Related Links:
Canon Camera Sales Off (high yen) [2/2001]
Kodak Digital Proposal Draws Ire of Shareholders (BJP) [11/2003]
Kodak vs. Fuji - Battle for Market Share (pdf) [5/2003] Leica Sales [02/00] (pdf)
Nikon Corp Sales page
Nikon SLR Sales worldwide [11/2000]

Index:
Drop in Film Sales Predicted
Film and Camera Sales 2000-01
Japanese Sales 1999-2001 (JCIA)
Leica Lenses - only 1.2 sold per M body?
Medium Format Ebay Sales by Brand

This table is derived from Table of 1600+ Third Party Lens Listing.

The lowest value in 1974 of just 10 new lenses being introduced corresponds to the 1973-74 Arab oil embargo. You can see why the Japanese called this the oil shoc-ku!

The recovery and huge peak during the 1977 period represents the high water mark for photography, both in terms of numbers of photographers and new lens introductions.

The post-Carter inflation period highlights the drop in new lens introductions due to recession of 1981-2 at the beginning of the Reagan era. We drop to only a third of the number of new lens introductions of the previous or following years.

Finally, we hit a lower base level in the late 1980s, again corresponding to a reduced number of new lenses and a lower population of SLR camera buyers and new users.

In short, this table is interesting in how it highlights the interplay of economics and the introduction of new lenses. Moreover, it documents the rise and peak of SLR photography market, and the subsequent decline into the current day.

Granted, some of these numbers (mostly earlier) represent importers bringing in lenses under importer names, possibly duplicating the name brand lens introductions by actual third party lens manufacturers. But the overall trends correspond surprisingly well with both economic events and the rise and decline of SLR photography, as documented earlier in the article linked below.

Why Pro Cameras Cost So Much

Why are there so few pro cameras? Herbert Keppler provides some insights in his SLR Notebook (in Modern Photography, March 1980 p.116).

Keppler cites Wolfman Report of the Photographic Industry statistics that there were circa 100,000 professional photographers in the USA in 1980. Roughly half were portrait (30,000) or commercial (20,000) photographers who mostly used medium format or larger cameras. So Keppler suggests we assume 75,000 professional photographers using 35mm cameras as a high end figure. [see posting]

Here are some interesting production figures from 1980:
• Canon AE-1 70,000/month
• Canon A-1 10,000/month
• Nikon EM 30,000/month
• Olympus OM-1 15,000/month
• Olympus OM-2 12,000/month
• Olympus OM-10 40,000/month
• Hasselblad 500c 1,500/month

Keppler's conclusion was that you needed 30,000 cameras per month to justify production at 1980s prices. Japanese engineers suggested that cutting this figure in half meant 1/3rd higher production costs.

These figures explain several observations you may have made. First, most cameras have siblings with slightly different features that use virtually all the same body parts. For example, you have the Nikon FE and FM cameras, Pentax ME and MV, Canon AE-1 and AV-1 and so on. This tactic helps cut costs by keeping total parts production higher than that critical 30,000 cameras/month.

Second, cameras are rapidly obsoleted compared with 1960s models such as the Nikon F (1950s thru 1973 production run). The pro models such as the still produced Nikon F3 have longer lives, partly due to smaller numbers sold. These cameras are probably produced until the tooling wears out and it becomes cost ineffective to retool to build them.

Third, our estimated 75,000 pro photographers using professional 35mm cameras can't justify production of even one pro only camera brand at the minimum 30,000/month levels estimated above. If we sold a new brand-X pro camera every year to each of these 75,000 pro photographers, these cameras would have to cost 2.5+ times as much to makeup for low volumes extra costs.

But wait, you say! Most professional photographers are still using their Nikon Fs and F2 or Canon F1s. Few are buying a new pro camera every year. Even worse, there are four or five or six professional class cameras available from Nikon (e.g., F3,F4,F5), Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Minolta, and so on. If we split our 75,000 pro photographers pro camera sales among 7 pro models, that's less than a thousand sales to professionals for each camera for each month. And again, we are assuming professionals buy a new professional camera every year, which is highly doubtful.

Now I doubt most professional camera buyers buy a new pro class 35mm SLR every year. Most of the pros I know are still using Nikon Fs and F2s and F3s, rather than current F4s or F5s, and so on for the other major brands. So we are probably seeing more like a new pro camera body sale every three to five years, right? If so, our model of 1,000- pro camera sales per month per model (based on 7 models and 75,000 sales/year) is far too optimistic. We are looking at more like 200 to 350 pro cameras per month (7 pro camera models, 15-25,000 pro sales/year).

Now you know one reason why pro camera models are so expensive. In another SLR Column in Popular Photography, Keppler had a Canon pro-class (EOS1n) and amateur (rebel) camera disassembled and compared. The pro class camera had a few features that improved ruggedness and reliability. But these pro cameras cost over seven times what a very similar amateur camera cost.

Do you think the extra ruggedness of the pro model is worth seven times the cost of the amateur model? Keep in mind that most of the parts in the pro model are identical with those in the amateur model, mainly to save tooling costs and inventory costs. Is one pro camera model more reliable than seven amateur model bodies? Are the handful of extra features worth the extra cost?

Obviously, someone thinks these features are worth the cost. Most of those people are not professional photographers, but serious amateurs. Of the 10,000 Canon A-1 sales per month, we have already seen that only a small fraction of those sales (200-350 cameras/month) are likely to be to US professional photographers. Allow for sales to non-US professional photographers for a total pro camera sale level of 1,000 cameras/month to keep the math simple. You still are left with circa 90% of so-called professional Canon A-1 cameras going to serious amateur photographer buyers.

My conclusion is that professional photographers aren't the big market for professional cameras; rather, most professional cameras are sold to serious amateur photographers.

The Hasselblad figures of 18,000 camera sales per year are helpful in checking this analysis. That's 1,500 cameras monthly to the entire world's professional photographers plus lots of serious amateur photographers too. Many commercial and portrait photographers probably use Hasselblad equipment, constituting 50% of our 100,000 pro photographer population as they do (per Wolfman Report).

My point here is that 1,500 cameras per month worldwide for one of the top pro medium format camera systems isn't very much for 100,000 US pro photographers, let alone the entire world (300,000+?). Even so, I'm told that most Hasselblad sales are not to professionals but to serious amateur or semi-professional part-time users.

Keppler makes a useful point as well that helps explain why so many medium format cameras rarely change radically, especially in body design. Similarly, most medium format lenses are old designs, often forty years old, rather than the latest optical marvels of their much cheaper 35mm cousins. The reason is that you can't afford to make changes in a small market, given what it costs to do research and re-designs and especially retooling today. There just isn't the volume.

The same observation holds for low volume of production professional camera bodies. You can't afford to make major body changes that would require massive retooling. So we get lots of small changes in features that can be squeezed in to promote sales, but fewer revolutionary new pro camera models. The pro camera models are driven by the low-end consumer model dynamics. The high volume consumer models drive the opportunities for new pro models wherever parts are shared to cut costs too.

Another factor is the shocking low wages of the average photographer in the U.S. From Turning Semipro and U.S. labor dept figures, we find only 10% of photographers make over $50,000 US/year (1996). The median wage was $20,779/year, and average wages were still only $23,380/year even averaging in the high flyers.

How many professional photographers making the average $23,380 US/year can afford to buy a Nikon F5 and fast pro lenses? Not me!

This analysis brings me to several conclusions, some of them surprising!

Most professional photographers can't afford pro cameras and lenses, given their low average wages ($23,380/year) in the USA.

Only a small number of roughly ten percent of professional photographers (the ones making $50,000/year typically) can afford professional cameras and lenses at today's prices. The rest presumably either rent, use their employers resources, or make do with older equipment.

Perhaps 90% of so-called professional 35mm cameras and lenses are actually sold to non-professional, serious amateur photographers.

Small production run sizes for these pro cameras contributes much more to their high price than any internal parts improvements (cf. Canon pro vs. amateur differences compared to seven fold increase in cost).

In other words, you are paying 700% more for a professional Canon model than the amateur model. The extra cost of any added features and more rugged parts is a modest fraction of the cost of the camera (maybe 10-35%?). Most of the 700% higher cost is for smaller production run cost dynamics and research and development (spread over fewer camera sales than on mass-produced consumer cameras).

Why are two Nikon EMs more Reliable than a Nikon F3?

We can shed some additional light on the question of camera ruggedness and reliability here too. Keppler reported a Japanese camera designer friend (Mitani of Olympus?) suggested that a professional camera should not experience a failure in less than 50-60,000 exposures, versus perhaps 30,000 exposures for a serious amateur's top quality camera. In a July 1980 Modern Photography SLR Notebook column, Keppler reported the following reliability estimates for Nikon.

What does this mean? We can infer that a Nikon F3 is twice as reliable as a Nikon FE, and three times as reliable as a Nikon EM. The F3 has a few features the FE doesn't have (digital readouts, TTL flash). The Nikon EM is an auto-aperture priority camera without manual mode. The updated Nikon FG (and upgraded EM) adds some F3 features such as TTL flash for little more than the EM price. Based solely on reliability, you might expect the F3 to cost three times as much as the EM/FGs and twice as much as the Nikon FE. Naturally, you would be way off. As with the Canon EOS vs. Rebel, you can buy a half-dozen of the lower priced cameras for what one of the pro models cost.

Sometimes you have to have the pro camera. Perhaps you need to interchange prisms for an underwater housing requiring a sportsfinder. In most cases, however, there are serious amateur cameras with virtually all the pro camera features (sometimes more) any photographer is likely to need or want. Should you buy the pro model or the serious amateur model?

The answer obviously depends on your specific needs and pocketbook.

For most of us, the attraction of the professional camera model is its increased ruggedness and reliability over the amateur models. Thanks to the data above, we can quantify that increase as roughly double the reliability of the serious amateur model.

From reliability engineering analyses, we can assert that two independent parallel systems each with half the reliability of a single system are not just as reliable as the single system, but rather much more reliable. Two cameras are much less likely to fail simultaneously if they are truly independent systems, right? In fact, the math suggests that two Nikon EMs are likely to be more reliable than a single Nikon F3.

So I'm left with a surprising contradiction of conventional camera buying wisdom. Professionals who claim to value reliability as the justification for paying up to 700% more for a more reliable professional model are losing out. They would be much better off spending much less and buying two cameras. Reliability theory suggests two consumer cameras such as the FE2 or even FGs would be much more reliable than a single pro camera model such as the F3, F4, or F5 series.

Many professional photographers have switched to feature rich but lower cost serious amateur cameras (e.g., FE2). While two such cameras may weigh slightly more than one pro model (with motordrive), they may jointly cost only a third as much (with winders). Besides extra reliability, two cameras offer more flexibility in carrying mounted lenses. Two cameras are also a substitute for interchangeable backs of the medium format and large format worlds. You can have slide film in one camera and print film in the other. That's tough to pull off with a single professional camera!

For related resources, see The Death Spiral Of Serious Amateur Photography also at this site.

See also Backups in Photography.

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Re: Nikon Profits

The Wall Street Journal reported that for the fiscal year ending in March Nikon lost 9.87 billion yen on sales of 252.50 billion, down 14 percent from 293.93 billion the previous year. The poor showing was attributed to slow sales in its stepper business, which may continue in the coming year due to sluggish capital spending by semiconductor makers. On the plus side, Nikon's share price was up substantially.

Obviously, some of you have not been doing your part. Let's shape up out there and start buying more F5's and AF-S 600's. Those of you with deeper pockets might consider the purchase of a stepper or two. I understand they make attractive conversation pieces.

Gregory Lee
Alexandria, Virginia

From: "Filippo M. Caroti" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: bad news
Date: 9 Jun 1999

It is rumored that Bayer, who's got the property of Agfa (and 50% of Ilford), is going to sell the german company: shares of Agfa are being put on the stock market. It seems that Kodak and Fuji are in competition to buy Agfa. If Kodak would win, it will increase its monopoly around the world (it's already got a real monopoly in the american market and most of asian market: this will put Kodak in a monopolistic position in the european market, too). We should hope that anyone's going to buy the german company will continue its production of fine films, chemicals and papers, instead of dismissing its plants or use them to produce Kodak or Fuji products; this is true expecially about the baryt papers from Agfa, that for many photographers and printers seem to be the finest on the market for their tonal extension.

In the meanwhile my photostore, one of the best-stocked stores in Rome, Italy, has presented to me a lack of photographic and chemical material from Agfa in the next future. Here's rumored that Agfa will temporarily shut down its storehouses in Italy with the consequences that here it will be hard and long to find the products of the german brand. This may happen abroad, too. And it's impossible at the moment to know how long this will last. It seems that some discomforts and delays in distribution have already started.

The only way the consumer can be heard is buying products from other brands than Kodak or Fuji, even if Fuji hasn't got a worldwide monopoly as Kodak has. Let's keep alive even small producers, like the Eastern European ones or the Oriental ones, by buying their good products (I'm talking of Foma, Kubika, Forte, Efke, Seagull, Paterson, Bergger, etc.). Let's not leave the market to an oligopoly of few multinationals that establish the prices and offer the quality of products they want because there's no competition. We're still part of the market and we should defend our right to choose a suitable product in a free market.

Since a free competitive market is desireable by the consumer, as prices slope down this way and quality is differentiated and tendentially increased, I think everyone should think about this economic view and should reflect about his/her next purchase.

Regards.
--
Filippo M. Caroti
[email protected]

From The Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 11 Aug 1999
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Investing in LEICA CAMERA AG AKTIEN DM 5

Jeff,

I think you're better off to look at an investment that offers the potential in providing a good return. The camera market is crowded so if you are looking at the players in only this market put your money with a leader [from a diversified and financial perspective].

LEICA CAMERA AG AKTIEN DM 5 was at one time 50DM per share (about 8/97), now its around 11.

In the last 9 months it has fluctuated a good deal but is about where it was in December 98, so you'd be about even had you invested then.

I would suggest a technology stock like Cisco, Microsoft, Lucent. Each has more than doubled, some tripled their value in the last 2 years, while Leica has lost avbout 80% of its value in the same time. You would be better off to buy Leica camera(s) as collectible(s), they will probably appreciate more and at a greater pace.

Peter K

[Ed. note: I have not been able to verify these numbers from online sources, but they seem to match the above Nikon group posting

[rec.photo.technique.nature newsgroup]
From: P�l Jensen [email protected]
[1] Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?
Date: Sun Aug 22 1999

[email protected] wrote:

> If these numbers are readily availble please state how much money Nikon lost
> on it's professional division last year.  That is all I ask of you.

For the first half of fiscal 99 year Nikon lost 6.0 billion Yen. If you still in doubt whether Nikon loose money on 100 000's point & shoots or their low-volume, expensive to develop pro cameras and lenses I suggest you use your head or contact an industry analyst. Besides, Nikon is making most of their money on the semiconductor division; the photo division account for only about 40% of Nikon's revenue (and I'm not making this up either and I don't have the source in front of me).

How on earth can I have opinions about whether Nikon is loosing money or not? It isn't a matter of opinion - you accuse me of lying an making it up. Relax, I take no offense. I have read it. Yes, I assume that the press releases, associated press, and a wall street finacial newspapers I don't remember the name of don't make it up although you shouldn't always believe whats in the newspaper.

If you want to know Nikons result search for it. I don't bother cause its well known, its discussed several times in newsgroups and you can find it in press releases from Nikon and others. I have no intention wasting my time on your paranoia.

Its a well known fact (no references) that the SLR industry is rock hard and that the professional part is even worse. Thats why Olympus went out of it and start making lots of money. Thats also why Nikon is more and more consdentrating on high-volume products. Thats where the money is.

....

Postscript:
The numbers I was refering was from 1 half of fiscal year 99. Ending October 98.

From Leica User Group Digest:
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999
From: Stephen [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Which way the future of camera companies?

Today I spent some time with a Japanese camera industry insider, who is closely associated with one of the major Japanese manufacturers.

According to him, stockholders of most of the major Japanese Camera companies regard cameras as a money losing proposition. Many stock meetings are arguments between the bean counters who want to stop camera production and concentrate on profit, while traditionalists want to continue camera production. He included Canon, Pentax, and Nikon specifically in his comments. Ricoh recently stopped camera production.

Especially with the dawn of the digital age and large expensive film based systems, just suppose the bean counters win.

Expensive interchangeable lens SLR systems would be replaced with ever more competent fixed zoom digital cameras. Not only would the system approach as we know it today be increasingly difficult to assemble, film itself will get harder and harder to buy.

Compared to the current photography environment, the new millennium may offer many unpleasant surprises to the serious 35 mm photog.

time will tell.

Stephen Gandy

rec.photo.technique.nature
From: P�l Jensen [email protected]
[5] Re: nikon losses Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon
Date: Mon Aug 23 1999

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

> see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/economics.html  regards bobm

The numbers you use on the "why pro cameras cost so much" is seriously out of date. Since 1980 the situation is much worse; SLR sales are now less than 1 million a year so production runs of 70.000 a month for one camera model is now an imposibility. Probably the whole market now is smaller than canon's 1978 production run of the AE-1 model!

Popular entry level slr's nowadays are manufactured in numbers from 8000 - 20000 a month; probably close to yesterdays professional models in number. You're probably right in that 90% of top level cameras are bought by amateurs; that clearly show the tiny numbers these cameras are sold in nowadays (I expect the number of professional to be constant while the number of amateurs are less than halved). When you take into consideration the astronomical developing cost for a machine like the F5, the room for profit, if any, is slim indeed. At least its not going to make any impact in any manufacturers books.

Very few lenses, probably only the most popular zooms, are made in thousands a month. The numbers for 600/4 or 50/1.0 are really tiny.

BTW the pentax ME and MX don't share any body parts.

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: nikon losses Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999

Robert,

It is amazing how fast business sectors can change and how important it is to diversify.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/outline.htm

Marc

.....

> The Wall Street Journal reported that for the fiscal year ending in March
> Nikon lost 9.87 billion yen on sales of 252.50 billion, down 14 percent  from
> 293.93 billion the previous year. The poor showing was attributed to  slow
> sales in its stepper business, which may continue in the coming year  due to
> sluggish capital spending by semiconductor makers.
> --
> * Robert Monaghan POB752182 Dallas Tx 75275-2182 [email protected]  *

From Nikon Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 18 Sep 1999
From: Paul DiBiase [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Nikon Prices

If one follows international financial news, it should come as no surprise that Nikon (and others I believe) will be raising prices. The Japanese economy is coming out of its long slump. Recently, the Yen rose to a new yearly high against the US dollar. While other factors effect prices (Econ 101: Supply and Demand, remember those), the stronger Yen will tend to push prices up. This should come as no surprise. Nikon may choose to absorb some or all of the price increase, or they may not.

===
Owner of the Pacific Northwest Photography E-mail list at http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/pnwphoto

From: P�l Jensen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?Change to Profitable & money losing product lines
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999

[email protected] (PBurian) wrote:

> I cannot prove this, but I agree that it is unlikely that any manufacturer can
> make a profit on lenses like the 600mm f/4. They simply cannot sell enough of
> them.
>
> Or the Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6L USM.
>
> I believe that certain products are made because A) pros demand them B) to
> prove just what the manufacturer can do (like the EF 1200mm)
>
> By offering any product pros need, they keep the customer loyalty. And amateur
> photogs often DO buy the same brand that pros use, so this pays off in the long
> run. 
>
> Just opinion. 

Opinion it may be but its true. It is better for business making a hell of a lot of few products than making a few of a hell of a lot of products. It doesn't matter if you're making cakes or lenses. The same apply. However, there definitely is a spin-off effect of exotic products.

Pentax had once a one page color advertisement (I think it might have been in national geographic) in the 70's of their 15/3.5 lens. The issue was how a company could afford offering a product they only sold 7 of each year. Of course you got the usual bullshit about commitment to the customer, and although there may be some truth to this, the main reason is to show what the company can do (the lens was quite advanced at the time) and the spin-off effect thereof.

Although I don't know this, I take for granted that the same is the case for Canons 50/1.0 lens. Sure there are people needing such a lens, but I dobt that there are enough of them to justify canons developing costs.

Date: Mon, 23 Aug 1999
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: nikon losses Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?

agreed on 1980 numbers out of date today ;-) I used them 'cuz that's what the data (Keppler's article..) was based around, as a starting point...

in 1981 2.6 million SLRs were sold, versus 725,000 for 1993. I haven't been able to get any more recent figures, but doubt if it is because it is such good news ;-) see my page on the Death Spiral of Serious (Amateur) Photography at http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/brondeath.html

Per a post today on the Leica LUG, I understand Ricoh has gotten out of the camera/SLR biz? see third/economics.html for posting archive

Anyway, however you slice it, the number of pro cameras sold is very small, and the number of odd-ball fast and exotic lenses is also tiny.

If you assume 75,000 pro 35mm photographers in the USA, buying a pro 35mm camera every five years (how many still using F and F2 ahem ;-) - then that's 15,000 pro cameras to pro photogr. a year, or figuring 7 pro camera body models (nikon f4/f5 (f3?), minolta, pentax, canon EOS..) about 2,100+ pro cameras per model per year or under 200 per month per model.

Add in amateur sales, 500,000 amateurs (still?), maybe one in five will buy a pro level camera for $2k versus $400 models??? Again, assume 5 year cycle time on pro cameras in amateur hands (conservative?) - so 100,000 / 5 or 20,000 pro cameras to amateurs per year? Add in the 15,000 pro camera annual sales estimate, and you have roughly 3000 cameras per month, 100 cameras per day, but only 25 cameras per day per manufacturer (nikon pentax canon minolta..). Those 35,000 cameras/4 mfg = ~9,000 per year or 750 per month for the USA market (what? half the world's pro camera market - how many F5s can you sell in the third world?) So I'd be surprised if they are making more than a few thousand pro cameras per month per pro camera mfger.

the odd-ball lenses are much, much worse. The example of the pentax lens selling under ten lenses a year is probably true of many exotic lenses, maybe a few a month for the $8,000+ lenses?? Some of the exotic lenses like the nikon 1000mm f/6.3 sold only 60 lenses - total production run! Others like the 200-600mm f9.5 zoom sold only 186 lenses total production run, for the entire world market. see my lens envy pages at: http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/bronlensenvy.html

When you figure the cost of tooling and R&D and lost opportunity costs to develop a million seller zoom lens (as with tamron's 28-210 ;-), it is hard to argue that even at $2,000+ apiece, these lenses can hardly be making money. If the LUG post is correct, hardly anybody is making money overall in the SLR business in Japan, and some players (Ricoh) are exiting or only a show force (Olympus?) etc.

grins - bobm

from a post in Jan 21 2000 Nikon Mailing List:

per Britain's Amateur Photographer magazine, average film rolls usage is:

U.K. 3.6 rolls
USA 6 rolls
Japan 9 rolls

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999
From: P�l Jensen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Art Wolfe switches to Canon ?

[email protected] (Terence Danks) wrote:

>  P�l Jensen [email protected]
> wrote:
> >[snip] Minolta, Pentax and Olympuss [snip]They have no
> >interest on increasing tenfold the sales of their 600/4 lenses. Their
> >loosing money on each one of them and keeping the sales volume down is
> >just fine by them.[snip]
>
> I sure am curious as to how you know this. Do you have any source at
> all for this figure?

I don't think I made any figures but both the bosses of Pentax and Olympus have basically said this. They have no intention of penetrating the pro market, something thats quite obvious really. Olympus says that the reason they keep the OM-system still in production is that it gives the company a profile of a serious camera manufacturer. They don't sell many and they can't make money on this and the OM-system is totally unimportant economically for the company; if anything it a loss product. And they don't push it eiter so obviously do not want to sell that many. Their markting budget on the OM-system is really tiny or almost non-existent. You can still buy the Pentax LX. Pentax will make you one on order. They don't advertise this. They are probably more than happy with the tiny numbers of them make.

Pentax chief engineer told the same story at photokina in 1996. We need a top 35mm slr in order to considered as a serious camera manufacturer, he said. Hence, they will release a titanium bodied traditional slr with eye-controlled multi-point AF soon according to the latest rumors from japan. But they have still no intention of penetration of the pro market with this camera. In fact its seriously delayed and its delayed because its a low-volume low-profit product so they have spent their energy elsewhere. They probably have some production volume schedule they don't want to break because they would rather use their capacity for making millions of point & shoots instead. If you want to penetrate the market with this camera or the Dynax 9 then you not only have to increase production capacity but also need costly marketing and basically do the same as Canon but probably also need to do it better as well. In the end you will sell more cameras and lenses but most likely you will loose more money. Canon HAS suceeded with this stunt but its in no way a safe bet.

The logistics involved in keeping a complete slr lens line is complex and expensive. Making lenses for warehouses is expensive. Making lenses in the same tempo as they sell is also expensive since you need a flexible production line that can react to the market. Most lenses sells in small quantities and are handmade. Trained camera workers are better used to more profitable things. Can you imagine what Nikons lens line costs? Pentax can probably cope with the ten or so 600/4 lenses they make each year. Can they cope with 300 or do they even want to? Probably not. Its no coincidence that Pentax, who has the lowest profile in professional 35mm slr area, is the camera manufacturer making most money. Nikon loose most. Canon is in a special situation, but they to basically use professional equipment as marketing wehicles for the companys profile.

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Migrating from Olympus OM

I think if having a "flagship" 35mm SLR system wasn't an important point of pride among Japanese camera makers, Olympus would have killed the OM system a long time ago. So long as killing it would amount to losing face with their peers, they will keep it going. The autofocus OM pro camera with motor drive which exists in prototype (and which Japanese photo mags have run photos of) is dead in the water according to my friends at Olympus and will never see the light of day as a production camera. Olympus is making tons of money with point and shoot 35s and their digital line, so they are happy.

Bob

From: [email protected] (Mr 645)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Medium-Format economics

The Mamiya 645 pro is the most popular medium format camera sold, selling about 20,000 to 25,000 cameras per year.

Canon sold over 2,000,000 Rebels.

http://www.jonlayephotography.com

From: [email protected] (Ross Bagley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 11 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Medium-Format economics

dmozes [email protected] wrote:

>Is there anyone on the manufacturing end who can explain the economics
>of medium format cameras and lenses?  Why are they so much more than
>35mm?

I have found that this isn't the case. A fairly complete professional 35mm setup will easily cost as much as a professional medium format setup (or even a large format setup). Expect to spend about $10k for any of them.

The difference you may perceive is between consumer grade 35mm equipment and professional medium format equipment. There simply aren't any consumer grade medium format cameras in current production to rationally compare a point and shoot against.

To my knowledge, the last consumer grade medium format equipment was made in the mid 80's (Yashica Mat 124G). That camera is currently available in excellent condition for $200-$250 and is a really cool camera besides (I have one and love it). Has a couple of quirks that make it unsuitable for professional work, but I'm not a professional, so I don't care...

> Why is a normal lens in m-f $300 and up?  Are they all made for
>pros to higher standards, or, since there are fewer made and sold, does
>that drive up the price, or, is that just what the market will bear?

All of the above. Those sound like very likely reasons for the price difference. We're talking about two completely different markets. The fact that Canon and other 35mm makers happen to make equipment for both markets seems to have caused some confusion.

BTW, The cheapest 35mm lens I own cost me $350 (Canon 50mm f/1.4 UPS). The most expensive was $2700 (Leica 35mm f/1.4 ASPH). I have spent a grand total of $400 on medium format equipment and I have three working medium format cameras (and two for parts) one of which takes fantastic pictures.

Regards,
Ross

-- Ross Bagley & Associates http://www.rossbagley.com

From: [email protected] (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000
Subject: Re: Medium-Format economics

dmozes [email protected] wrote:

>Is there anyone on the manufacturing end who can explain the economics
>of medium format cameras and lenses?  Why are they so much more than
>35mm?  Why is a normal lens in m-f $300 and up?  Are they all made for
>pros to higher standards, or, since there are fewer made and sold, does
>that drive up the price, or, is that just what the market will bear?

There are a lot fewer made for MF, and in some cases they seem to be a lot more substantial in engineering and manufacturing. Optically I think some of the 35mm lenses outperform the MF stuff. Some of it, like Bronica ETRS, seems to be manufactured to the same standards as 35mm.

The comparison I always wonder about is between medium and large format lenses. The absolute best current German glass for LF is less than the same grade for MF, by about half (at least in the used market). The components are comparable--built in shutter, aperture, etc. The only thing lacking in LF is the mount to the camera body. It certainly is simpler, but that seems inconsequential. No need to double the cost just to manufacture a barrel and helicoid for the lens.

The cost of some of the MF stuff is really annoying. You can have a kidney transplant or a wide angle lens for MF--they cost about the same.

---
David Meiland
Oakland, CA

From: Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Which medium format?

Mark Bau wrote:

>IMHO Hasselblad's are way overpriced. [...]

When Hasselblad introduced the 205 TCC camera, the company's CEO was asked in an interview why this camera was so unbelievable expensive. Pointing out to him that the Rollei 6000-series, which offered automation comparable to the Hasselblad, was far more reasonably priced.

The answer was that Rollei could easily ask a price similar to that of the Hasselblad...

In other words: if people are willing to pay through their noses, why not let them? If Rollei chooses not to, hey, it's their loss!

The real problem is that people indeed are willing to part with a fortune to own and use a modern Hasselblad. So, yes, Hasselblad, especially the 200-series, are overpriced, but why do we let them get away with that?

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Mike" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 24 May 2000
Subject: Re: Boycott Mamiya America products!

Here are 3 questions for all of you whiners : 1. How much is Mamiya Japan charging MAC for the product, DO any of you know ????? 2. Do you know how much MAC had to PAY Mamiya Japan for the right to sell the product??? I doubt it and 3. Do ANY of you know the terms of the distributorship ???? Now....without knowing at least #1 you have NO idea if MAC is greedy or not.......do you?????

I can tell you that back in 1972 / 73 when Konica produced the T3 it sold in Portland for around $350.00......Guess what the end of assembly line cost was .....$39.00 and the "landed" cost in CA was $219.00. Everyone along the line had to make a buck on the product. Want a rip off......look in your driveway......then get real....get a life......

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] New Camera

- ----------

>From: "Yu, Wing Sang (Wing)" [email protected]
>To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
>Subject: RE: [CONTAX] New Camera
>Date: Tue, Jun 20, 2000
>
>I think the reality is that traditional film photography is dying and many
>camera manufacturers are moving to digital. I believe that the sell with
>35mm cameras have been dropping in the 12 months. All the people who I
>talked to would like to purchase a digital camera in the last few months.

Actually you are wrong. Traditional camera sales, particularly 35mm SLR sales, are way up for the first quarter of this year (the most recent period for which information is available) and were up rather sharply last year. What seems to be happening is that people are buying digital cameras in addition to, not in place of, traditional film cameras. Medium format camera sales are up strongly as well. Hasselblad had their best year ever last year and think they will beat that record this year in spite of the new competition from Contax. The traditional photo market appears to be quite healthy.

The only unhealthy part of the market is darkroom. People are not buying darkroom equipment. When asked most say they just don't have the time to do darkroom work and send their film out instead. Of course many are also replacing darkroom equipment with scanners and printers.

>If Contax is going to come out a new system, the best and most logical
>marketing decision is totally go digital now. We have seen what Sony can do
>better with the CZ lenses on its digital camera line up. I think Contax can
>do much better with a digital camera.

Nope. They know the market, and my bet is that they will stick with film cameras for a long time.

>Don't get me wrong, I like film better but with advancing mega-pixels
>technology and storage technologies, I think it is logical for Contax to
>introduce a new digital system.
>
>I only wish if the new Contax can accept the Y/C lens mount.

My guess, no.

Bob

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2000
From: Bill [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Leica earnings report....Hmmmm

Come-on guys...you have to help me with this.

If Leica sales are so great, why is leica's stock heading south again?

You can take a look at Leica's stock chart by going to http://www.shorttermprofits.com then scroll down on the left and click on "Free European Market Quotes & Charts" then type LEICA in the suchen box and hit enter.

It's nice that sales are up 3%, but what are the after-tax profits?

Bill

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: [CONTAX] Re: Contax marketing strategies

you wrote:

>Assuming 50% markup, if it sells for $1500, then it cost the dealer $750.

This isn't haberdashery. Markups for photo gear run under 5%, not 50%.

- --
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 04 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Nikon Dealer Cost

Those figures aren't even close. Markup goes down as the prices go up, if a dealer is making over 10% on OEM lenses they're doing well. Aftermarket stuff is usually a bit higher, thus you see Tamron's and Sigma's and Tokina's in most of the SLR packages put together by dealers. In addition to "mark up" most dealers work with special quantity discounts and terms on financing with the manufacturers. This is really the profit margin in selling OEM equipment, when you're competing with every mail order and website dealer in the world you get by on very thin margins. This is why a lot of dealers won't deal on large ticket items, but will on smaller, cheaper accessories, it's also why they try to sell you everything in the store when you buy that new camera or lens. I have sold many cameras and lenses and made more profit for the store with the accessories sold with them than I did just selling the camera or lens alone.

John Emmons

From: [email protected] (BandHPhoto)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 04 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: Nikon Dealer Cost

Nornmal. 25% - 30 % depends on the lens If 600 mm afs may be up to 35 % I think

If only...
try this instead:

Nornmal. 2.5% - 3.0 % depends on the lens If 600 mm afs may be up to 3.5 % I think

===============================

regards,

Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video
http://www.bhphotovideo.com
[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000
From: Jim Bielecki [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: MF Nikon

> This has been the situation with Nikon as long as I have
> been in the business.  Nothing new. They are a small company
> with limited production capability, and they work to fill
> orders as rapidly as possible while still maintaining their
> tight quality control.
>
> Why they have not enlarged production capacity to meet increased
> demand is a mystery to us all.
>
> Bob

Maybe because Nikon has been solidly in the red for the past couple of years? This came up for discussion on the Leica list sometime back and I also remember reading articles in the Wall Street Journal about Nikon's financial problems. This alone makes me doubt that they will expand into MF. They just can't afford it!

Jim Bielecki

[Ed.note: thanks to Mr. Bender for pointing out these handy URLs!...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000
From: "R. J. Bender" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: MF Nikon

[email protected] wrote:

> I wouldn't be surprised if Nikon's financial troubles have reversed with the
> F100, which is  flying off the shelves; the first really big Nikon sellers in
> more than a decade. BTW, it's a great camera. Arthur

Yes, they have reversed. Check out Nikon's financial statements for FYE 3/31/00 and 3/31/99 at:

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2000/financial_e.gif
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2000/financial_e.pdf

--
R. J. Bender (A Nikon, Mamiya and Rollei user)
mailto:[email protected]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Some dates

Very occassionally there is a magazine with interesting facs. In the French Reponses we find this list of products that have been on the market for a number of years

Agfa Rodinal, 109 years on the market
Kodak Tri-X, 47 years
Leica M, 46 years
Hasselblad 500C, 43 years
Gossen Lunasix, 39 years
Minox 35, 26 years
Kodachrome 64, 26 years
Vivitar 283, 25 years
Cokin Filters, 22 years
Nikon FM, 23 years  

Nice to now we are in a mature market.

Erwin

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hasselblad - Digital

you wrote: Industry sales of digital are rising, but they haven't eclipsed film cameras.

A recent industry publication says that Kodak expects film sales to flatten in 2005, based on current trends and their forecasts.

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: 27 Sep 2000
From: [email protected] (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Eastman Kodak in free fall

Hi

I remember reading that 70% of Kodak film sales goes to the Motion Picture Industry and 25% to the comsumer market and only 5% to the professional market.

In order for film sales to grow the motion picture industry has to grow. Any growth in the pro or consumer markets really won't help Kodak all that much.

