article on dSLR market

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2005.

  1. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    This article from Bloomberg.com has some interesting things to say
    about the dSLR market. Among the things of interest ...

    * Canon and Nikon have about 80% of the market, leaving Oly, Pentax and
    Minolta (sorry if I forgot someone else) to scramble for the remaining
    20%.

    * Canon's plans call for shipping 1.8 million dSLR's this year, Nikon
    to ship 1.6 million units.

    * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
    but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
    dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
    a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
    better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
    to 10% due to competition.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=10000101&sid=aEusHjaXn7c8&refer=japan

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bill Hilton

    Guest

    Bill wrote:
    >Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
    >but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
    >dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
    >a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
    >better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
    >to 10% due to competition.


    But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
    market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    film.
    In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

    Preparedness necessities! Shop the
    http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jul 11, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. wrote:
    > Bill wrote:
    >
    >>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
    >>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
    >>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
    >>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
    >>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
    >>to 10% due to competition.

    >
    >
    > But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
    > market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    > experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    > people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    > photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    > in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    > film.
    > In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    > profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.


    I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
    the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony
    P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in
    image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break
    the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't
    get me wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if
    P&S cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many
    people just won't see a need for a DSLR.

    Having the P200 for the past several months has shown me that the
    convenience of having a small capable camera is not to be under
    estimated. Soon we will see very small, affordable cameras that give
    the user many of the controls available on DSLRs with lenses that
    provide a very wide range. If I can get a P&S with 90% of the
    capability of a DSLR for less than half the cost and easily carry the
    camera in my pocket, I doubt I would ever buy another DSRL. I bet there
    are many people like me that would choose convenience over taking
    marginally better pictures. Especially considering the cost difference
    of the two options.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jul 11, 2005
    #3
  4. Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
    []
    > I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
    > the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a
    > Sony P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the
    > 300D in image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the
    > P&Ss break the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors,
    > IMHO.


    But as soon as you put an equally large sensor into a P&S as a DSLR to
    produce the same noise perfomance, the camera would become much larger,
    heavier, and more expnsive. The advantage of the P&S is lost. For that
    reason, P&S may use slightly sensors and become a little bigger, but not
    compete with the DSLR. Perhaps the 4/3 system will become much more
    popular, though?

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2005
    #4
  5. Bill Hilton

    Mark² Guest

    "Michael Johnson, PE" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > wrote:
    >> Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
    >>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
    >>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
    >>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
    >>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
    >>>to 10% due to competition.

    >>
    >>
    >> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
    >> market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    >> experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >> people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >> photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    >> in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    >> film.
    >> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    >> profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

    >
    > I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in the
    > upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony P200.
    > It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in image
    > quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break the ISO
    > barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't get me
    > wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if P&S
    > cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many people
    > just won't see a need for a DSLR.


    It is impossible for all-in-one lenses to optically keep up with the
    specialized lenses DSLR users rely on.
    For this reason, there will always be a market for interchangable lens
    cameras.
    Larger sensors will ALWAYS produce less noise than their same MP smaller
    cousins of similar technology.
    Tiny lenses and sensors quickly bump up against barriers that are NOT based
    on current technology, but instead are limited by light characteristics that
    universally come into play.
    While there will always be a market for small, "do-it-all" cameras, they
    will always be outdone by cameras with larger optics, larger sensors, and
    more specialized options.

    Thus sayeth me!
    :)
     
    Mark², Jul 11, 2005
    #5
  6. Bill Hilton

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:

    >Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    >in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    >film.


    No, it'll be their phone.

    The traditional photo companies are going to be given a *very* hard time by
    the phone manufacturers and consumer electronics people over the next few
    years. Increasingly it'll be the "niche" markets, like DSLRs, to which
    they'll have to turn if they want to stay in the game.
     
    Chris Brown, Jul 11, 2005
    #6
  7. Bill Hilton

    Mark² Guest

    "Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    >>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    >>film.

    >
    > No, it'll be their phone.
    >
    > The traditional photo companies are going to be given a *very* hard time
    > by
    > the phone manufacturers and consumer electronics people over the next few
    > years. Increasingly it'll be the "niche" markets, like DSLRs, to which
    > they'll have to turn if they want to stay in the game.


    They might be given a run for their ultra compact camera models, but
    phones...no matter how "fun" they migh tbe at the moment...still come
    nowhere near the quality and usability of dedicated cameras. Battery
    limitations, lens and sensor compromises, and flash power/proximity issues
    will severely limit the capabilities of phone cameras.

    I think they may well take a bite out of the portion of the market
    least-inhabited by people interested in quality. There are plenty of these
    people... :( But they'll never touch quality-driven DSLR markets simply
    due to natural and unavoidable optical and lighting limitations.

    Thus sayeth me.
    :)
     
    Mark², Jul 11, 2005
    #7
  8. Bill Hilton

    Rob Guest

    On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:46:42 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
    <> wrote:

    > wrote:
    >> Bill wrote:
    >>
    >>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
    >>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
    >>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
    >>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
    >>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
    >>>to 10% due to competition.

    >>
    >>
    >> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
    >> market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    >> experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >> people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >> photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    >> in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    >> film.
    >> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    >> profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

    >
    >I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
    >the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony
    >P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in
    >image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break
    >the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't
    >get me wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if
    >P&S cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many
    >people just won't see a need for a DSLR.
    >
    >Having the P200 for the past several months has shown me that the
    >convenience of having a small capable camera is not to be under
    >estimated. Soon we will see very small, affordable cameras that give
    >the user many of the controls available on DSLRs with lenses that
    >provide a very wide range. If I can get a P&S with 90% of the
    >capability of a DSLR for less than half the cost and easily carry the
    >camera in my pocket, I doubt I would ever buy another DSRL. I bet there
    >are many people like me that would choose convenience over taking
    >marginally better pictures. Especially considering the cost difference
    >of the two options.



    If the film P&S and film SLR is any go by, why should the digital be
    any different. Both of them (film P&S and SLR) have been around for
    many years and yet both survived for their own reasons. Therefore, I
    think the same will happen with the digital equivalents.
     
    Rob, Jul 11, 2005
    #8
  9. On 10 Jul 2005 18:20:07 -0700, Bill Hilton, <> wrote:

    > * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
    > but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
    > dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
    > a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
    > better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
    > to 10% due to competition.


    Pardon the following dumb question from a digital-camera newbie...

    In the film world
    =================
    - SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
    - non-SLR cameras have sorta-OK viewfinders (OK if you're not too
    close to the subject; forget about those bug macro shots).

    In the digital world
    ====================
    - non-SLR cameras have true WSYIWYG viewfinders/LCDs. I.e. on my
    Panasonic FZ5, if I have the lens cap on, I see a black screen on
    the viewfinder/LCD, which can save lots of embarressment.
    - dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG viewfinders/LCDs.

    What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
    versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
    megapixels?

    --
    Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
    Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
    the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
     
    Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address, Jul 11, 2005
    #9
  10. Bill Hilton

    Skip M Guest

    "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
    <> wrote in message
    news:42d25353$0$2440$...
    > On 10 Jul 2005 18:20:07 -0700, Bill Hilton, <> wrote:
    >
    >> * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
    >> but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
    >> dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
    >> a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
    >> better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
    >> to 10% due to competition.

    >
    > Pardon the following dumb question from a digital-camera newbie...
    >
    > In the film world
    > =================
    > - SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
    > - non-SLR cameras have sorta-OK viewfinders (OK if you're not too
    > close to the subject; forget about those bug macro shots).
    >
    > In the digital world
    > ====================
    > - non-SLR cameras have true WSYIWYG viewfinders/LCDs. I.e. on my
    > Panasonic FZ5, if I have the lens cap on, I see a black screen on
    > the viewfinder/LCD, which can save lots of embarressment.
    > - dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG viewfinders/LCDs.
    >
    > What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
    > versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
    > megapixels?
    >
    > --
    > Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like
    > Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
    > the instructions at the end of the 550 message.


    DSLRs have the same viewfinder capability as their film cousins, IOW,
    WYSIWYG. But the LCD is not "real time," as it is on P&S and other non DSLR
    cameras. Many non DSLRs have electronic viewfinders, and thus have
    limitations due to resolution and refresh rate.
    The "viewfinder" and LCD screen are not one and the same, the viewfinder is
    that little glass window on the world on the top area of the camera, just
    like on film cameras, whether SLR, P&S or rangefinder.
    If it has a lens mount, then it's not a P&S, it's a DSLR. The primary
    difference between a DSLR and a so called "prosumer" camera like the Oly
    C-8080 is that the DSLR has interchangeable lenses, and a larger sensor, not
    necessarily more pixels.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Jul 11, 2005
    #10
  11. Bill Hilton

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <m4rAe.8347$Eo.2512@fed1read04>,
    Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
    >
    >"Chris Brown" <_uce_please.com> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> In article <>,
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >>>photos of the kids or vacation with - [...] that won't be any kind of SLR


    >> No, it'll be their phone.
    >>
    >> The traditional photo companies are going to be given a *very* hard time
    >> by
    >> the phone manufacturers and consumer electronics people over the next few
    >> years. Increasingly it'll be the "niche" markets, like DSLRs, to which
    >> they'll have to turn if they want to stay in the game.

    >
    >They might be given a run for their ultra compact camera models, but
    >phones...no matter how "fun" they migh tbe at the moment...still come
    >nowhere near the quality and usability of dedicated cameras.
    >
    >I think they may well take a bite out of the portion of the market
    >least-inhabited by people interested in quality. There are plenty of these
    >people... :( But they'll never touch quality-driven DSLR markets simply
    >due to natural and unavoidable optical and lighting limitations.


    That's just a restatment of what I just said, but you seem to think you're
    disagreeing with me. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say that the camera
    manufacturers will have to rely on products such as DSLRs for their profits
    in future, because the phone guys will outcompete them in consumer
    photography, this doesn't mean that I think phone cameras will compete with
    DSLRs. Quite the opposite.
     
    Chris Brown, Jul 11, 2005
    #11
  12. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    >editor writes ...
    >
    >The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    >experience is any guide.


    I can't find the article to re-read it (looks like it was moved) but
    IIRC they are saying the current market is under 4 million units/year
    and were projecting that to rise to 6 or possibly even 8 million
    yearly, something like that. So at least the marketing folks feel the
    saturation point has not been reached.

    Think about it this way ... so long as Canon and Nikon continue to
    bring out dSLRs with more features and more megapixels at lower prices
    the demand will still be there for new bodies. Once the pixel counts
    flatten out (once the technology matures) then you will start to see
    saturation. Just to use the Canon dSLR line, the D30 has 3 Mpixels and
    sold like hotcakes for $3,000, 18 or so months later the D60 had 6
    Mpixels for $2,200 (and the price dropped rapidly), then the 20D and
    latest Rebel with 8 Mpix at prices of $1,500 and $999. It's easy to
    see why demand for new models is high.

    >In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    >profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.


    The trend the article pointed out is that the consumer models are not
    as profitable because of price pressures due to competition, while the
    SLRs have less competition so the prices and profits are still strong.
    How long this continues depends on whether or not there's a price war
    in the dSLR market.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2005
    #12
  13. Bill Hilton

    Bill Hilton Guest

    > Walter Dnes writes ...
    >
    >In the film world SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
    >In the digital world dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG
    >viewfinders/LCDs


    The viewfinders are the same and both are WYSIWYG for the most part
    (usually some small cropping). The LCDs are just for reviewing images
    you've already taken, which is a different function than for LCDs on
    compact cameras.

    >What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
    >versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
    >megapixels?


    The larger sensor size leads to higher image quality (other things
    being equal), especially at high ISO (compare the 8 Mpixel Sony 828 at
    iso 400 to say the Canon 20D at the same iso for example). And
    interchangeable lenses offer many more options with SLRs. Those are
    probably the two most important things. For the majority of users
    these advantages aren't that important, which is why compact cameras
    outsell dSLRs by 10 to 1 or so.

    Bill
     
    Bill Hilton, Jul 11, 2005
    #13
  14. Rob wrote:
    > On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:46:42 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Bill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
    >>>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
    >>>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
    >>>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
    >>>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
    >>>>to 10% due to competition.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
    >>>market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    >>>experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >>>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    >>>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    >>>film.
    >>> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    >>>profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

    >>
    >>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
    >>the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony
    >>P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in
    >>image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break
    >>the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't
    >>get me wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if
    >>P&S cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many
    >>people just won't see a need for a DSLR.
    >>
    >>Having the P200 for the past several months has shown me that the
    >>convenience of having a small capable camera is not to be under
    >>estimated. Soon we will see very small, affordable cameras that give
    >>the user many of the controls available on DSLRs with lenses that
    >>provide a very wide range. If I can get a P&S with 90% of the
    >>capability of a DSLR for less than half the cost and easily carry the
    >>camera in my pocket, I doubt I would ever buy another DSRL. I bet there
    >>are many people like me that would choose convenience over taking
    >>marginally better pictures. Especially considering the cost difference
    >>of the two options.

    >
    >
    >
    > If the film P&S and film SLR is any go by, why should the digital be
    > any different. Both of them (film P&S and SLR) have been around for
    > many years and yet both survived for their own reasons. Therefore, I
    > think the same will happen with the digital equivalents.


