Nikon maintains DSLR lead over Canon

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
RichA says...

There are probably more camera phones than either. But then who cares
about that when it's the phone that makes the money? DSLRs are
profitable,

Are they? I used to think that DSLR bodies are essentially given away
and the manufacturers make money with the lenses.
Pretty much. It is pretty common now that a retailer will make more profit
out of a 2GB memory card sold with a DSLR than they will out of the DSLR
itself. Not sure of manufacturer margins, but I wouldn't expect them to be
much better. DSLR's are profitable, yes. Maybe not in the body itself, but
in the accessories. A compact customer will typically purchase a memory
card, a bag and maybe a spare battery. There is nothing more to be made from
them until their next camera purchase. For the camera manufacturer there is
very practically nothing else to be made from that customer. When they next
purchase a camera, it could be from any brand, as there is nothing except
familiarity keeping them to their existing brand. An SLR purchaser OTOH
will most likely at some stage in their ownership purchase at least one more
lens, and a flashgun. Extras like grips, eyepiece adaptors, remote releases,
etc are also on the cards. While some of these things can be bought off
third parties, the chances are good that genuine items will be bought. Then
when they come to upgrade their camera, the chances are VERY high that they
will stick with the same brand. While profit may be low in the budget end,
it is better at the premium end.

P&S cameras are being given away thanks to high
competition.

Can you prove that compact digitals are sold at a loss?
I saw a press release in an Australian trade magazine recently that said
Kodak are exiting the low end compact market (not sure if it meant the
Australian market, or if they are exiting completely) because they have lost
money on it. A quick google search couldn't find a reference and the
magazine is at work so I can't quote it, so unfortunately for the time being
you'll have to take my word for it.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
. ..
In article , SMS says...

SLRs lead digital camera sales surge
"http://news.com.com/2100-1041_3-6173084.html"

106 million compact digital cameras sold vs. 5 million DSLRs sold.
Guess
which cameras are more popular.

You have to look at the growth rates, not just the raw numbers.

Let's see: DSLRs grew by 1.5 million units, compact digital cameras grew
by 12 million units.

Hint: it's easy to grow a lot in % terms if you are a dwarf.
True, but you also have to look at how the market has performed over recent
years and what is happening to it. In a recent trade magazine I saw some
remarkable statistics relating to the Australian market. I'll preface this
as being Australian, other countries will vary.
In australia now, a whopping 82% of households own at least one digital
camera, the majority of them being compacts. So far in 2007, sales in the
compact category are down compared to last year - this is the first year
since digital cameras first appeared, that this has happened. These two
statistics indicate a market that is approaching saturation. When a market
reaches saturation, sales come from people upgrading, people replacing
broken items, and from new consumers (ie kids growing up). A saturated
market no longer has the first time buyer who in the past have made up the
vast majority of customers. Until now, the vast majority of digital sales
have been in the compact category. With film cameras, a much higher
proportion of sales were SLRs, so there are still many film SLRs out there.
There are still many people who use compact digitals and film SLR side by
side. They know that the compact digital is great for convenience, but can't
match it with an SLR for speed, quality or control. As film becomes less
appealing many of these people will upgrade their film SLR to a DSLR, so
that they can still have the speed and quality they have been used to with
film, but with the convenience of digital. Additionally, just as most film
SLR users started with a film P&S and upgraded to SLR when they felt they
needed more from a camera, many compact digi users are finding that they
need more from a camera and are upgrading to DSLR.
So what we are seeing in countries with a fast technology uptake rate, is
that the compact camera market is slowing or even shrinking, but the DSLR
market is accelerating. I would expect that in other countries which
traditionally take up new technology quickly (parts of europe, japan etc)
the same will be happening. Worldwide the compact market will still be
growing quickly, as many countries with very high populations (asia, usa,
eastern europe) are traditionally slower to take up new technology.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Joe wrote:

But the post, at least the subject line, makes a blanket statement.
Add the words "in Japan" and it would be accurate. This is a case of a
"sin of omission" tainting your point. I contend that you were being
less than honest in an attempt to assert something that isn't, or may
not be true.

The post, at least in the subject line *probably* represents the truth
in markets outside of Japan too.
But feel free to believe otherwise if that threatens you, or feel free
to prove me wrong if you can.

Pete D wrote:

"nospam" wrote in message
...