The Motion Picture Industry is spending big bucks trying to get rid of film. Since a motion picture frame is only about 1/2 the size and about 1/3 the resolution of standard 35mm frame, their time is going to come soon. The only real issue is speed of image processing. Its still a little too slow for 24 frames per second on the taking end.

Don't believe me on the quality of a standard motion picture frame. Ebay sells 35mm trailers all the time for about $8 each. Buy one and look at it.

Larry

From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Eastman Kodak in free fall

Hemi4268 [email protected] wrote:

>I remember reading that 70% of Kodak film sales goes to the Motion Picture
>Industry and 25% to the comsumer market and only 5% to the professional market.

I don't have a breakdown of film-only sales handy, but consumer imaging (film, cameras, digital) made up 53% of Kodak's sales for the first half of 2000, vs. 12% for professional, and 16% for health care. (That's right, health care imaging is a bigger segment than professional imaging. Better profit margins as well. Actually, consumer products have better margins than professional, too. Professional imaging made up just 7.7% of net income in the first half of 2000.)

[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

[Ed.note: another rumor from a thread relating to the loss in value of traditional advertising printed medium, given dealers going online and fewer classified ads by individuals etc. impact on revenue and value...]
Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2000
From: "David Kilpatrick" [email protected]
Newsgroups: uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Where has all the secondhand gear gone?

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

> as for USA ads, shutterbug ads used to have many hundreds of personal
> classified ads for 35mm and med fmt gear, now they have a few dozen
> classified ads, and over half are from dealers pointing to online sites...

$20m will buy you Shutterbug right now. The present publishers paid $25m for it. Life changes. Info from a leading Shutterbug contributor. DK

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Condenser vs. Diffusion Enlarger Heads

> From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
> Organization: @Home Network
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Condenser vs. Diffusion Enlarger Heads
>
> I'll make a prediction,
>
> Art and Photographic galleries will be exibiting real chemically made
> prints when we're all dead.  I have nothing against digital anything.
> There is plenty of room, even need for it in the kind of world we live
> in.  But I don't think the word obsolete applies to art.  Just don't.
> Yeah I agree with you, we will soon see a time when 99% of all shots are
> dig.,but that last 1% will hang in there for quite a while.
>
> Gene Johnson

Here's the problem, Gene. If only 1% of the shooting is done on traditional film, that's just not enough to support companies like Kodak, Ilford, Agfa, etc., continuing to make the film. Demand for black and white film has shown serious decline already in the last few years and shows no signs of turning around. As I mentioned recently, Agfa has discontinued their APX 25 from lack of demand, and others will certainly follow.

As for black and white photo papers, demand for them is plummeting as well.

Facilities to make film and paper require really big investments to build, run, and update. I just don't see that big money going into such a rapidly shrinking market.

Similarly for cameras. I was told last week by a spokesperson from a major camera company that the R & D costs for a new 35mm SLR were from five to ten million dollars. The company sees no future for investing that much money in a film camera, and has put R & D for film cameras on hold. The money will instead go into digital product R & D.

Now I'm not saying that film and photo paper will vanish overnight, or even in the next five years, but at some point the demand will pass that all important tipping point and it will no longer make economic sense to continue production. Personally, I see photo film having a much longer future than photo paper. It will not be too long before the majority of prints turned out by photo finishers will be from high speed inkjet printers and other non-traditional technologies. The first such machines are rolling off production lines now.

Bob

From Hasselblad Mailing list:
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2000
From: Henry Posner/B&H Photo-Video [email protected]
Subject: Re: X-pan sales

you wrote:

>What's the story on the sales of the X-Pan? Is it going great gang busters
>or is it a bust?
>
>Can anyone suggest url's where I might research this information further?

Try http://www.pmai.org/

--
regards,
Henry Posner
Director of Sales and Training
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com

Date: 9 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (Michael Gudzinowicz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Shutter manufacturers

"Nicholas O. Lindan" [email protected] wrote:

>Helge Nareid wrote:
>>
>> Bob Salomon [email protected] wrote
>
>> >As to shutters Zeiss has decidied to discontinue the production of their
>> >shutters from Prontor Werke. They have recently informed camera and lens
>> >manufacturers that there will be another major increase to them for
>> >Compur shutters and Pronto Professional and Prontor Protronic shutters
>> >are being discontinued.
>
>I read this as:
>
>  o  Zeiss will no longer incorporate prontor shutters, and has so informed
>     Prontor
>
>  o  Zeiss will instead use Compur and has informed Compur they will need
>     more shutters to meet coming production
>
>I see no reference to shutter costs.

Since Zeiss owns the shutter subsidiaries, I think you can assume that Zeiss decided to discontinue the Prontor brand, but will continue to produce Compurs at a higher price. As Bob mentioned, there will also be a price increase for Copal shutters. The bottom line is that lens prices incorporating Copal or Compur shutters will rise, and Prontor shutters will not be available.

Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (Jim)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Subject: Re: Dealer Markup On Nikon

[email protected] wrote:

>Hi Everybody,
>I was curious what kind of a mark up dealers put on nikon cameras like
>the f5, or the f100? Let me say that I am not against the mark up, I
>know that it is how the dealers make there money, and they have
>overhead. I have a alpa 7 that I would love to trade for the f 5, and
>was wondering if this would be realistic. If it is like 50 % I might
>have a chance, If its 10%, I think they would laugh at my offer.I know
>that there are variables ( How many they buy, etc. ) But could some one
>give me a ball park figure? Thanks in advance!!!  Hal

Markups on bodies a very low.. much higher on accessories. 20 years ago when I sold cameras.... this is how it went

Canon AE1-P 50/1.8 Normal Retail 269.00
Sale Price 219.00
Price I paid Canon 214.00

Promotional allowance 4.00

Profit 219-214+4 = 9.00 bucks

Sell a Hoya HMC UV.... cost 1.25, Selling price 11.99 Profit 10.74 .... just double my profit. .

Sell the a Vivitar 2500 flash with dedicated module, Selling price... 119.00.... Dealer cost, 59.00, just made 60.00 bucks...

(Profit on the Canon Sureshot was much more.... my cost about 149.00 retail 199.00.. Sale price 169.00..... better yet I sold 100's at nearly the 199.00 rarely would I sell an AE1-P at full price).

Ever wonder why camera sales people always push the accessories and why the old New York camera stores used to take the batteries and straps out of the box? Sell you one PX28 battery.. and they made more on the battery than on the body. Wonder why Ritz substitutes a Quantary magnifying glass for the manufactures lens?

Jim

From: [email protected] (ProPix4u)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace.35mm
Date: 12 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Dealer Markup On Nikon

Mark up or profit on most 35mm SLR's is not alot. Usually about 3-5%. Some SLR's have a bigger profit margin than others. Nikon, Canon, Minolta usually have the lowest because they are the most popular name brands and usually get advertised alot. So then for competition purposes some dealers dont make a nickel and depend on selling you a store warranty, batteries, cases, tripods (which have a huge mark up). Some dealers also depend on selling gray market products. they usually make 5-8% on high end like F5 and EOS 3's and make 10-25% on lower end SLR's like EOS 300(rebel 2000 or F60(n60s). I think you should try to sell the camera on your own.but sometimes that always doesn't work (speaking from years of selling on the net). if you want a quick sale and hassle free, try selling to B&H or KEH camera. they usually have excellent prices on equipment and will offer you a good price on your camera. try KEH.COM . they will give you an offer over into you email. get an idea what of what its worth before going any further.

GOOD LUCK !

m dk

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: "Blake Ziegler" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [CONTAX] used the 16/2.8?/Complaints to Blake

Hello Denton,

Complaints??

Not my department...

The 16mm f/2.8 is a very low volume lens made in Germany. Having said that, we in the US are provided with a price from Japan that has been marked-up from the price charged by CZ. We cannot buy direct. There is no negotiating with our own parent in Japan on CZ lenses.

Ya wanna lens, ya gots ta pay.

Seriously, there is no economy of scale for this lens; CZ only makes a few at a time.

Sorry,

Blake
CONTAX, USA

....

Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001
From: ajacobs2 [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: HOW CAMERA STORES GET RICH

....

> I walked into a Boston camera shop to discuss some high end equipment
> and the owner was not interested. A couple of weeks later, I stopped
> by with $15K worth new camera and lenses hanging around my neck and
> mentioned casually that I had tried to buy the gear from him. The
> shop is now out of business.
>
> --

So are the fiften thousand small mom and pop companies that Home Depot, Lowes, and Wal-Mart, K- Mart and the other Giants have displaced. That owner knew what was coming and you probably bought everything at the best price possible, so his margin of profit that he pays the bills like electricity, water, air conditioning staff, insurance, liability, workmans comp, cleaning wouldn't of amounted to nothing.

Maybe he doesn't have aline of crdeit with the vbrand you wanted, maybe the big boys get it first, maybe they get better terms. For years Kodak sworre it showed no preferential treatment to dealers whether you buy one roll or a thousand. Everybody was treated fairly. Bullshit. We got an order by accident destined for a Wal-Mart. 120 rolls, only billed for a 100. Yea same price, but they got the equalizer. Two years ago , Kodak finally admitted it.

There is a lot more than meets the eye.

From SLR Manual Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Wished for Designs and Economic Reality

Most camera companies are simply struggling to survive in he face of declining profits and the transition to digital.

I'm told it's not unusual to hear at the board meetings of most major Japanese camera makers a strong sentiment to quite cameras entirely, to concentrate on the profit makers. It makes perfect sense from a stockholder's viewpoint, but not from a traditional viewpoint.

Most companies are run by bean counters, so it is rare to see any innovation -- the approval process and Board votes usually kill it.

I am aware of only one major camera company which is run by an individual who has the complete authority to approve an idea and have it produced -- without approvals, without Board votes. That company is Cosina, that person is Mr. Kobayashi, the President of Cosina. He is an amazing man, a throwback to the days of Oskar Barnack. As amazing as his decision to reintroduce Leica screw mount lenses was, his decision to make Nikon Rangefinder lenses is even more amazing. The chances of seeing a lower cost quality interchangeable lens RF than the Bessa R are low indeed, at least in my opinion. I wish it were a different situation, but I really doubt it.

Enjoy what we have now, within a few decades it will probably be difficult to find 35mm film. Then we will wistfully remember the "old fashioned better quality" plastic in those wonderful point and shoots at the turn of the century --- before the new cheap plastic cameras which are engineered to work exactly one year -- only to self destruct into a moldable plastic mass for a new "realistic" brick for your patio. 30 years from now if you want to see a Nikon F5 or a Canon EOS 1V, you will have to go to the landfills -- since they will long be thrown away due to their dead circuit boards. Maybe a few will be saved as planters, doorstops, or paperweights, or anchors..

Stephen Gandy

...

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001
From: "Tom Furlotte" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Film dead according to SGI founder

According to Photo Industry Reporter the sales of film cameras still outpace the digital cameras by a margin of five to one. The death of film continues to be greatly exaggerated( and apparently by those with a vested interest in its demise).

Tom Furlotte
Memphis TN USA
[email protected]

General industry statistics and marketing survey results are published by:

Photo Marketing Association International
3000 Picture Pl.
Jackson MI 49201

Price to members of PMA is $125/volume versus $156 per volume for non-members.

Volume 1 (1999) deals with U.S. Markets, and is 116 pages long:

film - rolls processed, sales by outlets, average prices..

amateur photo market - revenues by product/service, camera sales volume and total amounts by camera type(s); lens type for 35mm SLR and lens shutter (RF..); APS sales by retail outlet, total film sales by volume and film type, single use cameras (10 charts)

photofinishing market, camcorders, amateur photo market trends of camera and film sales, and photofinishing sales...

industry sales trends (by camera types etc.) and commercial accounts, minilabs, portrait studios, professional lab markets, portrait and school markets...

Volume 2 covers digital imaging markets, amateur and professional, digital camera sales and camcorders, printing products and services, and trends...

Volume 3 covers international markets, esp. Europe (by region and country); elements of volume 1 (camera sales, film sales..) and volume 2 (digital imaging) plus internet usage and portraiture markets etc.

Note: some of these statistics are used for Discount Merchandiser articles relating to sales of film and cameras in the USA for summary charts (see above)...

[Ed. note: I'd like to find/borrow/buy older copies of Volume 1 PMA reports, if anyone locates a library or other source providing these resources. Thanks!]

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 28-Feb-2001
From: Xavier Colmant [email protected]
Subject: Leica 3rd quarter Results

Leica has recently released a new financial report available as a PDF file at: http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/ir/berichte/index_e.html

The latest file is 'Third Quarter FY 2000/2001 results'

The M line sales continue the trend of the year + 11.7%
The R line sales dipped further down -12.7%

The report announces the introduction of 2 new products for the R. Unfortunately I doubt it will seriously revive its sales.

How long Leica will be able to maintain the R line?

Xavier

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 2-Mar-2001
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: RE: Leica 3rd quarter Results

> Do we know what the actual sales volumes are for each line?

Yes, we do. The 3rd quarter report shows M sales at 34,832,000 DM and R sales at 7,620,000 DM. R system revenues are only a little more than a fifth of M system revenues.

By contrast, compact camera sales were 24,480,000 DM, virtually equal to M sales, and up 46% -- the greatest increase of any product group. So the contributer who suggested that plastic compact cameras are not an answer to Leica's financial ills is probably mistaken (from a financial standpoint; from an aestheic standpoint it's likely not what any of us are looking for from Leica).

It's been a couple years now since Leica's financials reported R system sales figures below where they were before the R8 was introduced. And except for a quarter or two where they basically held steady compared to the year before, they have continued to decline in every report since.

Larry

From: Bill Tuthill [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Why no British or American camera industry?

Bob Hickey [email protected] wrote:

>Bill Jameson wrote:
>> Photodo.com has an interesting article,
>> "When Japan Took Over"
>>
>> http://193.14.88.41/art/articles.shtml#
>
> The Photodo story wouldn't come up...

Try again. It is most interesting. Bill, thanks very much for directing our attention to this article.

Summary: after the Allies invalidated all German patents, Nikon produced a Zeiss-like lens that was better than Zeiss did with regular postwar production, and almost as good as Zeiss' best ex-post-facto efforts after a New York newspaper published an optical review saying Nikon had won.

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 2-Mar-2001
From: Ted Cartselos [email protected]
Subject: Any of you guys own Leica stock?

I was looking at some info on the Financial Times Germany site and Yahoo international finance...

FYI the official company name and stock symbol is:

Leica Camera AG 646000.F and it trades on Frankfurt

Stock closed today at 9.5 Euros or about 8-7/8. The float is 4.5 million shares, which means its market cap is a bit under US$40 million. Not a big company. BTW, Hermes bought their shares in December at 12.5 Euros, which means they have already lost 24% of their investment.

Sales last FY were 276 million DM or US$132 million. They have about 1500 employees, which works out to about $88,000 per employee. Not an incredibly productive company. Typically, most well managed industrial companies competing internationally average over $125-150k in sales per employee. Considering the cost of living in Germany, this is pretty bad.

Another think that struck me... The company only does 1.8 inventory turns a year... That means they carry almost 7 months of sales. If GM or Ford did this, they would be bankrupt. Automakers are now backing up to around 90 days of inventory and guess what they are doing...? Cutting prices to clear the stuff out.

Capex is only 4% of sales, which is very very low. This company is not doing any R&D or capacity expansion.

Would you invest your savings with this company? I think you would all be better off buying clean M2 and M3 bodies!

I am not sure if any other major camera company is publicly held. Anyone know? Nikon? Minolta? Pentax? It would be interesting to do a similar analysis and comparison.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] So what was new from Rollei at PMA?

....

Companies no longer hold back major product announcements for trade shows like they used to. If it's ready two weeks before a show they announce it then. Product life cycles are much shorter than they used to be, so every on-sale day counts.

Also, with instant worldwide news via the internet, trade shows are losing their importance as communications media. Nikon wanted to keep their two new digital cameras under wraps until PMA, but told many of us in the press about them under signed NDA. All of us abided by our agreement in the NDA except one French magazine, who posted it on the internet as soon as they had it. So instead of coming as a surprise to dealers and competitors, it was old news by show time and the wind was somewhat taken out of their sails. So long as some journalists refuse to honor NDAs, secrets simply can not be kept until the show opens.

Now, as a generality it is true that medium format is in a sales slump right now. The number of photographers using medium format on a daily basis is down. This is due to digital to some degree, but also to the higher cost associated with owning medium format balanced against the actual number of jobs which require it. With so much photography being done for the internet, medium format is simply overkill. Most magazines run photos small, so again no need for medium format. I see it as a shrinking market, and as you say there may be some shakedown among companies. I think Rollei is in a stronger position than you may realize, though.

Bob

From: "Mr. Wratten" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
Subject: Re: Kodak Earnings Plunge

"greg" [email protected] wrote

> Rob wrote:
>
> >  as a
> > result of a sharp slowdown in film sales.
> >
>
> Did it say why? Is that film sales everywhere or just with Kodak?

The why is contained here:

http://biz.yahoo.com/apf/010417/earns_kodak_4.html

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010417/bs/kodak_earns_dc_3.html

Essentially, the economic slowdown has many consumers cutting back on luxury items, such as film. Although Kodak's film sales increased 6 percent in the US over last year, they fell 12 percent outside the US. This was due both to the strong dollar and current economic problems. Kodak made a smaller profit on film in the first quarter of this year ($61 million vs. $184 million) due to this. However, Kodak continues to lose money in digital imaging. They lost $6 million this 1st quarter vs. $one million last 1st quarter. Digital imaging accounts for 26 percent of Kodak's sales, but they have yet to make a profit from it. Sales gainers were one-use cameras, reloadable cameras, and Picture Maker kiosks.

This decline is not an indicator of the film vs digital wars, just the same stuff that is affecting everyone right now.

Jim

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Summilux-M 50/1.4

Joseph Yao wrote:

>Leica once told me that approx. 500 pieces are sold annually.  This is   odd,
>since the Summilux-M 50 is my favourite Leica M lens!  Sure, there are
>optically superior lenses, but I feel most at home with the Summilux-M 50
>and it gives me the look I like most.
>
>Joseph

Ditto...

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Leica value as an investment

I published this on the LUG several years ago and it is as appropriate today. Leicas are fine cameras but marginal investment vehicles. Ted, you are right.

There has been a lot of loose talk on the LUG about the investment value of Leica cameras. At today's prices there are only two reasons for buying a new Leica camera primarily as an investment, both of them irrational. Those photographers who buy Leicas to actually take photographs need read no further.

First, if you are a camera collector and/or a camera speculator you will buy the camera and keep it unused in its original box, expecting that its price will increase at some future date. This is a distinct possibility. An unsold 1954 M3 and Summicron lens with its original carton and shipping documents which cost about $250 new would probably sell at a collector's auction for the price of a small car, an unused urLeica would go for the price of a new house.

The price appreciation of most Leicas, however, is no better than the equivalent amount of money deposited in bank CDs and considerably less than funds invested in the stock market. That $250 cost of the Leica in 1954, compounded at 6% per year would have grown to about $3250, about the price of a new Leica kit. Invested in the stock market at the average annual rate of return for those 44 years, it would have grown to $36,604, enough to buy a new camera and a BMW to drive it around in. Buying Leicas only for value appreciation is simply a variation of the "Greater Fool" theory beloved of stock speculators. You may be a fool for paying so much but you hope there is always a greater fool who will buy it from you for more.

Second, if you are one of those who have a "best quality" addiction, you will buy the camera to fondle and possess, secure in the feeling that no one has or appreciates quality equipment better than you. For a definition of "quality" see Robert Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." Don't bother to take pictures with the camera. It is too expensive and valuable to risk. Besides you may be annoyed by the fact that the resulting pictures are almost indistinguishable from those taken with lesser cameras.

So unless you are a camera speculator or a quality addict don't buy a Leica for appreciation. Buy a mid-range Canon or Nikon SLR or even a (horrors!) Contax G1 or G2. You will get state of the art engineering and manufacturing, fine lenses, autofocus and autoexposure at a third to half the cost of an equivalent Leica system. Invest the money you save to provide a real legacy for your children. Remember that if the Indians who sold Niew Amsterdam to the Dutch had invested the difference in price between a lesser system and a Leica, they could not only buy back Manhattan but every bit of developed property from Boston to Washington, DC.

- LarryZ

[Ed. note: the surprising 45% drop in prices for top Hasselblad model!...]
From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #1237

As the price of a 203FE just dropped 45%, it's probable safe to assume that Hasselblad is 'price-protecting' its dealers, otherwise all the dealer's 203's in inventory will be $2300 losses. I recommend Mehrdad Sadat check back with his dealer and Hasselblad and see what they might be able to do for him.

Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: S Gardner [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: hasselblad V1 #1237

FWIW, the local Big Dealers with whom I've spoken recently tell me Hasselblad sales have dropped precipitously in the last year. Don't know if that's consistent with Henry and Rich's experience, but these folks have no reason to lie to me.

I recently attended a seminar at which David Ziser (well-known wedding photographer) spoke. He is/was a noted Hasselblad user and is now using a Kodak DCS760 for most of his work and praising the virtues of digital imaging.

After the seminar, I asked him directly if he's ready to retire the Hasselblads and he answered "Reggie (Dennis, also a well-known wedding photographer) and I were just talking about that". End of answer. I persisted, asking if that means he's planning to use only digital in the future and he said, "That's certainly where the market is going". At that point, my wife poked me in the back and I desisted. Later, it occurred to me that Ziser and Reggie both are likely compensated endorsers of Hasselblad products and thus can't speak candidly in public about what they're doing.

My theory: as pros continue to discover the benefits of shooting digital and of using autofocus, Hasselblad sales will continue to suffer until the company offers viable options for those technologies. They've already lost LOTS of market share over the year to Mamiya over pricing issues and now continue to lose on technology issues. And yes, I know about the $15K+ backs. When a very sellable 30x40 can be made with a D1/S1/D30 (all AF, of course) that costs less than $6K with lens, *most* folks aren't going to spend a lot more for a Hasselblad.

That said, all the formal groups I'll shoot at a wedding this Saturday will be made with Hasselblad cameras, Zeiss lenses and Portra film. The film will be processed and scanned by a ProShots lab and available to our customers in both analog and digital formats. I still see a clear advantage in using film for shooting large groups for prints that will sell in large sizes. Even the best of 'em don't yet have enough pixels for that. YET.

All the foregoing is IMO. I know we've discussed this previously in other threads. Your mileage may vary.

Scott Gardner

> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Thu, 24 May 2001
> From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: price drop on 203FE body
>
> > I received an e-mail yesterday from B&H's Hasselblad rep. He
> advises that
> > the price of the 203FE body will be lowered. MAP, which was 5732.00
> will
> > become $3,175.00.
>
> Sales slow, new models coming out, change of heart?  What prompted
> this?

[Ed. note: an interesting paper on socialism vs. capitalism re: innovation using Zeiss examples...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Comparison of East- and West-German Zeiss Companies

Since Rollei is using mostly Zeiss lenses and there are some Zeiss enthusiasts on the list, this might be of interest:

Bruce Kogut
Professor, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

Did Socialism Fail To Innovate?
A Natural Experiment of the Two Zeiss Companies

http://cbi.gsia.cmu.edu/newweb/1998WorkingPapers/Kogut/kogut.htm

Hans-Peter

From Nikon MF Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001
From: Gordon Pritchard [email protected]
Subject: Film usage

Tony Polson writes:

    Tony> A recent survey in the UK showed that the average
    Tony> amateur photographer uses 3-4 rolls of film a year, and
    Tony> the average "keen" amateur 8-9 rolls.

Wow :-( That's sobering...

-Gord

--
Gordon Pritchard, P.Eng. VA7GP

From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: "Ron Rogers" [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] Nikon Financials

Nikon enjoys 21 billion yen net profit

Nikon Corp., a leading maker of cameras and high-tech precision instruments, said Monday its group net profit in fiscal 2000 rocketed 169.1 percent to 20.91 billion yen, due chiefly to good sales of semiconductor-manufacturing equipment and digital cameras. Nikon said its consolidated pretax profit surged 282.8 percent to 43.32 billion yen on a 30.2 percent rise in sales to 483.96 billion yen.

Group net profit per share more than doubled to 56.53 yen from the previous period's 21.01 yen. Nikon will pay a per-share dividend of 8 yen, including a 4 yen interim dividend. The dividend compares with 5 yen the previous year.

Nikon traced the high profitability to spirited sales of a range of equipment for manufacturing microprocessors, dynamic random access memory and flash memory chips, as well as strong sales of digital cameras.

Nikon forecasts group pretax profits to amount to 30 billion yen, with net profits reaching 10 billion yen for the current year to March 2002, on sales of 510 billion yen.

The Japan Times: May 22, 2001

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] old high silver papers and films vs. today

you wrote:

>[email protected] writes:
>
> What was the Bunkie Hunt silver debacle? 
>
>About 30 years ago he tried to corner the futures market on silver,
>temporarily raising the price to about $8 an ounce. Film makers  immediately
>responded by raising their prices. At that price point, tons of silver
>flooded the marketplace, both from hoards in Asia and from previously
>unprofitable mines. Silver prices tumbled. Hunt lost his shirt. Film  makers
>still havn't lowered prices!

I had a camera store during that period, and started doing some small-scale silver recovery. I bought a used Rotex electrolytic machine, and picked up fixer from dentists and chiropractors, and also paid for "walk-in" fixer. I used the Kodak test strips to gauge content and paid accordingly. I think I paid about a buck a gallon for maxed-out fixer. (IIRC there was about a troy oz. per gal. fully-loaded fixer.)

Anyway, I bought a little booklet from Kodak that showed the silver content for each of their products. At the time, the highest content was (if I remember this right) a 36 exp. roll of High Speed Ektachrome.

Shortly after silver "took off", Kodak sent all its dealers a letter warning us that they were going to raise prices significantly. And boy, did they ever sock it to us! The price close to doubled as I recall.

Now, to put it all into perspective, a roll of High Speed Ektachrome -- which went from (oh, I'm gonna pull a number out of... thin air here) maybe $4 to about $8, had -- at the "New, Improved" price of silver -- approximately 45 *cents* worth of silver in it!

I became very cynical when I discovered that.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Ridiculous Rolleinar price

Here's the story. Wolf camera is owned by Chuck Wolf, who is Ed Ritz's first cousin. Basically Chuck and Ed decided to divide up the country into two territories, Ed in the north and Chuck in the south, so both could prosper. Both did. Years ago I worked for Ed Ritz and I know him to be a very smart man and good businessman.

Chuck Wolf never impressed me as being as business savvy as Ed, and I guess my feelings were on target. I learned last month that he had been forced by his creditors to put his business under Chapter 11 protection. This, in turn, caused Kodak to put out a profits warning since Wolf owed them $ 75 million (not $ 45 million) and they expect to have to write all or most of it off.

This $ 75 million debt has nothing to do with film and other Kodak products. Even a chain like Wolf doesn't spend that kind of money with Kodak. Wolf bought a photo finishing chain from Kodak a couple of years ago when that business was booming. At the time it sounded like a good business move, but then the bottom dropped out of that market last year and didn't come back, and Wolf was left losing money from that side of the business.

Long story condensed to the "Reader's Digest" version for posting.

Bob

...

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001
From: "Mr. Wratten" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: is digital hurting Leica? Re: The one and only Leica Addict
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) writes:

> actually, large format sales are reportedly growing;  but
> on a bigger base, medium format has been down a bit
> (-9%) largely I suspect due to folks "upgrading" to digital
> rather than MF; and 35mm is rapidly being eclipsed by
> digital sales in $$ and unit terms. the real game being
> pushed is digital, with 12 million units projected sales
> next year, vs 750K 35mm rigs ;-(

Bob, I wonder at these stats. An interesting page on Japanese camera production statistics is here:

http://www.genyosha.com/JCTN/JCTNissues/JCTN-2001-03/J0103-02.html

It states that 2001 Japanese production of SLR 35mm cameras is expected to decline from almost 4.2 million in 2000 to almost 4 million in 2001. P&S cameras are expected to decline from 27.5 million to 25.4 million. Med/large format from 50 thousand to 49 thousand (no wonder they cost so much). In contrast, digital should increase from 10 to 14 million.

Digital camera sales have surpassed film cameras in 2001 in Japan, btw.

While this is going on, film sales are up in the US to over 1 billion rolls in 2000 (822 million are 35mm), and over $8.6 billion in photofinishing services income. Less than 10 percent of all US homes have a digital camera, over 90 percent have film cameras.

http://www.labsonline.com/0900/state.htm

Digital is coming, but its not here yet. Soon, but not yet.

Jim

Thanks, Jim, for the interesting reference and links! I was especially interested in the following medium format sales data:

Total Shipments:
1999  60 thousand
2000  50 thousand
2001  49 thousand (97.9%)

Japan Sales:
1999 25 thousand
2000 16 thousand
2001 16 thousand (100%)

Export Sales:
1999 36 thousand
2000 33 thousand
2001 32 thousand (97%)

Notice how there was a 36% decline (from 25 to 16 thousand units) in Japan in MF/LF sales between 1999 and 2000? Wow! Japan is ahead of the USA in the adoption of digital cameras.

Another interesting factoid is that the 50 thousand or so units of MF/LF sales worldwide are only about 1.25% of the 4 million (80:1 ratio) 35mm SLRs sold.

Finally, notice the interchangeable lens data. For 5 million interchangeable lenses, we have sales of 4 million SLRs. Assuming that these figures are in equilibrium, this suggests that the average SLR camera owner has circa 2.25 lenses (the one on the camera, plus buys 1.25 more interchangeable lenses). Again, this makes good sense in these days of zoom lenses. But it re-emphasizes how unusual those of us with more than a few SLR lenses are in terms of usage and ownership!

Total Focal Plane (SLRs) Cameras:
Total Shipment		Local Shipment		Exports
1999 4,355k		801k			3,554k
2000 4,187k		716k			3,471k
2001 3,970k (94.7%)	680k (94.3%)		3,290k (94.7%)

Total EE Cameras (flash):
Total Shipment		Local Shipment		Exports
1999 29,363k		3,357k			26,107k
2000 27,483k		2,848k			24,635k
2001 25,400k (92.4%)	2,440k (85.7%)		22,960k (93.2%)

Medium & Large Format:
Total Shipment		Local Shipment		Exports
1999    60k		25k			36k
2000    50k		16k			33k
2001    49k (97.9%)	16k (100%)		32 (97%)

Total Photo Cameras:			
Total Shipment		Local Shipment		Exports
1999  33,879k		4,182k			29,697k	
2000  31,719k		3,580k			28,139k
2001  29,419k (92.7%)	3,316k (87.5%)		26,282k (93.4%)

Digital Cameras:
Total Shipment		Local Shipment		Exports
1999  5,088k		1,499k			3,589k
2000 10,342k		2,949k			7,393k
2001 14,800k (143.1%)	3,900k (132.2%)		10,900k (147.4%)

Interchangeable Lenses:
Total Shipment		Local Shipment		Exports
1999  5,945k		1,431k			4,523k
2000  5,183k		1,203k			3,981k
2001  4,930 (95%)	1,150k (95.3%)		3,780k (94.9%)

shipment basis by JCIA member corps - production and shipment from 
overseas plants by member corp companies is included...

Date: 21 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (Paul Farrar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Wolf Camera in Chapter 11

Hassel Weems [email protected] wrote:

>I don't know if this makes any difference to anyone or not, but Wolf
>Camera just entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The story is here:
>http://atlanta.bcentral.com/atlanta/stories/2001/06/18/daily35.html
>
>Hassel

That must be the big Kodak debtor that was mentioned on the news earlier today. Kodak was postponing a bond sale (I think) because an unnamed someone who owed them a lot of money was about to go under. Kodak is doing OK, they just didn't want to sell bonds until things settled down.

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: Xavier Colmant [email protected]
Subject: Leica fiscal report for 2000/2001

Leica just posted the results for its 2000/2001 fiscal year:

http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/data/02211/index_e.html

Basically it's a pretty good report. The compact cameras are doing very well, M line is doing well. As expected by previous reports, the big losers are the R line and the projectors.

Xavier

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 17-Apr-2001
From: Dan Della Piazza [email protected]
Subject: Kodak job cuts

I just saw a news item regarding Kodak cutting 3500 jobs due to film sales falling faster than expected. Since the Kodak/ Digital thing was discussed here last week, I suppose we shouldn't be surprised...

Dan Della Piazza

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Fair Trade Laws

Frank Filippone wrote:

>It is legal method of creating fair trade pricing ( setting standard  SALES
>rather than ADVERTISED prices), which is of course, against the law.  If  the
>store claims they MUST sell at that price because the manufacturer states
>so, that is a legal lie.

In the early 1950's, the law then allowed manufacturers to set prices only on "complete sets". Thus, Leitz could dictate how much a camera store could charge for a Leica IIIf with a Leica 3.5/5cm Elmar. But this power to set the selling price died if the camera body was sold as a "part" -- thus, the explosion of non-Leitz LTM lenses which appear in this era. A Leica IIIf with, say, a 1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar or 2/2" Cooke Amotal was beyond the scope of the law, and the dealer was free to set his own price. The large New York and Chicago stores of the era took full advantage of this, especially Willoughby and Peerless and Burke & James.

Gee, maybe someone should write a book about these lenses!

Marc

[email protected]

FRom Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2001
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kodak job cuts

The loss of 3500 jobs doesn't have anything to do with film sales. That's due to general market conditions or more efficient production -- such as offshore sourcing.

From the Associated Press story on the cuts:

ROCHESTER, N.Y. (AP) -- Eastman Kodak Co., stung by a slowdown in film sales since last September, is cutting 3,000 to 3,500 jobs, or up to 4.5 percent of its global work force, to cut costs and improve the effectiveness of its operations.

The job-cutting plan was announced Tuesday as the world's biggest photography company posted a 48 percent drop in first-quarter profits. Kodak employs 78,400 people overall.

``The slowdown in photo industry activity, which essentially flattened out in this quarter, is entirely consistent with the overall slowdown in the U.S. economy,'' said chief executive Daniel Carp. ``We see nothing in the form of negative trends unique to our industry.''

[snip]

In the consumer imaging market, which includes cameras, film and photographic paper, Kodak said first-quarter U.S. sales fell 7 percent from the previous quarter and 8 percent overseas.

Sales of consumer film fell 5 percent worldwide, but U.S. film sales rose 6 percent while dropping 12 percent overseas. Excluding the impact of the dollar's strength in currency markets abroad, film sales outside the United States fell 5 percent.

Excluding the sale of Eastman Software last year, losses in digital photography totaled $6 million in the quarter, compared with $1 million a year ago, the company said. Digital products and services accounted for 26 percent of sales, or $776 million, up 7 percent from a year ago.

From Russian Camera List:
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001
From: kelvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Musing about Fed Chinese camera

Just as a statistic - I found out that 165,000 Pentax SL and 1.8million Pentax SP were built. (The SL is the meterless version of the SP). Both go for between US$30-60 on ebay. I would imagine that many Russian cameras were made in bigger quantities.

...

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: "Stu" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Interesting News From Leica

The following is copied from another news group. I thought it might be interesting

Stu

Subject: Some Information from Leica

Leica's annual report reveals an interesting trend toward digital photography. They are dissatisfied with their current digital partner relationships (Fuji for one) and are seeking new relationships - maybe Nikon?

The following excerpt shows a surprising growth in rangefinder related sales.

"In the period under review, sales of the Leica M system grew by 16.2% to ? 49.8 million. This product line, made up of rangefinder cameras and lenses, is by far the Company's largest. New lenses, finely differentiated camera variants and accessories such as the LEICA MOTOR M were important sources of growth.

With sales of ? 16.1 million the Leica R SLR range business decreased by 15.7% on the previous year. The increasing digitalization is reducing the demand for high-value analogue SLR cameras worldwide. The Company intends to stabilize the product line by introducing new, innovative lenses.

