P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted tofall by 12%

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SMS, May 21, 2009.

  1. SMS

    SMS Guest

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
    digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
    slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
    shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
    have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
    further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
    imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
    follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.

    Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
    greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
    SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
    but the addition of features such as “Live View” and video capability
    have boosted sales volumes in the mass market, according to analyst Tak
    Tomasako. "The main advantage of the digital SLR to the casual
    photographer is the lack of shutter lag, that annoying delay on point
    and shoot cameras between when the shutter release is pressed and the
    photograph is taken," said Tomasako.

    "The lack of live view and video recording capability also hurt demand
    for digital SLRs in the mass market," continued Tomasako. "These
    features were already present on point and shoot cameras, and consumers
    expected them on digital SLRs as well, even though hobbyists and
    professionals didn't care about those features. Now the digital SLR
    manufacturers have added these features and are penetrating into the
    mass market. For the manufacturer, there is the opportunity to sell not
    only the camera, but a variety of high margin lenses and accessories."

    Not all manufacturers will survive in the digital SLR business stressed
    Tomasako. "Canon and Nikon currently have over 80% market share between
    them, with Sony (who bought Konica-Minolta's digital SLR business) a
    distant third. Olympus and Pentax barely register at all and will find
    it difficult to continue. Olympus has teamed up with Panasonic to
    promote their 4:3 and micro 4:3 system with little success. Pentax has
    teamed up with Korea's Samsung to co-brand digital SLRs, also with
    little success."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    What I don't get about this news item is that if D-SLRs are penetrating
    into the mass market, as they appear to be doing, won't the increase in
    sales more than make up for the lower ASP, _increasing_ revenue while
    decreasing margins?
    SMS, May 21, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SMS

    Charles Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    "Smarter Person" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:18:24 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    >
    >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
    >>digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
    >>slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
    >>shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
    >>have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
    >>further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
    >>imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
    >>follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.
    >>
    >>Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
    >>greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
    >>SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
    >>but the addition of features such as "Live View" and video capability
    >>have boosted sales volumes in the mass market, according to analyst Tak
    >>Tomasako. "The main advantage of the digital SLR to the casual
    >>photographer is the lack of shutter lag, that annoying delay on point
    >>and shoot cameras between when the shutter release is pressed and the
    >>photograph is taken," said Tomasako.
    >>
    >>"The lack of live view and video recording capability also hurt demand
    >>for digital SLRs in the mass market," continued Tomasako. "These
    >>features were already present on point and shoot cameras, and consumers
    >>expected them on digital SLRs as well, even though hobbyists and
    >>professionals didn't care about those features. Now the digital SLR
    >>manufacturers have added these features and are penetrating into the
    >>mass market. For the manufacturer, there is the opportunity to sell not
    >>only the camera, but a variety of high margin lenses and accessories."
    >>
    >>Not all manufacturers will survive in the digital SLR business stressed
    >>Tomasako. "Canon and Nikon currently have over 80% market share between
    >>them, with Sony (who bought Konica-Minolta's digital SLR business) a
    >>distant third. Olympus and Pentax barely register at all and will find
    >>it difficult to continue. Olympus has teamed up with Panasonic to
    >>promote their 4:3 and micro 4:3 system with little success. Pentax has
    >>teamed up with Korea's Samsung to co-brand digital SLRs, also with
    >>little success."
    >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >>
    >>What I don't get about this news item is that if D-SLRs are penetrating
    >>into the mass market, as they appear to be doing, won't the increase in
    >>sales more than make up for the lower ASP, _increasing_ revenue while
    >>decreasing margins?

    >
    > Considering that P&S cameras sell 20:1 over DSLRs then that means that, in
    > total, P&S camera sales will only fall by 1.2% compared to 12% of all DSLR
    > sales.
    >
    > Makes sense. People are finally waking up to the DSLR scam and con-came
    > that it truly is.


    DSLRs are not a scam or a con-Game (corrected your sloppy spelling).

