Re: Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro
- From: Gordon Moat <moat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 23:58:32 -0700
ian lincoln wrote:
> "Gordon Moat" <moat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4342FB4A.1A1A9B7C@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> . . . . . . . . . . . . The digital SLR realm
> > has been a bit different, with Kodak taking the early lead in camera
> > bodies,
> > until first Nikon with the D1 and then Canon offered competing products
> > are
> > better price points.
>
> Not only that but kodaks efforts were lemons. I never read a favourable
> review. All the supposed advantages of ff except fov were lost.
I think Kodak was off the mark prior to the 14n. The 760 was the last body they
made that really had much impact in the professional market. They were the lead
company in the mid 1990s, though mostly only for well funded photojournalists
and sports photographers.
> The
> expected quality just wasn't there. In fact it was abysmalin anything but
> perfectly lit studio shots.
When the 600 and 700 series Kodak bodies were new, they were well regarded by
professionals. It was Nikon with the D1, and then later Nikon and Canon bodies
at much lower price points that really tipped the balance. What hurt the full
frame Kodak models was the poor body design, and sending the first ones out
into the market before the bugs were worked out. I know a few people still use
full frame Kodak bodies for some professional work, but the purchase was likely
more a factor of price to sensor size than a choice of ultimate image quality.
>
>
> In my opnion sigma would have done better licencing other mounts. They
> should have also stuck with ccd until they perfected foveon which was great
> on paper but didn't live up to expectations.
Too much hype, and a lack of a good reputation. I wonder if they ever really
wanted any of the professional market. I always saw those Sigma D-SLRs as aimed
at enthusiasts.
I find Fuji to be the confusing company. Interesting sensor concept, then
packaged into a mid level body design.
>
>
> >
> >
> > Amongst current professionals using direct digital cameras, mostly 35 mm
> > sized
> > SLRs, the main choices have been Canon, Kodak and Nikon. This is mainly
> > due to
> > the support offered to professionals using those digital camera bodies.
>
> I don't think so. Kodak was first to market.Canon and Nikon kept
> leapfrogging each other. Pentax and Minolta left it far too late to join
> in. They simply lost the race to market.
So you think that if Pentax and Minolta had similar MP digital SLR bodies at
the same points in time as Nikon and Canon, and maybe at the same price point,
that they would have a larger impact amongst working professionals? Valid
argument, and a good "what-if" scenario, though unfortunately it did not play
out that way.
I do wonder what will happen with the Pentax 645 Digital body. It will be
interesting to see if they continue in the medium format market in the future.
Increasingly it looks more like Mamiya and Hasselblad.
> Fuji have a great sensor but the
> nikon body built round it is only average and perhaps a little pedestrian
> with the focusing system.
Shame that Fuji does not gut and F5 or F6, and get it right. Even an F100 base
would be a little better. Another approach is just selling those sensors to
someone else.
Currently Sony is working with Konica Minolta to make an interchangeable lens
D-SLR with the Sony name on it. Since the Nikon D-SLRs are mainly using Sony
sensors, it makes me wonder how that will play out in the future. Maybe we will
see a future Kodak or Fuji imaging chip inside a Nikon branded and sold body.
>
>
> Olympus open standard initiative was brave, bold but ulitmately let down by
> the sensor size. Regardless of the final image quality its about size the
> same way intel marketed performance purely by processing speed. Thats like
> rating a cars performance purely by cubic inches with no regard for power to
> weight or whether it is turboed or not.
When really compact portable digital cameras are hitting 8 MP, it can be tough
to sell a 6 MP or even only 8 MP D-SLR to the public. Olympus is bleeding cash,
and not profiting from digital imaging . . . makes me wonder how much longer
they will keep trying to sell in this market.
>
>
> The other problem with the olympus strategy was no backwards compatibility.
> Having no slr pedigree for at least 10 years didn't help so no lenses to be
> compatible with.
Which is a shame. At least some of the 35 mm film based Olympus gear of the
past had some innovation, and some quality items.
>
>
> Ultimately canons r+d and product cycle being powered by other parts of the
> business is a huge advantage over the purely photographic companies. Buying
> 3rd party ccds from sony and a mergers with more diversified companies are
> there only hope for competing.
>
> In the
> > last three years, Kodak digital SLR sales have been less than Canon and
> > Nikon.
> > Exact numbers are hard to find, and Nikon and Canon have both only sold
> > two or
> > three professional level bodies each year.