The strong increases in the compact cameras product line of 31.0% to ? 29.7 million contain sales of digital cameras in the amount of ?11 million. New digital models are planned, however they are not expected to generate sales in the current fiscal year. Leica Camera AG focuses on strengthening those product features that are typical of the Leica brand, in order to enable better differentiation from competitors."

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001
From: Ragnar Hansen Ing A/S [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: 203FE price reductions

I was at a meeting at the factory in Goethenburg six weeks ago and I asked them about the US price reduction on the 203 . They replied that this was done in US to bring the price there to the approx same level as the rest of the world. They had no intention of reducing the price elsewere and production on both 203 and 205 would continue.

Ragnar Hansen

Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001
From: "Mr. Wratten" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Re: is digital hurting Leica? Re: The one and only Leica Addict

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) writes:

> actually, large format sales are reportedly growing,  but
> on a bigger base; medium format has been down a bit
> (-9%) largely I suspect due to folks "upgrading" to digital
> rather than MF; and 35mm is rapidly being eclipsed by
> digital sales in $$ and unit terms. the real game being
> pushed is digital, with 12 million units projected sales
> next year, vs 750K 35mm rigs ;-(

Bob, I wonder at these stats. An interesting page on Japanese camera production statistics is here:

http://www.genyosha.com/JCTN/JCTNissues/JCTN-2001-03/J0103-02.html

It states that 2001 Japanese production of SLR 35mm cameras is expected to decline from almost 4.2 million in 2000 to almost 4 million in 2001. P&S cameras are expected to decline from 27.5 million to 25.4 million. Med/large format from 50 thousand to 49 thousand (no wonder they cost so much). In contrast, digital should increase from 10 to 14 million.

Digital camera sales have surpassed film cameras in 2001 in Japan, btw.

While this is going on, film sales are up in the US to over 1 billion rolls in 2000 (822 million are 35mm), and over $8.6 billion in photofinishing services income. Less than 10 percent of all US homes have a digital camera, over 90 percent have film cameras.

http://www.labsonline.com/0900/state.htm

Digital is coming, but its not here yet. Soon, but not yet.

Jim

Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001
From: "nathantw" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad 203FE price cut 45%

Has anyone noticed that the Hasselblad 203FE price has been cut by 45%? That brings the price to $3195 instead of $57xx! That's actually a "reasonable" price for a Hasselblad and definitely worth the price of admission if you have the money. The 203FE USED was that much a couple years ago and now you can get it new.

Now my thing is that if Hasselblad can cut the price 45% then was it mostly fluff and greed that it cost so much (and rose in price) or was it really because of the economic reasons? Frankly, I really think it was because Rollei is stealing a lot of the ever shrinking medium format camera sales and a stop had to be put in to stop the bleeding. Now if only Hasselblad would cut prices 45% across the board, then they'll really see sales jump.

I'm actually really considering selling my 553ELX and my 500 c/m to get the 203FE now. That was something I would never have considered before.

Nathan

Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2001
From: Tom Mooney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: LF sales, # of users

As a person in the retail/photo finishing trenches everyday of the week the statement that digital is taking over is far from correct. There is tremendous growth but when just 5 years ago some retailers were selling no digital products 30,40 even 100% increases are possible since the markets was non existent in the recent past.

The film market has been eroded but a lot of digital buyers are finding out that they can do the "photo finishing" themselves at home but when they bought the cameras they didn't allow for the cost of ink jet materials or the time it take to download 24 shots from the camera and print them out

the latest trend is what our company is going to with hybrid technology that allows for quick ra4 printing of digital images . I can see our customers having 2 cards and dropping one off for developing. When they are in a hurry or after hours they will do some of this themselves.

Tom Mooney

...

From Hasselblad Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2001 
From: Ragnar Hansen Ing A/S <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: a couple of random questions...

Hasselblad will not inform about numbes of cameras sold,
but they told ( in june) that they are keeping a 20% marked
share of total MF cameras sold worldwide.

They also told that, in Japan, 80% of the HB cameras sold
goes to amateurs.

Ragnar

----- Original Message -----
From: Fritz Olenberger
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sunday, August 19, 2001 
Subject: a couple of random questions...


Does anyone know how Hasselblad sales figures have fared over the past ten
years or so?

Also, any statistics on the trend of the average age of the Hassy camera
buyer? (Are we getting older?)

Does anyone know roughly what percentage of HUG members are amateurs vs. pros
or retired pros? (I'm an amateur, meaning my source of income is not photography).

-Fritz 

From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica medium format?
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> personally, I would bet that the guys at Hermes with the 35% share of
> Leica stock have dropped this project and are putting efforts into digital
> cameras.

I don't think they ever were serious about a MF Leica. Perhaps testing the
water, but no more.

The digital (and compact) business isn't going well for Leica. The relative
strength of the Yen against the Euro meant that Leica had to pay lots more
for their Japanese produced compact and digital cameras. The market did not
allow Leica to raise consumer prices to balance. This, in conjunction of
several increases of interest rates, did present Leica with considerably
higher costs than they had budgeted. So until things change, perhaps in
2002, don't expect much activity on the Leica digital (and compact camera)
front. There is talk heard about returning to core activities, i.e. opto
mechanical: building M and R series cameras (and playing with Minox),
lenses, and binoculars.

The agreement signed between Leica and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
was not about further development of a (future) Leica digital product. They
merely agreed that Leica will develop and build optics for high-end
camcorders sold by Matsushita's brand Panasonic.
But of course an alliance with Matsushita and the two-way technology
transfer involved may eventually lead to a new digital Leica. But not soon,
i think.


From: [email protected] (Heinz Richter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 09 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: Will Leica flop in the medium format market?

>Another possibility would be that they just make lenses,

On a recent visit to Leica in Solms, the issue of medium format cameras and the
article in the Washington post came up.  Of course everyone was very tight
lipped about the issue.  But "between the lines" I could hear that they do not
consider making a medium format camera of any kind, but are very much
considering making lenses for medium format cameras.

Heinz
GMP  Photography
http://www.goldmem.com
FOTOgraphicART
http://hometown.aol.com/fotogrart/myhomepage/business.html
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://hometown.aol.com/gmbbwlab/myhomepage/business.html


From: T P please.reply@newsgroup>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Will Leica M6 owners welcome aperature priority?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 

greg [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Leica already has worked with Minolta and to my understanding,
> the possible medium format camera is a joint Fuji project. 

Then you understand wrong.  After Fuji got together with Hasselblad to
produce the X-Pan, which is capable of making a sizeable dent in sales
of the Leica M, the Leica board were unsurprisingly *apoplectic*.

That was what precipitated the ending of the Leica/Fuji collaboration to
make digital compact cameras and the recent signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding with Matsushita (Panasonic) for future collaboration in
digital cameras.

> Therefore it is not a
> stretch to guess that any aperature priority M6 would likely be a combined
> German/Japanese project.

By basing this on a wholly false assumption, you are stretching your
credibility to the limit.  But that doesn't mean that the additional
Leica model (to the M6) was not a German/Japanese collaboration.  It
still might be ...

Originally, Leica and Ricoh collaborated to produce a design for an 
M series camera with aperture priority AE and a faster shutter.  The
impending loss of the Leica patents on the M mount and the introduction
of the Cosina Bessa series must have suggested to Leica that they needed
to offer something more competitive with more modern features.  

The result was a design that, for reasons unknown, one or both parties
decided not to develop further.  However, Konica, also mindful of the
end of the M mount patents, wanted to develop a rangefinder camera with
interchangeable lenses after the Hexar with fixed 35mm f/2 lens had
proved to be a success.  

Up to this point, everything I have stated is an open secret in the
Japanese optical industry.  From now, it's pure rumour.  g>

Rumour has it that Konica and Ricoh collaborated to produce the Hexar RF
which allegedly has its basis in the design Ricoh previously worked up
for Leica.  Some rumours go even further and suggest that the Hexar RF
*is* the Ricoh/Leica M7, but IMHO that is probably stretching things
just a little too far - something I will leave to you, Greg.

;-)

I would be *very* surprised indeed if the possible medium format Leica,
which was openly suggested to journalists by Leica's President a few
months ago, could ever be produced in collaboration with Fuji, who Leica
must now consider as one of their larger threats in the marketplace.
 
-- 
Best regards,
TP


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Contax 645 defections
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 

Daniel Taylor wrote:

> I am curious (it's my nature) as to why the Contax 645
> was sold? on paper, it seems like a wonderfully
> designed camera with features the 203FE can only dream
> of. I understand the negative size difference, but it
> seems to me that something must be fundamentally wrong
> to trade or sell it. I have not used one, but I would
> think if the AF is deficient, that it still would make
> a nice metered, manual-focus camera. as I recall,
> those Zeiss lenses were very smooth focusing. it seems
> if Contax came out with a 6x6, it would be a killer
> system.
>
> just curious ...

I have a feeling (let's call it that) that it is a result of a little
discord between Hasselblad and Zeiss.
While Zeiss was anouncing their intention to put some new life into their
camera lens division, designing new and better lenses, Hasselblad opted to
no longer sell the Zeiss Mutar but sell an East-Asia converter instead,
turned to Fuji to cooperate on the XPan, and at the same time that Zeiss
announced to the press they were (finally) going to design some new and
exciting zoom lenses, Hasselblad turned to Sigma to make the "Hasselblad"
zoom.
So Zeiss decided to design the Tele Photo Powerpack on their own initiative,
and proceeded to sell it as a Zeiss only lens (albeit with Hasselblad mount)
themselves (until Hasselblad decided to buy the entire stock, including
spares), and started selling a MF Contax sporting all new and improved Zeiss
lenses.

All conjecture, of course, but lo and behold, Zeiss and Hasselblad then
decided to renew the 1950 hand shake agreement between the two companies.
Kiss and make up? I like to think so.




From: [email protected] (dan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Canon 3rd Q. financial statement .pdf
Date: 29 Oct 2001 

http://www.canon.com/finance/results/2001/rslt2001q3e.pdf

"While sales of 35mm and Advanced Photo System cameras slipped under
the effects of the increasing
popularity of digital models and price competition, sales of digital
cameras nearly doubled during the third
quarter of 2001 compared with the same period for the previous year.
This can be attributed to the launch
of five new Canon products in the first half—including the IXY
DIGITAL 300 and 200 (PowerShot S300
and S110 in North America, DIGITAL IXUS 300 and v in
Europe)—aimed at strengthening Canon’s
digital camera lineup to achieve greater market share. Sales of video
camcorders in this quarter also
continued to show substantial growth. Overall, camera sales achieved
9.5% growth, to �87.2 billion
(US$ 733 million). Operating profit for the camera segment, however,
decreased 9.8%, to �10.7 billion
(US$ 90 million), mainly due to a drop in profits for 35mm and
Advanced Photo System cameras, even
despite the marked improvement in profitability for digital camera
products."

Press Release here:
http://www.usa.canon.com/press/102901.html

More finance info here:
http://www.canon.com/finance

-----
dan


From: Lisa Horton [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Canon 3rd Q. financial statement .pdf
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

Yes, that was the general area I was referring to:)  


Charts like this are the tea leaves in which we can divine the
potential future actions of a manufacturer.  I'm fairly heavily
committed to Canon film SLR's, so I'm interested in the level and
direction of future support and development efforts.  Those efforts
follow the profits, more resources will be devoted to product lines
that generate more profit of course.  =


It's also just interesting to see how sales break down, how much of
what got sold and what they expect to sell.

Lisa

Woody Windischman wrote:


> Lisa,
> You mean the parts where digital went from 18% to 33% of camera sales, and
> film camera inventories are up by 5 days? :) (No wonder they extended the
> rebates!)
>  - Woody -


> "Lisa Horton" [email protected] wrote 
> Interesting, thanks for posting!  There's also a very interesting
> chart titled "2. SALES COMPOSITION BY PRODUCT" on page 14.  The
> difference in sales of digital and film cameras for 2000 and 2001 are,
> well, telling:)
> Lisa


> dan wrote:
> >
> > http://www.canon.com/finance/results/2001/rslt2001q3e.pdf
> >
> > "While sales of 35mm and Advanced Photo System cameras slipped under
> > the effects of the increasing
> > popularity of digital models and price competition, sales of digital
> > cameras nearly doubled during the third
> > quarter of 2001 compared with the same period for the previous year.
> > This can be attributed to the launch
> > of five new Canon products in the first half—including the IXY
> > DIGITAL 300 and 200 (PowerShot S300
> > and S110 in North America, DIGITAL IXUS 300 and v in
> > Europe)—aimed at strengthening Canon’s
> > digital camera lineup to achieve greater market share. Sales of video=

> > camcorders in this quarter also
> > continued to show substantial growth. Overall, camera sales achieved
> > 9.5% growth, to =A587.2 billion
> > (US$ 733 million). Operating profit for the camera segment, however,
> > decreased 9.8%, to =A510.7 billion
> > (US$ 90 million), mainly due to a drop in profits for 35mm and
> > Advanced Photo System cameras, even
> > despite the marked improvement in profitability for digital camera
> > products."
> >
> > Press Release here:
> > http://www.usa.canon.com/press/102901.html
> >
> > More finance info here:
> > http://www.canon.com/finance
> >
> > May the Light be with you.=A9
> > -----
> > dan


Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: No more Pro film cameras?

If there is money to be made by selling newer versions, then some company will
do it. And likely if one company does, then at least one more will follow. Not
sure what would be better features, but there may be more marketable features.
Perhaps a digital back that could be swapped for a film back, built-in LCD
preview for film based camera, faster autofocus, more rugged and weather
proof, etc.

Some camera companies may go more towards digital. There have been some
rumours that some companies stock holders would like to see an end to film
camera production, since they think that the potential profits are much higher
for digital camera production. With public companies, the shareholders and
board of directors may dictate the future.

To look at the stock reports filed with the SEC for Kodak, one can realize
that quite a bit of money is still being made from film sales. There is also
evidence that despite the R&D money being poured into digital, the profits are
much lower than expected (forecasted) in this area. In fact, film sales have
actually increased over the last two years. At least in the case of Kodak, I
do not expect film to cease production, at least not while they can still make
money from it.

The other historical way to look at this would be to look at movie production.
There is a small transition to HD and DV formats, but many productions are
still done with 35 mm. As long as there is a big need for that film, there
will be a source for film that could be used in 35 mm still cameras, much like
when 35 mm still photography was beginning.

I would bet that Canon and Nikon will continue to make high end film cameras.
Perhaps some other manufacturers may cease production of high end film
cameras. A look at some companies financial records would give you a better
idea of possible directions.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>


KeithC wrote:

> Anyone else think that there will be no more Pro film based cameras made in
> the future? I think that the nikon F5 and the canon eos 1v is the last that
> we will see. It will be all digital from now on. All of the R&D money will
> be all for digital cameras. But then can they actually make these two
> cameras any better?




Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?


Several posters have suggested that the average (modal?) Leica user only 
owns one lens. I believe this, as similar studies of hasselblad optics 
show only a few lens per owner based on published lens sales, and over 
half the lenses sold are the normal lens alone. So I wouldn't be surprised 
to find out that very few leica owners have more than one lens. Here's the 
math and my sources: (see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/mffaq.html)

the annual Leica M sales for 2000/1 shows 49.8 million euros on M system
sales (cameras and lenses), source:
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/19.pdf

M sales = 49.8 million euros = $44 mil US (http://www.xe.com/ucc/ 
converter euros to $, 88 cents per euro

12,000 sales M bodies (6,000 R) in 1999 Erwin pots
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999

16% growth to 2000/1, so 1/6th, so add 2,000 M bodies for growth to 2000/1
12,000+2,000 = 14,000 M bodies  [growth stats in above pdf annual report]

price M6TTL.58 = $1,995 (B&H Price) [www.bhphotovideo.com]
price M6TTL.72 = $2,695 (B&H Price)

dealer markup on mailorder bodies is claimed to be 5-10%, so let us be 
conservative and just use $2k for average body cost with above prices;

14,000 M bodies (2000/1) * $2,000 body = $28 mil sales (worldwide) bodies

price 50mm f/2 Leica = $995 (B&H price) (call it $1k) [dealer markup?]

14,000 M lenses * $1,000 = $14 mil sales (worldwide) for leica lens, one 
per body sold, cheapest leica standard lens

total for sales of 14,000 bodies each with 50mm f/2 lens = $28 mil + $14 
mil = $42 mil for M6 body plus one lens

total sales for all M items, including lenses and accessories and bodies
= $44 mil (49.8 mil euros).

amount left to buy more lenses = $2 mil
if lenses cost $2,000 each, only 1,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.07 
lens/kit)
if lenses cost $1,000 each, only 2,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.14 
lenses/kit)

Even if we allow for some pretty large dealer markups on the lenses and 
bodies (and the claim is only 5-10% on mailorder on bodies and lenses)
we still are forced to conclude that there isn't much room here for sales 
of Leica lenses to be much over 1.2 lenses per average leica owner.

I am forced to conclude that the posters who claimed that the average 
leica owner had only the standard 50mm f/2 on the average were probably 
more correct than I thought. Naturally, I am not counting voigt-sina or 
konica or fed/zorki and clone lenses or remounted LTM and so on here. 

Does anyone have any lens production sales statistics which can help us 
understand just how many lenses leica owners on average have got? I hear a 
lot about those nifty 35mm f/1.4 and other optics, but it doesn't look 
like every Leica owner has run out and bought one ;-) Does anyone have 
figures on the average lens ownership by leica owners? Or if the above is 
wrong, can someone explain how and why, citing their sources?

thanks for the stats and info in advance!

bobm


From: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 
Subject: [HUG]  Re: Response to Medium format life expectancy, Does = "Cameracide?"  
To: [email protected]

[email protected] wrote, in part:

The eventual switch to digital in the larger sizes is still only "a better 
and more flexible way to record images." We're not talking about a cure for 
cancer or a faster way to get to the moon. Recording images is a very small 
part of activity by a very small number of people, worldwide and relatively 
speaking. 

No one in this thread has really addressed the economic "impact" (granted, 
trivial after 9/11 and in the overall scheme of life) on those few of us 
fortunate enough to own, use, buy, sell, trade, etc., our beloved Hasselblad 
systems.  I have heard much talk, particularly at local camera shows, of the 
dropping prices (e.g., in the real world, eBay, etc.) caused by the digital 
"revolution."  For example, a 40 CF FLE, mint in box seen recently at a local 
camera show, reduced to an asking price of $2200 from $2700.  The rationale 
from the known high priced reseller?  "No one is buying medium format 
anymore" said the disgruntled dealer with an air of dismissing 
authoritativeness.  We all know that people are buying medium format but I 
wonder if this is an unjustified panic response?  Will we end users benefit?  
Certainly we have all enjoyed the resale value of our Swedish black boxes and 
their attendant components when upgrading and/or adding on.  Certainly, this 
is not a heavy point in light of the overall scheme of things in the world 
today and is relevant, as [email protected] said, to only a very small part of 
activity by a very small number of people, worldwide and relatively speaking. 
 Nonetheless, it seems to affect those of us in that apparently dwindling 
minority and as such, I wonder how others feel about digital's potential 
economic impact on the value of our equipment now and in the years to come.

Happy holidays and peace to all of you.  Thanks for the great threads 
throughout the year!

RL Demsey


From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Hassy digi backs
Date: 21 Dec 2001 

check the latest Brit. Jrnl of Photography review on the new CMOS chip 
C-leaf series. You have to have the volume, the clients needing fast 
turnaround, and the facility with software etc. to make this financially 
feasible.

an interesting stat was that dropping the price from $25k to $15k 
increased the potential medium format pro market size from a small 
percentage (5-10-15%) to over half the potential owners. So getting the 
price below $15k is critical...

HTH bobm


Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: Lewis and his scratched lens

george day wrote:

>Of course, UV filters actually do have an optical function, beyond mere
>protection.  But let's not get into that.


Perhaps on 50 year old lenses, made before they incorporated all of the UV 
inhibiting filters into both the glass and the glue between the elements.

The single purpose for UV filters is for camera store profit.

I have taught numerous Leica workshops for Leica USA. I was told, by the 
sponsoring stores, that telling participants to not by UV filters is a big 
no-no. That it adds significantly to the bottom line of every lens sold. So 
instead of telling them to not buy UV filters, I told them to use only 
"useful" filters. Filters that would definitely enhance their photograph. 
Then I showed the class all of the great filters that I do use. Polarizer, 
warming, cooling, ND, split ND, split color grad, etc. The participants 
spent a huge amount of money buying all of these filters, and no UV 
filters. Everyone was happy.

This is no B.S. !!!

Jim


From: Joe Wilensky [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: A prediction on the decline of 35mm -- circa 1972!
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 

Has anyone ever read "Glass, Brass & Chrome: The American 35mm Miniature 
Camera" by Kalton C. Lahue and Joseph A. Bailey? I had read it years 
ago, and recently got a copy on eBay.

It lovingly and technically traces the American 35mm camera industry, 
framing it in perspective with Leica and Contax, telling the story of 
Argus, Univex, Perfex, Kodak, and more, and closing with what they were 
sure was the imminent demise of the 35mm format as Kodak Instamatic 
sales skyrocketed across the globe. The copyright date? 1972, by the 
University of Oklahoma Press.

Here's what their perspective was as they put this book together in the 
late '60s and early '70s:

Engineering design of the Kodak Instamatic, under the name Project 13, 
was completed in 1961, with production beginning in 1962 and sales 
beginning in February 1963. It was probably Kodak's best-kept secret of 
the century; few even within Kodak were aware of its existence.

The Kodak Instamatic, while not a genuine scientific or technological 
breakthrough, was a masterful example of engineering ingenuity and 
packaging (even the cheapest Instamatic camera was fitted with an f/3.5 
plastic lens, which was physically and permanently stopped down to f/11 
or f/16 for better definition, a practice the Ansco Memo had used in the 
'30s.

The cartridge, known briefly as the Kodapak, was made of a special 
polystyrene stable enough to hold the film flat (or reasonably so, I 
guess), but it was also inexpensive enough for mass production.

Designers decided on a square format to utilize the full covering power 
of a lens with a short focal length, which allowed the camera to be 
slimmer wtihout the need for a collapsible front.

Within the first two years of the Instamatic's introduction, more than 
7.5 million cameras were sold (in seven models) -- almost half of which 
were sold overseas.

Surveys at the time showed that while owners of other cameras used an 
average of four rolls a year, Instamatic users used eight rolls. Kodak 
sold 50 million cartridges of film in the first 21 months after the 
format's introduction -- which, of course, was the primary goal it set 
to achieve: increased film sales.

The introduction of the Kodak 126 Instamatic cartridge was devastating 
to the Japanese photographic industry, which only survived by forming a 
cartel to restrict production during 1965-66.

The high-end Kodak Instamatic X-90, featuring an Ektar f/2.8 lens and 
some sort of exposure computer that allowed for nearly program exposure, 
alone outsold all the rest of the world's "quality rangefinders" 
combined.

Kodak's Instamatic Reflex, which was manufactured in Germany by Kodak 
A.G., replaced the famed Retina line.

No American manufacturer produced a camera using 35mm film at the time.

Within four years after its introduction, the Instamatic had cut total 
35mm sales nearly in half, from 600,000 to 325,000. "And while 1971 
sales figures showed the 35mm camera holding its own, it stands no 
chance of ever catching up to its brother with the plastic cartridge," 
the authors boldly stated. "The 35mm cameras once manufactured in 
America died and are now half-forgotten, but the rectangular negative 
took on new life in a square shape and is firmly established today as 
the format of the future."

Without automation, acrylic-lens technology, and Yankee ingenuity, there 
would probably be no American camera industry today, the authors said.


Any comments? Was the film flatness issue what kept Instamatic film from 
taking its place as the world's preferred format? Was it the 
introduction of autofocus point-and-shoot 35mm cameras in the late '70s?

And ... is there anything we can learn from this today?

Joe
(HS)

From: "Jaan Peets" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: huge -36% drop in LF/MF 1999 sales in Japan attrib to digital
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

This is GOOD news!

As all this "obsolete" pro gear is being dumped onto the marketplace, there
will be wide availability to those who appreciate it! I have my VISA card
ready!

Having seen the digital issue of View Camera, and barring some
printing/production problems, my sense that digital is not "there" yet seems
confirmed. One article with terrible photos (fuzzy and "pixelly"), and
another with what seemed ok, but both involving megabuck technology - am I
the only one to walk away with the impression that film is *very* far from
dead?

Not wishing to have an engineer post a 10 page mathematical treatise .....

If a 35 mm neg contains at least 20-odd megabytes of info (variously
attributed to Kodak), therefore a 6X7 runs into 100+, and large format above
and beyond, then at least for field photography, there as yet seems no
competitor yet on the horizon for conventional film.

I cringed yesterday at my local camera store as a salesman blithely steered
a customer away from an SLR, indicating that nowadays, digital is equal to
35 mm......... OUCH!

"Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote 
> the related point is that I believe older backup gear is now being sold by
> pro users to finance entry into digital market. So less demand (going
> digital), more supply (selling to finance digital), so prices are down?



From: -= H.=- [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: dropping hassy prices was Re: To go digital or not to go digital?
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

[email protected] says...

> comments? ;-) bobm

1992 - 1 USD = 6 SKR (Swedish Krona)
2001 - 1 USD = 11 SKR

-- 
/H�kan

N.B.: Invalid e-mailaddress


From: Tony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Benbo out of business...
Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2001 

"Jack A. Zucker" [email protected]> wrote:

> Anyone know details?


Hi Jack,

Benbo tripods were originally made by Kennett Engineering who went out
of business some years ago.  The Benbo name and designs, but not the
designers, were taken over by Paterson Photax who continued marketing
the tripods under the Benbo name.

Paterson Photax were part of the much larger Impress Group which went
out of business earlier this year.  But Paterson Photax have been
purchased (in the last two weeks) from the receivers of Impress Group by
two or more former Directors (US: Vice Presidents) of Paterson Photax.

It's too early to say for sure whether Benbo tripods will still be
available, but Paterson Photax had just moved their manufacture to south
east Asia and has just introduced the much improved Trekker 2 when
Impress Group folded.  As Paterson Photax was apparently profitable and
financially sound, there must be a very good chance that we will see
Benbo products again before too long, albeit made in Asia.

In the meantime, you could consider Uni-Loc.  The designers who were
laid off when Kennett Engineering folded helped form the Uni-Loc company
which markets very similar-looking tripods and accessories.

-- 

Best regards,

Tony Polson


Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Subject: economics of bodies vs lenses Re: [MinMan] Digest Number 433
To: [email protected]

Ed Romney, the repair book author and former shutterbug columnist, has
noted in some of his books that rather few lenses are made and sold for
each SLR camera body; the number is circa 2 lenses per hasselblad body (C 
series) and currently 3.97 million 35mm SLRs sold correspond to 4.93 million 
interchangeable lenses (and one on the body?) per stats at bottom of:
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/economics.html  Furthermore, many 
folks bought one zoom (70-210mm) rather than a bagful of fixed lenses...

what this basically implies is that there are a lot of bodies and normal 
lenses in manual focus gear out there, a fair number of zooms, but only a
modest number of prime or fixed focal length lenses, and even fewer of pro
or OEM quality (how many quantarays or import third party $100 US wide 
angles for every $500 OEM 28mm lens sold?). 

Given that you might be hard pressed to tell the difference between a 
current pricey prime lens and an older now cheaper prime lens, other than 
in the pocketbook, the relative value of the fixed lenses is going up. 
The change in mounts has devalued the OEM lenses like Minolta's lenses 
against third party lenses, and you can often buy the OEM lens for little 
more than the third party lens prices today, though they may have sold 
for 100% to 300% more in the past.

In addition, if you average photodo scores for a large number of OEM lenses,
you find that fixed lenses averaged nearly 1 out of 5 units higher than
the average zoom lens listed (and probably even better than that for the 
average zoom lens sold, given more consumer zooms are sold ;-). Many of 
the older manual focus lenses are still among the top performers out there.

So it shouldn't be surprising that while the bodies (and normal lenses 
and cheapy zooms) are low cost, the OEM fixed lenses are rare and getting 
picked up and prices are rising as supply is drying up. We are seeing a 
lot of stuff from years of camera stores and cameras from folks closets 
being sold on EBAY etc. 

And if you think used prices are high in the USA, check out Australia 
etc. ;-) (see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/albro.html for used dealers)



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> [snip]

> If I have made an error in my calculations, quotations from sources (cited
> with links) or assumptions, I would be happy to get updates or any
> corrections. [...]

Your math does include several assumptions.
Like the one that lenses and bodies have a similar lifespan. The
"statistics" could equally well be made to show that Leica M cameras are
really poorly built compared to Leica lenses. Why else would sales figures
show such a low (in comparison to expectations) ratio of lenses sold to
cameras sold? Must be because cameras need replacing far more frequently.
Assuming (;-)) that an average Leica owner has a "classic" set of 3 lenses,
and taking your 1:1.2 sales ratio as a premisse, you can work out how much
faster Leica M cameras wear out than Leica M lenses, or how many Leica M
bodies are worn out per Leica lens.

Then there is the assumption that the sales figures from the period you used
are representative, and can be used to extrapolate.  Perhaps most of those
bodies sold during that period were bought to replace worn bodies (see
above) or were bought to upgrade from an earlier model (what is the
frequency of body upgrade sales compared to that of lens upgrade sales?), by
owners who already have a plethora of old, yet still very good Leica lenses
(when does a lens need upgrading?)? Or perhaps Leica bodies are more
collectible than Leica lenses?

And how about using non-Leitz lenses on Leicas? I can understand how (not
why) some Leicaphiles would not count them as a "lens owned", but you never
know; tucked away somewhere in the dark recesses of Leica-ownership there
might well lurk the secret, yet massive ownership of dozens non-Leitz lenses
per Leica M. Would play havoc with your statistics. Yet you can't rule it
out.


From: R. Saylor [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan)wrote:

>I think you can be a serious Leica shooter with just one body and one
>lens, quite frankly ;-) Ditto Hasselblad and so on. And for most of us,
>even one M body and one lens would be a serious investment in a hobby too.
>But most of us don't think of the "average"  Leica owner as only having 
>one lens, and that's what I found interesting about my study & 
>calculations...

Your figures may be correct, but they seem surprising.  I bought one
used M6, one new lens (Leica), and two used lenses (one Leica and one
Leitz), and I thought that was about average.  

I get the impression that people who make do with a single lens either
(1) are just starting out with a Leica system and are planning to add
more lenses, (2) are basically minimalists who like the simplicity of
a single lens system, or (3) don't really use their cameras very much.
(The body, sitting untouched in a glass case, looks much more
impressive if there's a lens attached, but you only need one lens for
that.)

Richard


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

I am still perplexed at the point of this exercise and don't think your
numbers have any particular validity. Why do you treat them as gospel? 

Most people who shoot with Leica M cameras buy infrequently and use what
they have for a long time. They might buy a new body for the advantage of
a new feature, they might or might not buy a new lens with that body, they
might buy a  new lens only, or a used body to supplement their existing
kit of Leica M gear. 

I've done all of the above at various times. 

Yes, the equipment lasts well, but anything/everything wears out. It's
just a camera, after all, not some princely immortal sacred object. A lot
of Leicas see very heavy use and are fairly worthless at the end of it.

What are you reaching for? or is this some complex and subtle trolling
effort? I see you've continued into another phase with SLR counts. Perhaps
the PMA has hired you to do analysis or something?

If what you're trying to say is that most people don't buy a lot of lenses
and therefore manufacturers like Leica could well afford to produce a
model with just one fixed lens, well duh.. They already do that .... The
Minilux, Minilux Zoom, C1, ZX2 models fit that niche very well, as do so
many other fixed lens cameras.

Godfrey

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: 29 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps Leica should come out with a fixed lens Leica M with 50mm f/2, 
> greatly cutting costs and improving accuracy (since there is only one RF 
> cam set?), if a large number of folks might buy in, since that is what 
> most of their buyers seem to end up?  

I'm not sure it would be "greatly cutting costs."  Most people by the time
they have to fork out $3000, won't care about +-$200.

But it would be greatly limit options for a buyer/user.  A lot of people
like the heart warming thought that they can (if they ever wanted to):
	1. buy incrementally (Leica body, later some lens)
	2. replace current lens with newer/older lens of same type in case
		of either upgrade or repair
	3. buy extra lens 

A similar case is the TV+VCR fixed combos, which don't sell very well.
Most people like the ability to choose, rather than limited options.

I think I would agree with the bimodal theory of lens/user distribution.
There could be several explanations for this.  First mode, one user one
lens can be explained a) people who are rich enough to buy Leica equipment
and it's well within their means.  They may not great photographers, maybe
not even have photography for a hobby, but they'll buy the best there is
because they can.  No need for a second lens when all they do is snapshot
kind of photos.  b) people who can afford it but only marginally, serious
amateurs or not, are magically affected by the Leica mystique, bite the 
bullet and get a body and a lens, thinking they'll get more later.  They
really just want to try Leica equip. and see what it's all about.  They
get so and so pictures but then don't feel compelled to buy another lens
because most often its cost to benefit ratio.  The other mode may be covered
by professionals, very serious amateurs who believe Leica equip. isn't 
replaceable by other equip. (for them), both rich or not.  Of course, in
the case of professionals equip. can be acquired and tax deducted, so they
don't have to be that well off.

Of course this is just pure speculation on my part, as I don't have any
hard data to back up my statements.  But hey, I just blew 15mins.

Best,
Relu.


From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> I think you can be a serious Leica shooter with just one body and
> one lens, quite frankly ;-) Ditto Hasselblad and so on. And for most
> of us, even one M body and one lens would be a serious investment
> in a hobby too. But most of us don't think of the "average" Leica
> owner as only having one lens, and that's what I found interesting
> about my study & calculations...

Another possibility is that people may buy more than one body for use with a
small collection of lenses. This is what I do. I'd much rather use two
cameras at a time, each with its own lens, than use a single camera and swap
among lenses. I have two bodies for each of my SLR systems and no more than
five lenses per system (no zooms). Now when it comes to rangefinders I go
with one lens per camera!

Of course I buy all my stuff used too, which probably makes me a non-entity
as far as these stats are concerned. :-)

-Dave-



Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] No Fuji Acros for me!
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>


J Patric Dahlen at [email protected] wrote:

> Fuji makes wonderful color films, and I use them in my Rollei's. But I never
> buy Fuji B/W films. I love the skintones I get with Agfa APX 100, and Efke
> R100 is a beautiful old style film. When I want a faster film I use Tri-X. I
> choose to support this brands, not only since I love the resluts I get from
> them, but also to keep them on the market.


Noble of you!

With Agfa's current problems I wouldn't count on APX 100 being around, or
any of their black and white products for that matter.  The company has been
for sale for some time, and a recent purchase fell through at the last
minute.  They've discontinued all of their digital products, which is a real
shame since they had some great scanners.  Looks like they are going to
concentrate on color neg films and their line of minilab equipment, which is
where their strengths lie.

Bob



From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
Subject: [camera-fix] Olympus officially discontinues OM cameras

I guess it is no surprise, but the sad end of a proud dynasty.  The original
OM-1 changed the course of photographic history by forcing the competition
to downsize their cameras.  This information was forwarded to me by my
Japanese friend Muchan.

