Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Move to Digital - Manual Controls


Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
8 Jul 2013 2:28PM

Quote:Some financial analysis here, http://fstoppers.com/examining-fiscal-year-2012-sales-for-olympus-sony-nikon-and-canon
Which places Canon as market leader in interchangeable lens cameras.

Your first link from "43rumors.com" is not worth looking at because there's no data. You can find sites like this pushing any agenda you want on the internet, but there's no objectivity there. Maybe that's what the strawman read.

Your second link from "fstoppers.com" starts off "Though the publicly filed information tends to be pretty vague in specific company categories (instead opting to give general aggregated sales)". It's also a year out of date. It's actually very difficult to find out from the companies' balance sheets where their profits - or losses - come from. It tends to be company confidential and they have no legal obligation to make it public.

The figure that would be interesting is how many interchangeable-lens camera units of each type (DSLR, CSC) have been sold, but I don't think it's available. There was a recent statement from Nikon reported in AP that overall camera sales had declined but compact and CSCs were up, but that can be interpreted in many ways - Nikon have recently been massively discounting their CSCs. The early Nikon Series 1 cameras obviously bombed so spectacularly that they've been offloaded probably below cost price. The same goes for Canon's strange M CSC. It would be very nice to know the sales figures for these cameras but we'll never know unless someone can hack into their accounts.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
8 Jul 2013 3:26PM
That could make an interesting EPZ survey, between DSLR, CSC, and compact.

I bet a lot of people would tick more than one box, twelve months ago I would have ticked all 3 Smile
keith selmes 11 7.1k 1 United Kingdom
8 Jul 2013 3:52PM

Quote:not worth looking at because there's no data.
It's worth looking at as it offers answers to the question in hand, and raises further questions such as
where do they get their figures ?
does anyone else publish similar findings ?
does anyone publish different results ?

Actually there are numbers of sites telling a similar story, evidently from different perspectives, of which I gave just two examples.
I saw none offering a different story. This suggests it is likely to have some real foundation.

moving on
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/mirrorless-shipments-down.html

references CIPA production and shipping figures http://cipa.jp/english/data/pdf/d-201305_e.pdf

Not that I care that much, and certainly don't intend spending any more time on it.
Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
8 Jul 2013 4:30PM

Quote:
Actually there are numbers of sites telling a similar story, evidently from different perspectives, of which I gave just two examples.
I saw none offering a different story. This suggests it is likely to have some real foundation.

Not that I care that much, and certainly don't intend spending any more time on it.



I don't think there's much point in your "spending any more time on it" either.

Strawman's claim was that "in fact the data I saw indicated that DSLR sales were still rising while mirror less had plateaued and dipped in some markets". In fact the data in your last link looks like ALL production/shipping is declining and the ratio of DSLR/mirrorless shows no real trend over the small timescale shown. There's also the obvious problem that this data relates to production/shipping of cameras and the interesting figure is for sales. Any manufacturer can ship a lot of stock and sell it off cheap or with big cashback incentives. Basically, you can't draw any conclusions from this data.

Just to be clear, the fact that DSLRs sell more than CSCs is not in doubt - CSCs are new to the market and DSLRs have a massive foothold. The question is what the trend is.
pablophotographer 3 496 187
8 Jul 2013 10:21PM
Hello Paul welcome to EPZ. I have been on the same analogue 'boat' with you and when I decided to go for the digital I bought my self a bridge camera. A type of camera with a permanently fixed lens to the body which performs both with and tele functions. Mine is manufactured from Panasonic and has a lens designed by Leica and produced by Panasonic. I operate it mostly in Manual mode, the changing of the aperture and shutter time values happen by pressing the exact same button which makes the work flow easy. I tried to handle two Fujifilm bridge cameras yesterday in Manual mode for two other passengers who asked my help. I managed to set just the aperture, couldn't see the button to change the shutter speed. But once you read the instructions (the two people hadn't) you could be able to make them yourself. The good thing about the Fujifilms (and not Panasonic) is that they take AA batterries. The Panasonic range I refer to is DMC -FZ (numbers) and the Fujifilms I pleayed with were the Finepix S4800. If you are happy to carry around a small bag (they won't fit into trouser pockets) and you shoot for a hobby, I think they could be another viable option for you. By the way I must have been the only photographer with a film camera on the boat yesterday.
9 Jul 2013 2:28PM
I took the new camera out yesterday afternoon and here's a sample.