    Correcting your sloppy thinking will take more effort than I can expend.
    Charles, May 21, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SMS

    SMS Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predictedto fall by 12%

    Charles wrote:

    > DSLRs are not a scam or a con-Game (corrected your sloppy spelling).
    >
    > Correcting your sloppy thinking will take more effort than I can expend.


    Also, what our friendly troll didn't understand was that the article was
    talking about _revenue_ falling 24% and 12% for point & shoot and D-SLRs
    respectively. In terms of volumes, P&S sales growth is going down and
    revenue is falling dramatically, while D-SLR volume is going up and
    revenue is falling moderately because the growth is mostly at the low
    end of the market from consumers moving from P&S cameras to D-SLRs as
    they learn more about digital photography.

    "Sales growth for compact digital cameras, which account for 90 per cent
    of the overall digital camera market, is expected to slow in fiscal
    2009. But with demand for digital single-lens reflex cameras forecast to
    remain solid, Hoya Corp. (TSE:7741) sees shipments of its Pentax brand
    digital SLR cameras soaring 48 per cent to 340,000 units. And Olympus
    Corp. (TSE:7733) projects a 25 per cent jump in shipments of digital
    SLRs to 500,000 units."

    I'd say that Olympus and Pentax are quite optimistic given the poor
    consumer acceptance of their D-SLRs, but then again they're quoting
    percentage increases of very low volme products. Canon just shipped
    their 10 millionth digital SLR.

    Personally I doubt if our troll has ever owned any digital camera at
    all. Certainly his lack of knowledge seems to indicate no experience at all.
    SMS, May 22, 2009
    #3
  4. SMS

    Charles Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    "SMS" <> wrote in message
    news:_BmRl.33768$...
    > Charles wrote:
    >
    >> DSLRs are not a scam or a con-Game (corrected your sloppy spelling).
    >>
    >> Correcting your sloppy thinking will take more effort than I can expend.

    >
    > Also, what our friendly troll didn't understand was that the article was
    > talking about _revenue_ falling 24% and 12% for point & shoot and D-SLRs
    > respectively. In terms of volumes, P&S sales growth is going down and
    > revenue is falling dramatically, while D-SLR volume is going up and
    > revenue is falling moderately because the growth is mostly at the low end
    > of the market from consumers moving from P&S cameras to D-SLRs as they
    > learn more about digital photography.



    > Personally I doubt if our troll has ever owned any digital camera at all.
    > Certainly his lack of knowledge seems to indicate no experience at all.


    Some trolls are axe-grinders, and those can be semi-knowledgeable.

    Some trolls are just flamers.

    I no longer worry about Troll Taxonomy ... just plonk 'em. Try not to feed
    'em. I know, they are such irresistible little demons.

    One needs no credentials to create children or to post on the Internet. A
    good thing, I suppose?
    Charles, May 22, 2009
    #4
  5. SMS

    Charles Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    "botox" <> wrote in message
    news:v0nRl.27038$...
    > The most significant issue is the likely disappearance of more venerable
    > brands: Pentax, Olympus.


    A significant market shakeout is due.
    Charles, May 23, 2009
    #5
  6. SMS

    nospam Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    In article <>, KarlArkansas
    <> wrote:

    > In reply to someone who has obviously never used any camera with IS in
    > either lens or body, nor studied the image effects of both ... be aware
    > that optical IS imparts excess CA when the optical elements are shifted
    > widely to compensate for a lot of motion.


    nonsense. chromatic aberration is not caused by optical stabilization.
    nospam, May 23, 2009
    #6
  7. SMS

    Rich Guest

    On May 21, 5:30 pm, Smarter Person <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 21 May 2009 11:18:24 -0700, SMS <> wrote:
    > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > >Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
    > >digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
    > >slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
    > >shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
    > >have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
    > >further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
    > >imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
    > >follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.

    >
    > >Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
    > >greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
    > >SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
    > >but the addition of features such as “Live View” and video capability
    > >have boosted sales volumes in the mass market, according to analyst Tak
    > >Tomasako. "The main advantage of the digital SLR to the casual
    > >photographer is the lack of shutter lag, that annoying delay on point
    > >and shoot cameras between when the shutter release is pressed and the
    > >photograph is taken," said Tomasako.

