olympus always forecast a profit in the 'next financial' year for the imaging division. In other words a forecast or target from Olympus of a loss does not exist. And you ask me to prove it. It is a logical fallacy - you 'cant prove something doesnt exist'. I can equally assert that goblins dont exist but I cant prove it. Even if I say show you 10 instances of Olympus forecasting a profit for the division in the next financial year, it doesnt prove they never issued a forecast of a loss. So really if you believe that this particular goblin exists you ought to go looking for it.

2) I have not 'ignored' the difference between a 'forecast' and a 'target'. This is merely a slide from their presentation showing their official 'forecasts' that they released with their financial statements here....

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/common/pdf/n120608aE_n.pdf

Page 6 of which is shown below....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

iso640

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Jan 13, 2013
Messages
33
Location
DC
What I wonder is if cell phones are going to take over photography, does that mean when going to a concert we won't be allowed to take our phones in? *scratches head*
 

dougjgreen

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 5, 2013
Messages
1,864
Location
San Diego
Real Name
Doug Green
It's interesting to me that nobody has mentioned what I consider to be the most likely outcome - which would be Sony acquiring Olympus, and bifurcating their product line into full frame mirror-less, and Micro 4/3 mirror-less, while abandoning APS-C. No doubt that Panasonic would not be a happy camper if that were to happen, and they might abandon the market (something they might do anyways).
 

gotak

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 28, 2012
Messages
185
Location
Toronto
Couple of points

Someone mentioned Apple as an example of how to make money. Well they were on death's door as one point if anyone remembered (If only I had been big enough of a die hard to buy their penny stock then I wouldn't need to work now). Also, they are facing headwinds today. Ipad sales are falling because why would you pay 300+ for a mini when you and get a number of good android tablet for less then 200 bucks and a really good one for about 200? High price is only possible when you are head and shoulder above your competition. In reality lower price and higher volume often wins over high price lower volume. And they understand this because why introduce a 5C and keep the 4S on sale otherwise?

Olympus needs to understand this as well. I had an E-M1 on order just before Nov. Then I got laid off so I cancelled the order. I found work pretty quickly after but I haven't gone back to reorder the camera. Because well on second thought why am I not waiting for the price drop on it? 1399 + taxes for a good body seems reasonable until you look at the cost of a A7 with kit lens that come in at 2k. At that point it's much harder to justify when you already have an e-m5 and where there is no actual image quality improvements.

I don't think only Sony, Canon and Nikon is a forgone conclusion but Oly needs to up their game and price right to get where they need to go.

I have not seen a single TV ad for Olympus here. And in Canada at big box stores where most "I want something better than a smart phone" people go get their first camera, they don't even stock the OMDs. Oly can increase sales. They can get more customers because they do have a size advantage but they need to realize how to get potential customers to realize it. And the OMD series is not the answer. They need a cheaper version of the e-m5. They need a plastic camera with EVF and grip, but no weather sealing, and a with kit lens price of roughly 500-600 dollars. People will buy it if sold right. Apple made an entire business out of attaching the word Air to lighter thinner devices. Why can't m43 make it their business to be associated with "lighter more advances serious cameras"?

Any of these forecast are based on statics. The market place is dynamics. When m43 and mirrorless were introduced majority of people with DSLRs already thought they would never get anywhere with their slow focus and lower image quality. Today both concerns are a thing of the past. But the size and weight advantage still remains. Personally, I would be more worried about the future of Nikon and Canon then I would be about the companies that have embraced mirrorless. All they really have is brand name and marketing.

And no marketing, oly really needs to do better. How many "camera of the year" have they won with the e-m1? I have not see the trumpeting of this that should be the case of a company that knows what to do with a hit.

As for Panasonic. I know a lot of people do use their stuff but for me well they just don't seem to be as innovative as Oly of late. But similar points applies.
 

