Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
AvTvM said:
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
well, i dont think Fuji's strategy to Only offer APS-C mirrorless sized and priced like FF gear might be even dumber than producing gear i would be happy with. i am rather convinced the camera system i would like to see (FF, mirrorless, mechanics- free, solid state, very compact, very capable, with excellent UI and reasonably priced) would reach more than the 3% marketshare all of the Fuji retro cr*p is getting.
i also am convinced that Canon would have sold more, not less, had they combatted Sony A7 series from the very start with a capable FF mirrorless system. and all those mirrorslapping rebels could easily have been replaced with EOS M gear by now - with better sales revenue and margin.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
At least in your case, there was no doubt left to remove.
Fuji's 'APS-C only' strategy also includes the medium format GFX 50S. Fuji's 'retro crap' has seen a 40% y/y revenue growth, which isn't 'crap' by any means. But we know you never let facts and reality impinge on your opinion. :
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Let’s roleplay. I’ll be general manager. You be the marketing executive charged with developing a product strategy.
What are the TAM and SAM for MILC? Is it big enough and profitable enough to interest us?
Who are the main customers? Are they also the main consumers?
My objective is to maximize profit. What is the appropriate final price (including a demand estimate, cost estimate, competitive analysis, and pricing method)?
My boss (Mr CEO) wants to increase market share rather than focus on margin. What is the appropriate final price? Help me convince Mr CEO that my profit strategy is more aligned to the addressable market.
Is the demand elastic?
These are some of the types of questions you’ll be responsible for in your effort to manage products better than the firms you noted. Solid state this, compatible that. Doesn’t matter.
TAM, SAM, COGS/pricing analysis.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Is that like the Olympus and Panasonic dumb decision to offer only microfour-thirds and outselling Sony by multiples? Selling cameras that offer true weight savings yet a quality that satisfies many professionals?
How does mirroless have higher margins when people like you expect the price of the camera to be lower because they are not going to the expense of manufacturing a mirror box/assembly?
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:
very simple: camera makers dont and wont hand out 100% of cost savings to customers. Not even I expect to get 100% of cost savings associated with mirrorless cameras. But I do expect a "decent cut" on them ... a 50/50 split would sound fair to me. What i will definitely not accept is "LOWER cost for maker combined with HIGHER prices for customers". But i am aware that many of the "apologist" folks around here are much more lenient with their gear supplier/s ... but that is not my problem, it's theirs.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Sorry, man. That doesn't make any sense. No manufacturer in the world operates on the basis that if they save some money, they'll give you a cut of those savings
This is something that the neighbourhood pub do when they get a pallet of wings real cheap -- but not a camera manufacturer. I guarantee you that every camera manufacturer performs a profit analysis, and evaluates at what price their product would maximize immediate and long-term profits, taking into consideration factors like buying market share and potential sales of related products (like lens and other accessories).
The goal of a camera manufacturer is maximize products, not to give you better prices.
If lower cost for manufacturer combined with higher prices for customers is not your gig, you should avoid Sony -- because as they iterate products through generations, they try to increase profitability, often to the point of exceeding the last generation's price (in the name of inflation, for example). Not just with cameras, with everything they make.
Personally, I don't hold it against them. Frankly, I don't care what the profit margin of a camera is. If Canon can make a 6DII for $100 wow, awesome and good for them. If they lose money to selling it to me, tough luck for them. I just kind of figure that the price tag they stick on it is one they can live with, and if it's a price I can also live with, for something I want, they can have my money.
Upvote
0
Talys said:AvTvM said:
Sorry, man. That doesn't make any sense. No manufacturer in the world operates on the basis that if they save some money, they'll give you a cut of those savings
...
That’s how the entire electronics industry has operated for the last 50 years, otherwise you would be paying trillions of dollars for anything more than a basic calculator.
Upvote
0
9VIII said:Talys said:AvTvM said:
Sorry, man. That doesn't make any sense. No manufacturer in the world operates on the basis that if they save some money, they'll give you a cut of those savings
...
That’s how the entire electronics industry has operated for the last 50 years, otherwise you would be paying trillions of dollars for anything more than a basic calculator.
Er....have you studied, or been involved with business finance? You could charge a trillion dollars and make massive profits but you would get 0% of a massive mark-up.
The reason prices dropped is because of competition. And Sony have a unique series of products so they charge what they can and they get away with it because of the unique set of features. It will be interesting to see what happens to Sony prices a year after Canon and Nikon enter the FF mirrorless market.
Upvote
0
Mikehit said:9VIII said:Talys said:AvTvM said:
Sorry, man. That doesn't make any sense. No manufacturer in the world operates on the basis that if they save some money, they'll give you a cut of those savings
...
That’s how the entire electronics industry has operated for the last 50 years, otherwise you would be paying trillions of dollars for anything more than a basic calculator.
Er....have you studied, or been involved with business finance? You could charge a trillion dollars and make massive profits but you would get 0% of a massive mark-up.