Bob

> Olympus Optical Industry, Japan, announced they stopped making OM-3Ti and
> OM-4Ti black. They are the last of their OMs in production so it means
> they officially ended production and selling OM series bodies.
> 
> Some lenses and accessaries for OM series are still in production till
> the end of March 2003. Service for OM series will continue. The parts
> should be aveilable 10 years after the end of production. Some bodies
> were stopped production before, so it doesn't means 10 years for all
> bodies from now on.
> 
> The list of lenses, continued production till Mar 2003:
> Zuiko 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 35/2, 35/2.8, 50/1.2, 50/1.8, 85/2, 100/2
> Macro50/2, Makro90/2. Macro20/2. Macro 38/2.8.
> 
> The link of announcement is
> "http://www.olympus.co.jp/LineUp/Camera/Info/n020117.html" 


From: John [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: agfa, kodak film/chemical losses Re: huge -36% LF/MF
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 

Posted and mailed

[email protected] (Richard Knoppow) wrote:

>  I've sent a note to Thom Bell at Kodak asking whether Poly Toner, or
>anything else is being discontinued. No answer yet. 

"From: Thom Bell

Poly-Toner was discontinued last August due to lack of demand.
Annual sales on this one toner was weak to say the least !"


Regards,

      John S. Douglas   Photographer & Webmaster
      Formulas & facts on the Photographic Process
      Website ------------ http://www.darkroompro.net
      ==================================


From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
Date: 18 Jan 2002 

from a hassy list pointer by Akhil Lal:

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001tUS

quote:
The MF market in the US was down 50% during 2001. Hasselblad sales down
30% in the US. - USA is 20% of Hasselblad's total market. - Sales in
Europe down 10%, and the total MF market in Europe also down 10%.

and 

 Hasselblad's management don't think the company can survive on its own,
looking for someone to buy them.

end-quote:

see URL for details - thanks, Akhil for pointer...



Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: Richard Urmonas [email protected]>
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rolleiflex
> 
> While this story has been around for some time, I have trouble believing it.


I have no trouble believing it.

I was a consultant to Mamiya when they were going through the painful
decision of whether or not to kill their TLR line.  The problem was simple,
the tooling was worn out, and they had to decide if they could justify the
capital investment in new tooling on a product line with only small sales
volume.  Once the number crunching was done the decision was clear and
the cameras were discontinued.

I'm sure Mamiya was selling a dozen of their TLRs for every Rollei TLR
sold.

Bob



Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2001 
To: [email protected], [email protected]>
From: Jim Brick [email protected]>
Subject: Re: AW: Non Hasselblad Advice From Contax Users

My local supplier (Keeble & Shuchat Photography) is the largest west coast 
Hasselblad dealer except for Sammy's in LA. When the Contax 645 was 
introduced, they couldn't keep them in stock. A couple of years later now, 
they are dead. Yet Hasselblad continues to make sales gains (in this store) 
every year. Year after year after year.

There is something to be said about a good proven robust design. Great 
format, great lenses, great accessories, everything fits, everything works, 
mechanical, electronic, 6x6 or 645, 120, 220, Polaroid. Can't lose. Built 
like a tank, runs like a fine watch.

What more could you ask for?

Well... let me make a list!  :)

Jim


Andre Oldani wrote:
> > Would you mind sharing your experience with the 645 vs the 203FE?
> >  I have a
> > 205FCC and absolutely love it!  I hesitated on the Contax simply
> > because of
> > that damn handle thingy...and I REALLY like the square format...and the
> > choice of focal plane or leaf shutter...
>
>Austin, the 645 is very impressive piece of technology. Finest CZ glass,
>built in spot and convential metering, TTL & flash meter, fastest aperture,
>motor etc. etc. From the "modern" 645 MF cameras I'd say it is the best.
>
>I copied the lines I wrote to the Contax list once, when I was asked about
>my reasons for the change. Being an amateur photographer and bloody beginner
>with Hasselblad I can only say that I felt in love with that gear from the
>first moment I had it in my hands at a pro photo show. And yes it was a boys
>dream. For the next four months I was trying to justify the switch :-) -
>Well, I have to admit, I love the square, I love the feeling, the plopp of
>the shutter even loading the film. "Rubbish" might some pros say but I like
>this tool and is absolutely fun to take picture with it. Yes, "taking
>pictures", to me it is not the "shooting" with a 35 SLR, it's "ups, only 11
>to go" :-)
>
>Finally, last week I got the SCA390 for my Metz 70MZ5. The next adventure is
>waiting - first steps in Hassi-TTL.
>
>Best,
>Andre
>
>
>
>***Original post to the Contax list, July 31, 2001***
>
>Simon,
>
>Not at all. I bought me a Hasselblad 203FE. After 12 months I had to think
>over my step to the 645. Build quality, glass, handling...everything was
>great, a real Contax. But I was not really using the gear. Some 10 films in
>12 months? I tried to isolate why I was not using the camera as honest as
>possible. It is not easy to describe. Here are my core findings (only
>applicable for myself, of course :-):
>
>a) The 645 is so identical to a small format Contax that I saw and used it
>like another, large, big small format Contax.
>b) MF is to me somehow contemplative and not as "fast" as the small format.
>Because of all the fine technique and automatics I did not feel completely
>"in control" and was missing this.
>c) And finally...I love the square and the Hasselblad was always one of my
>boys dreams.
>
>This may sound a little bit "elitaire" and debating the Emperor's cloths.
>It's about the results, the pictures. But the mechanics, the built in meter
>and the feeling of my 203 is absolutely to the point for my understanding,
>that I am completely happy. It is like any other good tool, either it fits
>and you use it or...As a result, I did the same number of film rolls within
>3 weeks as before in 12 months. Now I am only waiting for the Nikon scanner
>to complete the chain.
>
>In the same action I exchanged the AX with an RTSIII for similar reasons. I
>am definitively not against AF. My N1 and the G2 cover this field and I use
>them heavily.
>
>I do honestly believe that the gear is great. But like accepting the merits
>of a Leica M6 I will never buy one, because it is "not me". The 645 was just
>not my tool.
>
>Finally an anecdote: Last wekk I was out for lunch with the pro shooting our
>corporate photos. He is using more or less exclusively his old 501. So I was
>blaming him for having cost me a fortune because of (re-)infecting me with
>the 6x6 virus. He looked completely puzzled until he got the joke. I was
>explaining about my problem with "denial of usage". He then told me that one
>of his fellow photographer (some 8 to 10 of them run a joint venture studio)
>had the identical problem. She was not using her 645 and gave it back...
>
>Best regards
>Andre
>
>PS: I try to prepare some first results from the MP120 with the N1 for an
>update of Contax.ch.
>


Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: powerful images
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>


> From: Roger Wiser [email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: powerful images
> 
> After all their past miscues and problems , I cannot figure out how AOL got so
> prominent in the field !
> 
> Roger


Look at the state of business in America today.  Most of these big companies
are run by people who couldn't hold down a job at a local gas station.  You
only have to look at the condition of the big players in the photo industry
to see many examples.  But there is a Gladwellian "tipping point" and most
of them are damned close to it.  I think we will see a bunch of major
bankruptcies in the near future which will make Wolf Camera's recent one
look penny ante by comparison.

Bob



Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: 500k chinese cameras/yr? Re: Other topic: Chinese TLE w/ 1/500

an expert witness is someone having knowledge beyond that generally 
possessed by the public at large in some subject area - per Fed Rules Civ 
Procedure, so I guess we are all experts here ;-)

I checked up some stuff tonight in research, re: AA (earlier post) and 
also found in same volume article in March 1982 p. 70 Keppler SLR Notebook
column in Modern Photography photos of the chinese cameras including hassy 
clone east wind and DF1 seagull and DF-2 cameras, the Great Wall DF-2
(TLR 6x6) etc.

anyway, they say only 500,000 chinese cameras produced, 90% were TLRs, in
1981 because 35mm is too small to contact print, no minilabs, or
enlargers, so they prefer B&W and contact prints 6x6cm. Salaries $60/month 
for 2 working member couples, but rent only $3/month; seagull DF-1 copy of 
1959 minolta SR-2 cost, without meter, $260, no zooms in china then, so
tokina 80-200 f/4.5 cost was $1,750, and hassy clone East Wind with 80
50 and 150mm lenses (f/2.8, f/4, f/4) was $5,000 US in 1981 (only about 
100 made?)

they had 3 factories making minolta SR-2 clones, totally different parts 
and lines, Seagull DF-1, Peafowl (Harbin), and Pearl River (Souchow) ;-)

 I currently have a DF-4 SLR 6x6 with 39mm leica thread lens; surprisingly 
decent photos for a $75 6x6cm SLR (but only one lens, and only 1/200th sec 
to 1/30th IIRC and reportedly a triplet? ;0-) 

grins bobm



From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 

The article that is referenced by the original post says that US MF sales are
down 50% but blad sales were just down 30%.  My hunch is that this does not
include Kiev sales, but a 50% drop is certainly bad news for MF enthusiasts.  I
would think a MF photographer would be less likely to "switch" to digital than
a 35mm photog.  When I say "switch", I mean abandon MF photography altogether.
Obviously most photographers are giving the new technology a try but I would
think digital will take a larger bite out of 35mm sales than MF.  Am I wrong?

Stephe wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >  Also do these #s include entry level sales like Seagulls and
> > Kievs?
> >
> >
>
> Just where I fit into this picture, I was thinking about buying a blad but
> after doing some research discovered the newest kiev's seem to finally be
> reliable (at least the 2001 K-60's) and given what I could buy with the
> money I had to spend, it wasn't hard to decide which I would get. As these
> continue to become better and better, their low price could really hurt the
> sales of some of these high end models to hobbyists.  Not all kiev buyers
> are "entry level" as I've been shooting med format for 15 years and have
> been shooting 4X5 for about 10. These just had some features I really liked
> AND at a cost I could afford.
>
> --
>
>   Stephe



From: [email protected] (Paul Farrar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Death of the quality manual focus SLR
Date: 21 Jan 2002 

In the past couple of weeks:

1. Leica drops R6.2, but still has R8.
2. Olympus announces end of OM line. 3Ti and 4Ti production will cease.
OM-2000 disappeared several months ago.

A little farther back:

3. Nikon drops F3. Many newer AF models don't have full function with
MF lenses.
4. Kyocera deadends the Contax/Yashica line. Not doing too well at
providing lenses for their new AF, either.
5. Pentax ends supply of LX. (Yes. It actually was available, mainly 
in Japan.)
6. Minolta hasn't made any announcements I know of, but the X-series
seems to be disappearing. B&H has only the 370s.
7. Canon long gone.

THE GOOD NEWS: Nikon FM-3A
Good news/bad news: Maybe a smaller Leica R body/prices, R line survival
iffy.

So it looks like Leica R (maybe) and Nikon when the NOS supplies of 
the other brands run out. Pentax has the ZX-M, a "Rebel class" AF with 
the AF left out, still nice, I hear, but hardly any lenses designed for 
MF available new.

Paul


Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 

Q.G. de Bakker [email protected]> wrote:
>Stephe wrote:

>> A pro who was using med format may have found his customers are willing to
>> give up some quality to get the "instant" results that digital can
>provide?

>Unless the customer is one of the news media, i don't think so, no.
>True, when you're using a digital camera the resulting images are quick to
>appear on the photographer's computer screen. But pro assignments usually
>leave ample time for even a slow film processing route to deliver before the
>deadline set by customers. The customer doesn't really notice any "instant"
>results.


Not typical MF cameras, perhaps, but digital is certainly taking
over in a wide range of portrait studios, school photography, and
the like.  Check out the number of 70mm TLRs for sale on eBay all
the time these days, often noting that they're in perfect working
order from a shop that has gone digital.

As for the "instant" results, lots of low-priced portrait places
don't even do printed proofs any more, they let the customer
select from images on a monitor, often right after the shoot.

--
          [email protected] is Joshua Putnam
            http://www.phred.org/~josh/
     Updated Infrared Photography Books List:
   http://www.phred.org/~josh/photo/irbooks.html


From: [email protected] (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?

>>Several posters have suggested that the average (modal?) Leica user only 
owns one lens. ....  ad nauseum

Boy Bob, you sure put the anal in analysis.  Why don't you quit that college
job and join the real world.

BTW, I've known an awful lot of Leica users in my time, and I've never met one
yet who only owned a single lens.


From: "Mark Smith" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Hasselblad's Financial Difficulties.....Bankruptcy???
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 

"The reliable sources reveal that they have been offered buy-out by the
owners of the CONTAX cameras. They turned it down, and many observers wonder
if they are going to get financial help from the Swedish government.

Hasselbald's future looks very uncertain. In a number of Western countries
the importers of Hasselbald products have signed or are considering the
distribution of other 35mm systems in their countries. That is a bad
indication.

It is all due to the high marketing prices of the Hasselblad goods. It is
true that wages and taxes are high in Sweden (I have worked there in the
past). BUT many component parts of the Hasselbald system are manufactured in
19 (NINETEEN) different countries. "

Hasselblad has also laid-off or restructured there staffs and now there are
less sales reps covering more area, for less pay.

I think the color versions of the 501cm gave it away.

I think this is something to keep an eye on.

Mark.

* A. Bujak 2001


From: [email protected] (Bob Hickey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: bessa "M7" killer clone? Re: Alternative to leica m6?
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001

     I can't help but wonder if Leica sales won't, in the long run, be
helped by some competition, by way of the old up-grade syndrome. People
buying a competitive product, can now upgrade, whereas before there
wasn't much to upgrade from. I just don't see many people going from a
$50 e-bay Canonet, to a Leica. Trading in a Bessa or Hexar, for an M6,
maybe.          Not to say RFs will ever compete with SLRs in tems of
numbers sold; they're just not versatile enough, not to mention the
missing "gee whiz" factor. Sometimes I think the reason Canon/Nikon
sells so much, is because people are affirming their loyalty; casting
their vote, so to speak. If Minolta/Pentax started a war, maybe they'd
sell more too.      Bob Hickey                                                                             

http://photos.yahoo.com/rollei711



From: [email protected] (Thom)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Digital camera to replace polaroid for test shots
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 

Anthony Polson [email protected]> wrote:

>"Ray Paseur" [email protected]> wrote:
snip snip

The digital is more likely to replace the polaroid camera than film.

When the Land Cameras became an instant hit the company wanted to kno
why and they did a survey.  Theyw ere shocked to learn almost 70% of
the people said they bought it to do nude pictures of their partners
or girlfriends!!!

I think its much the same today

BUT there is a problem.  The number of households that have computers
has now dropped under 30% and obviously you need one to work with the
images.  Kodak seems to be leading the pack with a stand for the
camera that plugs into their printers and you don't need a computer.

When these become cheap, digital will wipe out the instant film
camera.

THOM


Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Akhil Lal [email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" [email protected]>,
 	[email protected], "[email protected]" [email protected]>
Subject: [HUG] Hasselblad

Hello Everyone,

Here's an interesting post from photo.net concerning Hasselblad's fiscal condition:  

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001tUS

Regards,
Akhil
 

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: prices guide?

--- In russiancamera@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p...> wrote:
> Anybody have a price guide to russian cameras and lenses they are willing
> to share or post? I have created a few for some medium format cameras
> (http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/kowapg.html and rmonagha/bronpg.html for
> kowa 6/66 and bronica s2/EC).
>
> If not, are there any sites with reasonable prices for each of the common
> models and costs? There are kiev price guides for the medium format kits
> (see links under kiev at mf/cameras.html). These are quite handy in
> showing the range of prices asked by the various dealers with links to
> sites or ebay sales pages.
>
> I may get to a local camera show later this month, and if so, I would
> like to have a guide to reasonable prices. Last time, the seller had all
> his russian rangefinders at one price ($75 US$) and as is (no warranty)
>
> thanks for sharing any URLs or suggestions! bobm

Hello Robert,

I have visited your website many times and have learned a lot from
the many excellent articles. Thank you very much for sharing the
knowledge. And I must say I agree to most of your opinions.

I have only one piece of information to offer. According to a major
Russian camera dealer, the import price of Kiev 60 has increased
considerably. The selling price of a Kiev 60 set has incresed from
RMB1,100 last year to RMB1,600 now.  I think this will also take
place in the US.

Zhang



From: ajacobs2 [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Wolf Ritz Merger
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2001 


Wolf Camera merging with Ritz Camera

2:46 p.m., 8.22.2001 - Wolf Camera said today it plans to merge with
Ritz Camera Centers, a rival based in Maryland, in a deal valued at
$84.7 million. The move comes two months after Atlanta-based Wolf sought
Chapter 11 bankruptcy court protection. The merger with Ritz must be
approved by Wolf's bankruptcy judge, who would likely consider any
competing offers that emerge.

If the deal is approved, the Wolf brand would not disappear, and all
locations would be open for business as usual, according to the company.
But it would end Wolf's 27-year history as an independent business based
in the Atlanta area. The merged entity would be headquartered in the
Washington, D.C. area. It would have more than 1,300 stores in 48 states
and more than 12,000 employees. Wolf Camera said its 4,000 store workers
would not be affected, and a distribution center employing 80 workers
would remain open. However, the company said it would lay off workers at
corporate offices in Alpharetta.


There is irony in the merger. Wolf Camera founder Chuck Wolf initially
worked for Ritz, owned by his uncle. He sold his Ritz stock to start his
own chain and eventually built it into Wolf Camera, the no. 2 specialty
photo retailer. Ritz is No. 1. Chuck Wolf would be vice chairman of Ritz
Camera if the deal goes through. "Joining forces with Ritz would be an
outstanding opportunity for our associates and a winning proposition for
our customers," Wolf said in a news release. "The Ritz-Wolf combination
would create a powerhouse photo retailer."


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 
From: "D. Patterson" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Minolta to make cameras in China only?

martin robinson wrote:
>
> Good point regarding "lost its way". Ask yourself one
> question though; "What are Minolta actually trying to
> achieve?" Minoltas board probably couldn't care less
> what market segment they get so long as they make lots
> of money. In the UK Ford & Vauxhall make fairly
> unreliable (according to JD Powers) cheap cars whilst
> Rolls Royce make the "ultimate vehicle" - but who is
> the most profitable? Sure as hell ain't Rolls Royce.
> For the amateur "want something sexy that doesn't
> actually need to be treated like dirt every day of its
> life" market the lack of pro-credibility probably
> doesn't matter.
>


The moment a company no longer cares about which market segment they
get, that company is on the road to going out of business.

Xerox has nearly gone bankrupt by failing to excel in the business they
invented. They too have tried to diversify by shifting their financial
resources and human resources to more opportunistic financial and real
estate markets. They have mostly demonstrated themselves to be a jack of
some trades and a master of none. They could have dominated the
information systems sector with their innovations from the Palo Alto
Research Center. Instead, they failed to appreciate the value of their
research and failed miserably in managing those tremendous assets. In
the end, they sold their interests in their research for a fraction of
the value realized by the buyers of that technology. This occurred,
because their management lacked the knowledge and wisdom to develop the
value of their resources, while more attractive yet fleeting financial
opportunities siphoned off the potential investment and operating
resources. Xerox failed to care enough about the market segments in
which they competed.

Minolta must staunch the financial losses incurred by their photographic
division. However, it remains to be seen whether or not that can be done
in the long-term by further retrenchments in investment and prestige in
their professional photographic division. It seems that Minolta's
consumer photographic market can be very adversely affected in the
long-term by a continued decrease in prestige within the professional
market. Logically, such an event shouldn't seem to be necessary.
However, advertising and marketing often relies upon psychology much
more than logic. If that weren't an actual fact, multi-million dollar
advertising and marketing campaigns be effective and exist as we see
them do so today. The only way the photographic division's losses can be
reversed for more than a short period is to return the division to
effective competition in the professional and consumer markets.
Otherwise, the photographic division is destined to experience a
continuing stair-step spiral into ever smaller market positions in the
professional and consumer markets.

The very recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy/reorganization of Polaroid also
demonstrates what happens to a technology innovator who rests on its
laurels and past achievements for too long. Polaroid lost business to
the digital imaging products market and competitors in its own market.
It waited too long to bring a profitable new product into a market.

The same problem could occur with Minolta. Permitting the photographic
market position to dwindle too far may limit the company's financial
ability to weather and recover from reversals in its other major optical
markets. Failure to maintain a major market position in the photographic
markets may contribute significantly to further failures in its other
market divisions. Unless Minolta anticipates the digital imaging
technologies, it may not be in a position to prevent the obsolesence of
its current products in markets impacted by the digital technologies.


Conversely, the application of the digital technologies to major
competition in the professional and consumer photographic markets may
allow synergies to better compete in the other Minolta divisions as
well. Better Minolta optics allowed Minolta to compete in the
xerographic copier, micrographic, photographic, and industrial optics
market. Better Minolta digital imaging may permit Minolta to maintain or
improve its profitability in those same and other markets.

Shrinking market presence can sometimes permit a business to survive a
permanent change in a particular market segment. Such a circumstance is
the rare exception. Without the exploitation of a new market opportunity
to replace the old market position, however, the business almost always
shrinks itself into oblivion. The top tier players are usually able to
achieve an economy of scale that precludes effective or profitable
competition by smaller competitors. The domination of the top tier
players may then be disturbed only by their own failure or a major
change in the market technologies and/or customer demand.
Returning profitability to a market division by only reducing production
costs seldom works for very long. Unless the competitors are financially
forced out of the market by your decrease in retail prices, they will
match your own production savings or exceed them. Sooner or later, a
competitor will produce a product innovation and/or marketing innovation
that will result in the failure of the business operating on razor-sharp
gross profit margins. So, minimizing production costs to achieve
profitability may signal fundamental problems with the long-term
viability of such a business.

Let's hope that Minolta is using the advantage from a short-term
reduction of production costs of its film cameras to prepare for a
long-term comeback in the photographic market with unique innovations in
digital cameras and/or hybrid digital-film cameras. Can the Mind of
Minolta serve its consumer and professional customers well by devising
and delivering new and uniquely useful photographic cameras, film and
digital, unavailable from such market leaders as Nikon, Canon, Sony,
Hewlett-packard, et al?

Dallas Patterson
[email protected]


From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: News item from Nikkei

This was posted on the Dow Jones newswire today.  Perhaps it deserves some
comment.  BTW, back in the late '70s, early '80s, (The golden age of SLRs by
some accounts) how many SLRs were produced by the big 4 camera companies on an
annual basis?

Regards,

Charles Sorkin


13:16 DJ Minolta To Stop Making Cameras In Japan, Malaysia -Nikkei

  OSAKA (Nikkei)--Minolta Co. (7753 or J.MNO) will stop making cameras in Japan
and Malaysia in fiscal 2002, and consolidate operations in China, The Nihon
Keizai Shimbun reported company sources said in its Wednesday morning edition.

 The major camera and office equipment maker intends to return its camera
business to profitability by cutting labor and other costs.

  The company will continue producing only a few types of products, such as
measuring instruments, in Japan.  Minolta already makes most of its mainstay
items, photocopiers and printers, outside Japan.

  Minolta makes a total of more than 100,000 high-end single-lens reflex
cameras and high-end digital cameras annually at its plant in Sakai, Osaka
Prefecture, and 600,000 digital cameras in Malaysia.

  To transfer camera production to China, the company will expand the annual
production capacity of its joint venture in Shanghai by 100% to 3 million
cameras, in addition to boosting its work force to some 2,000 employees.

  As a result, the domestic work force of Minolta's camera business will fall
from 900 to 500.  These employees will engage in sales, product development and
other jobs.

  The company expects global sales of its cameras in the current term to total
4 million - 700,000 single-lens reflex cameras, 2.7 million compact cameras and
600,000 digital cameras.  Of the total, 3 million will be produced by the
company, and 1 million will be procured on an original-equipment manufacturing
basis.

  Minolta forecasts that its camera business will post a pretax loss of Y4
billion in the current term on sales of Y90 billion.  It aims for a pretax
profit of Y4.5 billion from the business in fiscal 2003 by cutting personnel
costs and narrowing its product lineup, the sources added.

  (END) DOW JONES NEWS  10-16-01


From Leica Mailing LIst:
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 
From: Curt Miller [email protected]
Subject: Re: QC Problems? The end of the story


...
you are absolutely correct.  The Wal-Mart approach to customer service is
THE only approach.  People just don't get it.  But, if you thinks their
bad today, let me give you a taste of history.

My dad workd for Agfa for 30 years as their purchasing manager.  He had to
deal with all the maufacturers in the country, buying camera equipment for
testing purposes.  He had great relations with all of them.  The standard
markdown in the industry back in the '60s was about 40% off retail to
another manufacturer.  Leitz, a fellow German photographic company,
absolutely refused to bargain.  I remember my father, an avid amateur
photogrpher, and very German himself, coming home swearing he'd never buy
or use Leica equipment, that they were hard-headed and "their cameras
didn't take better pictures anyway."

FWIW,
Curt


From leica user group:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] re: leica M lens ownership figures and calculations

Does anyone have any statistics or figures on Leica M series lens
production numbers and sales figures? I have been doing some research and
would like to check the following calculations and assumptions:

2000/1 leica M camera/lens sales = 49.8 million euros = $44 million US$
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/19.pdf

12,000 sales M bodies (6,000 R) in 1999 per Erwin Puts
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999

16% growth to 2000/1, so 1/6th, so add 2,000 M bodies for growth to 2000/1
12,000+2,000 = 14,000 M bodies  [growth stats in above pdf annual report]


price M6TTL.58 = $1,995 (B&H Price) [www.bhphotovideo.com]
price M6TTL.72 = $2,695 (B&H Price)
price 50mm f/2 = $995 (B&H price)

14,000 M body/lens kits * $3,000/kit = $42 million M sales versus $44
million total M related sales. Typical markups for mail-order sales like
B&H are generally 5-10%. However, a recent hong kong poster noted that new
Leica M can be had there for $1,400 US$. Whatever this markup might be,
it seems to provide the $$ for buying additional Leica lenses per the
above calculations, but at approx. $3,000 US per leica M body sold, that
doesn't seem to provide much $$ for buying many Leica lenses (1 to 2 
only?)

So there doesn't seem to be many Leica M lenses sold per Leica M body
sold, if these statistics and calculations are correct. The implication is
that the average M body has circa 2 Leica made M series lenses or less
produced for it. This is roughly the same as for Hasselblad lenses (half
the lenses were normal 80mm lenses, and many users had only the one lens)
and 35mm SLRs (only about 2.2 lenses per SLR body mfg'd, but most of
these are zoom lenses).

Can anyone provide M series lens sales or production figures by types of
lenses or totals? Is there an error in the above calculations about Leica
M lens sales, or is the average number of Leica lenses sold per body only
circa 2 or less?

Thanks in advance for your help in providing info and URLs and leads to
statistics and information! regards bobm



From Nikon MF Mailing List
Date: Sun, 03 Mar 2002 
From: MEBerube [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Camera shop antics

Peter wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>
> At one time some
>  > manufacturers or distributors gave a salesman or store a spiff, or
>  kick back, for certain items they sold. 
>
>I think you mean a "spiv". Or was it a "spliff"?


spliff. The current 'spliff's' from the manufacturers are pitiful. In the
store I work for PT off season, Canon will kick me back $5 or so for
pushing one of their Rebel 2k's and something like $10 for their higher end
cameras. Minolta as well has a small program of 'rewards' for schlepping
their SLRs. Nikon gives me nothing specifically for selling an N65 or any
other camera. That doesn't really influence what I sell. I would have to
chase those spliffs by submitting all sorts of paperwork and the like at
the end of each month and mostly it isn't worth my time. It is short change
even with my relatively high sales. I'd rather sell a new or used FM2/3,
K1000, ZXM (or ZX5 if automation is needed and the customer is on a more
limited budget) anyhow as these are all cameras with great track records
that I believe in.  All have real controls for intuitive use and they take
old MF lenses as well as new AF lenses in their maker's lines. (G lenses
the exception...shame on Nikon.)

In short I sell the camera that I think the customer can best use and best
afford. If they specifically lean toward any brand I will show what that
brand has to offer and show what the others offer that is similar. Some
people are fanatically brand loyal and I'd loose a sale outright if I
pushed another brand overmuch. I'd rather meet what they feel their needs
are today and have them buy their next camera, film and all the accessories
from us in the future than to have them be POd that I put them into an
outfit that didn't meet or which exceeded their needs and wants.

Any salesperson selling to a different motive than customer satisfaction is
bad for the business they work for.

Carpe Luminem,
Michael E. Berube
http://www.GoodPhotos.com (my real job)




from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Interesting item on eBay web site item#1310067539: Gold
camera Zorki/Zorki-export type

Hasselblad dying?  Far from it.  The last couple of years have been the
most profitable in the company's history.  They were early to catch on
to making cameras which were digital back compatible, and this has helped
them do well in tough times.

Bob

....


from leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] M7 update.

Thank you for pointing out that profit margins on cameras are very slim.
My dealer makes about 10% on a new M body. Needless to say, it is the
accessories that keep him alive. You cannot just sell accessories though,
you have to have something to put them on.

John Collier




Date: Mon, 04 Mar 2002 
To: [email protected],[email protected],[email protected]
From: "Alan K. Unangst" [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] What's Going On With Nikon

Dear Sig Members,

I noticed that Nikon is discontinuing it's Nikonos V........somewhat
understandable, however in the business section of last Friday's Arizona
Republic I saw an article that said that Nikon, Inc. was cutting back
production and some 400 ~ 500 jobs in the next few months.

Anyone know what's really going on?

73,

Alan



From Nikon Mailing List:
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Amateur vs. Pro market
From: "Maximiliano Fernandez Mendoza" [email protected]
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 

>> >...The amateur market is much bigger than the pro market, and the G lens
>> change inconveniences the amateurs
>>
>> Excuse me Nick, assuming that when you say amateur you are refering to
>> hobbists (like many of us), do you have any figures at hand you can show us
>> to support that argument? In the past, some members of this list have
>> demonstrated that this would not the case: According to them, it's just the
>> opposite.
>
>sorry to bud in here, but with a little common sense, we can definately
>say that non 'Pro's are the majority of users of Nikon equipment.
>
>That includes point and shooters, hobbyists, serious
>amateurs...etc...etc...etc...

OK, maybe,... I don't really know the actual figures (and never said I
did), but that's not the point I was trying to make. I would like to quote
part of a message posted by Rob M. some time ago, on the other list,
because it can throw some light on this matter:

   Camera companies target three distinct target audiences. They are called
   "Market Segments". They are: Consumer, Hobbyist and Professional. Each
   company handles each market separately, but there are some basic
   realities. Consumers are the largest group in terms of sales, units
   shipped, dollars spent.  They are the "Volume, Volume, Volume" of the
   market. In Nikon terms, this is the group that the N65 and N55 are built
   for. These people buy cameras from camera stores and from Walmart.
Nikon's digital market is highly geared towards the consumer. Consumers
   want simple to use cameras that don't cost a lot.

   The next segment in order of importance is the Professional. They are
   the people that buy the high end products and act like free marketing
   for the other two segments. If someone is considering buying a camera
   and they see a news photographer with a Nikon, it helps sell the
   consumer Nikons. They want their gear to work day in and day out and get
   a job done.

   The third segment is the hobbyist. This is the smallest section and
   probably the biggest pain in the manufacturers butt of the segment. The
   Hobbyist probably cares more for the craft than the other two segments.
   For instance, the Astro Photo Mailing List folks are putting together a
   petition to get Kodak to keep making Tech Pan. Out of millions of
   customers, these few hundred wants Kodak to keep an unprofitable product
   around. No doubt that Tech Pan is a great film, but its day is gone. The
   Hobbyist is the "photo geek". Collecting, knowing every trivial detail,
   and reaching a precision beyond what even the pro cares about is the
   Hobbyists' creed. Hobbiests use odd products and pull from the high end
   consumer and pro markets. Camera makers generally don't bend over too
   much for this group since they can make do with products from the other
   segments.

   Within the Pro segment, there are sub groupings based on what they do.
   The list can be cut many different ways, but the main ones include news
   photographers, sports/wild life photographers, portrait/wedding, etc.

   THE FOLLOWING IS VERY IMPORTANT
   For SLR's, in all market segments except for sports/wildlife Nikon seems
   to have an 80% market share.  In Sports/Wildlife, a fraction of one
   segment of photographers, they are about even with Canon.



When I said hobbyist, I was refering to that segmentation.

Quoting myself now, I would like to add the following:

   Market share, brand loyalty, corporate strategy, the future of the SLR
   market, gadgetry... All this issues has to do (mainly) with purchasing
   preference of people on the very edge of the photographic spectrum:
   consumer (entry level) and high end. People falling in between are
   usually pretty loyal, for different reasons (like investment
   protection), but newbies and pros are less loyal (or not loyal at all).

   I think (my opinion, of course) Nikon realized those facts and has
   developed a strategy to keep and increase market share targeting these
   segments. Why? Well, the rationale is this: first, most of the people on
   this list have admitted to care or (at least) regard whether or not
   highly renowned pros were using Nikons. For Nikon, this is not only a
   good show window, but also good positioning tool. It's common sense:
  "look what the pros use". So, what did Nikon do in order to keep that
   advantage? They focus all their resources in the development of the
   D1-series digital camera.

   On the other hand, you have plenty of newbies coming from the P&S world
   and hoping to make a smooth transition to SLR. They are aware of Nikon,
   because they've heard a lot of good things about it, but -you know what-
   it was too expensive and had scary amount of features. Undoubtedly,
   Nikon needs to get them and guide their first steps into the Nikon
   System, because it needs to keep and futher increase its future market
   share. So, what did Nikon do in order to seduce newcomers?... They
   released the N55/F55 and G-series lenses.

Of course, that was written "a posteriori" (after the facts happened),
based upon reasoning from observed facts. However, predicting what Nikon
will do in the future is not so easy. I would dare to say that G-series is
just intended to fill a gap in Nikon's lineup, but I won't. ;-)

Max



From: "DM" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002
Subject: Re: Pentax 67, how heavy tripod needed?


I should make clear that when I said that the Pentax 67 sells in tiny
numbers compared with other medium formats, I was basing this on my
knowledge of the professional industry in the British Isles.

I am a member of a professional photographers' group comprising ninety
members. Of those only ONE uses the Pentax 67.

Also, I spoke with Robert White, the UK agents for the Pentax. They also
sell Hasselblad, Mamiya and Bronica. They told me that fewer than one in ten
medium format sales is a Pentax. This is what I would have suspected.

DM


From: "Ray Paseur" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Medium Format brand poll
Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2002


For one point of comparison, look at the numbers on EBAY - Medium format
cameras.

http://listings.ebay.com/aw/plistings/list/category3349/index.html

Medium Format

 Bronica (254)
 Hasselblad (659)
 Mamiya (658)
 Pentax (163)
 Rollei (275)
 Other (677)
---
Ray Paseur
www.non-aol.com


"Stephe" [email protected] wrote ...
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > Our poll at
> > http://63.151.138.197/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000004
> > hasn't had many respondents but at the moment the results are:
> >
> > Bronica - 0%
> > Contax - 6%
> > Hasselblad - 13%
> > Mamiya - 19%
> > Pentax - 6%
> > Rollei - 31%
> >
> > I'm not sure what it indicates given the small sample.
>
> Maybe that people don't like the models you chose? Wonder what brands the
> "other" people are using? {G}
>
> --
>
>   Stephe



From http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/21/0221kodak.html:

Kodak's Incredible Shrinking Film Business
 
by  Davide Dukcevich, 02.21.02,


....


  The Photo Marketing Association--the trade group that represents the imaging
  industry--yesterday said that the popularity of digital cameras helped reduce
  American film sales by 2.8% in 2001. Digital technology will continue chewing
  into traditional film faster than most analysts expected, decreasing sales by
  4.5% in 2002 and 6.8% in 2003, according to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown.
...

The company saw sales fall to $13.2 billion in 2001, compared to $14 billion in
  2000. Consumer film accounts for about 25% of Kodak's total sales, or about
  $3.5 billion. 
...


  The Photo Marketing Association also said that the U.S. film market will peak
  at one billion units per year in the next two or three years and then drop
  because of increased digital camera use. In the meantime, the popularity of
  digital cameras is expected to increase, further eroding revenue from
  traditional film for companies like Kodak. 


From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 
From: "Dr. Elliot Puritz" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Leica est yr loss 1.5 - 2 million euro (l.y. +.9)


Hi Christer:  I too noted the report from Leica concerning their recent
financial difficulties.  One has the sense that there is a desperate need
for the M7 to succeed.  There will, of course, always be film and those of
us who cherish that traditional medium.  However, digital sales are
obviously becoming a major factor, and are eating more and more into Leica's
traditional markets.  I wonder if the M7 is an initial effort, built on the
great M6 platform, to somehow adapt the M series to digital.  Having no
engineering background I cannot offer any reasonable advice on how the
transition might occur. Moreover, perhaps the R series is the more logical
digital vehicle. Nevertheless, there has to be a means to somehow allow
Leica photographers, with their huge investment in Leica lenses, to utilize
their lenses on any new digital venture.  For Leica to continue to innovate
and maintain their obviously niche market some "higher end" digital product
would appear to be very necessary.  I do not expect their "lower end"
digital cameras to compete that well with the myriad other brands available,
especially since such marques have a great advantage in marketing.

Elliot


- ----- Original Message -----
From: Christer Almqvist [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2002 
Subject: [Leica] Leica est yr loss 1.5 - 2 million euro (l.y. +.9)

> Leica Camera AG's shares now stand at less than 6 Euro compared to 10
> Euro a year ago.
> The lack of a digital compact camera is given as the major reason for
> the loss, after the cooperation with Fuji ended they had no such
> products and the Matsuhsita co-developments will only come on the
> market this spring. I am sure they will  put a more detailed report
> on their web soon.
>
> In the meantime, buy more M7s
>
> --
> Christer Almqvist




From: "Ken Martin" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2002


I was talking to my local dealer a few days ago.  He sells both digital and
film based systems, so really does not have a dog in the fight.  Either way
he sells equipment.   He keeps a close watch on the pulse of the market and
he stated that, yes MF sales are down and it is a good time to buy both new
and used equipment, and yes their are a significant number of professional
photographers going digital.  But the he also said that film production
(sales) reported by the major film manufactures (and his professional film
sales)  remain very strong.  His take is that MF sales are down, but so is
all the high end  professional equipment and he believe it is more
reflective of the economy than the switch to digital.

...


From: Struan Gray [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
Date: 21 Mar 2002


John Halliwell, [email protected] writes:
>  Q.G. de Bakker [email protected] writes
>>
>> One huge worry for all MF manufacturers is that once people
>> have decided to buy, say, a Mamiya RZ, they are likely to
>> buy one used. They have won the battle over their competitors,
>> the other MF manufacturers, but still do not
>> generate sales. And how do you tackle that?
>
> The solution most adopt in the UK is to give away free items
> with new kits, usually film backs. This effectively devalues
> the used market because for the price of a good used camera
> and an extra good used back, you can generally get a new
> camera and an extra new back.


    One ray of light: the existence of a healthy and liquid used
market, and the relatively high resale value of the good brands, means
that buying MF gear, new or used, is an investment you can get back at
short notice.  For semi-pros and advanced amatuers who may be
stretching themselves to get into a system that is worth quite a bit.
Compared to borrowing several thousand for, say, a darkroom, borrowing
several thousand to buy a camera is a fairly safe bet.

    Also, if you are setting up a 'proper' business with a storefront
the cost of the camera is small compared to the cost of the rent,
heating, consumables, travel and receptionist's salary.  That gives
you an incentive to just buy new for peace of mind.

>> Though there are quite hefty markups, producing MF is
>> expensive. For instance, there is no volume in this
>> market, so it takes a while to recoup investment in R&D.

  My suspicion is that the major cost is tooling, not R+D.  That's
why the chassis of the 500 cameras has changed very little, and that's
why Mamimya doesn't make TLRs any more.

    Hasselblad's factory move has been mentioned here as a risky move.
The old factory was a piece of prime real estate slap bang opposite
the Opera House on the waterfront in central G�teborg.  The new one is
a typical shoe box on the outskirts of town.  Property here in Sweden
is not booming like, say, London, but I'd be surprised if they hadn't
done quite nicely out of the sale of the old home.

    MF will survive.  In fact, I see commercial photographers buying
digibacks for the MF cameras and throwing away the LF gear.  The
current investment in D100s, D60s and the like probably is drawing
money away from MF sales, but things will swing back again when more
affordable MF backs are available, and the systems become more mobile.
I think the current "35mm" digicraze is because products in that
market have recently slid under a psychological price/performance
barrier.  Another couple of generations of imager, and the same will
happen in the MF world.  And that's ignoring the new technologies like
polymer-based optoelectonics which makes large sensors much more
practicable, and MEMS-based mini generators which solve the perennial
battery logistics problem.

    If I had to bet, I would say that the digital photographic market
will segment into a fast-handling segment akin to today's 35 mm, and a
high-quality segment which is a combination of today's MF and LF.  The
MF companies are much better placed to grab the latter than the 35mm
or LF ones.

    I still lust after a 205 and a set of fast lenses (though I wish
there were a 60/2 for travel snaps), and that lust won't go away if
the image is recorded on silicon instead of silver.

Struan



Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: sales? timing? Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here

Q: how many (med fmt) cameras sold per year by hasselblad? rollei?

A: not enough ;-) It is hard to know exactly, since I haven't seen such
figures published in some time; in the 1980s hasselblad was making circa
1,500 of their main (500c/cm) cameras per month. that was at the historic
peak for camera production (e.g. Canon AE-1 was 70,000 units per month,
Nikon EM 30,000 units/month). Presumably quite a bit less nowadays.


A lot of Hasselblad's R&D $$ went into cameras I can't see as having
broken even, such as the hassy arcbody and flexbody cameras; problems with
the original 2000 series were costly (shutters..). The very pricey top of
the line 20x cameras had a lot of markup margins (hence $2k drop in price
in USA last year), but the claim was that it is only now after 10 years
blah blah that they had recovered their R&D costs so could drop the price
accordingly. I think this claim is complete BS ;-) and that the real
problem is they weren't selling in major USA market (cheaper overseas) and
wanted to push the camera as a digital option and to compete against the
new rollei AF cameras in the wings plus have an affordable electronic
options cameras for upgraders from 35mm market etc.

as for rollei, at least in the USA market sales were even far less than
hasselblad, thanks in part to ads saying "most expensive medium format SLR
ever" etc.  There also aren't many rentals for rollei SLR med fmt stuff ;-(

you can also see some historic lens sales data at medfmt faq, see
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/mffaq.html

There were circa 210,000 80mm C normal lenses made, roughly 1/2 of all the
C lenses sold, from which you might infer as I have that only an average
of a few lenses per hasselblad body sold etc. You might also infer only
200,000 or so SLR bodies (500c/cm/el/elm) sold over a 20+ year period plus
superwides. There are about 25,000 superwides (pre 903 models) out there
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/hassy.html#lenssold so longterm average
is probably 1,000 cameras/month or so as a ballpark figure plus 100+ swc/month?

the total world sales of all the japanese med fmt and large format cameras
is around 50,000 units/year (or was in 2001). Maybe 5-10,000 LF
units worldwide? The 40-45,000 MF units sold would include #1 Mamiya
and all the fuji, pentax and bronica and so on (plus stuff (xpan) made for
HB/rollei). This year we have a reported 50% drop in med fmt market in
USA, so I'd be surprised if the total prod'n of new med fmt stuff by all
brands is much over 50,000 units (excluding Kiev, which may be from stock
parts/bodies and chinese (few exported)), esp. with 35%+ drop in japan
since 1999 sales in med fmt and LF.


a posting at http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/economics.html says
in mid-2001 Hasselblad claimed a 20% share of worldwide med fmt market;
so again that looks like 10,000+ cameras range based on japan stats etc.
and maybe 60K med fmt including hassy/rollei and japan (not Kiev/china)

more critical in long term health issue is deep pockets; Fuji has them,
pentax & bronica also, but AFAIK neither rollei (new mgmt buyout?) nor VHB
(bankers) have the kind of deep pockets it may take to survive a serious
recession, if one happens in all three major markets (USA/Japan/EU) for long?

take circa 1,000+ unit sales worldwide in medfmt per week, and split it up
amongst Hasselblad (20%), Rollei, Mamiya, Pentax, Fuji, Bronica etc. Now
split that further for all the different products (SLRs, TLRs, RF,
view..). A lot of those models must be marginal today with sales off 35%
and 50% in major markets of japan and USA, right? They were only making
10% corp profits at the industry peaks, so presumably are unprofitable
today? How long can that go on? When and why will it reverse?


And as Q.G. de Bakker has noted, both rollei (the 6008 AF models just
introduced)  and Hasselblad (new factory) have or are making major
financial bets at what looks like a really bad time in economies. Rollei
may soon face some competitors in AF who are waiting for recovery and to
develop better products at lower costs during the recovery, while Rollei
is trying to sell a new AF system in the face of a major market turndown.
EEEeeek!

so it is a good time to buy in USA markets (e.g., USA for 203FE etc. now
at $2,300 less than a year or so ago, free kilobuck PME45 prisms instead
of a cheapy back etc.) as mfgers try to generate cashflow; but I still
expect an industry shakeout if major markets in USA and Japan remain down
for much longer, or if Europe falls into the same pattern.

bobm



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 


kauai82 wrote:
> [...] There seems no reason for me to buy a new camera when sooner
> or later I will be able to pick one up on ebay for less than a new one. This
> is the problem that MF camera manufacturers are facing at least with getting
> new entry level buyers to buy there product. They either have to give the
> farm away in rebates and extra lenses which kills there profit margins or
> they have to settle for selling less product but target the pro market were
> they have more markup. If the pros go digital the MF manufacturers are in
> for some rough times. I don't think people and camera manufacturers have
> realized how ebay has changed the buying habits of entry level photographers
> such as myself. I do not have a good answer on how MF camera manufacturers
> will be able to combat this problem. Sorry for the long post. Matt

Indeed.

One huge worry for all MF manufacturers is that once people have decided to
buy, say, a Mamiya RZ, they are likely to buy one used. They have won the
battle over their competitors, the other MF manufacturers, but still do not
generate sales. And how do you tackle that?

Hasselblad once tried to clean up the used equipment market by offering
rebates when exchanging an old Hasselblad camera for a new one, trying to
prevent these old ones appearing in the used market again, taking away from
Hasselblad's sales, and offering them as factory refurbished, reboxed "entry
level" cameras to people that were looking to buy used, including a little
markup for buying a piece of used equipment that has an official certificate
of good health.

Of course the rebate was far too low (you would get a better price when
selling the camera used) and the price of the refurbished camera to high,
higher than what a good used camera with some 20 years left in it would
cost. So it didn't work. But could it have worked? I doubt it. There would
be no gain for Hasselblad if they gave rebates and set prices such that this
scheme would be more attractive than buying used. And then what would be the
point?

One thing they could do, of course, is start relaxing quality standards,
making sure their products don't last. Now that will go down well in a
market already under pressure...

Lowering prices then? It seems the obvious thing to do, but i think it too
is not really an option. Alas... :-(
Though there are quite hefty markups, producing MF is expensive. For
instance, there is no volume in this market, so it takes a while to recoup
investment in R&D. Much longer than it does in the high volume 35 mm market.
Less volume obviously also means they need to have bigger markups to even
break even, let alone generate profits, even if production costs were as low
as in higher volume markets. And MF sales volumes are dropping...


From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 

 Q.G. de Bakker [email protected] writes
>Indeed.
>One huge worry for all MF manufacturers is that once people have decided to
>buy, say, a Mamiya RZ, they are likely to buy one used. They have won the
>battle over their competitors, the other MF manufacturers, but still do not
>generate sales. And how do you tackle that?

The solution most adopt in the UK is to give away free items with new
kits, usually film backs. This effectively devalues the used market
because for the price of a good used camera and an extra good used back,
you can generally get a new camera and an extra new back. So the
manufacturer gets a new sale at the cost of a film back (but hopes to
keep the photographer glued to their system). You could argue, they lose
a possible sale of a film back, but the actual cost of the back is
probably much lower than it's selling price.

{snip}


>One thing they could do, of course, is start relaxing quality standards,
>making sure their products don't last. Now that will go down well in a
>market already under pressure...

Or you could offer increasingly feature stripped down cameras, that are
still compatible with the rest of the system. Rollei offer a cheaper
range of 'own brand' lenses for example.

>Lowering prices then? It seems the obvious thing to do, but i think it too
>is not really an option. Alas... :-(
>Though there are quite hefty markups, producing MF is expensive. For
>instance, there is no volume in this market, so it takes a while to recoup
>investment in R&D. Much longer than it does in the high volume 35 mm market.
>Less volume obviously also means they need to have bigger markups to even
>break even, let alone generate profits, even if production costs were as low
>as in higher volume markets. And MF sales volumes are dropping...


MF camera lines tend to hang around longer than those in 35mm, partly
because they don't need to compete as much with constantly changing
specifications, partly because of the reduced volume.

Of course you can try to reduce the production cost of the camera
without affecting the quality. This can be done in a number of ways,
sometimes actually improving the product, but may still lose out in the
popularity stakes as many people associate reduced costs with inferior
products.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk


From: John Halliwell [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: sales? timing? Re: Boy, there seems to be a Hasselblad boon here
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002

Gordon Moat [email protected] writes
>Any idea about the sales of the new Contax 645? Has autofocus made a difference,
>and have they taken sales from others? I have seen a few magazines talk about
>the
>Contax 645 as a frequent choice of 35 mm shooters moving to medium format.

I've no hard figures, but a few impressions:

AF has certainly persuaded some 35mm shooters into MF, Pentax have
basically given up on high end 35mm and are pushing the 645n(ii) like
mad. Andy Rouse is reported to have switched to a 645nii for wildlife
shots up to 500mm (from Canon 35mm).


Also the huge number of cheap plastic cameras full of useless features
is driving some 35mm shooters into MF for better built and less
complicated shooting.

As for the Contax 645, in the UK it costs a fortune (about $4,500 US
from a quick look at ads), compared to the P645nii (about $2,550 US) and
Mamiya 645AFD (about $3,600 US). There aren't that many 35mm shooters
who can afford costs like this, especially given most would want an
extra lens or two.

Working off a camera + 75/80 + 45 + 150 setup I get,
including VAT @17.5% (equivalent to sales tax):

P645nii + 45 + 150 = 2,820 UKP = $4,225 US
M645AFD + 45 + 150 = 3,700 UKP = $5,540 US
C 645AF + 45 + 140 = 6,397 UKP = $9,600 US

Prices from an arbitrary 'pro' dealer.


Obviously pros have that sort of spending power, but I'm not sure
they're going for AF 645 in a big way, many are sinking $$$ into 35mm
based digital kit (not just press/sports but weddings and portraits as
well).

When I bought my Mamiya 645 SV kit, I really felt the need for more
lenses and bought a used 45mm and used 150mm within a month. I guess
many 35mm shooters moving up would feel the need for a similar set of
lenses depending on their work.
--
John
Preston, Lancs, UK.
Photos at http://www.photopia.demon.co.uk




From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Tell me about these Hasselblad "V"s
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 


Dr. Peter Ochmann [email protected] wrote...
> (...)
> And hurry up to get more lenses. Maybe Rollei, without the financial
> help of Samsung, will have some problems with the big "AF-Burger".

???
>From the annals of history (apparently...)
http://www.rollei.de/en/news/archive.html#dezember

"The traditional German company Rollei is independent again

Just before its 80th anniversary, a change in the ownership was effected at
the traditional manufacturer of camera equipment.
A group of employees in leading positions took over the shares of the former
shareholder Samsung after corresponding negotiations:
J�rgen Fahlbusch (Sales RolleiMetric)
Hans Hartje (Sales)
Hansj�rgen Hartung (Development)
KlausDieter Koss (Sales)
KarlHeinz Krings (Production)
Roland Kr�ger (Development)

After this Management Buy Out (MBO), Rollei is an independent Braunschweig
based camera manufacturer again. Until the new managing directors are
officially enrolled, Mr. Paul Dume and Mr. Youngmin Lee will run the
business. "

There still *are* Samsung/Rollei connections, but in a different arena.

Cheers!
Michael



From: [email protected] (Wilt W)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 24 Apr 2001 
Subject: Re: Pro Wedding Photographers?

[email protected] writes:
Hasselblads are good because they hold their value and if you buy used, you
maybe able to sell it for close to what you paid for it.

The above statement USED TO BE true, but is an urban legend now.  I have proven
on several occasions over the past few years, using 1992 Shutterbugad prices
vs. new copy of Shutterbug ad prices, that a Hassy outfit does *not hold value
as well as Bronica* given a purchase of a body+back+lens+prism combo and
accessories.

--Wilt


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2002 
From: David Young [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Digital forecasts - was Foveon X3

 you wrote:
>Yes, i too saw the X3 chip story in Newsweek.


Well, guys & gals, I didn't see that article. But one I did see, (CE-BIZ, a
Canadian trade journal that arrived in yesterday's post) had some
interesting stats on digital camera sales in Canada.  Sales patterns should
be similar in the USA & Europe. Not sure about elsewhere.)  You might find
it interesting.

Multiple use cameras:
- ---------------------

Digital cameras represented more than 26% of camera sales in 2001. That's
up from 13% in 2000.  The industry anticipates an additional 40~50% growth
this year - with digital passing film cameras in 2003.

Yet SLR cameras registered a 6% increase in sales in 2001.  And the high
end P&S market is also showing growth of around 5%.

It appears that the lower to mid priced P&S market is being cannibalized by
lower priced digitals, while the quality conscious are still going for
SLR's and the pro's for top-line digital and film.

Single use cameras:
- -------------------
These jumped 26% and now account for 74% of ALL cameras sold!  (Why does
this not surprise me?

The death of film?
- ------------------

I think not! Film held steady, despite the drop in travel after 9/11.  Film
sales are forecast to be up 2% this year.  APS is forecast to rise 5%,
meaning a slight loss for 35mm. Still, they sell 11 rolls of 35mm for every
roll of APS.
- ----------

David Young      




Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] new $2k rebates ?!

I was surprised when Hasselbladusa cut the price last year on the 203fe so
dramatically.  But now I see they are offering a $2k rebate when a
203fe+back+60-120 lens are purchased!

Is Hasselblad hurting so badly that they are desparately trying to get things
moving with deep price cuts?  (Their recent financial info didn't look
rosey.)

Are they instead simply unloading overstock in an unpopular item?  (It seems
that there have been numerous postings in the past that were less than
enthusiastic about the 60-120 zoom.)

Are they clearing the shelves in preparation for an introduction of a major
new equipment line?

I know that we can only speculate, but I would be interested in hearing the
opinions of our members as to the reasons behind these deep price
cuts/promotionals.

Art




Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 
From: Mehrdad Sadat [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] new $2k rebates ?!

if you compare the us prices with hk, you will see how huge of a markup hass
usa is adding to each camera and lens. with the slow economy and the digital
around the corner, i think they are getting aggressive trying get new
customers. if it were good times, they would have kept the prices high
regardless of the camera achieving profitability. besides i don't think they
keep their GL be camera type!! it is just hard times. if you compare
Canadian prices, you will see the same figures as usa but a 40% discount
because of the c dollar

Regards, Mehrdad




Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] CARL ZEISS

Carl Zeiss has made a record year (2000/2001, - ending 30 of September)
with a turnover of 2056 million Euros, 3% up from previous period.  The
cash flow also record high, at 219 Euros, up 7%. Profit after taxes
(stiff in Germany compared to US) up to 110 million Euros, up from 53
million Euros.  'Vorstandssprecher' (president of the board of
directors) Dr. Dieter Kurz pointed to a bright long term future, with,
among others, establishment of a new subsidiary; Carl Zeiss
Semiconductor Manufactoring (SMT AG), but predicts a slower growth for
the next annual period, due to the 'political unrest' prevailing in
World economics.  - As presented at the excellent Carl Zeiss web page,
brutally shortened and translated by myself.

Tom of Oslo


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
To: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected], [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)


"I know what you mean about Hasselblads being slow, the market is flooded
with them.  I am on most of the professional photographers list-servs, and
the consensus is that within another six months most pros will have dumped
them and bought the new digital cameras.  You can make a lot more money for
a fraction of the work.  It is doubtful that any professional will be doing
medium format film several years from now.  Even if you use RVP film in your
hassleblad you cannot get the quality of the new digital, and whatever you
get with a drum scan from film is going to be three times the file size with
less image information than a born-digital file.  Most people can't afford a
lot of drum scans, and the 4000 dpi slide scanners for the medium format
film cannot compare with a born digital file."


The cases are full at local dealers. Sales seem to have slowed to a crawl...

One local camera store guy said it's been 9 months since he sold a Blad lens
or body and 2 YEARS since he sold a Mamiya or Bronica. and that Large Format
sales are even worse...

Are things this bad everywhere?

Mark


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Roger [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)

No, things are not this bad everywhere. I recently went to Calumet in
Bensonville and saw only 1 used Hasselblad for sale, a 903swc. I also went to
Helix in Chicago and saw the usual amount of used equipment for sale from all
brands, but nothing stands out in my mind about Hasselblad being higher or
lower in quantity of available equipment. Central Camera, downtown in Chicago,
usually has higher prices and they have a fair amount of used equipment on
their shelves. Doesn't look to me like anything has changed there (including
their higher prices) for the last 6 years or so.

The reality, as I see it, is that folks are watching where they spend money due
to 9/11 and the economy which started to dive in 2000 due to the dot.coms going
belly up. 9/11 further made investors jittery.

Digital has very little to do with slow sales. In fact, in the current issue of
Digital Photo, they reported that film sales had actually gone reverse of where
all the rumors were predicting they'd go. Film sales for 2001 were higher than
2000.


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)


Was just up in Seattle at Glazers. Their cases are loaded with Blad and
other gear according to the sales staff. they no longer accept Blads for
consignment or buy them. Same store with LF.

Mark


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 
From: Feliciano di Giorgio [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)

george day wrote:
>
> I would imagine, too, that 6x4.5 sales have really taken a bit out of
> the 6x6 market.  A lot of fashion, etc. types who used Hassys and
> Rollei's seem now to have Mamiyas and Contax.
>

I think this could have something to do with it. Recently there has been
a lot of good new 6x4.5 gear introduced that is a good deal cheaper than
the equivalent Hasselblad equipment. Hasselblad USA is also running a
student promo, where they are pushing a 501/6x4.5 setup.

feli
--


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] the death of Hasselblad (all MF)

[email protected] writes:


> Was just up in Seattle at Glazers. Their cases are loaded with Blad and
> other gear according to the sales staff. they no longer accept Blads for
> consignment or buy them. Same store with LF.
> Mark
>

We tried selling Glazers a Mamiya RB about 6 years ago and they would not
touch it then. Even the Nikon used gear was low except for some really big
optics.

Peter




Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Frank Filippone [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [HUG] news from our Hassy rep

Realistically, labor and material costs rise.  They rise more when the
volume used is lower.  However, you need to ask yourself if the wholesale
prices to Hasselblad USA have risen in the SAME NUMBER OF DOLLARS, or as 3%
of the price.  Ditto the worldwide prices to distributors.

The real problem is the protected status of the Hasselblad USA distribution
chain.  If we were in a different country, prices would already be less.
This is a silly argument whereby the foreign ( peculiarly usually Europeon
or Japanese) company set up a 100 % owned US Subsidiary, that then decide to
make their own 30% profit... and your end prices rise by 50%, just for this
extra distribution level.  In other coountries, with cheaper consumer prices
for the same goods, they have the same scosts of inventory and warranty that
are used as excuses for raising the US prices.  Rubbish.  Purley more profit
to the home country, at the expense of increaased sales volume because of
lower prices, more competitive solutions, and less direct costs.

If and when some of these companies get smart and run a worldwide pricing
program, they will win.  This includes all this nonsense about discouraging
grey market.....   One of the biggest grey market vendors is B+H.  It is
also one of the largest USA licensed distributors.  The companies like Leica
and Hasselblad and Nikon, and, and, and are unable to control this
customer... because they are so reliant on the official sales.

Frank Filippone
[email protected]



From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: USA med fmt market down 50% in 2001, VHB seeks buyer etc.
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 


Does anyone believe eBay might be playing a role in this 50% slide?  I don't keep
accurate records but it seems to me more and more MF cameras are hitting eBay
each year.  Most of the sellers' testimonials read like this: "just bought a
digital camera and am unloading my entire camera collection", most likely cameras
they haven't used in years but nonetheless they're hitting eBay and some of them
are extrordinary cameras I figured I'd never have a chance to own.  Once you buy
one of these classics you got to take a few months to run a few rolls through it
and see how it performs.  This could certainly delay purchases of new equipment.

Also do these #s include entry level sales like Seagulls and Kievs?

...



From: "ajacobs2" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cameraworld sold to Ritz
Date: Thu, 02 May 2002

They also bought..............
Ritz Interactive acquires e-commerce competitor Photo Alley.com
Ritz Interactive Inc the e-commerce network that includes photo-specialty
online shopping sites Ritz Camera and Wolf Camera, acquired e-tail
competitor Photo Alley. "We look forward to maintaining the strong community
aspect that has made Photo Alley. such a popular destination, while
considerably increasing the product selection and e-commerce functionality,"
said Fred H. Lerner, president and CEO of Ritz Interactive. According to
Lerner, the Photo Alley branding and URL will remain the same in order to
leverage the website's established brand and existing customer base. This is
the second major acquisition for Ritz Interactive within the last year.

--
Al Jacobson
Website:    www.aljacobs.com
Teaching site: http://web.tampabay.rr.com/ajacobs2

"Bill Jameson" [email protected] wrote 
> http://portland.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2002/04/29/story3.html
>
> Learned about this on photo.net's non archived forum.
>
> going to "Cameraworld.com" redirects the address to a Ritzcamera.com
> address.



Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 
From: tims8256 [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [medium-format] Re: Monaghan Site

--- In medium-format@y..., Robert Monaghan rmonagha@p... wrote:
>esp. if you factor in nikon etc. Still, sales of SLRs for film are
>up,now in 750,000-ish range IIRC. The collapse is in medium format,
>which is not what I would expect, but it is the upgrade path that
>seems to be  vulnerable?

Bob, my error. The numbers I read were 15,000 a month, not 5000.

>there are an estimated 100,000 pros (Wolfman report) in USA, so my
>bet is that any pro who really wants a 35mm lens compatible digiSLR
>has probably  got one by now?

Now that's a number a lot higher than I thought also. Last numbers I
heard from PPA were around 10,000 part time and full time Pro
photographers. I know a lot of conversation on some of the Pro
mailing lists are about whether or not to go digital, so there are a
lot of them, probably the majority who haven't yet. There is a lot
of resistance especially with the older generation (no offense to
anyone)

 We are Borg of Digital. Resistance is futile.. You will be assimilated :)

>digicams (e.g., 12 months old ;-), so I'm content to let others pay
>the hefty depreciation premiums for now...

Thats definitely the whole thing. Once it pays off for you to go
digital, then it makes sense. In my case, it did.

Best,
Tim


From: Tom Phillips [email protected]
Newsgroups:
rec.photo.darkroom,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)
Date: Sun, 19 May 2002


"William E. Graham" wrote:

> The decision to discontinue one film and come out with
> another is the result of sales....It is a marketing
> decision. The sales are affected by the rising digital
> market, as well as other factors. So, I have to disagree
> with you. The digital business is definitely a major factor
> in their decision to add/change new films to their product
> line. - Also, Kodak is not the only film maker and/or
> digital maker in the business, by a long shot.

Actually Kodak accounts for 21% of the digital market, and that's likely
the single largest corporate share.

Disagree all you want. But unless you provide facts what you say is
meaningless. I have researched the marketing trends. Competition in the
*film* market is the major factor. And if that weren't true, Fuji (a
major digital player) wouldn't have wasted it's corporate resources
introducing new films like Neopan. Kodak has suffered from an economic
slowdown, and like many companies that over expanded is now cutting back
and that means discontinuing products that are not as profitable. It's
called a recession, and is not due to digital camera inroads in the film
market. Digital technology has affected (radically altered, in fact)
publishing that was traditionally photomechanically based. But not film
sales. In fact, silver consumption in traditional photographic markets
has actually grown in the face of digital competition and is projected
to continue steady growth rates (source: the Silver Institute.)

The film market may be changing, but here's a clue: there's about
5,000,000 digital cameras out there. But there are 250,000,000 35mm
cameras (US), not to mention one time use cameras are actually growing
at 15 to 20 % per year. That doesn't have much relation to me as a pro
photographer given I shoot 4x5, but I'm still shooting the same films
I've shot for over 25 years and Kodak has no plans to discontinue those
films. In fact, I've been hearing about the demise of Ektachrome 64 for
about 20 years, and it's still here. Sure, I miss some films like Pan-X,
but Kodak made the decision to replace those with T-grain films long
before digital, yet no doubt if that were happening today you'd probably
say "oh it's digital."

The whiners can go digital if they want; I'll keep shooting my favorite
films :-)
....



Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Any rumors about new black & white films?   (Other than Kodak's)


There is a bit of evidence in the SEC reports of why this direction was
chosen. The anticipation was that many digital camera owners would need to
print their images. Kodak would then gather revenue in the form of supplies
for digital imaging kiosks at malls and one hour photo shops. They tried
something similar a few years ago, with the instant enlargements kiosks
(actually PowerMac computers with dedicated software), then later again with
PictureCD (a cheap imitation of PhotoCD).

The idea seems to be to put enough digital cameras on the market, then wait
for the droves of people to come to you wanting prints. Unfortunately, the
best data so far (PMAI) indicates that barely 11% of digital camera users
print their images.

So in the end, it ends up the same as film: if there is money to be made from
it, then it will continue to be sold. I think that the AGFA approach, of
concentrating on the printing industry, while still researching new films,
may be a smarter route, despite some rumours they are up for sale.

Digital is the new Polaroid.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html


Robert Monaghan wrote:

> where does Kodak expect to make money then?  If they are losing $$ on
> every digital camera sold, and they lose $$ on the film and papers they
> would have sold to film camera users, where is the logic in losing
> millions year after year in a money losing market segment?
>
> the R&D $$ that might have gone into better, faster films has gone into
> supporting digital development - at a financial loss in Kodak's case, yes?
>
> maybe this is why their stock price has dropped? ;-)
>
> grins bobm


From: "eMeL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: medium format sucks V2 (Fuji point and shoots)
Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002

"georgio" [email protected] wrote...
> the price simply isn't justified.. the probably make a BUndle of profits
> on these.. to be more realistic , it should be priced around $200 to $400..Max!!

Economy of scale... R&D and production costs are spread out among millions of
copies of a popular 35 mm AF "wonder" comparing to *maybe* a 20-30 thousand
(often *much* less than that...) of an average roll film precision
camera...Economy 101, my friend...

Michael



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002 
From: John Hicks [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: Camera stores...

you wrote:
>OK, lets run the numbers. Well assume for the moment that Leca, Rollei,
>Hassleblad and Contax will give you dealerships, and the buy in price wont
>be too much. Now you want to stock everything. At the volumes that you will
>likely be buying in, your dealer cost is going to be about the same as B&Hs
>online full retail price (for real).


  Absolutely correct. Back when I had a shop and looked at becoming a Leica
dealer I learned that the price everyone was selling an M6 for was exactly
$50 more than net (any quantity). At the time, this represented about a 2%
markup; the interest rate on a simple savings acccount was quite a bit
higher. Would it have been worthwhile?

  I did become a Rollei dealer but it was an awfully hard sell; selling
Mamiyas was lots easier even though a an RZ assembled with most 6008
features sold for 1/3 more. It still wasn't a huge markup.

  Assorted Japanese brands could be bought across-the-counter local retail
for my three-or-more net. The local discount shops were of course
essentially passing along cameras for net in order to sell the high-markup
accessories and keep their minilabs fed.

  Digital? I sold some digital but not much. This was back before "consumer
digital" and the gear was very expensive and couldn't be found just
anywhere. Looking at the current market, what do you suppose the markup is
on a digital camera and what happens with a product life cycle measured in
months? The way to stay in business with digital is certainly in supplies,
not hardware.

>How much do you need to take home every week in pay to cover living
>expenses? Do you want a health plan? How about 401K, a dental plan, a phone
>line, internet access, an alarm system, business insurance, electricity?

  Ahh, the nitty-gritty. What take-home pay? What health plan, 401k or
dental plan? All that went towards trying to cover overhead.

>Im afraid the days of the small shop are nearing the end
essentially passing along cameras for net in order to sell the high-markup

  They're already past. You might say that the small shop sells service but
unfortunately not enough people will buy service.

John Hicks
[email protected]


From: "John Emmons" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Del's Camera in Santa Barbara
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2002


I wouldn't worry too much. The biggest store in Los Angeles, Samy's Cameras,
just opened a new store in Pasadena which is setting records for sales.
Their store in Santa Barbara is doing well, the one in Venice is soon to be
remodeled and greatly enlarged and they moved their main store to an even
bigger 3 story building in West Hollywood. As for the other big L.A. stores,
Calumet recently moved to an even bigger building. Even little Lee Mac
Camera Exchange in Pasadena has moved to a bigger building down the street
from their old location.

All in all, we have it pretty good here in Los Angeles.

Oh and Samy's has also opened their own custom lab and is planning another
one to supplement their Pasadena store or so I've been told.

John Emmons

"Brian Ellis" [email protected] wrote...
> Too bad, I bought a few things from Del's and thought the staff was very
> nice, very knowledgeable and the equipment was as described though  the
> prices were on the high side.  I wonder who's going to buy the assets of the
> big LA stores when they too go bankrupt? In the retail camera store business
> these days, it seems like it's a question of who's going to be left
> standing, if anyone, after mail order/internet/Ritz/Wolf's have taken over
> completely.



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Del's Camera in Santa Barbara
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002


BTW, I used to work for "Discount Photo" in Santa Barbara in the very early
70's when it was the FIRST small camera store to challenge the two
established stores in that town.  Up until them, these stores had a lock on
the Brooks Institute students with prices that were still pretty fat.  If
you wanted cheaper, you had to drive to LA.

Discount Photo started out of a house and was run by a former student.  He
was able to sell the film, tripods and Sekonic meters plus all the
chemicals, trays etc, for a LOT less.  Later he got the 4x5 cameras and
lenses.

One of early customers was a young man named Del Hegland, who was always
going around buying a used Nikon, trading it for something else, selling
parts of that, etc.

Later he opened a camera store, Del's.

I don't know how much of the past 30 years actually saw Del as the real
owner of the store, but it was the classic startup.

Another customer was a former student who got the idea of starting up photo
studios where you could dress up in old fashioned clothes.  Professor
Bloogdood's Photo Emporiums were popular for a while.

John


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 
From: Roger Wiser [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Loss of Photographic Stores

In Milwaukee Wisconsin an old and large store, Reimers Photographic
Material Co.,  just went out of business. They were in business for 123
years and said to be one of the oldest photo stores in the nation even
predating Kodak. It's main source of customers were the professionals
and photo labs. They also had a substantial retail operation, including
used / consignment camera sales. The reason attributed to their demise
was digital photography.

At the same time the another large Milwaukee photo store operation,
Helix, is moving to a less expensive location,  into smaller quarters
and substantially cutting their staff. Again the reason cited, was
digital photography.
gital photography.

Both of these operations catered primarily to the professional segment
of the market. and the demise and reduction  will have significant
impact in the area for those still interested in traditional
photography. In addition nearby Madison has lost a similar type of
store, Photoart.

I suppose that this trend is spreading throughout the country  and but
seeing two old Milwaukee companies change  is somewhat depressing..

Roger.


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Loss of Photographic Stores

Roger Wiser at [email protected] wrote:
> I suppose that this trend is spreading throughout the country  and but
> seeing two old Milwaukee companies change  is somewhat depressing..

I don't want to sound unsympathetic, and I'll miss the old style camera
stores, but it is their own fault.  Photo stores missed the boat twice,
first when video replaced home movie cameras and the dealers didn't want to
learn to sell the new stuff or stock it, and gave away the business to
electronics dealers and mass merchants.  Now they're doing the same with
digital.  Rather than groaning about digital, those stores which have
embraced it and have trained their staff to understand it and sell it are
prospering.  On another list we were just talking about how some NYC shops
have incorporated digital so much that photographers now go there to buy
their computers and peripherals.  Why? Because they offer old fashioned
service and stand behind what they sell, and understand the special needs of
photographers, something computer dealers and electronics stores do not.

Bob


From: "David J. Littleboy" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Ansel Adams and Lens Quality
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 


"Homer" [email protected] wrote...
> Why do people like this Ron Todd post such unsubstantiated rumors?  This
> kind of crap belongs in the National Enquirer unless Todd can substantiate
> his claim of "free lenses".  And this guy's a CPA and MBA???????

In his autobiography, Adams writes:

"The Hasselblad has been my camera of choice for the past 20 years. I
thoroughly enjoy it's superlative optical and mechanical precision. I met
Dr. Victor Hasselblad in New York in 1950. On my return to San Francisco, I
found one of his first cameras awaiting me: the 1600F model, with the
request to try it out and send my comments to him in Sweden. I was to keep
the camera with his compliments."

Arrangements like this are common; famous rock guitarists get lots of free
guitars. Having Adams say nice things about Hasselblad makes perfect sense
from an advertising budget standpoint. I'm sure the total cost of the
cameras Hasselblad gave Adams over the years was tiny compared to their
advertising budget in any year in the latter half of that period.

> "Ron Todd" [email protected] wrote 
> > I thought he had a commercial arrangement with Mr. Hassleblad and got
> > the lenses for free.

Cameras too{g}.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


From: "Patrick L." [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Popularity of Photography
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 



Photographic equipment was about number 8 on the top ten Ebay list for
auctions.  See the Newsweek article.

Patrick L.

Thomas [email protected] wrote
> Just some observations... but,
>
> Has anyone noticed a rise in the popularity of photography over the
> last 3-4 years?  I don't mean those buying disposable cameras
> but mostly those buying and using 35mm SLR's and medium format
> cameras.  Also, camera collecting seems to have risen in popularity.
>
...


Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002
From: "Joseph S. Wisniewski" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: If people pay

....

Apparently, people don't "pay it". Leica camera sales were down 44% in
2001 from 2000. After Thomas's "Popularity of Photography" thread, I
took my own advice, and dove a bit deeper into the SEC filings for the
major players (instead of just looking at the IDC summary). Leica is
down more than anyone else I've seen so far. They're blaming their lack
of a digital offering, and trumpeting their JV with Panasonic, to calm
the investors.



From: "Mike" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002


The only experience I have with cost knowledge was with the Konica T3 in the mid 70's

The end of assembly line cost was $39.00, landed in LA was $125.00 (Berkey's
cost) and retail was close to $300.00 if memory serves me.  I seem to
remember that 1 up dealer net was some where around $200.00, don't quote me
on that.

Yes polson I do understand that the T3 is not in the same league as the
Leica so before you have a heart attack remember, its only an example of the
different costs.


"John Miller" [email protected] wrote...
> Mike wrote:
>
> > I wonder what the end of assembly line cost is on the newest Leica is, or
> > any other camera for that matter.
>
> Traditional production cost of manufactured items used to be about 20% of
> MSRP.  With today's flatter distribution chains, that fraction may well be
> higher, though.
>
> --
> John "way too long since those business courses" Miller


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002 
From: "Dr. Elliot Puritz" [email protected]
Subject: Re: APO terminology (undefined) etc. Re: [HUG] APO better?

Thanks Bob.

Just for some information, I went into a very well known Hasselblad dealer
in NYC a few days ago.  We began to talk cameras, and the sales person
mentioned how very soft the used Hasselblad market is.  He said that he
cannot "give away" a 250mm Super.  Have any of you found a similar response
from your dealers?  Have you noted a softening on Ebay?

Elliot



Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced. 

Another factor may be that fewer young photographers (and beginning photographers)
are choosing Leica cameras. The lower cost rangefinders on the market may change
that in the future, but it seems too early to tell the impact.

Most digital sales are in lower cost consumer cameras, mostly under the cost of a
new Leica M with one lens. Marketing people like to claim that digital eats at
film sales, but the patterns and data of the last few years (from sources such as
PMAI and others) do not directly correlate increased digital sales to decreased
film sales.

Leica stock reports comments seem to indicate that they hope the new venture with
Panasonic will improve profits. One of those new ventures is the Leica digital.

I suppose that if it successful, it could be said that it would be eating away at M
film body sales. Leica also have high hopes for the new M7. The R series seem to
get barely a mention; really makes you wonder how much longer those will be made.

With an ageing population of Leica owners (and some collectors), Leica would do
well to generate some interest amongst younger camera owners. The other thing they
could do is to make more rental gear available. The lack of rental gear means
fewer professional, and academic users, relative to other brands.

I would hate to see them become jewellery. I also hope that they do not go out of
business, or that Hermes do not drastically change the nature of the cameras. Long  
live Leica.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html


[Ed. note: summarized from article (which may be dropped) at BJP site:
http://www.bjphoto.co.uk/cms/words/news_and_news_features/45.shtml July 3rd 2002 BJP

Canon believes unit sales of digital cameras may outstrip film camera sales next year

canon intends to increase production by 70% to meet this demand

"Canon, which claims to be the leading producer of higher-end digital cameras 
(2 megapixel resolution and above) in Europe with a market share of 18%, will produce 
4 million of the devices this financial year." 

users take up to 5 times as many images with digital cameras than with film
but only print a quarter of digital photos taken...

Canon claims 39% of 35mm SLR market and 14% of compact film camera market


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 
From: Tim Schooler [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Re:Hasselblad vs. Digital

you wrote:
>Perhaps; but they could always speed up again, too.  It's hard to say with
>certainty what the future holds.  While a general move to digital is almost
>guaranteed to be inevitable over the long term, I expect the pendulum to
>continue swinging for some time.  Digital imaging makes incredibly huge
>demands on hardware and software


This is precisely the reason I started shooting film again. I shoot mostly
HS Seniors (grads as they are called outside the US), and the time spent in front
of the computer while shooting digital was exceeding the time behind the camera.

Once labs start taking over more of the load of post processing that
digital images require, retouching, color balancing, cropping, etc, then
perhaps it will be efficient for most people. At this point in my opinion,
it isn't. A lot of people felt they had to jump on the digital band wagon
so they don't get left behind, and are soon shocked at how much time they
spend on the computer doing what their lab does for them with film. How do
you bill for that time? Is it fair to ask your clients to pay for it? After
all, what real benefit are they getting from the photographer moving to
digital? Very little, other than a time savings for certain types of work.

Interestingly, Miller's Professional Imaging says in their current
newsletter that film processing orders are down only 8% over last year.
That could easily be explained by a slight variance in the economy.
Miller's is the largest portrait and wedding lab in the world, so if there
had been a mass exodus to digital, I think the drop would have been in the
double digits. 

All of this having been said, there is no doubt in my mind
that the day of digital will come, and that it will eventually surpass the
capabilities of film in many respects, but I don't think it will happen in
the next couple of years. If and when it does, then as someone else said,
you still have the worlds greatest digital camera by just adding a digital
back to your Hasselblad. Not too many digital SLRs can lay claim to the
ability to use Zeiss optics.

Just my perspective.

        Best Regards,

        Tim Schooler
http://www.timschooler.com


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: end of the line? Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?


>Subject: end of the line? Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
>From: [email protected]  (Robert Monaghan)
>Date: 7/4/02 
>
>I'll vote for "end of the line" (hey, I'm a contrarian, ya know? ;-0)
>
>Seriously. Medium format sales are off 50% in major markets, they have
>collapsed 35%+ in Japan, and small companies like Hasselblad and
>Rolleiflex don't have the deep pockets to make it thru a long recession.
>It has never been this bad before, and digital makes it doubtful it is
>going to get better or recover, with fewer newbies coming into med fmt
>
>Even Leica is down circa 25% in sales (largely due to the lack of digital
>relabeled cameras to sell, their big money makers trading on their name..)
>(projected 44% for the quarter per some posters/analysts) in 3rd q. and
>the Vivendi collapse impacts Hermes subsidiary which impacts Leica as a
>major shareholder etc. Good thing we have Cosina to keep the M line going!
>
>A lot of the people who thought they were well off based on their stock
>portfolios have seen those collapse, esp. NASDAQ and $7 trillion in tech
>stocks - the wealth effect in reverse.
>
>I'm not sure that we will have enough sales of the high end autofocus
>rolleiflex and contax and hasselblad systems (next photokina?) to justify
>the major costs of new plant (such as hasselblad's) and AF designs with
>modest sales in the recession, and many existing owners switching to
>digital cameras with full features and integration...
>
>thoughts?
>
>bobm


What you say is true, and past experience tells us that this means a big
squeeze out, with many  companies going down the tubes and just a very few left
to share the remaining market. The big question is, who is going to stay and
who is going down the drain? Any ideas?

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer



From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 05 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: end of the line? Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?


>Subject: Re: end of the line? Re: Why has no one improved on the Blad?
>From: Marv Soloff [email protected]
>Date: 7/4/02 

>There was an unfounded and unattributed rumor about six months ago that
>Kyocera was taking a good look at Victor Hasselblad AB - but I have no
>further news.
>
>Regards,
>
>Marv

Keep in touch. (grin)

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From: [email protected] (Or)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Olympus to discontinue production of 35mm OM system SLR cameras
Date: 16 Jul 2002


Sad news:

"The OM System success story, which has spanned almost 30 years, is
approaching its end. Olympus is terminating sales of bodies for its 35
mm single lens reflex OM series models. However, OM System lenses and
accessories will continue to be manufactured and remain on sale until
March, 2003. For further information, please contact the local Olympus
subsidiaries and distributors."

http://cf.olympus-europa.com/consumer/photogra/news/news.cfm

IMHO, Olympus should have licensed Minolta's A-Mount back in the 80's,
but now it's too late :-(


From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Olympus to discontinue production of 35mm OM system SLR cameras
Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 


> "The OM System success story, which has spanned almost 30 years, is
> approaching its end. Olympus is terminating sales of bodies for its 35
> mm single lens reflex OM series models. However, OM System lenses and
> accessories will continue to be manufactured and remain on sale until
> March, 2003.

I first saw that announcement in January 2002.

Reason given was that Olympus was having increasing difficulty in procuring
metal parts from their contractors.  I suspect that declining sales
forecasts may have had a hand in it, too.

Sorry to see that system's demise.



From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: MF SLR Sales Are Alive and Well

According to the 2002 PMA (Photo Marketing Association) U.S. Consumer Photo
Buying Report (which I received yesterday), sales of Manual Focus SLRs
*increased* in 2001 over Autofocus SLRs. In 2001, 25.0% of buyers of 35mm
SLRs chose MF models, an increase of 2.1% over the preceding year, while
75.0%. Additionally, sales of 35mm SLRs rose to a 22.4% share of the 35mm
camera market, a whopping increase of 12.7% over the preceding year, while
the P&S share dropped to 77.6% of the sales market.

Looks like the shipment of the FM3A last year had a *big* impact on the market!
--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002
From: Rick Housh [email protected]
Subject: Re: MF SLR Sales Are Alive and Well

...

Does the article say what total 35mm sales were in relation to last
year?  I'm curious if they're holding their own in the face of digital
camera sales.  My hunch is that AF SLR users are switching to digital at a
faster rate than manual SLR users, and that digital is gaining on
both.  I'd look for myself, but the copy of the report on the Internet
seems to be password protected, and I'm not a PMA member.

- Rick Housh -


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: Re: MF SLR Sales Are Alive and Well

 Rick Housh wrote:

>Does the article say what total 35mm sales were in relation to last
>year?  I'm curious if they're holding their own in the face of digital
>camera sales.  My hunch is that AF SLR users are switching to digital at a
>faster rate than manual SLR users, and that digital is gaining on
>both.

I am a PMA member, so I've got the full (hard-copy) report in front of me.
Some of the tables are kind of hard to decipher, and some data isn't
directly comparable to others.

One table has the "Format Share of Still Cameras Purchased" on a unit basis
from 1993 through 2001. That table  shows 35mm (essentially, P&S types)
being the overall biggest seller for all years, though declining from 75.3%
of all sales in 1993 to 40.1% in 2001. Interestingly, this segment showed a
big loss to APS cameras in 1997 and 1998 (the first two years of APS
availability). APS has declined rapidly ever since.

Digital still cameras (of all types) started being counted in 1997 and
comprised 4.0% of sales. SLR sales (all types except APS) either declined
or held there own at about 6% or so of sales from 1993 on. They took a big
hit when APS came out, and declined after that. EXCEPT -- SLR sales DOUBLED
in 2001 from 5.0% of the market in 2000 to 11.6% in 2001. At the same time,
digital cameras (all types, not just P&S or SLRs) formed 36.2% of the
market in 2001, up from 30.4% in 2000.

I haven't yet been able to glean any comparisons between direct camera
types (SLR AF vs MF; SLR film vs digital) probably because first, the
report is really covering consumer sales, and second, until the Canon D30
(and now D60) and Nikon D100, there really weren't any digital SLRs in the
"affordable" range for consumers.

One interesting data though, shows that owners of digital cameras who also
own a "conventional" camera, actually increased their use of film cameras,
while actual use of digital cameras either stayed the same or declined
slightly.

Another chart shows that only 12% of digital cameras purchased were a
replacement for a film camera, while the biggest chunk (58%) was as an
additional camera (not a replacement for anything). And 30% of the
purchases either were as a first-ever camera (of any kind) or as a
replacement for another digital camera.

Most digital camera owners are some kind of technology geek, with 95%
owning a home computer, 84% owning a printer, 54% owning a scanner, and 77%
surfing the net. Of course, one can reverse that, and say, that without
most of the above, it's kinda hard to make any effective use of a digital
camera...

The almost-over-whelming percentage of digital camera owners are pretty
well-off with an annual household income of >$125,000. They're also
relatively young -- over 50% are under age 45. Hispanics and Whites have
the same ownership percentage each, while Blacks trail badly. But
distribution by market size (ie, what size city/area one lives in) is
pretty even across the board. The biggest percentage of users have
post-graduate degrees, with the next level being two-year college (AA
degree) graduates, and college graduates next.

--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]



From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: Re: MF SLR Sales Are Alive and Well

I wrote:
>I haven't yet been able to glean any comparisons between direct camera
>types (SLR AF vs MF; SLR film vs digital)

Let me clarify that a little, because the way I worded it is confusing. I
was trying to respond to Rick's thought about whether digital SLRs were
replacing film SLRs, and I was trying to say that the data is incomplete.
MF SLRs seem to be holding their own against AF SLRs -- except for 1997
when AF SLR share of sales jumped by almost 10% compared to the previous
year (did the introduction of the F5 in late 1996 have something to do with
it?). *In general* sales share per year 1993-2001 has remained relatively
stable at around 25% for MF and 75% for AF, with some fluctuation
year-to-year, but nothing drastic.

--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]



Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2002 
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: stats on Kiev Re: Cheap Kievs from Russia - risk assessment

Hassy stats:

The stats suggest that there were only circa 2 lenses sold per hassy body.
The implications are that most pros who shoot hasselblad have at least 2
bodies, or these figures for lenses per body would be much higher, yes?
Given 500c or EL/M bodies are only $300 or so, this isn't a big $$
investment in backups. Past threads note a similar situation for Leica M;
factoring out M sales yields barely enough $$ to buy a second M Leica
lens. So while owners are proclaiming how reliable their bodies are, the
sales suggest that most have two or more bodies. This makes sense, given
the high cost of lenses vs. a used spare body (and back/WLF w. hassy).

Another result from the hassy (C) lens sales figures is that over half the
lenses sold were the lowly 80mm normal lens. Again, the implications are
that the majority of hassy owners have only the one lens that came with
their kit, and only one body. Over 85% of the C lenses sold were the
standard trio (50/80/150), leaving very few sales of the rest of their
optics lineup. My point is that hassy owners are "lens poor" vs. Kiev,
yes? see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/lenssold.html for stats

So while hasselblads may be more reliable, ditto Leicas, this is less of
a factor for most serious amateur or pro owners, since it appears many
have more than one body (so a breakdown is not a disaster etc.). Frankly,
most of the pros I know have backups, whether 35mm or medium format.

Kiev Stats:

On the subject of Kiev reliability, we have two data points by major
importers of hundreds of camera bodies; Sam's 25% defectives figure for
Kiev88s he was involved with importing over a decade ago, and Mark
Kronquist's post 1993 figure "I imported hundreds of Kiev cameras for
years and had very good to excellent results. My DOA [Dead on Arrival]
rate was about 5-7%... ".

However, much of the problems with Kiev88 models was in the backs, and the
new NT series backs seem to have resolved most of those issues.  And
outside of a few wide angle lenses (45mm, 50mm) that seem a bit harder to
get good examples, most of the Kiev lenses seem to get high marks and few
problems per users.

I think these are pretty good odds, compared to all the negatives you see
reported, given the level of savings for a full kit. Even if you factor in
two bodies to have backups, the costs are still modest. Even if you had to
buy 4 bodies to get 3 good ones, per Sam's experience, that's hardly the
kind of bad odds you would expect from all the warnings and complaints ;-)

To put this into context, many of us on EBAY have had far worse problems
with camera bodies and lenses sold in supposedly "excellent" condition,
only to turn out to have many obvious or barely hidden defects, yes? ;-)

Moreover, it looks like the majority of folks who have hassy cameras can't
afford a full kit of lenses (per sales # and surveys cited at above URL,
only 2.1+ lenses/owner); while my impression is that many folks who opt
for the Kievs can and do get a pretty good kit of lenses.

So Art Kramer may be right; the optimal ownership pattern may be a
reliable hasselblad (with 80mm lens, 51% of their C lens sales), plus a
kiev (or two?) with a more full kit of optics at the price of adding a
single extra hasselblad lens. This is the pattern I adopted with Bronica
S2A (and nikkor/zenzanon optics) because an entire kit was less than
adding a used 150mm C lens ;-)

Finally, I suspect hasselblad is losing a significant number of accessory
sales to Kiev hassy compatible prisms - $75 NC-2 clones, metering prisms
($99 up) and the new spot meter prisms;  and now the new $99-149
hasselblad mount Kiev NT auto-12 backs and $200 hassy mount polaroid
backs. Quite a few Kiev30mm fisheyes have evidently been modified to fit
the hasselblad mount. Given that only a 1,000 30mm f/3.5 Distagon hassy C
lenses were sold (0.24% of C lens total) over some decades of sales, I
would bet that more Kiev fisheye lenses are being modified for Hasselblad
200/x series each year than sold by hassy/Zeiss, yes? ;-) Esp. at $350 for
a modified lens, as per one poster, less than sales tax on the hassy lens!
;-) So it appears that more and more hasselblad users are discovering the
Kiev option, thanks to growing hasselblad compatibility efforts by Kiev.
It may not be too long before Kiev puts out lenses in hasselblad 200/x
mounts for their own bodies - in which case a Kiev may really be the ideal
backups for the hasselblad, or vice versa? ;-)

grins bobm


From rollei user group
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 
From: Gene Johnson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article

I work for Olympus.  I've heard that the consumer camera market is
unbelievably tough. But for companies that market other products,
maintaining a high profile in the consumer camera market can be worthwhile
for the name recognition it brings.  I'm not speaking in an official
capacity here, but it seems reasonable that having a well known reputation
for quality consumer cameras helps in marketing a company's other less well
known products.

Gene


From leica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 
From: Colin [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Wall Street Camera Closed

I do mourn the loss of another fine establishment; I hope the trend
stops here.

But it was Hippocrates, in the first of his Aphorisms on the art of
healing, who said:

"Life is short, the art long; opportunity fleeting, experiment
treacherous, and judgment difficult."

I also just got back from three weeks in Greece, so I boned up on this
stuff. :)  For those of you who've been wondering where my PAWs were,
well, I'm still scanning.  Soon! :)

regards,
Colin
http://www.availabledark.com


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Velvia or Provia F?

D writes:

> Someone wrote bout the obsolecence of the
> storage media...That's what worries me...

The obsolescence of the storage media itself is not a _danger_; I wouldn't
worry about that (there are always ways to read obsolete media).  It is,
however, an added expense of digital--not for any intrinsic reason, but
because digital photography is linked to computers, and computers for
decades have been afflicted by an endless cycle of "upgrades" that shows
little sign of ending.

If you need reasons to worry about digital, you might try worrying about
these endless upgrades that manufacturers are trying to create instead, or
about the strong tendency to sacrifice image quality for convenience and
other considerations.  The latter might eventually be resolved, but I
seriously doubt that manufacturers wish or intend to resolve the former,
since it is such a cash cow.  Right now you can just change film as purposes
dictate, but with digital, you must change the entire camera body (at least
for 35mm).

Hasselblad has an advantage in that you can just add a digital back.  But
apparently even that is not as simple as it sounds, and Hasselblad and
others may be tempted to offer more complex solutions that require replacing
a lot more hardware each time the image sensor needs to be changed.  The
temptation to come up with excuses for forcing customers to "upgrade" is a
strong one, which made microcomputer companies greedy for decades, and I'm
not sure that camera companies can resist the temptation.

So my concern is that photographers will eventually be stuck in the same
upgrade cycle that plagues computer owners:  buy new hardware every six
months, and throw the old hardware away because it has already lost 99% of
its value.  If this occurs, all the economic advantages of digital will be
wiped out except for a very small handful of users.  Even today, there is no
economic advantage at all to digital photography for the average consumer; a
digital camera costs more than he would spend on film in 25 years.

> I've been trying to decide what is the best way
> to go...keep on buying hard drives or a DVD - R
> or a tape drive...I just want something stable
> and reliable...is that too much to ask?

Yes, as long as there is a computer anywhere in the loop.  "Stable" and
"reliable" are foreign words to computer hardware and software
manufacturers.  Their business and revenue models are predicated on a
perpetual series of frequent "upgrades" by customers; even machines in
perfect condition are expected to be replaced with entirely new hardware
every year or so.  Interfaces and peripherals might work for many years, but
they are often technically obsolete--and impossible to replace--within a
year or two, or sometimes within months.  The result is that you must pay,
then pay again, they pay again, and so on, forever.

This cycle has cooled slightly in recent years, now that the average new,
cheap computer provides more horsepower than any ordinary consumer ever
really needs, but software bloat (the tendency of software vendors to create
ever more bloated versions of their software in order to attempt to justify
pricey upgrades with minimal investment on their part) eventually overloads
the hardware.  So the continuing software upgrade cycle ultimately drives
hardware upgrades.


If you can avoid ever upgrading software or hardware, you can escape this
cycle.  The problem is that sooner or later you might need to replace a disk
drive, or a scanner, or whatever, and you'll discover that nobody builds
drives or scanners with an interface compatible with your machine, because
your machine is more than 18 months old and thus hopelessly obsolete.  You
must then replace the entire system.  Or you'll need a specific software
upgrade for some purpose, and you'll find that it doesn't run under your
current operating system version.  So you'll try to upgrade the OS, but the
upgraded version will no longer run on your hardware.  So you'll have to buy
completely new hardware _again_.  Worse yet, that will require that you upgr
ade most of your other software, and the cycle repeats.  Sometimes a trivial
change in your system can force you to invest thousands of dollars in
upgrades.

Nothing about digital technology requires anything along these lines
intrinsically; but that's the way the computer market works ... and
unfortunately, when you buy into digital, you lock yourself into the
computer market in a serious and irrevocable way.  It need not be that way,
but it IS that way for now, and you need to factor in the tremendous cost of
this when you go digital.

> Oh...and affordable wouldn't hurt either....
> 4.7 gb dvd but then there's the rumor of a
> 9.4 gb...I've got a crappy DVD-RAM...worthless
> as not too many people have them.

Get used to it.  The PC world is the opposite of the bulk of the camera
world.  Your Hasselblad might work for 40 years flawlessly, but you'll be
lucky to be able to use the same PC for 30 months, or even 18 months.
(Actually, the best PCs can easily continue running for one or two decades,
but other forces explained above will force you to abandon them long before
that.



From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Long-term value; was Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake

Yes, Seth, Leica equipment does hold its value well compared to other camera
brands - no question. But $151 invested in 1976 at 5% with annual
compounding would have been $400 in 1987, and today would be $832.91. (I may
well be off a bit as I am a math clutz.) But the point is that your lens did
not gain in value no matter how you look at it...and we're not even talking
about inflation - what you paid for that lens in 2002 dollars, compared to
what you'd get for it today...

As to the quality - I don't think that there is any question that Leica has
always produced incredibly well made equipment. Even with the complaints
about problems with today's Ms and Rs, they are still by far the best made
35 mm cameras on the market. And the build quality of the lenses has always
been,and remains, truly remarkable. At the same time, it is more than a bit
of a myth that Leica has always made top quality 35 mm camera lenses. Yes,
today's M lenses are terrific, as are those of the recent past. But when you
start talking about lenses from the 40s, 50s, and even some from the 60s,
and compare those lenses to the rangefinder lenses compared to Zeiss, Nikon,
and even Canon, they don't look all that terrific.

B. D.
...

[email protected] writes:

> for the owners of the vast
>  majority of Japanese equipment, the value of their lenses (and
>  bodies)will be but a small fraction of the sum(s) originally spent.
Looked
>  at in this way, it may indeed be cheaper (read "wiser") to invest in
Leica
>  product(s).

e.g. In 1967 I paid $151. for my first (new) DR Summicron. I have just sold
a wonderful DR without the eyes for $475. With eyes, a good DR today is worth
$550.-$750. depending on condition. In 1967 I paid $131. for a new black
paint 35/2 Summicron. Last year I sold a like-new 35/2 8-glass silver chrome
Summicron in original bubble and box for $1,500. In black paint, it would be
worth $2,500.-3,000.

Granted some of this is collector money talking. Granted inflation plays a
very important role here (a pack of cigarettes in 1967 cost what, $0.20? and
in 1970 I paid $8,000. for the top-of-the-line BMW 2800 that I collected at
Munich).

But the point is that Leitz designed and Leica designs cameras and lenses to
perform at world-class-leading cutting edge levels and to a standard of
strength, reliability and longevity that makes them so desirable 40 years
later as users that knowledgeable people are willing to pay what a new one
costs today.

Remarkable.

Seth   


From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 1 Sep 2002 
From: "Jack Herron" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Long-term value; was Portrait of Marianne = bad mistake

As a matter of interest, $151 invested in common, unexceptional stock in
1967, would today be worth about $3,400, given just the average, long term
return on the market.  Leicas are marvelous cameras, but do not represent a
wise investment.  Just putting the money in a low interest bank account
would have brought a much better return than the lens, but would have given
you no pictures!

Jack C. Herron


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: 120mm v. 150mm lens

Austin Franklin at [email protected] wrote:
> Are you saying things changed since this:

The photo industry is changing daily. Two days ago Wall Street Camera, the
oldest surviving NYC mail order company went into Chapter 7 liquidation.
All bets are off on many relationships which endured for years.  I'm not
going to say any more about this.  Wait for photokina and you will see a lot
of surprises.

Bob


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: Austin Franklin [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: 120mm v. 150mm lens

> > And I forgot to add...  What does the lenses being
> made/assembled in Japan
> > have to do with an "...end to Hasselblad's long relationship with
> > Zeiss..."???  Are you saying that Hasselblad will not use Zeiss
> lenses?  I
> > doubt that very much.
>
>
> Wanna bet, Austin?
>
> Bob

Are you saying things changed since this:


(Quoted from www.hasselblad.se)

"2001-02-15  Victor Hasselblad, Sweden and Carl Zeiss, Germany on 24 January
2001 signed a cooperation agreement to further strengthen the Hasselblad
medium format camera system's leading position in image quality and
versatility. The agreement confirms the importance of a long tradition of
cooperation between the two companies in providing discerning photographers
worldwide with a camera system which excels in image sharpness, reliability
and lasting value. Over the years Zeiss lenses have been the backbone of the
classical Hasselblad 6 x 6 system and among others much appreciated for
their unique fully mechanical, all-metal central shutter which allows
Hasselblad cameras to operate without batteries and synchronize with flash
at all speeds. Hasselblad and Carl Zeiss both share a commitment to
photographic excellence. They will continue to explore ways to improve on
excellence without breaking with the tradition of compatibility. The concept
by which any new and improved lens or camera will maintain compatibility
with older cameras and lenses. The relationship between Hasselblad and Carl
Zeiss started in 1950 with a handshake agreement between Victor Hasselblad
and Dr. Sauer in Gothenburg. The choice then, as today, was motivated by
Carl Zeiss proven excellence in lens design and state of the art
manufacturing in Oberkochen in the south of Germany. Since then Carl Zeiss
have designed 8 distinctive lens series for Hasselblad, over 80 different
lens models and sold approximately 1 million lenses to photographers
worldwide. The most recent introduction in 1999 was of 10 new lenses in the
CFi and CFE series which have led to record sales in the year 2000. "
    


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

Austin,

I got a similar answer when I asked the same source what is going on with
the gossiped Hasselblad 645/small format/rangefinder stuff.

Do not forget the (Fuji-)XPan lenses they seem to have a good success with
it and the FE 60-120 that comes from a Japanese source as well. Or maybe the
HB lenses will be produced in the same ways they do it for the Contax/CZ line.
That would also change the label from "Made in Germany" to "Made in Japan" -
simple.

Best,
Andr�

> Anyone ever hear of Hasselblad moving to "Japanese-made" lenses???
--
GMX - Die Kommunikationsplattform im Internet.
http://www.gmx.net


from rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: Evan J Dong [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: 120mm v. 150mm lens

I also heard the same information form several sources. I was at
Hasselblad this week, and the person there also told me that hasselblad
wil introduce alot fo new items at Photokina. New Hasselblad lenses and a
new body. Whe I asked if the lens was Carl Zeiss or Schnieder, he just
told me that it was Hasselblad and that I will have to wait for Photokina
for the announcement. He mentioned that I should check the Hasselblad
Sweden website on that day fo rall the details. He was instructed not to
talk about the new equipment to come at Photokina. All things will be
shown at Photokina and also the PhotoPlus Show in Jacob Javitts Center In
NYC.

Evan


From hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2002 
From: Anthony Atkielski [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] What's the big deal...

Q.G. writes:

> "Hasselblad is one of Sweden's most well-known
> companies with a great potential in its trademark.
> The primary goal for the company will be to develop
> this potential into further volume growth through
> intensified product development and marketing."

I recognize this kind of statement.  It comes from clueless CEOs who are
gradually (or not so gradually) driving their companies into bankruptcy
through incompetence.

> Not leering after the large mass market v.s.
> developing the potential into further growth; quality
> v.s. sales as primary goal. The first made Hasselblad
> wat it is/was, the second will... what will it do
> in the end?

It will destroy the company.  It is impossible for Hasselblad to compete
with any of the large mass-market vendors on their own turf.  Small
companies need to develop niche markets (as your first-cited CEO
recognized), not try to compete directly with large companies addressing
huge markets.  That's the only way small companies can survive over terms of
less than several decades.  You can only go against a very large company on
that company's own territory if you are a very large company yourself.

The problem most CEOs have (including this one, apparently) is that they
cannot accept just handling a nice market at a comfortable profit.  They
want ever larger sales, often because of ego (cf. Vivendi) or (frequently)
because their compensation package is tied directly to these sales figures.
They don't care whether the company survives or not over the long term, as
long as they get as rich as possible as soon as possible.  When the company
folds, or usually just before (rats desert a sinking ship), they move on.

> Playing with reputations, "potentials in the trademark"
> can be quite tricky, and hazardous.

You play with reputations and trademarks only when you no longer have an
actual, viable product to sell.  It's the end stage of any company.  It can
be postponed by good management indefinitely, but poor management can
advance a company to this stage prematurely, and often it is impossible to
turn back.



From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 
From: Leica Camera Newsletter [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Leica Newsletter, 09/13/2002: First Quarter FY 2002/2003 Results

Dear Leica friends,

Today we would like to inform you about:

__First Quarter FY 2002/2003 Results

The Leica Camera Group, Solms, has closed the first
quarter of fiscal year 2002/2003 (FY end March 31) with
sales of 31.6 million Euro. This represents a 2.6 million
Euro decrease as compared to the same period in the prior
year, but has to be seen against the background of a
pleasant backlog of orders, especially for the Groups new
products such as the LEICA DIGILUX 1 digital camera and
the LEICA M7 rangefinder system camera. Achieving a
positive operating result of 0.2 million Euro the Group was
able to realise the close to the zero line result planned for
the first quarter. Net income came to 0.3 million Euro,
which chiefly reflects financing costs.

First Quarter FY 2002/03 Results are available as pdf-file at:
http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/index_e.html


With best regards,
Leica Camera AG
Corporate Communications
http://www.leica-camera.com/


from hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Re: San Fran area

George Hartzell wrote:
>If you're going to be down on the Penninsula, The Darkroom in Mountain
>View does good work.
>
>   http://www.thedarkroom-mv.com/


The "Darkroom" no longer exists. They closed their doors a few months ago.
Not enough B&W business anymore. The ex-owner (I'm blocking his name) now
works in the darkroom dept. at Keeble & Shuchat.
....

Jim



Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: Tom Just Olsen [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] An interesting quote...

Marc,

I have never heard this part of the story, regardless, Carl Zeiss has a
foot inside a very protective market which is very 'visual' and where
lenses of all sorts have a great growth potential. All from TV and
cinema to medics and research, - not the least cameras.

I have made it a hobby to follow the (demise) of the different photo
gear producers etc. and see how they do on the stock market these days.
My philosophy is that if you 'should invest in the stock market do it
companies you know the business of'.  That said, what we now see is a
total 'flat-out' (much due to lack of confidance) like the one in the
early 70'.  Don't expect the market to boom again before in ten years or
so.

In the mean time some single companies will make it good. Like Canon,
which has performed quite well despite the downfall.  Putting your
savings into Canon will hardly yield more than the bank's interest rate
plus a little more (like Coca-Cola). A lot riskier is Nikon which has
fallen like a stone, is a much smaller company and could be ready for a
greenmailer or buy-out. If that happen a huge profit 'might' be
harvested. I have tried to look up Carl Zeiss, but can only find their
semiconductor subsidiary,- a lot more risky business. Are they privately
owned?

Tom of Oslo

Marc James Small wrote:
>
> Tom Just Olsen wrote:
> >The reason for Carl Zeiss having a plant in Japan, I am sure,
> >is to bypass rigid Japansese tarif barriers.  And so on...
> >
>
> The story is too complex to relate it in full here, but the short version
> is that, in 1971, Carl Zeiss wanted out of the photography business
> entirely, as they made only a minuscule part of their profit from such
> gear.  So, they fished around for a Japanese partner and, after Asahi bowed
> out, linked up with Yashica.  The deal was that the camera bodies were
> jointly designed in Japan and Germany and that the lenses were designed
> completely in Germany and produced, save for the exotics, in Japan at the
> old Tominon plant in Kyoto.  The plant is owned by Yashica/Kyocera but the
> final inspection is done by Zeiss inspectors, rotated in periodically and
> then shifted on to other Zeiss plants.
>
> (Asahi bowed out, incidentally, as they felt that the Japanese public would
> not accept a Japanese-built Zeiss lens as authentic.  Zeiss insisted that
> lens production be in Japan, however, and Yashica was willing to give it a
> shot.)
>
> Of course, since military sales collapsed in the early 1990's, Zeiss has
> rethought this philosophy and now aggressively seeks photographic business.
>
> Marc
>
> [email protected]



From nikon mailing list:
From: "Adam Kosterski" [email protected]
To: "Nikon user group" [email protected]
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
Subject: [Nikon] Dig/ Trad? Stats

Dear All,

Flicking through the July issue of Foto Kurier (Poland) I came across some
interesting stats regarding the World Photography Market. (These figures
were gathered by GfK Marketing Sevices and presented at the Cologne
Photokina Fair this year by Samsung and KolnMesse.)


DIGITAL CAMERAS SOLD:
           2000                        2001
Europe     21%/ 2.3 mln                23%/ 4.1 mln
USA        39%/ 4.3 mln                36%/ 6.5 mln
Japan      33%/ 3.6 mln                33%/ 5.9 mln
RoW*      7%? 0.8 mln                  8%/ 1.5 mln

Total      11 mln (+100%)              18 mln (+64%)   figure in brackets denotes growth.
*Row - rest of world


TRADITIONAL CAMERAS SOLD:
          2000                        2001
Europe    29%/ 21 mln                 30%/ 20 mln
USA       29%/ 21 mln                 29%/ 19 mln
Japan      7%/  5 mln                  6%/  4 mln
RoW       34%/ 24 mln                 35%/ 23 mln

Total      71 mln (+ 6%)               66 mln (- 7%)



SINGLE USE CAMERAS SOLD:
          2000                        2001
Europe    13%/ 45 mln                 13%/ 50 mln
USA       47%/ 165 mln                49%/ 180 mln
Japan     24%/ 85 mln                 22%/ 80 mln
RoW       16%? 55 mln                 16%/ 60 mln

Total     350 mln (+ 17%)             370 mln (+ 6%)


SILVER HALIDE BASED FILM SALES:
          2000                         2001
Europe    25%/ 790 mln                 26%/ 810 mln
USA       25%/ 770 mln                 23%/ 720 mln
Japan     13%/ 390 mln                 13%/ 390 mln
RoW       37%/ 1150 mln                38%/ 1200 mln

Total     3100 mln (+ 3%)             3120 mln (+ 1%)


The article advises that growth is greatest in the Digital sector but this
market is reaching saturation point (esp. Japan and USA).

Traditional film sales growth was small but constant (including single use
cameras) and totalled 3120 million [(3.12 billion (american)]. The polish
market for film is reckoned at 17 mln so only 0.6% - tragically low. And
despite Digital Cameras sales growth of 64%, Traditional cameras still
account for 80% of multi use cameras sales.


But get this, even though Digital Camera sales form only 4.0% of All Cameras
Sold (including single use) their value is 40% that of all cameras sold.
Amazing, eh?


Traditional film does not seem threatened to say the least but the
conclusion is, give the collosal sales of single use cameras, that the greater
public mainly require convenience to grab snaps and then at the cheapest price.

Seems to me that those with high end digital are in a very small and
financially elite minority (at present).

Best wishes,
Adam

Postscript: 
My brain isn't in gear today. Info came from 'pre' Photokina press
conference in May.

I'll shut up now.
Adam


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: John Albino [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] More Digital Thoughts - With a Nikon Connection

Just musing...

A month or so ago, I was browsing the 'net, and came across a reference to
an obscure trade general and an article last spring.

The article reported that since Nikon makes much of the world's equipment
used for chip (CPU) making (far too simply put -- chips are made on wafers,
and the wafers are photo-etched from masters. Nikon makes the equipment
which helps make the wafers), Intel has a vested interest in seeing a
healthy Nikon.

Since Nikon was (and presumably still is) hemorrhaging cash, Intel was
making a substantial (though minority) investment in Nikon.

So perhaps someday our electronic Nikons will have the "Intel Inside"
sticker on the body...

Seriously, though, an Intel-Nikon marriage could be a very good thing for
all of us.
--
John Albino
mailto:[email protected]


Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: film sales stats, US cameras -9%, film sales -7%..  Re: Digital


Makes me wish I had kept the figures from SCRI about the video market.
Anyway, if you compare sales of many consumer items over the same time
period, you can find many similar percentage drops, suggesting more of an
overall economic impact than anything else. Video relates just slightly
better, since it is an established technology market, whereas digital still
equipment was very much a niche market in 2000, only slightly better
established in 2001, and growing much more slowly in 2002.

Marketing types pointed to the sales growth percentage increases in digital
still cameras, when this figure was more impressive than unit sales. Now that
unit sales are better, more emphasis is being placed upon those figures. The
prior use of percentage increases also served the companies well by
attempting to profit from the hype by way of increased stock prices, and/or
increased research funds.


If you want to make the data more useful, compare it to past data. Only
taking a couple years of data would be folly for an economist, foolish for
and investor, and ignorant for an academic researcher. Try looking at the
figures for the prior recession years of 1971, 1981, and 1991. My guess it
that you would see quite similar economic drops.

All this also brings up compelling questions about digital cameras. Based
upon this limited data, at what point will sales plateau? At what point will
the profit margins drop? What impact will future technology, such as digital
cameras in portable phones, have on unit sales of "traditional" digital still
cameras?

Finally, if Kodak (for one) project such a huge transition to digital only,
why did they invest so heavily into a new facility for producing B/W film?
Digital only is already old enough that there has been some technology
backlash. Combine that with the resurgence of nostalgia, collecting, and the
(supposedly) better and simpler days of past decades, retro design and
products, then there are some very non-digital market growth areas . . . all
not fitting into such simple statistics.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
....


Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2002 
From: Robert Feinman [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: are we becoming extinct?


I recently went on a trip to Maine and went through most of the popular
tourist towns along the coast. As a matter of curiosity I checked into
the "camera" stores in each of the downtowns.
All of them had a selection of 35mm and APS film, frames, bags and
usually photofinishing and a handful of cameras.

Not one had roll film or processing supplies.

I also looked into Wal-Mart. They have a big selection of film and
digital cameras and most have a photofinishing department and a supply
of film.
With Wal-Mart capturing the profitable camera and film market there is
no way that local stores can survive, and without the local stores there
is no place to get specialty items while traveling.

As a further sign of the times I was in B&H photo (in NYC) this week and
they are remodeling the store. The pro equipment is being moved to the
back (into a smaller space) and the digital moved to the front. The
display area for inkjet paper is now larger than the darkroom department.
So we are becoming a marginal market like bagpipes or model T collectors...

--
Robert D Feinman
[email protected]
Landscapes, Cityscapes, Panoramic Photographs: http://robertdfeinman.com



From: [email protected] (ROBOHAT)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: are we becoming extinct?

The
display area for inkjet paper is now larger than the darkroom department.
So we are becoming a marginal market like bagpipes or model T collectors...


Our local high school Photo 1 class now teaches the traditional black + white
with darkroom for 1 week and the next week alternates to digital and Photoshop.
The students get to learn the best of both worlds.

     The medium format  and darkroon selections at Helix in Chicago is
noticeably smaller than it has been in the past. Their digital section seems to
do a brisk business. Maybe someday we will see affordable portable digital
backs for our medium format cameras.



From: "Stefan Geysen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002


> I prefer a more optomistic view. I think roll film use is pretty
> steady and LF has actually increased a little.

I agree.

For a while, I had the impression that LF was going to die off first, but
the recent introduction of new stuff (Schneider Apo Symmar L and "Classic"
series lenses, Cooke 229mm Portrait Soft Focus lens, Toyo 45 CF camera)
indicates it may actually enjoy some renewed popularity. The 35mm
rangefinder renaissance is another sign that film ain't quite as dead as
some digital proponents believe. Maybe all the digital hype is provoking a
modest "back to basics" counterreaction?



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002


Stefan Geysen wrote:

> For a while, I had the impression that LF was going to die off first, but
> the recent introduction of new stuff (Schneider Apo Symmar L and "Classic"
> series lenses, Cooke 229mm Portrait Soft Focus lens, Toyo 45 CF camera)
> indicates it may actually enjoy some renewed popularity.

So how about the new Sinar M? Digital + "35mm" lenses?
Or the (already not so new anymore) Sinar P3? Is that LF or ... ? And then
there is the Sinarback 54...

No new LF products from the one of the leading LF manufacturers. All new
digital products instead, moving down a format or two.
;-)



From: "Stefan Geysen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: Sun, 22 Sep 2002 


Q.G. de Bakker [email protected] schreef 
>
> So how about the new Sinar M? Digital + "35mm" lenses?
> Or the (already not so new anymore) Sinar P3? Is that LF or ... ? And then
> there is the Sinarback 54...
>
> No new LF products from the one of the leading LF manufacturers. All new
> digital products instead, moving down a format or two.
> ;-)

Agreed Q.G., but I think the LF user basis is shifting from pros to
amateurs. Pros are selling their LF stuff "en masse" on ebay for low prices,
making it more attactive for amateurs who've stayed away from LF because of
equipment costs. Part of the new products I mentioned also seem to be aimed
at the cost-conscious amateur (Toyo 45 CF and Schneider Classic lenses).


From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Thank God for digital
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002


Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:
> Fuji is projecting and saying they'll be making film for another 25 years,
> hence their investments structure.

And next time their shares take a sharp drop for whatever reason,
they'll announce a concentration on their core business areas together
with a significant improvement of their cost structures (aka another few
thousand redundancies). There goes the film production.

In case you haven't noticed: at a time where stock rates are everything,
corporate decisions are no longer based on common sense. This year's
sound investment into the company's future is next year's potential
scapegoat to be sacrificed in order to please a bunch of analysts who in
turn advise the heads of a few important pension funds, however
unrelated.


Besides, why should they continue to make products A, B, and C if
they'll get our money just as well by leaving us with product B as the
only option? The competition? They're just as keen on getting rid of
that stupid old technology.

Now, all it takes is a little help from an old school friend at the
relevant government agency. As you so rightly say:

> My bigger worry is the new efforts to classify silver as a heavy metal
> pollutant.....

They're working on it. The time isn't right, yet.

Meanwhile, the French government have found out that hydrochinone is
used by a few particularly stupid black people to bleach their skin and
that this use causes health problems. So, photographic developers
containing hydrochinone must no longer be sold in self service but kept
well locked and buyers' names will be recorded on each sale. The latter
because they aren't yet sure if hydrochinone might probably be causing
cancer or rather not and they just want to be able to send a personal
letter to everybody who ever bought a bottle of Neutol.

The consequence: camera shops are dropping chemicals. And once they're
no longer selling developers, why bother with those bulky enlargers,
trays and all the other stuff taking up so much precious shop space?

And since France is part of the E.U. we can expect the same thing to
happen all over Europe.

Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher   -  DL9KCG  -  K�ln/Cologne, Germany
NEW URL!!! private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated May 9, 2002
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses


From: [email protected] (kevin_i)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: camera stores endangered species? Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: 23 Sep 2002


I've been thinking the same thing.

My favorite store for used camera gear back home in Hawaii was
Supersave camera.  I bought and sold all kinds of stuff there in the
early to mid-90's and the store's shelves of consignment goods were
usually full of interesting equipment.

Since moving away in early 1997, I've always made it a point to visit
Supersave when I go home for vacation.

Sadly, with each passing visit, those shelves were getting emptier and
emptier.  It had to be eBay sucking away the store's business.  "Why
limit yourself to a local camera store when the world is your market
on the 'net?"
(so much for actually being able to touch and examine the camera or
lens before you pay your money and pray)

When I went home three weeks ago, Supersave was gone.  I felt like I
had lost an old friend.

-Kevin


[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote
> Old style film oriented camera stores seem to be an endangered species
> around here, and the news on Wall Street Camera cratering, the notes on
> Helix and other stores cutting their film and darkroom store areas to
> expand digital and so on are all part of a trend responding to sales in
> digital. While only 4% of the cameras, digital is 40% of the value...
>
> I think the traditional stores are suffering more from Ebay competition;
> some store owners have reported they made only modest markups on new film
> camera and lens sales, more $$ on accessories, and made major $$ on their
> used gear sales and repairs, buying for 1/3rd to 1/2 the expected selling
> price. So profits on used gear sales can be higher than new gear sales.
>
> Today, those sales are going to ebay, cutting out the stores. At the local
> camera shows, the dealers are more eager to buy (cheaply ;-) or trade than
> to sell, and many are trying to resell on ebay themselves. The falling
> prices on ebay have also squeezed the used gear profits for those stores
> trying to dump their unsold cosmetically bad gear via ebay (right? you
> know, the stuff they couldn't sell in years in their stores? ;-)
>
> I suspect we will see a few "pro" stores survive in each major city area;
> to service pro accounts and big $ amateurs; the rest of us may be using
> mail order from B&H ;-) The collapse in used gear depts may impact issues
> like gear rentals (e.g. from used stock vs. investments in capital for
> rental stock) and repair dept availability (new gear that breaks goes back
> to the factory under warranty, so who needs a repair shop if you don't
> do rentals or sell used gear?) Good for independent repairers, I guess? ;-)
>
> grins bobm


From: [email protected] (RD)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Thank God for digital
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
wrote:

>Fuji is projecting and saying they'll be making film for another 25 years,
>hence their investments structure. Kodak just built a new film prodn
>plant. There are even third world film makers in China, E. Europe, who
>are likely to produce for the market as well

However - I seem to remember reading that China's Lucky film
factory(s) are going through a significant downsizing. I'll probably
have the last, unexposed roll of Luckypan on the planet in a few more
years. :)

JL


From: [email protected] (Steve Hamley)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: are we becoming extinct?
Date: 23 Sep 2002

Bob,

I'm not sure I entirely agree with you on the future of large format,
and the lens, film, and camera makers seem optimistic in introducing
new LF products.

Film availability in most sizes (excluding maybe ULF) seems to be
good, and Kodak continues to offer new films like E100 V, VS in LF
sizes, at least 4x5 - and they finally got the Readyload holder right
in the past year (third time's the charm!).

There are reportedly more 4x5 camera brands/models now than 20 years
ago, I have no numbers but believe this to be true. Toyo's new CF has
drawn a lot of interest. Ebony also has intoduced 2 new 4x5 models in
the past year. The Shen Hao is new to the US and has been very well
received.

Schneider has in the past 3 years or so introduced the excellent Super
Symmar XL series and just announced the Apo Symmar L series. Since
these are in addition to their Digitar line of digital lenses, it
would seem they have confidence in the future of film-based LF.

Big volume and pro users haven't used view cameras since the Graflex
went out as press cameras. Big volume pros use MF or 35mm for the same
reason one poster stated people don't go from MF to LF - they don't
enlarge that much or don't want to pay for the difference in results.
Or they need a faster camera. The improvement in films over the past
20 years mean that people who don't enlarge much above 8x10 can use
smaller formats.

Digital is more likely to depress MF film sales for this reason. MF
can and is being replaced by digital, just look at the drop in used
Hasselblad prices in the past 3 years or so and the number on the
market. This is not a good thing IMO. Again, pros can replace a 'blad
with a digital camera because most customers can't tell or don't care
about the difference in the picture size they see. Because there are
no real digital backs for 4x5 and larger (I don't count scanning
backs), there's no real incentive for most LF users to switch. A LF
camera with a digital back is the worst of both worlds except for
unusual situations. Most LF users have other cameras (including
digitals) for purposes that LF is not well suited.

There have been reports of 4x5 sales leveling off, and an increased
interest in formats larger than 4x5. I don't know if this is true
either, but it is at least believable given the reported wait times
for large Wisners and Phillips.

Thanks!

Steve
....


From nikon mailing list:
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 
From: "Michael J. Bortulin" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Which UV filter?

John Albino wrote:

> (Examples: At B&H, a 62mm Nikon NC (clear glass) filter is $44.95, while a
> 62mm Nikon L37C filter is $33.95; a 72mm NC is $84.50, while a 72mm  L37C is
> $54.95; and a 77mm NC is $97.50, while a 77mm L37C is 62.95.)

John:

Why should these filters cost so much when for example, a new Nikon 50mm
f1.8 lens having several more elements, an iris mechanism, focusing
mechanism, lens mount, etc.can be purchased for around $100?  Is it that
difficult to make a colored (albeit to tight specifications) piece of
 plano surfaced glass and put it in a simple mount to justify the cost?

What am I missing here?

Mike Bortulin
Valley Forge, PA



Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Our Kiev 3 was more expensive than a Ford T car

Zhang

The Contax lines had the reputation of being *very expensive*.  A prewar
Contaflex (the non-SLR type, 35mm) was said to have sold for $800+.

Jay

[email protected] wrote:

>
>Hi all,
>
>Yesterday I visited the science&Technology museum in Beijing for the first
>time with my son and his girl friend. I saw a life size model of Ford T
>class car and it was mentioned the price was $240 in late 20's. However, a
>Contax III (our Kiev III) was sold at about $360 in the 30's in the great
>depression. This really gives me some idea of the value of our Kiev
>rangefinders. I believe in 100 years or 200 years if film is still
>available, our Kiev rangefinders will be truely useable antiques of the
>great mechnaical era. I am still sometimes marvelled at the engineering
>skills of Zeiss as early as the 1930's when I saw these Soviet clones of
>Contax rangefinders and the excellent optics.
>
>At today's ebay prices, they look like free gifts.



from minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Canon UK loss making

Just got a business report in on the profitability of UK top photo
companies. Canon UK made a 1.5 per cent tax loss 2000-2001. Most of the
top ten companies are into profit, the other loss-maker was Photo-Me,
the photo booth people. Highest profit was 17.5 per cent, on a turnover
of 200 million pounds, for an outfit called the Vitec Group - no idea
who they are! But that's some profit. Even Polaroid UK showed 2.7 per
cent profit on 322�m sales. Kodak showed a pretty healthy 10.7 per cent
on 686�m sales.

Canon UK's loss was 1.5 per cent on a turnover of 495.3 million pounds
(the sort of figure which just looks like careless management)

Minolta UK doesn't appear in the top photo companies at all.

David


From: Niall Hammond [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002

 Bill Hilton wrote:
> They sold 890,000 film SLR's in 2000, 1,080,000 in 2001 and then dropped off to
> 880,000 in 2002.  For digital cameras the numbers were 410,000 in 2000, then
> 680,000 in 2001 and 1,450,000 (!!) in 2002.

According to the document the sales were.

(Thousands)

 Year,    SLR, Compact, Digital
 1998    850    1,790     30
 1999    940    1,630    100
 2000    890    1,710    410
 2001  1,080    1,700    680
 2002    880    1,530  1,450


So it would seem in terms of SLR cameras their sales are not being hit by digital
and the compacts are not suffering that badly either. They also managed to
increase their market share for both compact and SLR cameras in 2001. Which would
tend to indicate Nikon are doing well out of the market conditions at the moment.

What I am not so sure about is what your point is? Is this yet more 'film is
dead' or that Nikon are dead?

Either way the numbers are against you.

Niall




From: ThomasH [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Breaking a legend... Canon sales figures 2001 [Re: Nikon sales figures
 for digital vs film SLR's]
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002



We have been speculating a bit about SLR market share Nikon
versus Canon. Tony S said that Canon holds 40-50% percent.
I just found this paper, which should provide a bit more
accurate numbers and facts:

   http://www.canon.com/finance/annual/2001/report2001.pdf

Since I saw their paper literally in the caf� break, I am just
posting here the link for the generic interest and one simple
quote from these both reports. Feel free to find what I have
overseen or make some better observations or corrections.
I am looking now at page 32 Canon report and at the pages 11+12
in the Nikon report.

On the page 33 Canon also confirms a decline in conventional
camera sales. Canon though does not disclose number of units
sold, they only speak about revenue mainly in millions of Yen,
while Nikon uses billions of Yen, but I hope I got the numbers
straight. Here we go, fasten sit belts:
                                                    (Market share)
Nikon says:  SLR 2001 revenue           77.2 bil Y  (36.8%)
             Compact 2001              158.2 bil Y  ( 7.8%)
             Digital 2001              545.4 bil Y  (17.2%)
Canon says:  all Cameras 2001 revenue  381.4 bil Y  (share not named)


Thus Nikon's revenue with all camera types is still around

          *twice*

as big as the revenue of Canon(!). Cameras make only approx.
13% of Canons own total annual revenue.

It is just so that some (in)famous members of this group draw
so much attention to their "all fabulotastic" pieces of equipment
that some people began to believe in the all-Canon rule, while
the ROW (Rest Of the World) does not know this(!) and uses a
bit different criterions while choosing their equipment.

Thomas.


Bill Hilton wrote:
>
> The link below is from Nikon's Investor Relations report for the 2002 fiscal
> year ending last September.
>
> What I found most interesting is that for the first time they sold more digital
> cameras than SLR film cameras, as film SLR camera sales dropped by about 12%
> and digital camera sales rose by over 100%.
>
> They sold 890,000 film SLR's in 2000, 1,080,000 in 2001 and then dropped off to
> 880,000 in 2002.  For digital cameras the numbers were 410,000 in 2000, then
> 680,000 in 2001 and 1,450,000 (!!) in 2002.
>
> http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2002/fb/02fb_e04.pdf
>
> Meanwhile Kodak announced a decline in film sales, resulting in the lay off of
> 1,300 to 1,700 employees (on top of a layoff of 7,000 last year).  Kodak
> executives blame this "largely on a downturn in the U.S. economy" and don't
> mention the rise of digital as a concern.  (head, sand?)
>
> http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/10/25/news6.html
>
> Bill



From: [email protected] (Johan Danielsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Breaking a legend... Canon sales figures 2001 [Re: Nikon sales
figures   for digital vs film SLR's]
Date: 07 Nov 2002


ThomasH  writes:

> Nikon says:  SLR 2001 revenue           77.2 bil Y  (36.8%)
>              Compact 2001              158.2 bil Y  ( 7.8%)
>              Digital 2001              545.4 bil Y  (17.2%)

Does not compute.

Net sales for Nikon as a whole is reported as 483GY (and Imaging
systems should be about 45% of that), compared to 381GY for Canon
Cameras.

So what exactly is "Shipment amounts" which you quote above?

/Johan



Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 
From: Daniel Lee [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503 CW Trouble

I'm seeing a whole heck of a lot of hasseys on EBAY...is everyone going
digital or what?
...



Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] 503 CW Trouble

Here in the NW we seem to be losing a studio a week to the economy dealers all
over the US bemoan the total collapse of MF sales. Apparently the flood of
gear coupled with the high tech toy dollars from 35mm users wishing to step up
are going to D100 D60 etc rather than MF gear makes for happy days for
shooters.

oceans of dated 220 and 70mm are coming on the market now at stunning prices
as all the catalog houses went digital a year or two ago and stopped buying
film...


From: Niall Hammond [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002

Tony Spadaro wrote:
> Interview with Canon execs in a British magazine last month. I read it at
> the news stand.

Ah, the old some exec in some magazine.

Canon seem to disagree with their own execs it seems..

"Canon maintains a strong and profitable position in the analogue camera
market with 39% market share in SLR and 14% in the compact markets."

"In terms of value Canon currently holds a market-leading 18% of the
European high-end digital camera (2 mega pixel and above) market segment."

>From http://www.canon.co.uk/press/2002_06_26b.html

Niall



From: ThomasH [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002

Tony Spadaro wrote:
>
>   Interview with Canon execs in a British magazine last month. I read it at
> the news stand.

If we than extrapolate this, Canon would have sold a few millions of
conventional SLR cameras. Extrapolating Nikon numbers further (3,630
thousands of cameras = 27.6%) I calculate that 2001 over 13 million of
such cameras has been sold.

This does not sound like the "sudden death of the need for 35mm film"
to me! I am glad to see such numbers as I have a lot of joy with
film and I like the "labor of love" with scanning and mounting slides.


Furthermore:

If the Canon share is indeed 50%, than together with Nikon they
have 77.6% share, what leaves mere 22.4% for the entire rest incl.
Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Contax and a bunch of more "exotic" or
expensive (alias exclusive) like Leica and the many low-budget
Cosinas, Kievs etc. etc.
 
Is this believable? I would be curious to see Minolta and Canon
numbers in an official sales report.


Other than that we all know where the train goes: sooner or later
it will arrive at the Digital Main Station. The convenience and speed
of delivery is already a prio 1 factor for professionals and press
photographers. Besides, everybody loves the individual image handling
and the free adjustable sensitivity. No more the 1/4 wrong film at a
wrong time stuck in the body...

Thomas.



From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2003 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Konica, Minolta in merger talks

If you read the data you will see that both companies have had a serious
relationship in the imaging field since April 2000. As for the weaker taking
over the financial data says Konica is the stronger company, carrying little
or no debt compared to the amount of money Minolta has been losing lately.
It says they are going to increase the sales force in the camera division.
Increasing the sales force without giving them new state-of-the-art products
is a losing strategy so the injection of Konica's better monetary status
should lead to increased R&D and better response in new products. You may
have noticed that one of the articles indicated Minolta's "flawed worldwide
marketing strategy in film and digital cameras" as one reason that the
merger with Konica should have positive effects.

Kent Gittings




From: Ron Todd [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Zeiss revenues a record of EUR 2.257 billions.
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 

Elie A Shammas wrote:
>
> Being an nonfinancial person, i was blown away by this figure. Is this
> usual for companies in almost the same domain? I am just wondering how
> does other major companies like Canon, Nikon, Sigma compare to Zeiss in
> revenues?

As Ralf said, photographic revenue is a small part of Zeiss.  It is rare
to find a pure play these days.

More or less:

Canon is a copier and other things company that has a photo division.

AIR, Nikon is "sort of" a piece of that thing that is Mitsubishi or one
of the other Japanese "affiliated"  commercial units.

Minolta is a copier company that has a camera unit, and may be merging
with Konica which is a film maker that has camera unit.

Kodak is a chemical company that has a film division, or maybe its the
other way around, and sometimes makes cameras.

Not sure about Fuji Film, whether it is by itself or owned by something
else. It does have a division that manufactures cameras and subcontracts
for Hassleblad.


Herme is a fashion house (neckties and such) that has a camera division
(Leica).

Never looked at Sigma, it might be a pure play, it also might be closely
held (not publicly traded).

etc.

--
Ronald Lee Todd M.B.A., C.P.A.


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 
From: Peter Wallage [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Price drops

Hi,
I don't buy on e-bay because I'm fortunate enough to have a camera fair
within 50 miles of me every month. I appreciate the position of collectors
who haven't got much chance other than to buy on e-bay, but I don't think
the general price drop is due only to shipping charges and payment methods.

Here in the UK I noticed a drop in general prices starting at the end of
last summer. Dealer friends at the fairs tell me that collectors are getting
more and more picky and choosey. Cosmetic condition they don't mind too
much, within reason, because it's something they can try to fix themselves.
But any camera that isn't working perfectly is just put back on the table,
never mind the price. Collecting for display only sems to be dropping off.

I think a lot of new collectors burnt their fingers with shutter problems on
cameras, and believed it when they were told "It wants a clean, any camera
shop will get that done for you". They found that having them fixed by a
competent repairer cost a lot more than they anticipated. Now they're trying
to sell them to get some of their money back to spend on the next collecting
fashion.

The dealers are thinning out, too, about 20% down on last year according to
one fair organiser. The get rich quick "move the metal" boys found they were
no longer getting rich enough quick enough and switched to something else.
Maybe some of thewm are trying to unload stocks on e-bay! Camera collecting
has been riding on a high for some years and, as with any other field of
collecting - clocks, die-cast toy cars, old radios, you name it, there's a
sudden fashion which attracts a lot of short-term general public collectors,
and some so-called investment collectors, who really don't know how, or
can't be bothered, to check something out properly before they buy it and
just play the collecting market like stock markets. But these fashions last
only so long, usually three to four years, then you see the space given to
it in magazines, and the ads that support it, dropping off. I think - indeed
I hope - that it has finished with camera collecting and that prices will
stabilise at a sensible level and stay there. For the true collector and the
genuine honest dealer it's better that way even if some of the things we
bought in the past seem to have lost the value they once had.

Regards,

Peter


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 
From: Bob Ludwig [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Price drops

Hi,
Your thoughts mirror those of one of my friends who has a retail store here
in New Jersey (USA). This fellow for many years bought collectibles at
camera fairs and estate sales and sold retail on eBay. Now he focuses on new
zoom lenses for recent AF cameras and the digital market.
Bob


From BJP Digital News - 11 February 2003

See British Journal of Photography for this week for more details...

Digital bigger
A new report from the Japanese Camera and Imaging Products Association
says that worldwide sales of digital cameras exceeded those of film
cameras for the first time last year. Nearly 25 million digital cameras
were shipped in 2002, approximately one million more than their
conventional cousins, claims the report.


From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 31 Oct 2002 
Subject: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's


The link below is from Nikon's Investor Relations report for the 2002 fiscal
year ending last September.

What I found most interesting is that for the first time they sold more digital
cameras than SLR film cameras, as film SLR camera sales dropped by about 12%
and digital camera sales rose by over 100%.

They sold 890,000 film SLR's in 2000, 1,080,000 in 2001 and then dropped off to
880,000 in 2002.  For digital cameras the numbers were 410,000 in 2000, then
680,000 in 2001 and 1,450,000 (!!) in 2002.

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2002/fb/02fb_e04.pdf

Meanwhile Kodak announced a decline in film sales, resulting in the lay off of
1,300 to 1,700 employees (on top of a layoff of 7,000 last year).  Kodak
executives blame this "largely on a downturn in the U.S. economy" and don't
mention the rise of digital as a concern.  (head, sand?)

http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/10/25/news6.html

Bill


From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 31 Oct 2002 
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's


>From: [email protected]  (Gregory L. Hansen)

>That figures.  I finally got a tape player when CDs were coming in and
>tapes were being phased out.  I finally got a VCR when DVDs were coming in
>and now some video stores are phasing out the tapes.

I bought my wife a Canon D30 for Christmas last year and a couple months later
Canon announced the D60, which has twice the number of pixels but cost several
hundred dollars less :)



From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002


I read an article about Canon, with an interview of several execs from the
company. The percentage of digital cameras from them is also on the rise and
there is a slight downturn in film camera sales.

--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html



From: "Tony Spadaro" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 

Canon has 45-50 percent of the film SLR market.

--
http://chapelhillnoir.com

"Bill Hilton" [email protected] wrote 
>
> >I read an article about Canon, with an interview of several execs from the
> >company. The percentage of digital cameras from them is also on the rise and
> >there is a slight downturn in film camera sales.
>
> I wonder if Canon is gaining or losing market share for film SLR's compared to
> Nikon.  I sure see a lot of big name guys who switched from Nikon due to the IS
> lens technology (guys like Art Wolfe, Len Rue, Joe McDonald, Erwin Bauer, etc).
>  You never hear of any of the big name pros going the other way, but it's not
> clear if this filters down to the mass market or not.
> I was surprised to see that Nikon sold over 1,000,000 SLR's in 2001 ! Wonder
> how many Canon sold.



From: Nick Zentena [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002


Bill Hilton [email protected] wrote:
> Meanwhile Kodak announced a decline in film sales, resulting in the lay off of
> 1,300 to 1,700 employees (on top of a layoff of 7,000 last year).  Kodak
> executives blame this "largely on a downturn in the U.S. economy" and don't
> mention the rise of digital as a concern.  (head, sand?)
>
> http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/10/25/news6.html

Or you could go here and read what Kodak really said:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/corp/investorCenter/discTrans/qtrSalesAndEarnings2.shtml

Funny how digital  "remained essentially unchanged year over year" while
the amount of film sold actually went up. Makes you wonder.

Nick


From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 31 Oct 2002 
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's


>From: T. P. [email protected]

>Unfortunately, there is a disparity between your subject line and the
>statistics you quoted, because the digital sales figures are for ALL
>types of digital camera, point-and-shoot *and* SLRs, whereas the film
>camera sales figures are just for SLRs.

Right, I knew that.  Sorry if the subject line was misleading to anyone.  It's
film SLR's vs ALL Nikon digital cameras.  If you toss in the Nikon
point-and-shoots the film cameras are still outselling digital.

I thought it was still interesting for two reasons, first that digital camera
sales grew by 100% as film SLR's decreased, and second, that for the first time
they sold more digital cameras than film SLR's.  This is probably a watershed
year for those two reasons.

>It will be at least a year before Digital SLR sales outstrip those of
>Film SLRs, and maybe longer.

Given the higher average price of the dSLR's to the low end film cameras I'd
guess it will be several years, but things are changing rapidly and if they
offer a 6 Mpix body for under $1,000 (dream on?) in the near future I would
agree with you.


From: T. P. [email protected] 
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 


"Mark" [email protected] wrote:
>Where are these sales figures published?????

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2002/fb/02fb_e04.pdf


From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 31 Oct 2002
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's



>From: Jerry Thomas [email protected]

>Most of Nikon's digital line is in the point and shoot catagory. ...
> So to compare digital sales in whole with SLR sales is a bit
>skewed.

Right on both counts, but it's still an interesting data point since this is
the first time digital sales have passed film SLR unit sales.

>I would like to see Digital  SLR vs Film SLR compared.

They didn't give that info, but one of the other charts on the site shows the
market share by pixel count for the entire digital market in 2001 (not just
Nikon, but everyone).  Looks like about 23% for 2 Mpix or less, 47% 2-3 Mpix
and 30% 3 Mpix and over.  So for sure the digital SLR market is still small
compared to the film SLR market since the dSLR's make up just a fraction of the
30% share.   This makes sense given a) the higher cost of dSLR's and b) they
can't ship enough high end dSLR's to keep up with demand when they first bring
them out, like with the Canon D60 :)

Bill


From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 Nov 2002 
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's


>From: "jriegle" [email protected]

>it is interesting to see the surge of SLRs in 2001. It
>would be interesting to see the whole industry figures.

This 'whole industry' info was in the pdf file I mentioned, just below the
figures for Nikon alone.  The chart title reads "Shipments of Cameras (SLR
Cameras)" and the numbers were as follows:

1997  4.1 million
1998  4.29 million
1999  4.36 million
2000  4.19 million
2001  3.63 million (when Nikon's market share rose from ~21% to almost 28%)


From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon sales figures for digital vs film SLR's
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002


Bill Hilton"  wrote:

> Meanwhile Kodak announced a decline in film sales, resulting in
> the lay off of 1,300 to 1,700 employees (on top of a layoff of
> 7,000 last year). Kodak executives blame this "largely on a
> downturn in the U.S. economy" and don't mention the rise of
> digital as a concern. (head, sand?)
>
> http://www.computeruser.com/news/02/10/25/news6.html

This is what Kodak really said about film sales, at least about the consumer
segment:

"Worldwide consumer film sales to dealers (including 35mm film, Advantix
film, One- Time-Use Cameras) in the third quarter declined 1%, reflecting 1%
volume increases, negative 5% price/mix, and 3% favorable exchange. U.S.
film sales to dealers decreased 3%, as a result of 3% volume increases, and
negative 6% price/mix. Outside the U.S., film sales to dealers increased 1%,
with unchanged volumes, negative 4% price/mix and 5% favorable exchange."

Note that film sales volume *increased*, not decreased. This is from
www.kodak.com, BTW.

Kodak goes on to note an 11% sales decline in their Professional product
line and a 19% increase in film sales to the entertainment industry.

The perils of quoting second-hand sources...

-Dave-



From: [email protected] (Bill Hilton)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 23 Nov 2002 
Subject: Re: how much of the camera market does digital now have?


>From: "Joe Zorzin" [email protected]

>With all the debates about the quality of digital vs. film, I'm curious how
>the public is voting with their money?