Dalton

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
329
Location
Portland, Oregon USA
Real Name
Dan Ferrall
Robbie,
I want to apologize for coming on way too strong. You have a valid opinion about the topic in this thread and I have been rude in some comments that I have posted. I am very sorry. I may not agree with some things you presented but that is no excuse for my poor behavior.

I ask for your forgiveness for what I did.
I truly wish you and your family a joyous and happy New Year!
Dan

This is the rude comment I made: "You are truly one confused dude. Logic is most definitely not your forte. You talk in circles unable to support your "always" assertion. I will leave you to your beliefs."
Happy holidays.
Dan
1) Now wait a minute that makes absolutely no sense. I have said that Olympus always forecast a profit in the 'next financial' year for the imaging division. In other words a forecast or target from Olympus of a loss does not exist. And you ask me to prove it. It is a logical fallacy - you 'cant prove something doesnt exist'. I can equally assert that goblins dont exist but I cant prove it. Even if I say show you 10 instances of Olympus forecasting a profit for the division in the next financial year, it doesnt prove they never issued a forecast of a loss. So really if you believe that this particular goblin exists you ought to go looking for it.

2) I have not 'ignored' the difference between a 'forecast' and a 'target'. This is merely a slide from their presentation showing their official 'forecasts' that they released with their financial statements here....

http://www.olympus-global.com/en/common/pdf/n120608aE_n.pdf

Page 6 of which is shown below....

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

Lawrence A.

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 14, 2012
Messages
1,716
Location
New Mexico
Real Name
Larry
Oh well, at some point only the rats and roaches will be left, and I doubt they will make any cameras at all. Of course as one of the boomers referred to ealier, I will be dropping dead "in the field" and will not have to deal with this eventuality.

I'll bet my "forecast" is just about as good as most.
 

bikerhiker

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Dec 24, 2013
Messages
2,005
Location
Canada
Real Name
David
http://nikonrumors.com/2013/02/06/nikon-cuts-their-anual-profit-forecast.aspx/ Nikon is trending the wrong direction and has been for several years. Again, we can simply go back in history and look at industry leaders who sat on the lead and did nothing innovative. Right now, Canon and Nikon are simply making tweaks to old technology and are followers into the mirrorless domain. If I'm an executive in those companies, that would concern me. They need to look no further than Nokia who once owned the mobile phone industry a few short years ago.
Gary, where did you get the idea that Nikon is trending in the wrong direction. Nikon only had to cut the sales forecast this year, for the past year or years or so, it had been gaining market share over Canon and the other guys. In fact, the growth only slowed because Nikon had no one else to steal market share from. They are NOT growing market share from new customers. They are growing market share from brand crossovers. It's really a game. Some migrate from Nikon to Olympus, but a lot of Panasonic and Olympus migrate to Nikon and Canon. Just peel over your eyes and see the big box stores to see which brands they are selling.

The United States is dominated by DSLR; it always be and always will be. The mirrorless market rise was basically from enthusiasts from other brands; not from cell phone market where the young kids congregate.

The problem with young kids is that, they don't have $1000 to burn on an E-M1 or E-M5 and then you have to buy a few nice lenses to go with it. That's $2000. Most of these young kids get an iPhone 5C or 5S on a subsidized plan. Here in Canada, you can get a free iPhone 5C. Where can you get a free Pen E-PL5 here in the US or Canada? None. But Olympus had been handing them out like candies selling at a big loss! Loss as in loosing money. I mean fire sales is one thing, but selling a rather nice quality deep discounted price E-PL5 against a Nikon D3100 from Costco is pure madness. And 40-150 zoom for $120 new. Wow Olympus has, and had always been subsidizing their camera kits at the expense of buying market share, when they are making less lenses and cameras and thus has less bulk pricing buying power compared to Canon and Nikon and still be able to price them CHEAPER than Canon or Nikon. Sounds like voodoo economics to me. But no matter. I'm kind of enjoying it though. I get a cheap body and lenses that deliver great quality photos, much better than those plastic toys Nikon and Canon make.

