Who's going to have trouble in 2009?

[compuwar]

Pundits and BrandFans,

I figured this would be fun...

Who's going south-

Canon because Nikon powns high-ISO now and their marketing department still things megapixels is more important than image quality?

Nikon because they couldn't keep pushing out D40's and please their investors and they're too small to put real resources into the future?

Pentax because they're losing market share and Hoya threw out the good people?

Olympus because they choose the smallest sensor and are bleeding red ink?
Sony because let's face it, they're a consumer electronics company, and they've been lopping off unprofitable business units for a couple of years now?

Hassleblad because they're stuck in Medium Format land and the 35mms are kicking their butts?

Leica because let's face it, nobody really pays that sort of money for a camera?

Samsung because they're a cheap consumer electronics company?

Red because entering this fight with a new company with no still camera expereince is dumb?

Panasonic because [insert reason here.]

Multiple choice because heck, lots of them can go south with the US economy is shambles.

Yes, I typo'd- sorry!

 

[onomatopoeia]

I just want to take pictures.

 

[Westside guy]

Well everyone should be happy - Pentax is listed this time.

Addendum: You mentioned Leica in your post, but didn't include them in the poll.

Addendum 2: What about Rollei?

 

[Digital Skunk]

Best poll yet.

I say Canon, because most photojournalists use them and newspaper are going to the crapper.

Then Panasonic and Sony, beat out by Red who can somehow manufacture (or at least announce since they didn't release it yet and as everyone predicted are way behine) a 3K HD video camera for $2999, then you add the parts you want.

 

[soLoredd]

Polaroid

 

[srf4real]

Panasonic because they will not sell a dslr body without forcing consumers to pay for an over-priced Leica kit lens included. Of course I am talking camera departments only, Panny and Sony aren't going away any time soon in the electronics world.

OT, BestBuy is going down because they will never discount their camera products to reflect current market values even two years after initial release!

 

[miloblithe]

If it's anyone other than Canon, that manufacturer is in trouble. The fact is Canon has the most room to go down as they no longer dominate the low and high ends of DSLR offerings. Nikon now has good high-end offerings (although they lack a high megapixel camera for pros who prefer such things. Although Nikon has caught up in sports, I think you're more likely to see Canons in fashion still (for those who can't afford Hasselblads, etc.).

But I don't see too much real drama. I think things will mainly stay as they are.

 

[netdog]

Panasonic because they will not sell a dslr body without forcing consumers to pay for an over-priced Leica kit lens included.

That's just wrong. The value of the lens is often about equal to the price of the kit. The L1 with the 14-55 was a tremendous deal for an incredible piece of glass with a body attached. Get your facts straight.

Panasonic also seems to be doing very well in the P&S category.

Finally, the G1 comes with a Lumix lens, and I would expect it to do very well in the marketplace.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Canon, because now that people have less disposable income they will start to actually evaluate the value of what they are spending their money on. Up until now, a lot of Canons were sold on word of mouth alone, but I think this year there are a lot of cameras that make the Canons look silly, and I think because of that they will be exposed for what they are.

They have it coming anyway, the heavy handed advertising techniques they use are wrong.

I think that the next hardest hit will be Nikon, simply because they are the #2 and have a longer way to fall than the rest of the brands (who are quite used to selling far less than the big two and who likely won't feel the economic pinch in the same way Canon and Nikon will).

SLC

 

[Westside guy]

I think that the next hardest hit will be Nikon, simply because they are the #2 and have a longer way to fall than the rest of the brands (who are quite used to selling far less than the big two and who likely won't feel the economic pinch in the same way Canon and Nikon will).

You know, the funny thing is - most of us seem to just be thinking about SLRs. The point-and-shoot market may be moribund right now, but it's quite large - and when you add that in, Nikon is only fourth or fifth in terms of overall camera sales.

As Thom Hogan has pointed out multiple times, Nikon doesn't really seem to understand the low end of this market very well. I'd think in bad economic times, this could be problematic since the higher-end items will probably drop off peoples' shopping lists before the lower-end ones do.

But if we're limiting our discussion just to SLRs: Nikon's percentage of the market has been climbing pretty dramatically - 33% in 2006, 40% in 2007, and they supposedly passed Canon for #1 this year. So it would be pretty dramatic if they indeed got into trouble.

 

[nutmac]

It's certainly not Canon and Nikon. As far as SLR is concerned, Nikon is at the top of their game right now (consumer segment is still weak, however). Aside from auto focus issue, Canon is neck and neck, and it has strong marketshare in both SLR and consumer segments.