    >
    > >"The lack of live view and video recording capability also hurt demand
    > >for digital SLRs in the mass market," continued Tomasako. "These
    > >features were already present on point and shoot cameras, and consumers
    > >expected them on digital SLRs as well, even though hobbyists and
    > >professionals didn't care about those features. Now the digital SLR
    > >manufacturers have added these features and are penetrating into the
    > >mass market. For the manufacturer, there is the opportunity to sell not
    > >only the camera, but a variety of high margin lenses and accessories."

    >
    > >Not all manufacturers will survive in the digital SLR business stressed
    > >Tomasako. "Canon and Nikon currently have over 80% market share between
    > >them, with Sony (who bought Konica-Minolta's digital SLR business) a
    > >distant third. Olympus and Pentax barely register at all and will find
    > >it difficult to continue. Olympus has teamed up with Panasonic to
    > >promote their 4:3 and micro 4:3 system with little success. Pentax has
    > >teamed up with Korea's Samsung to co-brand digital SLRs, also with
    > >little success."
    > >-----------------------------------------------------------------------

    >
    > >What I don't get about this news item is that if D-SLRs are penetrating
    > >into the mass market, as they appear to be doing, won't the increase in
    > >sales more than make up for the lower ASP, _increasing_ revenue while
    > >decreasing margins?

    >
    > Considering that P&S cameras sell 20:1 over DSLRs then that means that, in
    > total, P&S camera sales will only fall by 1.2% compared to 12% of all DSLR
    > sales.
    >
    > Makes sense. People are finally waking up to the DSLR scam and con-came
    > that it truly is.


    They woke up to the P&S con ages ago and rendered those cameras
    unprofitable for the companies making them.
    Rich, May 24, 2009
    #7
  8. Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, KarlArkansas
    > <> wrote:


    >> In reply to someone who has obviously never used any camera with IS in
    >> either lens or body, nor studied the image effects of both ... be aware
    >> that optical IS imparts excess CA when the optical elements are shifted
    >> widely to compensate for a lot of motion.


    > nonsense. chromatic aberration is not caused by optical stabilization.


    Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
    or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have little
    chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths of
    optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
    aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
    expensive the lens.

    Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
    more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
    introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an expenive
    lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to compensate for
    that too so as to keep it within the performance goals of the lens.

    I'd be surprised, however, if on some Friday afternoon expensive
    lenses, or some of the cheaper lenses, they didn't quite manage, and
    careful testing would show the variation of chromatic aberration as
    the IS shifts around.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, May 24, 2009
    #8
  9. SMS

    nospam Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

    > Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
    > or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have little
    > chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths of
    > optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
    > aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
    > expensive the lens.


    true, and not just chromatic aberration.

    > Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
    > more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
    > introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an expenive
    > lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to compensate for
    > that too so as to keep it within the performance goals of the lens.


    stabilization shifts the image laterally by wiggling one or more lens
    elements, not by altering the refraction, thus it will not have an
    effect on chromatic aberration.

    of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.
    nospam, May 25, 2009
    #9
  10. SMS

    nospam Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    In article <>, Gene Walzer
    <> wrote:

    > Wow, he truly is a moron of maximum proportions. And just what do you think
    > changes where the image forms during IS functioning? The very thing that
    > forms the image--refraction.


    it's refracted whether stabilization is on or off.
    nospam, May 25, 2009
    #10
  11. SMS

    Rich Guest

    God finally intervening in the sale of the odious P&S's?
    Rich, May 25, 2009
    #11
  12. Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    nospam <> wrote:
    > In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    > <> wrote:


    >> Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
    >> or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have little
    >> chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths of
    >> optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
    >> aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
    >> expensive the lens.


    > true, and not just chromatic aberration.


    >> Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
    >> more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
    >> introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an expenive
    >> lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to compensate for
    >> that too so as to keep it within the performance goals of the lens.