In article , SMS
wrote:


If going the Nikon route, get the D80, not the D40x. Within a few
months, that extra $250 will be forgotten and you'll have a much more
capable camera that you'll be happier with. The D40x was severely
defeatured to meet a price point, and to avoid taking sales away from
the D80.

i'm glad you have $250 you can so easily 'forget about.' what if the
user doesn't want any of the features you think are so important? what
if they have a budget? maybe they'd rather save the $250 instead of
getting features they don't need. or maybe they'd prefer spending the
$250 on a flash, another lens, or a new printer.

If that is the case then they probably should not be buying into D-SLR at
any level because pretty soon they will need a nice big flash and another
lens and so on, etc. There are quite a few that use their D-SLR as a high
quality P&S and will only ever buy the basic kit.

It would hurt when the pruchaser of a D40x goes to buy a new lens and
finds that the NIikon AF lenses in his local shop won't focus when
attached to his D40x.
Then it will really seem like being "penny wise and dollar poor"
(cheaper camera now and more expensive lenses later).

I could go as far as to guess that this could backfire on Nikon, as the
frustrated D40x owner whines about how "crappy" his Nikon DSLR is.
It might even prompt them to switch to Canon or Pentax, at least all of
the AF lenses made by both fit and function on all of their repsective
DSLR camera bodies.

dj_nme wrote:
[]
It would hurt when the pruchaser of a D40x goes to buy a new lens and
finds that the NIikon AF lenses in his local shop won't focus when
attached to his D40x.
Then it will really seem like being "penny wise and dollar poor"
(cheaper camera now and more expensive lenses later).

I could go as far as to guess that this could backfire on Nikon, as
the frustrated D40x owner whines about how "crappy" his Nikon DSLR is.
It might even prompt them to switch to Canon or Pentax, at least all
of the AF lenses made by both fit and function on all of their
repsective DSLR camera bodies.

I think there is some truth in this, but perhaps it's also true that if a
D40/D40X owner wants to expand what they have in lenses substantially,
they may also want to upgrade to one of the more expensive Nikon DSLR
bodies with more functionality. I also suspect that the range of lenses
will be expanded gradually so that more have in-lens motors (as lens
upgrades are released).

David

On Sun, 15 Jul 2007 14:06:53 +1000, dj_nme wrote:

It would hurt when the pruchaser of a D40x goes to buy a new lens and
finds that the NIikon AF lenses in his local shop won't focus when
attached to his D40x.
Then it will really seem like being "penny wise and dollar poor"
(cheaper camera now and more expensive lenses later).

How many dealers would there be that fit that description? Of the
ones that stock more than just kit lenses, most should have a decent
selection of D40 compatible lenses. And those more larger, heavier,
more expensive non-AF-S lenses are less likely to appeal to the
D40/D40x owner than to D80/D200 owners. Not that there might not be
a few exceptions, but most D40x owners should have all the lenses
they can handle for the next couple of years. The few that decide
to sink serious money into lenses will probably also have been
dreaming of upgrading their D40x to a D90 or D300, and not just
because of lens limitations.


I could go as far as to guess that this could backfire on Nikon, as the
frustrated D40x owner whines about how "crappy" his Nikon DSLR is.
It might even prompt them to switch to Canon or Pentax, at least all of
the AF lenses made by both fit and function on all of their repsective
DSLR camera bodies.

It might even prompt them to switch dealers, maybe even realize
that there are more dealers than WalMart, Circuit City and Staples
(is it appropriate to add Ritz to this list?), and discover
respected online dealers such as B&H, Adorama, Calumet and others.

"Doug Jewell" wrote:
"Alfred Molon" wrote:

Hint: it's easy to grow a lot in % terms if you are a dwarf.

True, but you also have to look at how the market has performed over recent
years and what is happening to it. In a recent trade magazine I saw some
remarkable statistics relating to the Australian market. I'll preface this
as being Australian, other countries will vary.
In australia now, a whopping 82% of households own at least one digital
camera, the majority of them being compacts. So far in 2007, sales in the
compact category are down compared to last year - this is the first year
since digital cameras first appeared, that this has happened. These two
statistics indicate a market that is approaching saturation. When a market
reaches saturation, sales come from people upgrading, people replacing
broken items, and from new consumers (ie kids growing up). A saturated
market no longer has the first time buyer who in the past have made up the
vast majority of customers. Until now, the vast majority of digital sales
have been in the compact category. With film cameras, a much higher
proportion of sales were SLRs, so there are still many film SLRs out there.
There are still many people who use compact digitals and film SLR side by
side. They know that the compact digital is great for convenience, but can't
match it with an SLR for speed, quality or control. As film becomes less
appealing many of these people will upgrade their film SLR to a DSLR, so
that they can still have the speed and quality they have been used to with
film, but with the convenience of digital. Additionally, just as most film
SLR users started with a film P&S and upgraded to SLR when they felt they
needed more from a camera, many compact digi users are finding that they
need more from a camera and are upgrading to DSLR.
So what we are seeing in countries with a fast technology uptake rate, is
that the compact camera market is slowing or even shrinking, but the DSLR
market is accelerating. I would expect that in other countries which
traditionally take up new technology quickly (parts of europe, japan etc)
the same will be happening. Worldwide the compact market will still be
growing quickly, as many countries with very high populations (asia, usa,
eastern europe) are traditionally slower to take up new technology.


An astute analysis, Doug.

dj_nme wrote:

It would hurt when the pruchaser of a D40x goes to buy a new lens and
finds that the NIikon AF lenses in his local shop won't focus when
attached to his D40x.
Then it will really seem like being "penny wise and dollar poor"
(cheaper camera now and more expensive lenses later).

I could go as far as to guess that this could backfire on Nikon, as the
frustrated D40x owner whines about how "crappy" his Nikon DSLR is.
It might even prompt them to switch to Canon or Pentax, at least all of
the AF lenses made by both fit and function on all of their repsective
DSLR camera bodies.


Nikon has sold low-end SLR bodies with key features disabled for many
years - at least since the Nikon EM of the late 1970s. That policy
does not seem to have done Nikon any commercial harm in the last 28
years, and is unlikely to do them any harm now.

The Nikon D40X is an excellent product and it is selling very well.
And that is all that really matters.

frederick wrote:

Joe wrote:

But the post, at least the subject line, makes a blanket statement.
Add the words "in Japan" and it would be accurate. This is a case of a
"sin of omission" tainting your point. I contend that you were being
less than honest in an attempt to assert something that isn't, or may
not be true.

The post, at least in the subject line *probably* represents the truth
in markets outside of Japan too.
But feel free to believe otherwise if that threatens you, or feel free
to prove me wrong if you can.


I'd like to thank you for proving me right.

First you tried to ridicule me whe I posted information based on the
most authoritative sales figures available for the Japanese market.
Then you posted a link to a similar (albeit not identical) set of
figures, which you have defended to the hilt.

I am so pleased that you have seen the error of your ways and
confirmed by your actions that your criticism of my previous posting
was entirely misplaced.

I accept your apology.

Tony Polson wrote:
dj_nme wrote:


It would hurt when the pruchaser of a D40x goes to buy a new lens and
finds that the NIikon AF lenses in his local shop won't focus when
attached to his D40x.
Then it will really seem like being "penny wise and dollar poor"
(cheaper camera now and more expensive lenses later).

I could go as far as to guess that this could backfire on Nikon, as the
frustrated D40x owner whines about how "crappy" his Nikon DSLR is.
It might even prompt them to switch to Canon or Pentax, at least all of
the AF lenses made by both fit and function on all of their repsective
DSLR camera bodies.



Nikon has sold low-end SLR bodies with key features disabled for many
years - at least since the Nikon EM of the late 1970s. That policy
does not seem to have done Nikon any commercial harm in the last 28
years, and is unlikely to do them any harm now.

The difference being with this particular DSLR camera is that they have
disabled a key feature that prevents mostly currently available AF
lenses from working on the D40x.
The previous "disabled" Nikon SLR cameras just meant that a new feature
(or two) in the new flagship model weren't included in the base
"disabled" model, not something as vital as lens compitiblity.

The Nikon D40X is an excellent product and it is selling very well.
And that is all that really matters.

I'm sure that the D40x is great if what you're after is essentially an
APS sensor P&S (having no wish for other lenses than the kit lens), but
will readily show it's lens compatiblity problem as soon as the owner
decides to upgrade the lens.
If you were after a Nikon DSLR that is fully compatible with currently
available lenses, I would have to recommend the D80.