The reason prices dropped is because of competition. And Sony have a unique series of products so they charge what they can and they get away with it because of the unique set of features. It will be interesting to see what happens to Sony prices a year after Canon and Nikon enter the FF mirrorless market.
ding ding ding... give the man a medal
That's precisely it. In many consumer electronics industries, products are sold in a highly competitive marketplace, and the price (profit) optimization curve lands you at a low profit margin. The price is highly elastic, meaning that as you increase price, the profit plummets.
The only thing that cost savings do is determine the price floor (the lowest possible selling price), because a company generally doesn't sell items at a loss.
Never, ever, does Samsung or Apple go, "the next phone/laptop/tv will cost 20% less, so we'll mark down the price by 10% to pass it on to the customers". Any pricing manager who suggested that would be laughed out the front door.
If anything, it is the opposite: with each successive generation, the goal is to reduce costs in order to increase profits. So the first generation of a product (like an Xbox or PlayStation) will set a benchmark price. Then, as time passes, the production cost will drop, without any change in the selling price. At some point, the selling price will drop (because of competitive forces and price attrition), but by then, the manufacturing cost has dramatically fallen.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:AvTvM said:
At least in your case, there was no doubt left to remove.
Fuji's 'APS-C only' strategy also includes the medium format GFX 50S. Fuji's 'retro crap' has seen a 40% y/y revenue growth, which isn't 'crap' by any means. But we know you never let facts and reality impinge on your opinion. :
A Pulitzer-prize winning photographer came to my institution for a photoshoot armed with a Fuji XT2 and a Sony RX1R. Lovely kit.
Upvote
0
AlanF said:neuroanatomist said:AvTvM said:
At least in your case, there was no doubt left to remove.
Fuji's 'APS-C only' strategy also includes the medium format GFX 50S. Fuji's 'retro crap' has seen a 40% y/y revenue growth, which isn't 'crap' by any means. But we know you never let facts and reality impinge on your opinion. :
A Pulitzer-prize winning photographer came to my institution for a photoshoot armed with a Fuji XT2 and a Sony RX1R. Lovely kit.
The problem with gearheads and spec-sheet warriors is that they lose sight of the question 'what do I need to do the job to an acceptable level' and everything...absolutely everything...is a compromise. Companies like Canon and Sony spend millions on consumer research to determine the set of compromises that will make them stand out and sell cameras. Sony are very, very lucky to have their sensors because without it they would have had virtually no hook on which to which to even start their mirrorless cameras and Sony would probably be a footnote in camera history by now. Almost every review of Sony concentrates on their superiority of dynamic range - take that away and everything else is 'that's interesting'. If you don't believe me, replace the Sony sensor with the 5D3 sensor and tell me how well it would sell.
Upvote
0
3kramd5 said:
Well, if you define ethics as 'giving me the product(s) I personally want', that's a big fail for Canon. I bet there's at least one modedialish person on these forums who holds that opinion.
Upvote
0
Talys said:Mikehit said:9VIII said:Talys said:AvTvM said:
Sorry, man. That doesn't make any sense. No manufacturer in the world operates on the basis that if they save some money, they'll give you a cut of those savings
...
That’s how the entire electronics industry has operated for the last 50 years, otherwise you would be paying trillions of dollars for anything more than a basic calculator.
Er....have you studied, or been involved with business finance? You could charge a trillion dollars and make massive profits but you would get 0% of a massive mark-up.
The reason prices dropped is because of competition. And Sony have a unique series of products so they charge what they can and they get away with it because of the unique set of features. It will be interesting to see what happens to Sony prices a year after Canon and Nikon enter the FF mirrorless market.
ding ding ding... give the man a medal
That's precisely it. In many consumer electronics industries, products are sold in a highly competitive marketplace, and the price (profit) optimization curve lands you at a low profit margin. The price is highly elastic, meaning that as you increase price, the profit plummets.
The only thing that cost savings do is determine the price floor (the lowest possible selling price), because a company generally doesn't sell items at a loss.
Never, ever, does Samsung or Apple go, "the next phone/laptop/tv will cost 20% less, so we'll mark down the price by 10% to pass it on to the customers". Any pricing manager who suggested that would be laughed out the front door.
If anything, it is the opposite: with each successive generation, the goal is to reduce costs in order to increase profits. So the first generation of a product (like an Xbox or PlayStation) will set a benchmark price. Then, as time passes, the production cost will drop, without any change in the selling price. At some point, the selling price will drop (because of competitive forces and price attrition), but by then, the manufacturing cost has dramatically fallen.
These concepts aren’t complicated. The market analyses may be, but it’s easily understood by the lay person. But here’s the problem: I get the feeling a resident marketing expert might not even have familiarity with basic concepts like elasticity, channels, etc. In fact the general feel I get is that most people conflate marketing and promotion. Promotion is in actuality a part of marketing.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