    > stabilization shifts the image laterally by wiggling one or more lens
    > elements, not by altering the refraction, thus it will not have an
    > effect on chromatic aberration.


    Wiggling a lens element changes the amount of refraction. and
    therefore the amount of chromatic aberration.

    > of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.


    Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
    amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
    stabilisation, will change the amount of chromatic aberration, and
    unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
    minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
    out how it works.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, May 25, 2009
    #12
  13. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    Chris Malcolm wrote:
    > nospam <> wrote:
    >> In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    >> <> wrote:

    >
    >>> Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
    >>> or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have
    >>> little chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths
    >>> of optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
    >>> aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
    >>> expensive the lens.

    >
    >> true, and not just chromatic aberration.

    >
    >>> Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
    >>> more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
    >>> introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an
    >>> expenive lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to
    >>> compensate for that too so as to keep it within the performance
    >>> goals of the lens.

    >
    >> stabilization shifts the image laterally by wiggling one or more lens
    >> elements, not by altering the refraction, thus it will not have an
    >> effect on chromatic aberration.

    >
    > Wiggling a lens element changes the amount of refraction. and
    > therefore the amount of chromatic aberration.
    >
    >> of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or
    >> not.

    >
    > Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
    > amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
    > stabilisation, will change the amount of chromatic aberration, and
    > unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
    > minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
    > out how it works.


    You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
    stabilization mechanism? Do tell.
    J. Clarke, May 26, 2009
    #13
  14. SMS

    nospam Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    <> wrote:

    > > of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or not.

    >
    > Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
    > amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
    > stabilisation, will change the amount of chromatic aberration, and
    > unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
    > minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
    > out how it works.


    how is a simple prism which is *supposed* to split the colours
    representative of a complex optical device that's explicitly designed
    *not* to?

    wiggling the stabilizing elements *moves* the image, it does not change
    the refraction of it.

    now it's possible that it might move it into part of the other elements
    where the path is less optimized but that would have been taken into
    account in their design. in other words, any effect is insignificant,
    if it can even be measured.

    but since you believe it can happen, where are the examples showing
    that a lens with its moving elements centered have less chromatic
    aberration than when they're at full excursion?
    nospam, May 26, 2009
    #14
  15. SMS

    SMS Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predictedto fall by 12%

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > Well, people like that aren't worth much attention, which is what they
    > are after. I will just ignore him in the future.


    Filtering him works pretty well because despite the fact that he changes
    his identity constantly, there are some things in his headers, and even
    in the fake e-mail addresses he creates, that you can filter on.

    You need a better news reader than Thunderbird or Outlook, and you have
    to be willing to spend some time creating filters on unique attributes
    in his headers.

    One very good free Usnet news reader is 40tude Dialog, at
    "http://www.40tude.com/dialog/".

    I'm slowly migrating over from Thunderbird, copying my existing filters
    and adding new ones, but in reality you need less filters in 40tude
    Dialog because you can look at attributes other than just "from" or
    "subject" though fortunately, most posters you want to filter are not
    quite as obnoxious as our troll.
    SMS, May 26, 2009
    #15
  16. SMS

    nospam Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    In article <>, David J.
    Littleboy <> wrote:

    > > You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
    > > stabilization mechanism? Do tell.

    >
    > No. He means that by shifting one or more central elements in the lens, the
    > construction, and thus optical properties, of the lens change. Thus it's not
    > unreasonable to expect that the amount of CA will change also.


    it's possible, but it's insignificant and certainly something that
    would have been considered in the overall design.

    > Whether this is detectable or not is another question, of course.


    exactly. if it's not detectable, who cares.

    > Still, it's a good point that IS is another constraint, and implies worse
    > optical performance than one might otherwise get. Another reason in-camera
    > stabilization is a good idea.


    they both have advantages and disadvantages.
    nospam, May 26, 2009
    #16
  17. SMS

    SMS Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predictedto fall by 12%

    Ron Hunter wrote:

    > The filtering need not be perfect. I have no intention of switching
    > from Thunderbird. Better filtering is on the way, shortly. Such minor
    > irritations really aren't worth the trauma of switching newsreaders.