-mg-1265-barley.jpg



It was very bright (so much so that I could hardly see wispy clouds) and the camera metering was vastly over-exposed. Instead, I used my hand-held light meter to place the shadows along the tree line at a reasonable level and check the value of highlights, and the results were much better.

The resolution isn't quite what I'm used too (whether that's the sensor or lens, I don't know) but I think it should be sufficient for a 16" print. In this image, the camera also seems to be having a difficult time resolving the whiskers on the barley (I think this is an 'anti-aliasing' issue), but again I suspect that will be less problematic in print than on screen.

One function that the camera doesn't have is aperture/shutter speed coupling. On Hasselblad lenses, once you've set the aperture to the correct shutter speed, you can adjust both in tandem, which is an easy way to preserve the basic exposure value.

On the plus side, highlight control is a doddle compared to transparency film.
Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
9 Jul 2013 4:52PM
It's probably a stupid question but did you set the metering mode correctly? That's the kind of scene that matrix metering should get spot on - you shouldn't be needing a separate meter. As I've said before I still like the fact that the EVF (in most cameras Wink) will show you what the picture is going to look like which saves a lot of problems. The other point is that, on good modern digital sensors, there's a lot of tolerance about how accurate the exposure has to be - especially if you shoot in RAW. Unless you get it drastically wrong you can correct it in software and it will be like it would have been if you'd got the exposure right.

I don't know what lens you got with the Canon but kit lenses are best used in their comfort zone, which is usually pretty limited.
petebfrance 2 1.3k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2013 8:54PM

Quote:...

One function that the camera doesn't have is aperture/shutter speed coupling. On Hasselblad lenses, once you've set the aperture to the correct shutter speed, you can adjust both in tandem, which is an easy way to preserve the basic exposure value.

...


Unless I have completely misunderstood (happens all too often these days) the function you need for this is 'program shift'.
http://my.safaribooksonline.com/book/photography/9780132366878/the-creative-zone/ch04lev1sec4
may help, but I don't know if you can apply exposure compensation or not at the same time....
petebfrance 2 1.3k United Kingdom
9 Jul 2013 9:04PM
mmm
having re-read the above, the only way that program shift would do the job would be if exposure compensation were available - to get the combination you're after. It should be, but I don't know that camera - perhaps somebody else can advise....

reading this, the Creative Auto mode may do te job, one way or another:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/T2I/T2IMENUS.HTM
9 Jul 2013 10:14PM

Quote:It's probably a stupid question but did you set the metering mode correctly?

It was set to evaluative mode, but I think the light was so harsh as to confuse the meter slightly. The other problem I have with that setting is it's quite hard to know what aspects of the scene it is measuring, unlike my light meter which can keep a record of the points I've measured. The live view mode is more helpful, but difficult to see in bright light. I wonder whether a matt screen wouldn't have been easier to see on.


Quote:having re-read the above, the only way that program shift would do the job would be if exposure compensation were available - to get the combination you're after.

All of the automatic metering modes are coupled to some extent, but you have to lock the meter after taking a reading, and that only stays locked for a short while. The benefit of coupling in manual mode is that you could set the exposure (fX.X @ XXsec) and then vary the parameters either to control depth of field, or to accentuate/freeze movement without altering the net amount of light coming in. Exposure compensation, conversely, alters one of the settings to achieve a slightly different exposure.
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 10:58PM
Re camera market here is some not so good data , only Nikon and Canon turned profits from cameras (although less than in the past), all the other big manufacturers lost money. :-(

And this is the article that prompted my earlier comment , though it has been revised since I last looked. I am not certain what you can read from it except that the camera manufacturers are struggling to make profits and that makes for short term bargains, but long term concerns. They revised the article, the original indicated dSLR sales holding up better, now it just looks a mess for all segments of the market. You could say last year in Q1 there were just over 3 dSLR sold per mirror less, and that has risen to just over 4 this year, but then that ratio bounces about quarter by quarter so I think a longer term averaging is required hence the revision.

What you cannot see is a swing away from the dSLR to the mirror less ,and given the web "conversations" you would sort of expected that. Also give mirror less is newer you would expect its proportion of sales to be significantly rising. The articles indicate Sony see a growth in their NEX range but not the A mount so Sony are seeing a swing to mirror less. But it concerning that Pentax, Olympus, Pannasonic and Sony are not making money from cameras.
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
10 Jul 2013 11:23PM
Hi evaluative metering can be a bothersome beast if you are used to a hand meter. It tries to look at the scene and decide what it thinks the subject is then exposes for that. I would expect it to go for the grass in the mid distance where you of course correctly looked at the areas of interest. I tend to use the spot meter and calculate what I think is a reasonable exposure and then use the levels display to confirm I got exposure correct.

Re sharpness that can be many things. How did you process it, is it RAW or JPEG etc, and which too did you use. For example I find Canon jpegs tend towards softness unless you play with the picture styles (if it takes a lot of sharpening you know your answer). If you shot RAW then I have found DPP and C1 to work well on the RAW files, but I have not been sold on the Adobe RAW converter. Like everything I find you need a bit of time to process a few images to see how they are.

Which kit lens was it, the original 18-55 of 6 or so year ago was not the sharpest in the box but the later ones have been quite good and as good or as bad as the majority of kit lens, and better than a few . As is often the case with kit lenses, f8 to f11 gives the best results, and of course if you are stopping down a long way then diffraction will be robbing you of resolution.
11 Jul 2013 2:37AM

Quote:...

The resolution isn't quite what I'm used too (whether that's the sensor or lens, I don't know) but I think it should be sufficient for a 16" print. In this image, the camera also seems to be having a difficult time resolving the whiskers on the barley (I think this is an 'anti-aliasing' issue), but again I suspect that will be less problematic in print than on screen...


I would think that it's the lens. What lens your camera is equipped with? If the kit lens that came with the camera - it is not a match for what Hasselblad used to put on their film cameras.

Quote:
...One function that the camera doesn't have is aperture/shutter speed coupling. On Hasselblad lenses, once you've set the aperture to the correct shutter speed, you can adjust both in tandem, which is an easy way to preserve the basic exposure value.

On the plus side, highlight control is a doddle compared to transparency film.


Aperture/speed coupling is done in your camera in P mode (program shift I think). In this mode you can change aperture and speed simultaneously (coupled if you wish) to preserve the set exposure, and camera won't allow you to get any values that would not add to your chosen exposure. Be careful though as shutter speed range is very wide and the image sharpness may get affected by camera movement.
Steppenwolf 3 1.1k
11 Jul 2013 8:05AM

Quote:
What you cannot see is a swing away from the dSLR to the mirror less ,and given the web "conversations" you would sort of expected that. Also give mirror less is newer you would expect its proportion of sales to be significantly rising. The articles indicate Sony see a growth in their NEX range but not the A mount so Sony are seeing a swing to mirror less. But it concerning that Pentax, Olympus, Pannasonic and Sony are not making money from cameras.



The data is too erratic and also covers too brief a timescale to allow any conclusions to be drawn. It's still very early days for mirrorless.

Working out how much profit/loss the various divisions of large companies is very difficult because it's usually determined by accounting methods. I used to work for a large American company and they always adjusted their accounts so that their British operation made precisely zero profit. Any actual profits made were perfectly wiped out by "royalty" payments to the US division to avoid paying UK tax. I suspect that all of the camera manufacturers are doing fairly badly because there's over-capacity in the sector and competition is fierce in the volume consumer market. Canikon are probably doing better than the rest because they sell more high mark-up lenses.
strawman 11 22.0k 16 United Kingdom
12 Jul 2013 12:11AM
Yes many companies play tax games across financial boundaries, but I do not think that this is the case here as it is in the total business accounts and it is the sort of information that is giving serious concerns to investors and shareholders. Sadly Panasonic and Sony are fast approaching similar positions that Kodak did. Big well respected player, good name in the public eye, but not generating enough cash to support the level of investment they are making. Sadly one, or even both of them could be gone in 5 years. Both have cash flow problems and need to take serious action to stay in business, that is more than just a downturn in the market.

I think Canikon are doing better because they are avoiding getting drawn into the competing in a price war at the lower value end and also are achieving higher sales for their more value products, i.e I think they make more profit at all points of the market they work at.

As for sales, being the early days you would expect sales to be higher, they are at the opening of the market, that sales have not hit high levels is a concern as a large % of the early adopters who will buy the cameras at the higher margin have already bought the product. the electronics industry is typically showing fast early sales then it levels out till the margins fall to a commodity type level and then sales rise, but at a lower margin. So I am thinking the sales of mirror less cameras are very low given the time they have been in the market.

Looking at what Canon have done with the 70D it would not be a surprise to see an entry level camera using the same sensor but with no mirror and an EVF. That would allow them to recoup much of the technology cost across a number of cameras, helping to cut the impact of R&D costs on profit.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.