But liking Olympus is one thing, but the reality is that, Olympus and Panasonic had to be innovating at the expense of their pocket book. Canon and Nikon just sit back and relax and then get inspirations from these 2 dumbos to make their next evolutionary camera. This is what happened to Pentax; once an almighty film SLR maker with a lot of innovations and camera awards and now shrunk to only a division of Ricoh.
 

silver92b

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,031
Location
Atlanta, GA
The smart phones and tablets will never supplant proper cameras. However, the compact, P&S cameras are dead already. Who wants to buy a separate device to duplicate the camera in the smart phone? Not I for sure. But even the best phone camera is nothing compared to even the most basic body/lens system. As long as there are people interested in photography, they will be a market for "real" cameras with interchangeable lenses. Who know what they might evolve into, the future is impossible to foretell (thus my lack of disposable income LOL).

Sure, maybe Sony, Canon/Nikon will remain but I might be willing to bet that one will find high end cameras (Leica?) for quite some time to come.
 

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,391
Location
The Netherlands
And yet, on vacation, I still saw a lot more compact cameras than DSLRs. The market ain't what it was, and it's not huge, but it's still there. Super zooms and waterproof cameras in particular.
 

robbie36

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
1,579
Location
Bangkok
Real Name
rob collins
Gary, where did you get the idea that Nikon is trending in the wrong direction. Nikon only had to cut the sales forecast this year, for the past year or years or so, it had been gaining market share over Canon and the other guys. In fact, the growth only slowed because Nikon had no one else to steal market share from. They are NOT growing market share from new customers. They are growing market share from brand crossovers. It's really a game. Some migrate from Nikon to Olympus, but a lot of Panasonic and Olympus migrate to Nikon and Canon. Just peel over your eyes and see the big box stores to see which brands they are selling.
I tend to agree with this. Nikon seems to have been pretty successful over the past 5 years and is pretty well run for a Japanese company.

1) Sales from imaging products have grown from US$6bn to US$7bn. (Compared to say Olympus where sales have shrunk from US$3.2bn to US$0.8bn.) In a shrinking market that is pretty good.
2) It has remained profitable and ROE has only fallen below 7% (the long run Japanese average) once in the past 5 years.
3) Debt/Equity is low at 17% and has fallen from 30% over the last 5 years

Now I dont happen to like their products that much and they have shown relatively little innovation. (I cant but help feel that their market share gain over Canon may have more to do with their Sony sensors.) Many people have been critical of their half hearted entry into mirrorless. But noone has yet shown that the mirrorless market is yet viable (or even likely to be that big) and you cant help but feel Nikon can step up its game if it does take off - so far it has been a license to lose money. The Nikon 1, itself, is almost certainly the lowest cost (to manufacture) ILC in the market today. It has also had some success - Nikon J1 was the best selling mirrorless in Japan in 2012 and Nikon has the second highest market share at 20% in the US (after Sony) despite a narrow product base. It only consists of 183 parts while a DSLR typically has over 1000. So all in all it seems to have done pretty well in difficult market conditions.
 

RT_Panther

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
5,933
Location
Texas
(I cant but help feel that their market share gain over Canon may have more to do with their Sony sensors.).
Not all Nikon sensors are Sony:
-D3/D3S/D700/D4/Dƒ/D3100/D3200=Nikon
-D3X/D600/D800/D7000=Sony
-D7100=Toshiba
 

woof

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
511
Location
The present.
So, if worse comes to worse, when I run my current camera into the ground ten years from now, I'll buy a Canon or a Nikon.