    It's not just our troll, it's stuff like the recent rash of postings of
    merchandise originating from "news.usenetmonster.com". Amazingly this
    provider actually did recognize the problem eventually, and shut the
    poster down, but it was really annoying while it lasted.
    SMS, May 26, 2009
    #17
  18. SMS

    Paul Furman Guest

    Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predictedto fall by 12%

    nospam wrote:
    > In article <>, David J.
    > Littleboy <> wrote:
    >
    >>> You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
    >>> stabilization mechanism? Do tell.

    >> No. He means that by shifting one or more central elements in the lens, the
    >> construction, and thus optical properties, of the lens change. Thus it's not
    >> unreasonable to expect that the amount of CA will change also.

    >
    > it's possible, but it's insignificant and certainly something that
    > would have been considered in the overall design.
    >
    >> Whether this is detectable or not is another question, of course.

    >
    > exactly. if it's not detectable, who cares.
    >
    >> Still, it's a good point that IS is another constraint, and implies worse
    >> optical performance than one might otherwise get. Another reason in-camera
    >> stabilization is a good idea.

    >
    > they both have advantages and disadvantages.


    Both would tend to push at least one corner inward, improving one side,
    making another worse. The troll just made this up though, it's a non-issue.

    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
    Paul Furman, May 26, 2009
    #18
  19. SMS

    Rob G Guest

    On 21 May, 19:18, SMS <> wrote:
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    > Barclays Capital estimates that consumer-oriented point and shoot
    > digital camera sales will shrink 24% in terms of revenue amid a global
    > slump in demand. Casio and Olympus recently cut prices on point and
    > shoot cameras, but analysts say that prices of point and shoot models
    > have bottomed out in terms of the manufacturers being able to cut prices
    > further, because margins are already close to zero. A shake out is
    > imminent in the digital camera business, with other producers set to
    > follow the lead of Konica-Minolta and abandon the business.
    >
    > Digital SLR revenue is predicted to shrink by 12%, as prices fall due to
    > greater competition and the introduction of lower priced models. Digital
    > SLR cameras used to be purchased mainly by hobbyists and professionals,
    > but the addition of features such as “Live View” and video capability
    > have boosted sales volumes in the mass market, according to analyst Tak
    > Tomasako. "The main advantage of the digital SLR to the casual
    > photographer is the lack of shutter lag, that annoying delay on point
    > and shoot cameras between when the shutter release is pressed and the
    > photograph is taken," said Tomasako.
    >
    > "The lack of live view and video recording capability also hurt demand
    > for digital SLRs in the mass market," continued Tomasako. "These
    > features were already present on point and shoot cameras, and consumers
    > expected them on digital SLRs as well, even though hobbyists and
    > professionals didn't care about those features. Now the digital SLR
    > manufacturers have added these features and are penetrating into the
    > mass market. For the manufacturer, there is the opportunity to sell not
    > only the camera, but a variety of high margin lenses and accessories."
    >
    > Not all manufacturers will survive in the digital SLR business stressed
    > Tomasako. "Canon and Nikon currently have over 80% market share between
    > them, with Sony (who bought Konica-Minolta's digital SLR business) a
    > distant third. Olympus and Pentax barely register at all and will find
    > it difficult to continue. Olympus has teamed up with Panasonic to
    > promote their 4:3 and micro 4:3 system with little success. Pentax has
    > teamed up with Korea's Samsung to co-brand digital SLRs, also with
    > little success."
    > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    >
    > What I don't get about this news item is that if D-SLRs are penetrating
    > into the mass market, as they appear to be doing, won't the increase in
    > sales more than make up for the lower ASP, _increasing_ revenue while
    > decreasing margins?


    I've read through most of the posts in this thread and am amazed at
    the abuse that flows back and forth not only in this thread but
    throughout this NG in general.