    I didn't mean to imply the DSLR market will disappear. I think the P&S
    segment will put more pressure on them and slow, or even shrink, their
    market share. People who earn a living from photography and very
    serious enthusiasts will always opt for the more complicated and
    expensive equipment. I've used SLR and DSLR cameras for the last 25
    years and I see a point where the P&S segment will give me a camera that
    meets most of my requirements AND gives me convenience to carry it
    everywhere I go. At that point I really don't see the need to invest
    any further in DSLR equipment. The P&S market has already caught many
    DSLRs in the pixel race and now they are targeting ISO and features too.
    Granted, DSLRs will advance too but much of the technology they use
    will quickly filter into the P&S segment.

    As for lenses, at some point a maker will offer a small, lite camera
    with interchangeable lenses. I'll be able to carry around in my pockets
    what I need a bag for with a DSLR. Plus, there are completely new lens
    technologies on the horizon. I bet we will see gel lenses that are
    shaped electronically to deliver performance undreamed of with glass.
    I'm just speculating but then again three years ago I didn't expect a
    camera with features and resolution like the P200 to be on the market
    that would cost $350 and easily fit in a pant pocket.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jul 11, 2005
    #14
  15. David J Taylor wrote:
    > Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
    > []
    >
    >>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
    >>the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a
    >>Sony P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the
    >>300D in image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the
    >>P&Ss break the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors,
    >>IMHO.

    >
    >
    > But as soon as you put an equally large sensor into a P&S as a DSLR to
    > produce the same noise perfomance, the camera would become much larger,
    > heavier, and more expnsive. The advantage of the P&S is lost. For that
    > reason, P&S may use slightly sensors and become a little bigger, but not
    > compete with the DSLR. Perhaps the 4/3 system will become much more
    > popular, though?


    The P&S segment won't use large sensors. That would defeat their
    purpose. They will likely develop and use their own technology. I'm
    just basing my rantings here on what I've experienced using the P200
    verses the 300D. It isn't a huge distance behind a DSLR in picture
    quality. It seems to me that the DSLRs are not advancing as fast as the
    P&S segment. Much of their technology and form has been around for
    decades. Plus DSLRs have to be backward compatible from a tecnology
    aspect because of the huge investment most people make in lenses etc.
    P&S cameras don't need to consider this so they can be more aggressive
    in adopting newer technologies. It will be interesting to watch how the
    two types of cameras advance in the upcoming years.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jul 11, 2005
    #15
  16. Mark² wrote:
    > "Michael Johnson, PE" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Bill wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
    >>>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
    >>>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
    >>>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
    >>>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
    >>>>to 10% due to competition.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
    >>>market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
    >>>experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
    >>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
    >>>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
    >>>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
    >>>film.
    >>> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
    >>>profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

    >>
    >>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in the
    >>upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony P200.
    >>It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in image
    >>quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break the ISO
    >>barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't get me
    >>wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if P&S
    >>cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many people
    >>just won't see a need for a DSLR.

    >
    >
    > It is impossible for all-in-one lenses to optically keep up with the
    > specialized lenses DSLR users rely on.
    > For this reason, there will always be a market for interchangable lens
    > cameras.
    > Larger sensors will ALWAYS produce less noise than their same MP smaller
    > cousins of similar technology.
    > Tiny lenses and sensors quickly bump up against barriers that are NOT based
    > on current technology, but instead are limited by light characteristics that
    > universally come into play.
    > While there will always be a market for small, "do-it-all" cameras, they
    > will always be outdone by cameras with larger optics, larger sensors, and
    > more specialized options.
    >
    > Thus sayeth me!
    > :)


    I completely agree with you based on today's technology. However, as
    technology advances we might see radical changes in lens/sensor design
    that makes a more level playing field between DSLRs and P&S cameras.
    P&S camers are free to radically change their design, form and
    technology without penalty to the user. DSLRs will need to consider
    compatibility with older technology such as lens design which IMO may
    prevent them from taking full advantage of newer technologies. Either
    way it goes it will be fun to watch the technology race.
     
    Michael Johnson, PE, Jul 11, 2005
    #16
  17. On 11 Jul 2005 11:09:07 GMT, "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my
    real address)" <> wrote:

    >On 10 Jul 2005 18:20:07 -0700, Bill Hilton, <> wrote:
    >
    >> * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
    >> but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
    >> dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
    >> a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
    >> better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
    >> to 10% due to competition.

    >
    > Pardon the following dumb question from a digital-camera newbie...
    >
    >In the film world
    >=================
    > - SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
    > - non-SLR cameras have sorta-OK viewfinders (OK if you're not too
    > close to the subject; forget about those bug macro shots).
    >
    >In the digital world
    >====================
    > - non-SLR cameras have true WSYIWYG viewfinders/LCDs. I.e. on my
    > Panasonic FZ5, if I have the lens cap on, I see a black screen on
    > the viewfinder/LCD, which can save lots of embarressment.
    > - dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG viewfinders/LCDs.
    >
    > What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
    >versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
    >megapixels?


    Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?

    For that matter show me any point and shot with an F1.4 speed lens.


    ******************************************************

    "I have been a witness, and these pictures are
    my testimony. The events I have recorded should
    not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

    -James Nachtwey-
    http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
     
    John A. Stovall, Jul 11, 2005
    #17
  18. Bill Hilton

    Ron Goodenow Guest

    All depends on what you want to do, and how much you want to spend to do
    it.

    I use both a high end point and shoot and a dslr and while it is often
    difficult to tell the difference between final images (particularly
    after post-processing), the dslr lets me use much faster lenses, some
    very heavy hitting telephotos and the firing speed I need for some
    situations. I can go for higher noise levels. The P&S (with accessory
    converters) is great for street photography, long trips, shooting around
    the house, etc.and with converter, inexpensive very wide angles. And,
    it's hard to beat the tilting/swiveling lcd with histogram. If I HAD to
    choose between the two for my desert island or mountain hideaway I would
    take the P&S.

    At the end of the day, serious photographers will want BOTH
    capabilities, but my uneducated guess is that it is the P&S which,
    long-term, will increase market share, just as in the consumer market
    laptops are taking off and desktops languishing somewhat. Size and
    portability are worth a heck of a lot.

    Bill Hilton wrote:
    > This article from Bloomberg.com has some interesting things to say
    > about the dSLR market. Among the things of interest ...
    >
    >
     
    Ron Goodenow, Jul 11, 2005
    #18
  19. Bill Hilton

    Guest

    Chris wrote:
    >That's just a restatment of what I just said, but you seem to think you're
    >disagreeing with me. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say that the camera
    >manufacturers will have to rely on products such as DSLRs for their profits
    >in future, because the phone guys will outcompete them in consumer
    >photography, this doesn't mean that I think phone cameras will compete with
    >DSLRs. Quite the opposite.


    Camera phones don't compete now - and won't in the forseeable future
    - even with tiny consumer digicams like the Pentax Optio S.

    Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
     
    , Jul 11, 2005
    #19
  20. Bill Hilton

    Chris Brown Guest

    In article <>,
    <> wrote:
    >
    > Camera phones don't compete now - and won't in the forseeable future
    >- even with tiny consumer digicams like the Pentax Optio S.


    On the contrary - 5 megapixel models are already here, and the field is
    moving fast. For the market segment in question - those wanting to take
    snapshots of vacations and family, the newer camera phones are already very
    capable, and have the advantage that people won't need to remember to pick
    them up.

    In fact, one thing that's notable here in the UK at the moment is that the
    TV news is *full* of footage of the London Tube bombings, both stills and
    video, that people who were on the bombed trains took with their phones.
    Indeed, the police have appealed for people with footage of the incidents,
    and their aftermath, to send it in to them for use in their investigation,
    and they're getting a lot. Such use of camera phones has become a news item
    in its own right.

    Phones are going to do to comsumer digital cameras what consumer digital
    cameras did to 35mm point and shoot cameras - take away a vast section of
    the market, and they're going to do it soon. Maybe it'll be slower to happen
    in the US - mobile trends there seem a few years behind everywhere else.
    Here, however, it's already started. High street photographic retailers are
    now selling phones - they're giving shelf space over to them that used to be
    taken by P&S digital. 2-3 years ago, only high-end phones had slots for
    flash-memory, but now it's a common feature, and the media they use works in
    the digital print kiosks that have been supplanting all those minilabs. If
    anything, the takeup of these devices seems to be happening faster than the
    takeup of the digital cameras that they're now supplanting. Look for it to
    accelerate in 2006.
     
    Chris Brown, Jul 11, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. deryck  lant

    The Age of the Mass Market DSLR is about to Dawn

    deryck lant, Aug 18, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    345
    deryck lant
    Aug 19, 2003
  2. Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³

    The DSLR Market In A Year?

    Dean S. Lautermilch© ²ºº³, Dec 13, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    58
    Views:
    1,527
    y_p_w
    Dec 18, 2003
  3. W6DKN

    Nikon D70 just smoked the $2,000 DSLR market...

    W6DKN, Jan 28, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    44
    Views:
    1,045
    digiboy
    Feb 2, 2004
  4. Allodoxaphobia

    [Article] Kodak Leads in U.S. Digital-Camera Market

    Allodoxaphobia, May 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    705
    Dave Martindale
    May 13, 2005
  5. Simon Finnigan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    550
    Simon Finnigan
    Mar 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page