I think Sony is in tougher spot. With their SLRs still a loss leader business, it hasn't succeeded in convincing many pros to migrate. I think it has succeeded in stealing a bit of sales from smaller SLR makers, however (e.g., Pentax, Olympus). That said, Sony is still pretty strong in consumer market, despite their stubborn design choices (e.g., MemoryStick, slow aperture lens).

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Now when I say trouble, I don't mean that I think Nikon or Canon will have a disaster they can't recover from. I mean that I think they are the companies that will feel the hit to their sales the hardest.

SLC

 

[compuwar]

Best poll yet.

I say Canon, because most photojournalists use them and newspaper are going to the crapper.

Interesting point- having jumped ship from a media company ~7 years ago because of that, I can't say that I disagree.

I think that the next hardest hit will be Nikon, simply because they are the #2 and have a longer way to fall than the rest of the brands (who are quite used to selling far less than the big two and who likely won't feel the economic pinch in the same way Canon and Nikon will).

SLC

While I think Nikon may be hit because they're basically chasing the mid-to-high end now instead of the low end, everyone "used to selling far less" will sell less still- maybe not enough to make it work. While the economy was good KM, Pentax, Leica and Hassy all got bought- I'm not sure that bodes well for everyone outside C/N in a down market, especially if it hits Asia and Europe some as well.

You know, the funny thing is - most of us seem to just be thinking about SLRs. The point-and-shoot market may be moribund right now, but it's quite large - and when you add that in, Nikon is only fourth or fifth in terms of overall camera sales.

The margins on DSLRs are said to be about 20%, on P&S cameras it's single digits. A higher average sales price, a higher profit margin- let's say that it's 8% on a P&S (I'm not sure it's that high, but what the heck...)

8% of a $120 camera is less than $10 ($9.60)
20% of a $1600 camera is $320

So, you need to sell 30M low-end P&S cameras to equal 1M prosumer DSLRs.

More to the point, even if you're at $500 for the P&S vs $500 for the DSLR, you're talking $40 vs $100- and that doesn't include lens sales, which are probably around 1.2 per unit- but I'm not sure what the average lens sale price or margin is.

In 2005, Canon's DSLR sales accounted for about 30% of worldwide digital camera revenues alone- that is ~40% of the DSLR market accounted for 30% of the digital camera sales. If that trend's continued, then Canon and Nikon's DSLR sales are worth more than half the revenues in the digital camera market.

 

[miloblithe]

...I think this year there are a lot of cameras that make the Canons look silly, and I think because of that they will be exposed for what they are.

What is Canon going to be exposed as?

What cameras make which Canon cameras look silly?

 

[butterfly0fdoom]

I think this year there are a lot of cameras that make the Canons look silly, and I think because of that they will be exposed for what they are.

How so? I'd say this year Canon's got a really solid lineup. Of course, I'm just referring to the whole product line in general, not SLRs exclusively.

 

[ChrisA]

What is Canon going to be exposed as?

What cameras make which Canon cameras look silly?

A 15MP compact camera does look kind of silly. (G10) It clearly shows that the marketing people are running the engineering department. Canon has always built cameras that look best on the spec sheet and are quick to add the "latest" new feature. Sometimes this can make them look silly (remember the eye controlled view finder?)

But don't get me wrong. They do make some really good stuff even if some products do pander to ignorant consumers.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Well,

I don't think that the Canon 40D or 50D are even in the same ballpark as the Nikon D300 (that's my personal opinion). And I think that the D700 makes the new 5D (and even more so the older one for that matter) look pretty irrelevant (again just my opinion) you did want opinions didn't you? I don't know, for some reason Canon SLR's have always come off as awkward to me, I know a lot of people like them, but I never have and I gave Canon a more than fair shake when I got into DSLR photography. I think that every other brand I've tried (which is everyone except Panasonic I believe) has a better implementation of the user interface, and the image quality of DSLR's is so close between brands to render it a non issue for all but the most selective of users. So for me, the feel and controls of the camera are what makes a camera great. All have great lenses, and all have more lenses than the vast majority of users will ever need/be able to afford.

I don't know, I think there's something better at every rung of the DSLR product ladder than what Canon brings to the table. I do think that Canon makes some nicer point and shoot cameras, but so do a lot of other companies, and for less money.

it's my view on things, take it or leave it.

SLC

 

[ChrisA]

Addendum 2: What about Rollei?

What about Wisner? They are selling wooden cameras, not even close to digital, more like early 1900's technology. Their prices are high but yet you can't buy a camera from them. You have to get on a waiting list and they will assign you a "manufacturing slot" that is months away.

Red is the same way. They have to "ration" equipment to buyers based on need. They give preference to existing customers and put new customers on an extended wait list.

There are other companies like this too. by reading their sales number they look bad but when yo have your entire production sold out to mid 2009 you can't be loosing.

Small companies have a potential for growth. They could in theory double in size in one year. Such growth is imposable for Canon or Nikon. Same with Apple. Macs sales could grow by 20% next year but there is no way Microsoft could do that. It's the smaller companies that have the potential to do very well

 

[Westside guy]

What about Wisner? They are selling wooden cameras, not even close to digital, more like early 1900's technology. Their prices are high but yet you can't buy a camera from them. You have to get on a waiting list and they will assign you a "manufacturing slot" that is months away.

That's interesting stuff - I didn't even know about them.

FWIW, in case it wasn't obvious, I was just attempting to be silly when I threw Rollei in there.

 

[chedda]

How's Ilford ?

I remember Ilford being great quality for B&W film are they still strong ?

 

[CrackedButter]

I just want to take pictures.

Quoted for truth. (But I voted Canon)

 

[Kebabselector]

And I think that the D700 makes the new 5D (and even more so the older one for that matter) look pretty irrelevant (again just my opinion) you did want opinions didn't you?

How? is it because it's faster? Different camera, different market share. If anything the D3 is less relevant because the D700 is a cheaper/smaller D3.

I don't know, for some reason Canon SLR's have always come off as awkward to me

How, is it that 'Nikon handles better' 'can't get used the rear thumbwheel' crap

 

[840quadra]

Don't care .

Going out on a shoot now. If my camera company disappears, I will use the equipment until I can't, and buy something else later .

 

[miloblithe]

Well,

I don't think that the Canon 40D or 50D are even in the same ballpark as the Nikon D300 (that's my personal opinion). And I think that the D700 makes the new 5D (and even more so the older one for that matter) look pretty irrelevant (again just my opinion) you did want opinions didn't you? I don't know, for some reason Canon SLR's have always come off as awkward to me, I know a lot of people like them, but I never have and I gave Canon a more than fair shake when I got into DSLR photography. I think that every other brand I've tried (which is everyone except Panasonic I believe) has a better implementation of the user interface, and the image quality of DSLR's is so close between brands to render it a non issue for all but the most selective of users. So for me, the feel and controls of the camera are what makes a camera great. All have great lenses, and all have more lenses than the vast majority of users will ever need/be able to afford.

I don't know, I think there's something better at every rung of the DSLR product ladder than what Canon brings to the table. I do think that Canon makes some nicer point and shoot cameras, but so do a lot of other companies, and for less money.

it's my view on things, take it or leave it.

SLC

I'm not sure why you'd think the 50D and D300 are not in the same ballpark. They seem fairly similar in their capacities to me. Ergonomics, fine, if you don't like Canon's ergonomics, that makes sense. But otherwise I don't see huge differences.

The 5D MkII and D700 have different strengths. It really depends on one's interests which is stronger.

 

[compuwar]

If anything the D3 is less relevant because the D700 is a cheaper/smaller D3.

We had the same situation with the D200 and D2x. Personally, after less than two months with a shiny new D200, I ended up with a used D2x and haven't looked back. If you really think the D700 is a smaller/cheaper D3, then you're not the target market for the D3, and that's why the D700 exists. IMO, the D200 and later D300 proved Nikon's strategy right. If you need what the D3 offers- in terms of backup CF cards, viewfinder, shutter life, etc. then the D700 is too much compromise- if you don't need it, then you don't need it.

I haven't gotten to hold a D700 yet, my favorite store isn't keeping them in stock- but they're not keeping D3s in stock either. The trick is Nikon manufacturing the right number of each body. The D700 makes the D3 cheaper to produce given the parts reuse and higher volume of sales- so I think Nikon's strategy is going to continue to give them great revenues and great increases in market share.

It's been a while since Nikon focused on the high end so completely- but I think one advantage they have over Canon is that the D2H(s) was in play for so long- they understand they don't have to cater to megapixel counters at the high end- if the D700 ends up clearly over the 5DmkII in a head-to-head at high ISO, then a cheaper body for Canon switchers to buy is going to pay longer-term dividends.