    I'm not a troll as I will bring something of my observations on the
    subject shortly, but I am a regular user of NG's and forums in the UK
    and I've never come across such polarised opinion and poor quality
    discussion in terms of argumentative emotion on the subjects raised.
    You really all need to look at yourselves and wonder just who you are
    and whom you are trying to convince that you are any wiser than anyone
    else. You accuse posters of being trolls but is it hardly surprising
    that you are being wound up when you all lay yourselves so open to
    being seen as such pompous idiots.

    I'm an amateur photographer - I'm old enough to remember as a child
    using box brownies and developing my own 35mm b&w films. I enjoy
    recording life as it goes past, but I'm not a pro-am unlike many here
    make themselves out to be. Anyway I did a brief test today, totally
    unrelated to this thread. I've a Canon 300D with it's native lens,
    and I've a Panasonic FX01. My test ? I wanted to investigate
    recording many family papers - I can either scan them or I can photo
    them, so I tried the cameras this morning. What astonished me,
    particularly in line with this thread, that in an identical shot, the
    P & S was far superior in detail to the SLR. I had to Sharpen the SLR
    shot to be able to read the text. which in the P & S was clear and
    readable without significant zooming in.

    If you regard the postings in favour of P & S cameras as trolls then
    so be it, but my test with the equipment I have has been a bit of an
    eye opener.

    Rob
    Rob G, May 26, 2009
    #19
  20. Re: P&S Revenue predicted to fall by 24%, D-SLR revenue predicted to fall by 12%

    J. Clarke <> wrote:
    > Chris Malcolm wrote:
    >> nospam <> wrote:
    >>> In article <>, Chris Malcolm
    >>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>> Chromatic aberration is caused by bending a light ray at a glass-air
    >>>> or glass/different-glass interface. The reason good lenses have
    >>>> little chromatic aberration is that they go to considerable lengths
    >>>> of optical engineering ingenuity to introduce cancelling chromatic
    >>>> aberration. Generally speaking the better this is done the more
    >>>> expensive the lens.

    >>
    >>> true, and not just chromatic aberration.

    >>
    >>>> Optical image stabilisation works by bending the light a little bit
    >>>> more in order to compensate for camera movement. So it's bound to
    >>>> introduce some extra chromatic aberration. Of course in an an
    >>>> expenive lens of high quality the designers will go to pains to
    >>>> compensate for that too so as to keep it within the performance
    >>>> goals of the lens.

    >>
    >>> stabilization shifts the image laterally by wiggling one or more lens
    >>> elements, not by altering the refraction, thus it will not have an
    >>> effect on chromatic aberration.

    >>
    >> Wiggling a lens element changes the amount of refraction. and
    >> therefore the amount of chromatic aberration.
    >>
    >>> of course, any lens can exhibit chromatic aberration, stabilized or
    >>> not.

    >>
    >> Of course, but what you're failing to realise is that changing the
    >> amount of refraction, which is how the image is shifted in optical
    >> stabilisation, will change the amount of chromatic aberration, and
    >> unlike the usual chromatic aberration it will be eccentric. Spend ten
    >> minutes playing with a prism, a sunbeam. and a ruler, and you'll find
    >> out how it works.


    > You mean that the refractive index of the glass is altered by the image
    > stabilization mechanism? Do tell.


    Have you noticed that in lenses which exhibit chromatic aberration
    that it increases from zero in the middle to a maximum at the edges?
    That's because the more you bend the light the more chromatic
    aberration there is. And in optical image stabilisation you move the
    image by bending the light path with refractive optical elements.

    I can't believe I'm having to explain this to photographers! Don't you
    guys understand how a lens works?

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, May 27, 2009
    #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. News Reader
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    432
    News Reader
    Mar 16, 2007
  2. smb

    OT: I predicted it would happen!!!

    smb, Aug 3, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    253
    Views:
    3,327
  3. Raqueeb Hassan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    385
    Justa Lurker
    Nov 11, 2007
  4. Raqueeb Hassan
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    921
    Justa Lurker
    Nov 11, 2007
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Windows Phone 7—As I Predicted

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 25, 2011, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    336
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Jan 27, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page