Latest sales data shows Canon maintains big market share lead in Japan for the year

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
407
217
Olympus here in the UK is a true marketing animal, always sponsoring events, releasing neat features and promoting ambassadors, they talk an amazing game and seem to be the most hungry of all major manufacturers.
It’s too bad then that the U.K. is such a small market, and smaller after Brexit. While the local importing arm can have some independence when it comes to marketing, they can’t do anything about the home office’s decision to continue to make cameras that very few people want, and that are increasingly making less and less sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stuart

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
407
217
That's not at all what happened in Nikon. Shipment volume is down double digits for Nikon for the last two years, primarily because of the restructuring. It had nothing to do with mount and eye AF, obviously. This year's sales value for Nikon was off 28.5%, which would be after any possible mount issue.

Again, financial news of companies need financial sources. You can't make up facts about a company's fiscal health because you do or not like feature X of a camera.

The D850 bounce is done, but their logistics and chip issues, which were key in driving them into the red, are better but still in bad shape. Nikon's blamed the earthquake for too long, manufacturing and logistics operating at the level of a third rate company is killing them and completely inexcusable. The recall makes it clear that they STILL haven't been able to increase quality assurance to keep pace with lagging manufacturing ramping.

Ushida and Umatate should have gone away, not up.
It’s the other way around. They are restructuring because shipments and profits are down. They’ve stated in their quarterly reports that they will do whatever they have to, to cut costs in order to keep profits up. Companies don’t restructure for no reason. They do it because sales are forcing expenses up as a percentage of sales. So they have to drop those costs. Nikon has been cutting their service severely, for one thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jprusa

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,151
386
What do you think the odds are, of Nikon being in the position Pentax is now, in 20 years?

One moment I think 'no way, not Nikon'. Ten minutes later I think 'yeah, they're screwed'. lol

15 years ago they had the very same problems they still have today. A decade and a half later, a restructured company, and the only significant change is that they lost market share?

It just baffles me that Nikon can't figure this out.
Studebacker, Nash, and some other car makers went under even though they made some good cars mostly because they couldn't make the cost side of the equation work. Not everybody is going to figure out a win on the cost side, especially if you need big bucks to develop and support new models to stay competitive.
 

stevelee

FT-QL
Jul 6, 2017
1,250
281
Davidson, NC
Studebacker, Nash, and some other car makers went under even though they made some good cars mostly because they couldn't make the cost side of the equation work. Not everybody is going to figure out a win on the cost side, especially if you need big bucks to develop and support new models to stay competitive.
Unfortunately, they quit making Studebakers about the time I got old enough to drive. A friend in college did have an Avanti. It looked really sharp at the time. I never rode in it, though. If a group of us went somewhere, I drove my (ancient even then) '54 Ford, or my friend had his grandmother's giant Buick at school instead of the Avanti, and he drove.

It would be sad for Nikon to go under, or even become a shadow of its former self. I barely could afford a Canon when I got my first SLR, and that at PX prices in the far east. It was a fine camera, but I would have aspired to a Nikon at the time. Before long I had accumulated a range of FL lenses, and my interest in getting a Nikon waned. I did have a Nikon enlarger lens eventually.

It is about coincidental that I got into Canon DSLRs, though I guess residual good will was an unconscious factor. I went into a store to look at TVs and washers and dryers as I anticipated setting up my home where I moved when I retired. I saw a reasonable deal on a cheap Rebel with kit lens and a 75-300mm zoom, so I made the impulse purchase. That camera convinced me that I wanted a better Rebel, and I used the T3i for many years.

Still, I would be saddened if Nikon became irrelevant.
 

Expat Photographer

I'm New Here
Nov 4, 2018
19
22
It’s the other way around. They are restructuring because shipments and profits are down. They’ve stated in their quarterly reports that they will do whatever they have to, to cut costs in order to keep profits up. Companies don’t restructure for no reason. They do it because sales are forcing expenses up as a percentage of sales. So they have to drop those costs. Nikon has been cutting their service severely, for one thing.
No it's not. The restructured for a number of reasons, which also saw them curtail their logistical reach for cameras. It's not a disjunct, as noted in the consolidated financials.

It's part of their mid-term management plan regarding monodzukuri. They note the structure shift in imaging product business as they move money to support the new core profit pillars.

No offense intended, but did you actually read the consolidated financial results?

They clearly denote cost cutting to supply chains.

???
 

Expat Photographer

I'm New Here
Nov 4, 2018
19
22
Studebacker, Nash, and some other car makers went under even though they made some good cars mostly because they couldn't make the cost side of the equation work. Not everybody is going to figure out a win on the cost side, especially if you need big bucks to develop and support new models to stay competitive.
Yeah, I hear you, it's just a sad thought. I'm not a Nikon shooter, but thinking of them selling off their camera line and seeing it either being dismantled, or gutted by some Chinese firm is still a sad thought. :(
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
364
316
117
Williamsport, PA
That's not at all what happened in Nikon. Shipment volume is down double digits for Nikon for the last two years, primarily because of the restructuring. It had nothing to do with mount and eye AF, obviously. This year's sales value for Nikon was off 28.5%, which would be after any possible mount issue.

Again, financial news of companies need financial sources. You can't make up facts about a company's fiscal health because you do or not like feature X of a camera.

The D850 bounce is done, but their logistics and chip issues, which were key in driving them into the red, are better but still in bad shape. Nikon's blamed the earthquake for too long, manufacturing and logistics operating at the level of a third rate company is killing them and completely inexcusable. The recall makes it clear that they STILL haven't been able to increase quality assurance to keep pace with lagging manufacturing ramping.

Ushida and Umatate should have gone away, not up.
OK.
My observation is Nikon screwed the pooch and clung to a system 30 years beyond it's shelf life. Canon innovated and were bashed for it until it was seen by pros as the future and taht's all she wrote. Nikon is still struggling. Yes the D850 is good but it was still the old F mount with all the limitations.
 

Expat Photographer

I'm New Here
Nov 4, 2018
19
22
OK.
My observation is Nikon screwed the pooch and clung to a system 30 years beyond it's shelf life. Canon innovated and were bashed for it until it was seen by pros as the future and taht's all she wrote. Nikon is still struggling. Yes the D850 is good but it was still the old F mount with all the limitations.
Actually, part of Nikon's problem was the other way around: they spent too much money developing mirrorless trying to keep pace with Sony.

Sony paid for its R&D by profits from semi-conductors, as was their plan considering they are the global giants in the sector, THEN re-align divisions so that each had to stand independently. (That ultimately semi-failed and they had to buy back their own division, deviating from their purely parent holding company strategy.)

Mitarai, the CEO of Canon, just loved this because he takes a very solid, predictable, and dependable approach to product development (and the company as a whole) and was well aware that Nikon would be forced to restructure. This was going to, and did, lead to Nikon having to make some major changes, including cuts to even how many cameras they could produce and move, i.e. supply chain optimization particularly of its imaging products business.

Ending fiscal year March 31, 2019, revenue decreased 1.2% yet operating profits increased 47%.

Their cameras didn't get 47% better, they didn't sell 47% more cameras, reviewers on YouTube didn't give Nikon 47% more positive reviews.

This change had absolutely nothing to do with products and/or features of products. This had nothing to do with things like the F mount.

What happens is that photographers go to websites, watch videos, try gear at stores/as rentals, then just start making up claims regarding a corporation's profitability and management based on whether or not product X has nice buttons or by liking or not liking the framerate 4k video is shot in.

It's not reality though, far from it.

Nikon's big problems? Bloated and inefficient logistics, lack of capital investments in overseas biomedical, not enough focus on FPD lithography, particularly large panels (which they turned into a 53.1% increase in operating profit last year!! sheesh).
 

Architect1776

Defining the poetics of space through Architecture
Aug 18, 2017
364
316
117
Williamsport, PA
Actually, part of Nikon's problem was the other way around: they spent too much money developing mirrorless trying to keep pace with Sony.

Sony paid for its R&D by profits from semi-conductors, as was their plan considering they are the global giants in the sector, THEN re-align divisions so that each had to stand independently. (That ultimately semi-failed and they had to buy back their own division, deviating from their purely parent holding company strategy.)

Mitarai, the CEO of Canon, just loved this because he takes a very solid, predictable, and dependable approach to product development (and the company as a whole) and was well aware that Nikon would be forced to restructure. This was going to, and did, lead to Nikon having to make some major changes, including cuts to even how many cameras they could produce and move, i.e. supply chain optimization particularly of its imaging products business.

Ending fiscal year March 31, 2019, revenue decreased 1.2% yet operating profits increased 47%.

Their cameras didn't get 47% better, they didn't sell 47% more cameras, reviewers on YouTube didn't give Nikon 47% more positive reviews.

This change had absolutely nothing to do with products and/or features of products. This had nothing to do with things like the F mount.

What happens is that photographers go to websites, watch videos, try gear at stores/as rentals, then just start making up claims regarding a corporation's profitability and management based on whether or not product X has nice buttons or by liking or not liking the framerate 4k video is shot in.

It's not reality though, far from it.

Nikon's big problems? Bloated and inefficient logistics, lack of capital investments in overseas biomedical, not enough focus on FPD lithography, particularly large panels (which they turned into a 53.1% increase in operating profit last year!! sheesh).
You seem to not understand their crash 30 years ago that they have NEVER recovered on. Mirrorless had nothing to do with it. All they have to do is bake a body and put a Sony sensor in it. Why not just buy a Sony then? That is what you are getting anyway a a7III or a9 in a Nikon body no big difference except for mirror vs mirrorless.
 

melgross

EOS 7D MK II
Nov 2, 2016
407
217
No it's not. The restructured for a number of reasons, which also saw them curtail their logistical reach for cameras. It's not a disjunct, as noted in the consolidated financials.

It's part of their mid-term management plan regarding monodzukuri. They note the structure shift in imaging product business as they move money to support the new core profit pillars.

No offense intended, but did you actually read the consolidated financial results?

They clearly denote cost cutting to supply chains.

???
Yes, I have. I’ve been reading them for years. It’s clear that reduced sales have forced their hand in this. Nikon is having problems on several fronts, not just in photography. They’ve been udergoing a consolidation, of sorts. And yes indeed, they did state, in those reports that preservation of profit was a long term goal, and restructuring was in pursuit of that goal.

In fact, you should read ‘Thom Hogan’s writings on Nikon. He understands them better than they do themselves.
 

unfocused

EOS 5D SR
Jul 20, 2010
4,993
1,349
66
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
It would be sad for Nikon to go under, or even become a shadow of its former self. I barely could afford a Canon when I got my first SLR, and that at PX prices in the far east. It was a fine camera, but I would have aspired to a Nikon at the time. Before long I had accumulated a range of FL lenses, and my interest in getting a Nikon waned. I did have a Nikon enlarger lens eventually.

It is about coincidental that I got into Canon DSLRs, though I guess residual good will was an unconscious factor. I went into a store to look at TVs and washers and dryers as I anticipated setting up my home where I moved when I retired. I saw a reasonable deal on a cheap Rebel with kit lens and a 75-300mm zoom, so I made the impulse purchase. That camera convinced me that I wanted a better Rebel, and I used the T3i for many years.

Still, I would be saddened if Nikon became irrelevant.
Yes. I remember when Nikon was the top that everyone aspired too. Forty years ago I was a struggling newspaper photographer. I bought Canon because I could get two bodies and four lenses for less than two bodies and three lenses from Nikon. In those days, virtually every news photographer used Nikon and Canon was definitely considered second class.

To their credit, Canon clawed their way to the top through innovation (beginning with the AE-1) and smart marketing (white lenses, extensive advertising, etc.). I think Nikon was slow to move into the amateur market, preferring to focus on professionals. Unfortunately, the professional market was vanishing beneath their feet. Their real hallmark was always the quality of their optics and they may not have invested as heavily in the electronic side of the equation, I don't know.

Still, I wouldn't write them off just yet. Nikon and Canon have outlasted their competitors through many decades. Both still remain the top manufacturers of the highest quality cameras and the cameras that people aspire to. The shrinking low-end of the DSLR market may actually work to Nikon's advantage in the long run, as that has never been their strong suit. I'd actually place money on Nikon over Sony for the long haul.
 

BillB

EOS 6D MK II
May 11, 2017
1,151
386
Yeah, I hear you, it's just a sad thought. I'm not a Nikon shooter, but thinking of them selling off their camera line and seeing it either being dismantled, or gutted by some Chinese firm is still a sad thought. :(
I keep wondering if Sony is where Nikon will end up.
 

Tugela

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 12, 2014
855
13
I hope I'm not the only one to shed a bitter tear for Wonderful Sony:cry:
Look at the other graphic.

Sony was the only company to have in increase in revenue, so they don't need your tears. Canon and the rest all had reductions in revenue, cry for them.

Canon more or less maintained their number of units sold over the last year, but saw a big drop in revenue. What that means is that they are selling fewer high end cameras and more low end cameras than they did before. The opposite is the case with Sony. Their drop in units is probably mostly due to due to fewer low end low margin cameras being sold, with a surge in the high end high margin products.

Unless you are a point and shoot kind of a guy, the only company that is doing OK right now at the high end is Sony.
 

privatebydesign

Would you take advice from a cartoons stuffed toy?
Jan 29, 2011
7,906
1,050
119
Look at the other graphic.

Sony was the only company to have in increase in revenue, so they don't need your tears. Canon and the rest all had reductions in revenue, cry for them.

Canon more or less maintained their number of units sold over the last year, but saw a big drop in revenue. What that means is that they are selling fewer high end cameras and more low end cameras than they did before. The opposite is the case with Sony. Their drop in units is probably mostly due to due to fewer low end low margin cameras being sold, with a surge in the high end high margin products.

Unless you are a point and shoot kind of a guy, the only company that is doing OK right now at the high end is Sony.
And Canon have a very long history of being on top of costs to the finest degree, Sony have a long history of selling all kinds of cool stuff, at a loss.

If you are looking at this from a corporate health perspective you should think of profitability, which has little to do with units sold or total revenue. If you are a camera enthusiast you shouldn't worry about any of it.

As for specifics, Sony came out with a new high end camera, the A9, Canon's high end/high priced body, 1DX MkII, is generally acknowledged to be nearing the end of its life cycle with a replacement due within the next 12 months. It is always far more nuanced to make valid and constructive comparative points from these figures but it seems to me that simple fact would favor Sony high end body sales quite considerably.
 

Tugela

EOS 6D MK II
Feb 12, 2014
855
13
And Canon have a very long history of being on top of costs to the finest degree, Sony have a long history of selling all kinds of cool stuff, at a loss.

If you are looking at this from a corporate health perspective you should think of profitability, which has little to do with units sold or total revenue. If you are a camera enthusiast you shouldn't worry about any of it.

As for specifics, Sony came out with a new high end camera, the A9, Canon's high end/high priced body, 1DX MkII, is generally acknowledged to be nearing the end of its life cycle with a replacement due within the next 12 months. It is always far more nuanced to make valid and constructive comparative points from these figures but it seems to me that simple fact would favor Sony high end body sales quite considerably.
Well, the a9 has been out for a while, and is also due to be replaced soon, lol. Maybe Canon will catch up to the a9, while the a9II makes new frontiers.