The average American family hasn’t time for television.—New York Times, 1939

Television won’t last. It’s a flash in the pan.—Mary Somerville, pioneer of radio educational broadcasts, 1948

Television won’t be able to hold onto any market it captures after the first six months. People will soon get tired of staring at a plywood box every night.—Daryl F. Zanuck, producer, writer, and actor who played a major part in the Hollywood studio system

We don’t like their sound, and guitar music is on the way out.—Decca Recording Co. rejecting the Beatles, 1962

In February 2005, “ … by next Christmas the iPod will be dead, finished, gone, kaput.”—Sir Alan Sugar, English entrepreneur and broadcaster

The horse is here to stay, but the automobile is only a novelty—a fad.”—The president of the Michigan Savings Bank telling Henry Ford’s advisors not to invest in the Ford Motor Co., 1903

“There will never be a bigger plane built.”—A Boeing engineer, after the first flight of the 247 in 1933. The twin-engine plane held ten people and traveled from England to Australia in ninety-two hours.
 

RAH

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
739
Location
New Hampshire
Real Name
Rich
Oly can increase sales. They can get more customers because they do have a size advantage but they need to realize how to get potential customers to realize it. And the OMD series is not the answer. They need a cheaper version of the e-m5. They need a plastic camera with EVF and grip, but no weather sealing, and a with kit lens price of roughly 500-600 dollars
Yes!
 

jnewell

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
1,751
Location
Boston, MA
The United States is dominated by DSLR; it always be and always will be.
Nikon and Canon are still doing extremely well with DSLRs, and mirrorless sales in the US are not all that strong, true, but to say "always will be" just doesn't work. Every camera manufacturer that has said "is and always will be" has gotten very sharp corrections from the photographic marketplace.
 

ccunningham

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jul 23, 2010
Messages
454
Another prediction, specifically of Olympus' camera division imminent demise.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-disappearing-brands-in-2014-191735396.html?vp=1

and my hope for the new year that these predictions (specifically about Olympus, which is generally targeted as on it's way out more so than Panasonic) are way off base.

I suspect all the hubbub about the Sony A7/r isn't going to help mFT any. Too bad, since using Sony camera gear cured me of the desire to use Sony camera gear. Plus, I'm not a full frame fetshist, or a prime lens fetshist so...meh.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with full frame or prime lenses, but there seems to be a weird cultish belief among the photography enthusiast community that nothing worthwhile can be accomplished without using a $2000US+ f1 something prime lens on a $2000US+ 35mm FULL FRAME camera body, and all else is complete and utter rubbish. Considering that usually there's only a little over a stop difference in technical image quality between most current crop cameras and full frame cameras (and technical image quality doesn't necessarily equate to creating a quality image,) and it seems that so many people aren't printing their images anymore, I'm not sure why people buy into this belief, but it seems to be everywhere on photography enthusiast targeted sites, tech sites, etc...

I understand that 6 or 7 years ago, it was difficult to shoot at 800 or 1600 AND/OR print large unless you were using a big sensor, but I just don't see that as the case now.
 

fortwodriver

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
993
Location
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Real Name
Frank
People buy Nikon and Canon because it's Nikon and Canon. More marketing clout, more visibility (at every game or event everywhere). It's no secret that the second reason Canon chose white for their super-teles was to draw attention to them (the first being for temperature control of the lens barrel when fluorite glass was used).

I still don't know very many people using "full frame" dslrs that print anything larger than 20"x30". I understand the pixel-peeping and I even do that myself but you just can't print everything huge economically.
Then there's the few friends of mine who have D600s, Canon 5D mk III, or other full-frame cameras and they take a lot of photos, but they don't really carry their cameras with them. When they do, it's a big old bag with a 70-200 or some other immense lens or two while they complain about the weight.

I do see "full-frame" obliterating the medium-format digital systems in the future. Hasselblad is just a name now and every other MF digital system is priced stratospherically or nearly dead.

Looking back, I wonder if I my first electronic camera had been an OM-4Ti instead of an F100, if I'd have been more happy. Maybe. Back then, I shelved the F100 and went back to using my Spotmatic for most photos because of the size, the lenses, the quality of the product and the reliability.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom