DSLR's dead in 5 years

[nimitzbenedicto]

There are instances where a manufacture offers items for sale and sometimes below cost ......

It can also occur when a manufacturer continues to produce a product that is unprofitable due to having a very competitive and potentially extremely profitable replacement product under development and do not want a gap in supplying that segment of their market.

Perhaps your experience with business is different from what I have seen/experienced.

Usually, when a product is made, it is done with personnel. Whether blue or white collar, skilled technicians/etc. These people need to get paid. If the products they produce don't make money, where will the capitalists get the money to pay them their wages?

Sure, at start-up , the capitalists may borrow money to pay workers their wages. Ok, but then, they must reach a point in time where money comes in so they can recover initial start-up costs and get their Return on Investments ( ROI). Money from sales must come in. Otherwise, where will they get money to pay production expenses/wages.

I believe it's difficult to say to the workers, " Errrr, sorry, we can't pay your wages , but rest assured our company's name will be up there in blazing lights. So please go home, tell your family you have to forego some meals so our company's reputation is up there"

Can you please provide actual companies with actual statistics per product you say who continue to sell just to perpetuate their brand name. For instance, can you cite actual sources stating F1 cars sell at a loss just to perpetuate F1 name.

Btw, are F1 cars mass produced or they produced on a per-order basis?

This will be very helpful to validate your post above.

Thanks

[pnodrog]

Perhaps your experience with business is different from what I have seen/experienced.

Usually, when a product is made, it is done with personnel. Whether blue or white collar, skilled technicians/etc. These people need to get paid. If the products they produce don't make money, where will the capitalists get the money to pay them their wages?

Sure, at start-up , the capitalists may borrow money to pay workers their wages. Ok, but then, they must reach a point in time where money comes in so they can recover initial start-up costs and get their Return on Investments ( ROI). Money from sales must come in. Otherwise, where will they get money to pay production expenses/wages.

I believe it's difficult to say to the workers, " Errrr, sorry, we can't pay your wages , but rest assured our company's name will be up there in blazing lights. So please go home, tell your family you have to forego some meals so our company's reputation is up there"

Can you please provide actual companies with actual statistics per product you say who continue to sell just to perpetuate their brand name. For instance, can you cite actual sources stating F1 cars sell at a loss just to perpetuate F1 name.

This will be very helpful to accept your post above.

Thanks

Only took about 5 second search to find one "February 2012, it was estimated that each sold “Maybach”, Daimler lost about 500 thousand dollars!".

In nearly every industry there are products or services that are retained not for any profit they produce (some even a loss) but for marketing and strategic reasons. Certainly overall the company needs to make a profit to ensure its survival and they certainly will try and minimize the losses incurred by any nonprofitable activities.

Another example is low cost printers where the profit is from the selling of the consumables not the printer itself.

All this is not particularly relevant to this thread and if it interests you I suggest you research it further on the internet.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Hi L. Paul,

Thanks for the information.

[dabhand]

In nearly every industry there are products or services that are retained not for any profit they produce (some even a loss) but for marketing and strategic reasons. Certainly overall the company needs to make a profit to ensure its survival and they certainly will try and minimize the losses incurred by any nonprofitable activities.

Another example is low cost printers where the profit is from the selling of the consumables not the printer itself.

All this is not particularly relevant to this thread and if it interests you I suggest you research it further on the internet.

No - it is relevant - loss leaders are exactly that - they cost, and to use your second example, printers - now for sure a printer is sold at a loss against total product cost (from R&D thro' to EOL) but it's printer ink that makes the money and many printer m/facturers (mostly except Kodak) underwrite the loss against the gain from ink - which they attempt to ensure thro' specific chips & other techniques to stop OEM low cost equivalents - thro' a printers lifetime and thus the combined product operates at a profit.

For cameras, where is the 'ink' - SD cards are standard, USB charging is becoming more prevalent so minimising ludicrously expensive vendor specific chargers, s/ware and RAW files are replacing the use of many filters - so where is the 'ink' ? For DSLRs that is obviously in the interchangeable lenses, but IF the use of DSLRs does go down, then there'll be less demand for the lenses, which will force up the prices, which will reduce demand, which will etc etc.

I'm afraid change is inevitable and in several years from now DSLRs (and a number of other photo technologies) will either have adapted or become essentially extinct - simple law of survival.

[nimitzbenedicto]

New 4/3rd $995 Black Magic Design cam is the latest threat to DSLRs.

http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2013/04/0...cinema-camera/

youtube review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAgPaiLgeE4

Black Magic website
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/

[ajohnw]

One very famous example of loss making is down to NEC. The chairman / president lost more money making domestic TV's than many companies turn over because he thought that NEC should have a presence in the living room. It wouldn't surprise me if Mitsubishi did similar things.

Not sure if I would use the motor industry as an example. Consider expansions followed by contractions and bail out loans etc. The cracks in that area are beginning to show. Little profit in new cars, amazing mark ups on spares and lots of money in servicing and repairs. Smart money seems to be drifting purely into the later. Fortunately cars do wear out. At times that has taken longer than they hoped but they still wear out. In some instances quicker than people would like. I know of a garage manager sent on a course on how to tell people their car needs a new gearbox at 50 - 60,000 miles. Wearing out on just about everything is now far more certain than it used to be.

Ir wouldn't surprise me if lower end DSLR's do support the high end to a certain extent but the bottom end might also be sold cheap. One thing for sure something has to support items that don't make enough money. Otherwise plane and simple companies go bust. Increasingly in real terms they do anyway.

John
-

[Manfred M]

Something seems wrong here.

Of course, it goes without saying , the capitalist thinks about a "buyer".

Where in the world can you find business without the buyer????

How can you make a profit without a "buyer"????

Not only wrong but "funny".

Why, because at the end, you fully agree with me.
i.e. if a product doesn't make a profit for the capitalist, it will die.

Victor, just because we reached the same conclusion, doesn’t mean we agree.

A product will die, if no one wants it. The capitalist, as you put it, or the management team (as I would put it) may officially kill it off, but that is the outcome, not the cause of the problem.

One example that clearly sticks in my mind was a visit I made to East Germany in the late 1970s, before the Berlin Wall came down and the East Bloc fell apart. There were cars running around; Ladas, Wartburgs and Trabants. I returned there a year after the Wall came down, and the roads were full of more expensive (primarily used) Western cars. The capitalists did not kill the Eastern European car manufacturing industry; it sunk under it’s own weight; by turning out poorly made, unreliable products that nobody wanted.

[nimitzbenedicto]

Victor, just because we reached the same conclusion, doesn’t mean we agree.

A product will die, if no one wants it. The capitalist, as you put it, or the management team (as I would put it) may officially kill it off, but that is the outcome, not the cause of the problem.

One example that clearly sticks in my mind was a visit I made to East Germany in the late 1970s, before the Berlin Wall came down and the East Bloc fell apart. There were cars running around; Ladas, Wartburgs and Trabants. I returned there a year after the Wall came down, and the roads were full of more expensive (primarily used) Western cars. The capitalists did not kill the Eastern European car manufacturing industry; it sunk under it’s own weight; by turning out poorly made, unreliable products that nobody wanted.

Well, after reading your post, I agree with you.

[royphot]

Hi.
I have been a keen photographer for a long time. I can remember when Pentax introduced their first 35mm SLR. (At that time I was using a Periflex, interchangeable screw lenses, and a little tube down which you could see a part of the image on a tiny ground glass screen). Ever since SLRs overtook the Twin Lens Reflexes as the most popular amateur cameras, there have been predictions about their demise, almost every time a new system or film size hit the market. It hasn't happened yet, and while it might happen at some point in the future, I wouldn't advise holding your breath while waiting.

[ajohnw]

Hi.
I have been a keen photographer for a long time. I can remember when Pentax introduced their first 35mm SLR. (At that time I was using a Periflex, interchangeable screw lenses, and a little tube down which you could see a part of the image on a tiny ground glass screen). Ever since SLRs overtook the Twin Lens Reflexes as the most popular amateur cameras, there have been predictions about their demise, almost every time a new system or film size hit the market. It hasn't happened yet, and while it might happen at some point in the future, I wouldn't advise holding your breath while waiting.

I feel the R part will disappear on many cameras. There sales might help support a few that still have the R. Given all the problems with current R views I think that is inevitable for many. The R view is a little curious to me as a fresnel ring and 2 levels of ground glass should still be feasible on modern screens but then people who can't remember the problems with those would soon find out but people did manage.

The changes that happen aren't always good for photography. I remember deciding to buy a new compact. Went into a shop and asked to look at a Nikon. The AF worked until I pointed it at a slightly darker corner of a well lit shop. It wouldn't focus. Tried a Canon and it did. Later I tried to take photo in the lounge at home with the lights set dim. Wouldn't focus. Then I noticed that the set to infinity setting for shooting through glass had gone. I'm not convinced that compacts have ever caught up with cameras that had that facility even with AF assist lights.

I decided to stack some start photo's. Several 10 sec exposures with an E-P3. Bit of a problem. The camera spent many seconds playing with it's storage stacking shorter exposures itself that didn't record any of the light I wanted to capture as they were way too short. My 300D has no problems with 10 sec plus exposures. Noise - what noise. Now we get ever increasing ISO's and the noise problems with them largely due to more and more pixels. Probably good overall depending on what some one wants to do.

Then along comes a camera like the OMD EM-1. with phase contrast focusing on the sensor. I had heard that Nikon had switched to Sony sensors because this was coming. It fits in nicely with the long term desire to not make earlier lenses obsolete. That used to make them number one in the market. The EM-1 has a larger electronic view with 2.4mp in it. Still way short of the pixels on the sensor but a good step in the right direction if people want manual focusing. That also allows more to be shown in the viewfinder. I noticed a post on the web. Some one saying am I mad. I went out to buy a Nikon and came back with an EM-1. At last a camera that is about the size of the film cameras I used to use. When he gets round to using and understanding it there will be a number of other plusses too. It's a fact that micro 4/3 sales have been steadily increasing year by year so I'm told by a retailer that didn't sell me any of my cameras or lenses. Must admit having changed I feel any concerns about a crop factor of 2 against 1.6 hardly come into it. Maybe full and APS frames will appear anyway. In short I feel that the R's days are numbered. Cost for one thing which is what often drives camera designs even if it causes users problems. Currently mirrorless are Compact System Cameras, CSC's. Wonder if some that have an SLR type arrangement will be called DSL's.

Purely on sensor electronic shutters are another possibility but having used one in the region of 1/250 sec I know that they can record fluctuations in mains lighting. Some compacts have no mechanical shutter though and don't have that problem. Movie mode doesn't either. I'd guess this area will be next. It's cheaper.

John
-