>
> ERm do you mean introduced?
Yes, thanks for the correction. New model introductions at the high end.
>
>
> Another tough way to judge this is
> > that some professionals do buy and use the lower and mid priced digital
> > SLR
> > bodies, and even some mid range film SLR bodies.
>
> Eos 3v and 20D are back up cameras. I'm not familiar with the nikon line up
> but i should think it is the same for them and the others.
Sometimes D100 as back-up for some, or D1 series. Considering that the resale
is terrible after three or four years, an early adopter would seem to have a
ready back-up camera, as long as it still works. Of course, there would be some
choosing a Nikon film SLR as a back-up.
>
> >
> > Another professional choice is medium format and large format gear.
> > Hasselblad
> > and Mamiya have the largest impact into professional medium format
> > choices.
>
> Fortunately in the digital stampede this gear is more affordable and 2nd
> hand bargains abound.
Sure, unless you price the new gear. Of course, if you really want something
shocking, check digital back prices. At least a few deals are okay, like the
bundled PhaseOne with Rollei 6008AF, or the Mamiya 645 Leaf solution.
>
>
> > Large format is more a mixed bag, due to many choices, and that the gear
> > often
> > lasts and works for many decades.
>
> Large format is cumbersome and seldom used.
You might be surprised how many professionals still use large format gear.
Namely architecture and product photographers, but there are others.
> When they are used regularly
> they do break down. The front lens is typically the shutter too. Clock
> work. If it saw as many actuations as a pro model 35mm it would expire very
> quickly.
The approach is very different. This is why the shutters last decades.
> The rest of the large format technology is very simple. NO built
> in metering. No film advance of any kind. usually a back plate, bellows,
> ground glass focusing screen, a long rail to mount the whole thing on, a set
> of spirity levels and a few machined gears for fine adjustments and thats
> your lot. It does mean loading your own film in complete darkness or bag.
> Taking a 2 minutes exposure and then realising you haven't removed the film
> guard. Then there is remembering to put it back. Huge great film backs
> that mustn't get the slightest moisture or dust. Hardly superior technology
> or durable.
The movements possible with the camera are what do make it superior for some
work. Hardly the choice for grab shots, hand held imaging, sports, nor
photojournalism.
>
>
> > One reliable source has been rental gear information. Most rental places
> > carry
> > Canon and Nikon gear in 35 mm or direct digital, and Hasselblad and Mamiya
> > in
> > medium format. Few rental places offer gear outside of those brands.
>
> The huge marketing machines of the well established and sweetners and other
> bribes. Even non enthusiasts have heard of canon and nikon. Hasselblad is
> mentioned with the same reverance as those who mumur leica. Its just that
> in an ever narrowing market only the big guys are surviving.
Exactly.
>
>
> The
> > reality of being a professional is that gear often needs to be rented.
>
> REntal most often takes place on humungously expensive niche items. Items a
> jobbing professional couldn't possibly not afford and/or doesn't need often
> enough to justify buying the item. This merely means pentax is more
> affordable and don't have as many exotic items.
I know a few professionals who use Pentax gear. Nothing wrong with that choice,
but none of them expect to find much beyond lighting as rental items.
>
> In the
> > last tens years, I have seen Nikon gear remain somewhat stable in volume
> > at
> > rental places, while the amount of Canon gear has increased. Usually this
> > involves lenses, but camera bodies are also available. In medium format, I
> > have
> > seen a similar increase in Mamiya gear, with Hasselblad gear about at the
> > same
> > levels, and only sometimes Pentax 67 items, or Contax 645.
>
> This implies that
> > rental places are offering the gear that is most in demand,
>
> you could always imply that without examing any data at all.
>
> > which increasingly seems to be Canon and Mamiya.
>
> >
True, those if I only made a statement without qualifying it in some manner,
then I would be leaving out potentially useful information that others could
consider. The camera companies rarely break down the numbers so closely that we
can know these things, so we are left with an educated (hopefully) guess at
best.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
.
- References:
- Re: Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro
- From: Ruman
- Re: Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro
- From: Gordon Moat
- Re: Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro
- Prev by Date: Re: 8x10 photos
- Next by Date: Re: The mystery of EOS-5D...
- Previous by thread: Re: Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro
- Next by thread: Re: Market shares for 35mm SLR pro or semi-pro
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