Here's some up-to-date sales figures from Nikon ...

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/jigyo02.htm and click the links
"Shipments of Cameras and Digital Cameras, Shipment Units of Digital Cameras by
the Number of Pixels" and "Sales Results and Forecasts for Cameras, etc."

and more specifically this pdf file ...

http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2002/fb/02fb_e04.pdf

Poke around a bit on the pdf file and you'll see that last year for the first
time Nikon sold more digital cameras (all types) than film SLRs (though not all
film cameras), and that while film SLR sales dropped from 1,080,000 to 880,000
(close to 20%) digital camera sales rose by well over 100%, from 680,000 units
to 1,450,000 units.

Not sure how this corresponds to the other companies like Canon but likely it's
similar.

Bill




From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how much of the camera market does digital now have?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002

Bill Hilton [email protected] wrote:
> http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/portfolio/ir/2002/fb/02fb_e04.pdf

Here are Nikon's *complete* camera sales figures from the same PDF file:

1998
----
Film Camera Sales ----- 2,640,000
Digital Camera Sales --    30,000

1999
----
Film Camera Sales ----- 2,570,000
Digital Camera Sales --   100,000

2000
----
Film Camera Sales ----- 2,600,000
Digital Camera Sales --   410,000

2001
----
Film Camera Sales ----- 2,780,000
Digital Camera Sales --   680,000

2002
----
Film Camera Sales ----- 2,410,000
Digital Camera Sales -- 1,450,000

The digital sales trend is clear. But note that film camera sales have been
pretty flat during the whole period, including from 1998 to 1999 when
digital sales were downright tiny. This probably has more to do with market
saturation, and competition from Canon, than anything else. From now on,
though, I'd expect digicam sales to start eating into the film camera share.

-Dave-


From: "Skip Middleton" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how much of the camera market does digital now have?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002


One thing that I wonder if it influences digital sales vs. film SLR sales in
the higher rate of introduction of new models and technology.  Since I own a
1n and A2, and the replacements, 1v and EOS3 were introduced several years
ago, I have very little incentive to buy a new body.  They function the
same.  I'd say the same would be true of the Nikon F5 owner, why buy a new
one?  But the guys who bought D30's who are now flocking to buy D60's, and
by the Ebay listings, I'd say there are quite a few, would bulk up those
digital SLR sales.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
...


Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: how much of the camera market does digital now have?


One thing that might cause a digital SLR to become obsolete would be changes
in file formats for storing images. When future operating systems, and
possibly PhotoShop, move to JPEG2000, a new variety of TIFF, or some other
format, this could make it tougher to use some digital cameras. The newer
digital camera bodies that allow firmware upgrades could get around these
issues, by changing with the future operating systems and imaging software.

The other issues are electronic degradation of components. The LCD panels are
one possible failure area, with an unfortunately high repair cost, though the
LCD panels on some film cameras can also have this problem. Another issue is
shutter life, especially considering the often higher frame usage on digital
cameras. Other than those issues, I wonder how long a CCD or CMOS sensor is
supposed to last before it fails, and what the repair costs would become.

I guess that checking for a firmware upgradeable body, and getting an extended
warranty might be good things. The other option would be a lease plan with
upgrade possibility, like some medium format digital backs offer.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com
...



From: "ajacobs2" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: More on Gretag Bankruptsy
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003


I reported earlier, last week about the demise of Gretag, the Swiss
manufacturer of  large film processing equipment. It finally made the
papers. Almost the General Motors of that end of the business.  So far
nothing from Kodak, fairly involved as a partner in purchases from Gretag
for their Qualex Labs.  (That means Kodak Paper sales) Same thing when Wolf
was going under , these are accounts involved with Kodak.


Gretag Imaging Bankrupt
City officials hope a trustee is appointed soon so attempts to attract a
buyer or tenant for the building can begin.
01/14/2003
By JOHN APPLETON
Staff writer

HOLYOKE - Lawyers for Gretag Imaging Inc. filed for bankruptcy yesterday,
saying the collapse of its Swiss parent companies made it impossible for the
American affiliate to survive.
he corporation, which sold and serviced photo development equipment made by
the parent companies, closed its doors at 361 Whitney Ave. Friday and laid
off more than 200 employees throughout North America and Argentina.
About 120 people worked at or out of the Holyoke plant, servicing and
repairing the photo development machines found in many retail stores and
administering the business in the rest of the country.
The plea was filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Worcester just a few weeks
after Gretag Imaging Holding AG filed for bankruptcy in Switzerland.
"The bankruptcy court will appoint a trustee, we hope, immediately," said
Gretag's lawyer Robert P. Cunningham. "An immediate appointment will allow
the trustee to preserve as much value as possible for all of the creditors."
Jeffrey P. Hayden, Holyoke's director of industrial development, said he
hopes a trustee will be appointed soon so efforts can start to find a buyer
or tenant for the modern 210,000-square-foot factory building.

"There are a lot of potential uses for this building," Hayden said.
The building was built for Wang Laboratories Inc. in 1984 during its growt
spurt, but the plant closed three years later, and Wang went bankrupt in the
early 1990s.


History repeated itself... who wants a 210,000 foot building with that track
record....
--
Al Jacobson
Website:    www.aljacobs.com


From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 
From: Leica Camera Newsletter [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Leica Newsletter, 02/27/03: Third Quarter FY 2002/2003 Results
Dear Leica friends,

Today we would like to inform you about:

__Third Quarter FY 2002/2003 Results

The Leica Camera Group, Solms, has closed the first nine
months of fiscal year 2002/2003 (FY end March 31) with a
7.5 % sales increase to Euro 109.2 million and an after-tax
profit of Euro1.4 million. This result compares favourably to
the after-tax loss of Euro 2.2 million registered in the same
period of the previous year and indicates a swing of Euro
3.6 million. The recorded sales growth results from new
products of the Company�s three business units, System
Products, Sports Optics and Compact Cameras. Nearly
40 % of Leica Camera Group�s sales during the first nine
months of the current fiscal year have been generated by
the new products introduced since the spring of 2002. A
better product mix contributed to the improvement in the
Company�s performance.

Third Quarter FY 2002/03 Results are available as pdf-file
at:
http://www.leica-camera.com/unternehmen/presse/index_e.html


With best regards,
Leica Camera AG
Corporate Communications
http://www.leica-camera.com/


Do you have friends, colleagues or acquaintances who
might also be interested in this service? If so, please
forward this communication to them, or kindly alert them to
the free subscription service at the following address:
http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/service/newsletter/index_e.php3

You will receive this mail if you have entered your name on
the distribution list offered by Leica Camera AG on the
internet. If your mailing address changes, or if you wish to
re-subscribe or cancel your free subscription, you can find
the appropriate instructions at the following site:
http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/service/newsletter/index_e.php3

If you have questions or suggestions concerning Leica
Camera AG offerings, please sent us an e-mail.
http://www.leica-camera.com/mail/index_e.php3

Leica Newsletter v1.2


From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 
From: "bdcolen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Leica third quarter results

Despite the PR talk about the M7 and R9 and encouraging results - the
bottom line in the numbers is that income from "system cameras" is down
%7.6 percent for the first nine months of the year, and down 6.1% for
the third quarter - and that's WITH the intro of the M7 and R9 - imagine
what those numbers would have been without those intros.

Even more interesting, in terms of where photography - and interest in
the Leica mystique- is going - sales of projectors was down a whopping
20% for the first nine months.

B. D.


From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 
From: Henry Ting [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: Leica third quarter results

Yeah, just about all the global companys' balance
sheet look bad. Leica especially so, when the $EURO is
pegged so high against the $USD where U.S. is its
biggest market.


From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 
From: "Seth Rosner" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Leica third quarter results

If one thinks about it, B.D., these results look reasonably good. Economies
in most of the developed world have been soft since the market tops in March
2000 and have been positively dismal since 9/11. Despite the PR out of
Washington the U.S. economy has been in recession for at least two years.
Germany, long the economic powerhouse of the E.C., is experiencing fiscal
pressures she has not known for decades with some private hints that major
banks may need government support. And Japan has been in an out-and-out
depression since the late 1980's, with major financial institutions under
water and the Nikkei, her Dow Jones average, at one-fifth the level reached
over 15 years ago. While some companies are reporting profits, there is deep
red ink all over world corporate reports.

Against that background and in the current climate, for Solms to have turned
from a significant loss to an operating profit is an accomplishment.

Just my 2c.

Seth LaK 9



From hasselblad mailing list:
From: [email protected]
Sent: Wed 2/26/2003 
Subject: [HUG] mini-labs and medium format printing

Hi all,

I've been reading the thread from Tom of Oslo's email on labs and printing of medium format negs. As a mini-lab owner I would like 
to add a few observations on the business of printing. The hey-day of mini-lab printing was in the 80's. That was when a locally owned 
1-hour lab could keep busy and charge appropriately to make money. These days the industry has changed markedly, brought about by 
two main influences. First, the plethora of drugstore and supermarket 1-hour labs in the 90's dropped the market price of processing/printing
 a roll of film way down. At first this may seem like a good thing, however for those who are concerned about image quality it's not so good 
(and most of those on this list would fall into that category, I'm sure). Secondly, just as digital has had an effect on cameras, it's had a 
similiar effect on mini-labs.


Wal-mart/Sam's Club is the 800 pound gorilla here. A full 30-35% of the film retail and processing industry in the US is controlled by them. 
When you add all the other chain drugstores, supermarkets, etc., your probably looking at 80-90% of all film processing (and retail film sales).
 These places do their business based on two principals, huge volume and making money on getting people in the store to buy other things. 
There is a Wal-mart a 1/2 mile from me, and they print a roll of 24 exposure film, double-4x6, for under $5.00...that's my cost in materials and 
overhead, not including labor!!! How can I compete? They have a contract with Fuji that provides them with mini-labs at a minimum of cost
 (units that would cost me $120,000+ to purchase new), and they buy paper and chemicals in such volume that their discounts are huge. 
But they don't even need to make money on printing a roll of film, just covering their cost is fine, they make money by getting people in 
the store for an hour buying other things. The same is true for all the other chain stores. Their primary target customers are mothers, who 
take lots of family photos and do all the family shopping. As long as the photos are not horrible (and sometimes even horrible is acceptable), 
then mom will keep coming back. They don't need or want quality conscious customers, and that would include anyone with a medium 
format camera. Now a locally owned 1-hour lab depends on a reputation of quality service to keep regular customers coming back. 
Unfortunately, even these customers tend to use the cheaper chain store labs for most of their printing, just using the more expensive 
labs for those occasional rolls that are really important. The bottom line is most locally owned photo labs have gone out-of-business in 
the last 10 years, and they were the only mini-lab operations that might even consider doing medium format service.

The other aspect of change is digital. All mini-labs now manufactured are either fully digital (Fuji Frontier, Agfa D-lab, Konica QD-21, 
Noritsu ?, etc.) or optical/digital hybrids. I own a 10 year old Konica optical lab, basiclly a self-contained, automated darkroom. I can print 
a full range of 35mm and medium format prints up to 8x10. I just have to change the film carrier and the lens. The digital labs must scan 
negatives, or print digtal files from other sources (digital cameras, flatbed scanners, etc.). Scanning 35mm and APS film is not a problem, 
almost as fast as my optical system. Medium format is a little tougher, at least to do so in a speedy manner. The Fuji Frontier and Konica 
QD labs don't even try to scan medium format, some Agfa mini-lab's do, but they are so slow none of the labs that use them want to bother 
with it. These are machines that cost between $120,000 to $180,000 each, not including a film processor. Anyone who is using one needs
 to keep it busy, that means high volume 35mm and APS work, not 120. Digital cameras will be a boon to these machines, if they can get 
people to get prints like they do with film. The fact is, with all the digital cameras out there today, only about 10-20% of images taken ever 
get downloaded to a computer and saved, and only about 10-20% of these ever get printed, mostly to inkjet printers at home. Compare that 
to film where almost every photo taken gets printed. Digital cameras are putting a hurt on Kodak and Fuji paper and chemical sales. But I 
digress...

So these are some basic reasons most 1-hour photo labs won't do medium format work, and why most of them are uneven quality with 
35mm at best (there is a price to pay for high quantity output). I keep my mini-lab busy with my own portrait & wedding work, along with 
a high volume customer that can't use the chain store labs. My walk-in photo processing business is almost zero. Fortunately, my lab is an 
older optical unit that was purchased used for about $12,000 three years ago (and is currently worth about $5,000, that's how much they've
 depreciated because of the digital mini-labs) plus $6,000 for the C-41 processor. When printing a good negative, the quality of my machine 
is as good, if not better, than a digital mini-lab. The main benefit of a digital mini-lab with regard to printing film is that problem negatives can 
be compensated for by means of computer adjustments to the image. This takes skill that most chain store lab personel don't have though, 
thus the advantages of digital labs are mostly waisted in the chain stores. Even with my lab, it takes more time to print medium format film.
 I have to feed the film by hand, while the 35mm feeder is automatic. Plus, it takes longer to expose each image. Also, changing the light 
tunnel, film carrier and lens for each setup is slower than 35mm, which uses a zoom lens and only one carrier type (I have two carriers for
 medium format, a 6x6 and 645...never had a need for 6x7). and loading the film in the C-41 processor is more work...bottom line, time is money.


Maybe this sheds some light on the issues that labs face on processing medium format film. The only labs that can make money doing it are 
the pro labs, which don't often use mini-labs anyway. They use video analysed equipment, which is a bit higher-end and more costly. But 
they still adhere to principals of volume, they just have a different client, one who is able to produce more consistent negatives, for which
 they gear their equipment and workflow.

My studio/lab is located in Covington, just north of New Orleans. If anyone is in the area and needs to get some 120 film printed,
 look me up! Also, if you have a volume of film to process/print (maybe 6 or more rolls), I might be able to work out a price that 
would be worth sending through the mail/UPS, especially during the summer when my business is slow. Feel free to contact me
 directly via email or phone.

Robert Welch
Flash Foto
http://www.rwphotography.com


From Leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 
From: "Don Dory" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Digital - Rumor Mongering long

John,
Let's see, the Contax D1 has been pretty much a flop on the market at the
same time that their film camera's have been more or less abandoned with the
confusion on which mount is still being promoted.

Minolta has just joined Konica for their copier business. The Minolta
digital 7 series is languishing behind the offerings from Nikon(4700, 5000,
5700), Canon(G2, G3), Fuji(602), Olympus(the whole E series). Their highly
promoted X is two months late to market, missed the whole Christmas cycle.
Their film cameras are just like anyone else's, selling very slowly.

Pentax has a lower cost structure but has some fairly slow selling digital
P&S. Likewise their film cameras are selling fairly slowly.

Nikon was late to market with their D100, took a long time to get production
to the point that you could actually buy one. Their 5000 is looking long in
the tooth as well as the 4700. Like everyone else, their film cameras are
selling real slowly. Oh, and there is confusion as to their commitment to
film with the new lenses that don't cover 35mm.

Olympus has left the SLR business but is in the top three or four selling
their generally excellent line of digital P&S. Their E line is in some
trouble due to the D60 and D100 offering interchangeable lenses in a similar
price point.

Kodak's camera business is hemorrhaging money. Their 14 MP camera may be
shipping now, or it may not.

Canon has the best selling SLR, The Rebel Ti, the second best selling SLR,
the Rebel 2000, and the third best selling SLR, the Rebel G. Their film
P&S are doing fine. The G3 is selling very briskly, their ELPH 230 and 330
are selling as fast as they can build them. They had two factories building
D60's as fast as they could, discontinued the D60, and will replace it with
two cameras that will ship in March: this will effectively bracket the Nikon
D100, whatever Pentax builds, and perhaps will compete with whatever Olympus
comes out with.

What does this mean? Maybe Canon is making money in digital. Their
photography division is profitable. Olympus is profitable. Fuji with their
own foundry is probably making money on their digital business. Everyone
else is taking really big hits trying to play, hoping that they can survive
long enough.

The morale. It is very possible that a small specialty company can wait out
the early wars and introduce their product as a niche product with most of
the R&D paid for by someone else. The trick is that the Japanese look at
the cost of producing the next box more than what the amortized cost of all
the R&D.

Who knows, we will have to wait and see.

Don
[email protected]



Date: 22 Jan 2003 
From: Gruppen-User Photo [email protected]
Bcc: rmonagha [email protected]
Subject: Camera Lens News No. 18 now online

Dear Camera Lens News Reader,

Now you can find our latest issue of Camera Lens News online
on our website under www.zeiss.de/photo.

Here is the direct link:
http://www.zeiss.de/C12567A8003B58B9/Inhalt-Frame/4FDEACEDCB7D0AF541256A53003923AA

This is the first paperless issue which is distributed only electronically
by e-mail and via www.zeiss.de/photo.

...

The topics covered by issue No. 18:

1) Almost 3 million more Carl Zeiss lenses in 2002
The driving force behind this development is the rapid growth of the
digital still camera market. The number of Carl Zeiss lenses delivered
to the digital video market has also increased significantly.


From: "Radu" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Interesting article about camera sales, on-line stores
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003


http://www.pcworld.com/features/article/0,aid,107855,00.asp



From: [email protected] (Bob Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: LF paradox - more choices, fewer sold? Re: why so expensive?
Date: 3 Apr 2003 


hmm? most LF cameras seem to be sold for many years, so while sales per
year may be modest (but rather more than 100 per year worldwide I hope!),
the overall volumes do get that R&D cost down. So I very much doubt that
R&D is more than 5-10% of the cost of most LF cameras.

the odd reality seems to be that LF cameras are priced at such high levels
that small (i.e., inefficient) new production can break into the market
and compete against larger existing mfgers. This is one reason there are
more brands of LF cameras being made today per reports than in the recent
past. You certainly can't afford to homebrew a 35mm SLR or even a 6x6cm
SLR for less than you can buy one new, but many folks are making their own
custom panoramic (using LF lenses and backs etc.) and specialty LF models
for rather less than similar new LF and panoramic (6x12cm and up) models.

something similar is happening in med fmt too, largely due to the new
rodenstock lenses for wide angle and shift cameras, and the number of
variants of cameras now available from standard mfgers such as hasselblad
and rollei and the new AF cameras. Given declining sales, markups have to
be significant for mfgers to keep coming out with new models including AF.

In the case of some specialty MF cameras, you can buy the camera with the
ultrawide lenses (e.g., rodenstock's excellent APO grandagons) for about
what the individual lenses in shutter would cost you as a retail buyer.
Even if you are a small mfger of a dozen specialty cameras per year, you
can apparently get wholesale pricing circa 1/2 to 2/3rds off the same
lenses for a retail one-off homebrew builder. Similarly, Hasselblad marks
up the same LF lenses and shutters circa $1,000 for the same lenses in a
hasselblad arcbody mount against the retail prices; presumably, they are
doing even better with discounts given their volume and wholesale pricing?

At the same time, the overall volume seems to be down (at least for
japanese made MF and LF cameras, down to 50K or so see stats at
http://medfmt.8k.com/third/economics.html#99  ). So we have a paradox?

I think part of the answer lies in the market itself. If you are a budget
buyer, there are lots of older (and many orphaned) LF rigs available with
similar features to most of the newer models being sold (some are unique,
cf Walker Titan). In med fmt, up to 4 out of 5 new MF cameras are being
sold to well heeled amateur or semipro photographers, not full time
professionals (who number only 70k in USA see URL below per US Dept of
Labor stats). But in LF, my impression from postings etc. is that the
majority of LF cameras are being sold to full-time professional users, who
apparently regard these cameras as essential and long-term investments.
So the new LF camera market is much different from the Med Fmt new market.

from 
The top of the profession sales figures of the Advertising Photographers
of America, with average sales of $378,223 (and median sales rather lower
at $243,000) reported for 1999:

Replacement Value:
$ 9,900 35mm gear (SLR, Rangefinders..)
$13,250 120 rollfilm gear (medium format SLR/RF..)
$16,150 4x5 large format
$ 8,800 digital cameras
=====

This is somewhat surprising, because my impression is that most LFers use
only two or three lenses for most of their work, whereas 35mm pros and med
fmt 120 rollfilm users tend to be more lens intensive, yes? So we have
another paradox here; pro LFers with fewer lenses may have more investment
in their LF gear (due to higher costs of accessories, tripods,
enlargers..)? Keep in mind that the LF lenses are often cheaper than
similar lenses in medium format (and more interchangeable too ;-).

There is a modest counter-trend, as in medium format (Cf the $750 US$ new
mamiya 645E economy model for students and other entry level users in MF),
with the Cadet series by Calumet in LF being notable examples.

In short, new LF cameras may be more expensive because the average new LF
buyer is more likely to be a full-time professional, rather than an
amateur or semipro user (as in Med Fmt and 35mm). The LF paradox is the
declining LF sales (of japanese made models anyway) at the same time we
have increased numbers of models and brands to choose from. I suggest this
is because the markups on lenses and cameras is sufficient to attract new
small niche players and encourage expansion of the existing makers lines.

This may get even more interesting as new digital chips make it feasible
to create digital backs for LF users on a semi-custom basis. For example,
the new 41.4 Megapixel "recorded pixels" fuji chips (really a 20+ MP
chip?) of 37x52mm and future larger offerings may make it feasible to
build custom LF digital systems where the lower cost of the (simpler) LF
cameras provide a cost benefit over the more pricey (including lenses)
medium format kits will be at a disadvantage (because the cost of the
camera will be more of the overall cost as digital chips drop to $1k price
levels and below etc.).

it will be interesting for those amateur LFers to see if the same level of
turnover happens with these digital LF systems as with their 35mm SLR
brethren. If so, then the actual annual cost (including depreciation) may
be surprisingly higher for such digital LF systems, again higher costs and
more different models as chips evolve - the LF paradox in digital systems
too ;-)

grins bobm


From BJP Equipment News 11 April 2003:

Q: For non-digital photography items, has your expenditure, gone up, down, or stayed the same?

A: With 108 votes, ~39% were more, ~38% were less, and 23% stayed about the same. 


From: [email protected] [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sat 5/3/2003 
To: [email protected] 
Subject: [HUG] my lists and domke bags & hasselblad content

Hi Folks,

A few notes:

1) Domke (owned by Tiffen) has been in quite a pickle for a while now. It has been very hard to get many popular items from 
them even before Tiffen went Ch. 11. 

Tiffen says that they should come out of it ...but for the moment all I can tell you is that my rep. said they had just 10 x 
F-802's and 10 x F-803's and he didn't expect any more this Summer if ever again! It wouldn't be like him to use this as 
a sales pitch and I had already committed to all 20 bags anyway, so I'm going to say that there must be some chance 
that the Domke 802's will be unavailable.

For sure the ballastic ones are discontinued. Tiffen told that one to me strait a couple of months ago.

...
cheers,
Rich
photovillage.com


From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Thu, 1 May 2003 
From: "John Wm Cameron Jr" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Canon doubles profits was: Minolta Digital SLR - when?


Came across this article on the Imaging-resources web site. Felt it was
appropriate to this thread.

Again I love my Minoltas, this is not bashing��just commentary

Article titled : Canon digicams help double profits

http://www.imaging-resource.com/NEWS/1051774117.html

John C.


From: [email protected] (Steve Eckhardt)
Newsgroups: sci.optics
Subject: Re: cost
Date: 13 May 2003 

Warren Smith has a program he uses to calculate the cost of a lens. I wish I
had a copy.

Much of the pricing depends on volume. If you only want one, the cost is
almost entirely in setup. If you want 10,000, then the cost depends much more
on surface area, radius of curvature and materials. The radius is important
because you can only block one hemisphere on a tool regardless of size, but
with plane surfaces you are limited only by your machine's size. Material
costs are important at high volume In any quantity, the number of pieces that
must be handled is also a contributing factor.

--
Best regards,
Steve Eckhardt
skeckhardt at mmm dot com

[email protected] says...
>Would you say the cost of making the surfaces is reciprocal to the surface?
>In the traditional process, the smaller the lens, the more of them you can
>make at a time. So, the cost of a 1/2'' diameter lens is 25% of a 1''
>diameter lens. Would you agree?
>
>"Bob May" [email protected] wrote 
>> For a small lens like that, the biggest cost by far is the cost of making
>> the surfaces. It isn't until you start using some of the exotic glasses
>> (not really needed as the color correctino is better than the resolution of
>> such a small lens for anything but the shorter FLs) that the cost will
>> really start moving up.
>> When you start talking of 6" and up lenses then the cost of materials does
>> become a significant part of the cost of the lens. In addition, the exotic
>> glasses do become a real part of the equation as the resolution of such
>> lenses becomes big enough to really affect the performace of the lens.
>>
>> --
>> Bob May



[Ed. note: I'm archiving some stats here...]
From http://www.pace.edu/lubin/centers/tfinnerty.pdf 
Kodak vs. Fuji The Battle For Global Market Share by Thomas Finnerty...

amateur photo market size est. $14.2 billion
film sales - est. $2.84 billion or 20%
35mm film sales - est. $2.27 billion or 80.2%

film sales up 2%, but single use cameras up 23% in 1997 and 20% projected in future

1997 amateur photo market $14.2 billion:

photoprocessing        43.5%  $6.177 billion
film sales             20.0%  $2.840 billion
conventional cameras    9.70% $1.3774 billion
digital imaging         6.40% $908.8 million
portrait studios        5.50% $791 million
frames                  3.3%  $468.6 million
photo accessories       3.2%  $454.4 million
albums                  2.5%  $355 million
camera repair           1%    $142 million
consumables             0.9%  $127.8 million
video camcorders        0.7%  $99.4 million
video accessories       0.5%  $71 million
other                   2.8%  $397.6 million
[source 1997 photo marketing association]

one time camera use projected to go from ~82 million in 1997 to over 100 million in 1998

1995 - kodak share of global film market estimated at 44%, fuji's at 33%
today (1998?) roughly 1/3rd or 33% each for fuji and kodak globally

USA market (1998?) kodak 70% (declining), fuji 17% of US market; private labels in USA 7%
agfa (German) and Konica (japan) each under 2%...

What happened? Costco Warehouses went Kodak exclusively in 1996, fuji stuck with 2.5 million rolls
of film to unload, cut prices 10-15%. 

Stock analyst - every 1% cut in price of Kodak film, a 1% drop in kodak profits results...

Fuji has 70% share in Japan, Kodak a 70% share in USA; but Kodak's share in Japan is 7-9%
while Fuji in USA is rising from 17% (1998). Kodak sales in Japan in 1994 was $1.2 billion,
and it was the 43rd largest foreign corp. in Japan.  WTO case by kodak vs. fuji lost...

Kodak layoffs were 16,000; growth fell from 20% to 7% range (1998 quote)

Kodak sales falling, from 1990's $18.9 billion fell to $13.4 billion in 1998.

Film prices have declined an average of 8% for kodak (cuts profits too, see above quote)

Rolls of film consumed:

USA/Japan   145 million households 8.2 rolls/household  = 1,189 million rolls   
Australia/Canada/Korea/France/Germany/UK  114 million households 4.6 rolls/household = 524.4 million
Italy/mexico/brazil/thailand  92 million households 2.2 rolls/household = 202.4 million rolls
Indonesia China Russia India 607 million households 0.5 rolls/household = 303.5 million rolls
[source Kodak annual report 1998]

Fuji spends 7% on R&D; faster films, 1986 first one use cameras were fuji etc.
Fuji started as private brand in USA market in 1965; 1972 fuji own name, 1984 olympics sponsor
Fuji in 1987 produced only 3.5% outside japan, today over 40%

Fuji sales doubled in last 10 years, yet staff size is the same; output per employee is 
$285,000 vs Kodak's $155,000 (after layoffs). 


Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 
To: [email protected]
From: Henry Posner [email protected]
Subject: [Nikon] Re: scope on Nikon rebates

you wrote:
>What does a rebate mean then?

It means they want to move hardware. It means they want to clear a surplus.
It means they know the "price-after-rebate" amount is a buying incentive
but that fewer than 30% of eligible rebates are ever redeemed. It means
they want market share.
-- -

regards,
Henry Posner
B&H Photo-Video, and Pro-Audio Inc.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com


From: Max [[email protected]] 
Sent: Sun 6/8/2003 
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Classic 35mm Compacts] Re: Top three?


My Konica Auto S2, no doubt about that one, and other (more) compact
Konicas like C35. The GSN is great, but I like all mechanical cameras
that work without batteries, may be I should try a Lynx. I own also a
Canon F1 old with 50/1.4 SSC, Mamiya C330 with 55m and a Yashica T4.
All are my favorite classics. The truth is (obviously excepting the
Yashica T4) I feel most of the mid to high priced japanese cameras
from the 70s are built to become instant cult items. In fact, I
remember reading a comment by a tech man from one of the big brands
saying that the cost of producing a Pentax Spotmatic today would be
something like 1500$.

Only one camera? Well, I guess that's the Konica Auto S2, again.


From: "David in Perth" [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Cost of digital camera
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 


About 10-15% on 'name' brands like Nikon and Canon.

Kodak, Samsung, Casio etc. usually 15%-30%

"Alan" [email protected] wrote
> Anyone knows the profit margin the retailers gain on a digital camera ?
> For example, Canon A70, the list price is ~$670, what would be the cost that
> the retailers bought from wholesaler ?


From: Stuart Elflett [email protected]
Newsgroups: aus.photo
Subject: Re: Cost of digital camera
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 

Actual 'dealer price' varies according to the quantity purchased in most cases, particularly with Canon... for an
A70, we put 10% on our cost, which makes it $585 inc GST...

Cheers,
Stuart Elflett
Dataman Pty Ltd

"Alan" [email protected] wrote:
> Anyone knows the profit margin the retailers gain on a digital camera ?
> For example, Canon A70, the list price is ~$670, what would be the cost that
> the retailers bought from wholesaler ?



From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 
From: "vbpholaw" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta Financial Results 2002/2003

A couple of perhaps noteworthy points. First, the Optical Division
(which includes photographic products) had net positive results for
the recently completed year, rather than losses of the previous
year. So in that respect things are looking up. The report notes
Minolta's focus on certain market segments as its method of regaining
a positive financial position. In that context it highlights the
Dimage 7i (and 7hi which it describes as a limited edition product),
the Dimage 4 and Dimage XT, and the Alpha Sweet II, which is an entry
level SLR. There is no mention of higher end SLRs (or other
photographic products). This would suggest that Minolta's focus on
certain market segments does not include the higher end of the market
(e.g., a digital SLR), which is nothing we did not already know. 
That is not to say that new products may not be forthcoming, just
that it is not the Optical Division's focus. With respect to lenses,
it describes sales of lenses for non-photographic purposes, such as
cell phone cameras and digital projectors. No mention of traditional
camera lenses.

Of course, it remains impossible to predict what Minolta may do in
the future based on this information.

Mark Van Bergh

--- In [email protected], "Daniel Oi" daniel.oi@q... wrote:
> Haven't seen this mentioned (apologies if it has). Minolta released
> its Consolidated Financial Results for the period 1/4/2002-31/3/2003
> http://www.minolta.com./pdf/ty02cons.pdf
>
> Interesting things to note are that the Optical Products division
> turned around the Yen 7.2 billion loss of the previous year and
> actually made a Yen 3.2 billion operating profit. Sales went up 5.6%
> to Yen 114 billion. They doubled digital unit sales.
>
> The rest of the document is accounting gobbledygook to me (I don't
> deal with numbers in my day job, I'm a theoretical physicist) so I
> can't really say what financial shape Minolta is in. Maybe the
> turnaround in the Optical Products division may mean that they are
> more willing to gamble on a DSLR.
>
> They also mention the Konica merger, which will be by stock swap in
> August 2003. They also mention "futuristic products" and "advanced
> technologies" as foci to aim for.
>
> Well, at least it isn't looking dire for our "Mind". It's no good if
> in the process of introducing all the goodies (DSLR, IS, SSM, DO,
> telepathy etc.:) Minolta go bust.
>
> Cheers from Cambridge (the old one),
> Daniel.
> http://cam.qubit.org/users/daniel/Photography/
> http://nodens.physics.ox.ac.uk/~oi/photography.html


From: [email protected] (Ted Harris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 22 Jun 2003 
Subject: Re: phillips still in business

BTW ... just because they have suspended taking new orders (which they have)
should not totally discourage you from calling and asking about an 8x10 or
larger camera. 

Phillips policyis to take orders without a downpayment of any kind. Thus, as
they get farther and farther ijnto a pruduction run it often happens that there
may be room to squeeze a few new orders onto the list as others have dropped
out.

For example, when I ordered my 8x10 Compact II about 3 years ago I was looking
at a 14 month wait because of the number of orders ahead of me on the list. I
actually got the camera in a bit under 10 months.

Ted Harris
Resource Strategy
Henniker, New Hampshire



From manual nikon mailing list:
From: "Boyd Marcotte" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Canon film vs digital cameras.
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 

>FYI, I went to a talk by a Canon Professional Sales
>Rep and she told us that the current top of the line
>Cannon film camera was the last Professional camera
>from Canon to use film. She also said that a new Rebel
>camera to be released shortly would be the last film
>camera in this segment of the market.

Sales reps are not the most reliable source of information about a company's
future product plans. They are not insiders when it comes to that kind of
information and are usually only told about new products very close to their
release date for training purposes.

Although everything seems to be coming up digital these days, the immense
growth in digital camera sales (300% for Nikon between 2002 and 2004) has
hurt the compact film camera segment the most. Sales of point and shoot film
cameras are down dramatically (projected to be more than 30% from 2002-2004
for Nikon), but based on Nikon's latest figures, sales of film based SLR
cameras are up (more than 11% in the same period). Lens sales are also up.
So, considering the source of that information, I seriously doubt that Canon
is discontinuing the Rebel, which is the best selling SLR in the world.

B


From: Mark Roberts [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Kodak to sack 6000 as profit dives
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 

[email protected] (drsmith) wrote:
>You can probably find the article online at www.democratandchronicle.com
>if you want to see the Roch. NY point of view on it.

Or the "Democrap and Comical" as some locals call it ;-)
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/biznews/07246A1A3QC_ek24_business.shtml

"Photographic film, the product that helped create both a city and a
company, is heading for the fate of the American elm tree, white gloves,
enclosed phone booths, slide rules, carbon paper and other pieces of
vanishing Americana."

"Kodak indicated that consumers were switching to digital cameras at a
faster rate than expected and reducing their use of roll film
accordingly � by 8 to 10 percent this year and more in coming years."
--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com


From: [email protected] (Geoffrey S. Mendelson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Used 'blad prices - a sad (happy?) thing to see
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 

nathantw wrote:

> So are digital cameras and the decline of film usage really making
> Hasselblad equipment prices (or camera gear in general) drop like rocks?

Sort of. The new Hasseblad 645 camera which is both film and digital
has replaced their enitre line of cameras. To liquidate old stock they
recently (last fall) had a fire sale at low prices.

There was also a fire sale of demo equipment. Since sales of new medium format
equipment to amateurs is almost dead, and the perception was that pros would
want to spend their new equipment dollars on the H1, all the dealers were
getting rid of demo stuff to replace it with H1 demos and stock.

Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson [email protected] 


From: [email protected] (Captain Chuck)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: The Budget of Pros: was; Hasselblad on a budget?
Date: 16 Jul 2003 

Firstly, pro photographers are not usually worried too much about
camera prices because cameras are only one of many, many expenses they
have. I had lunch with a high school pal who runs, with his wife, a
portrait and school operation in a small (to me-fifty thousand people)
town. He replaced his entire camera system (not counting his longroll
camera) overnight in one fell swoop for tax/depreciation reasons and
figures his annual rent and light bill will still be a lot higher than
his camera payment on a four year note. He went with Mamiya RZ-plus a
Wisner 4x5 view camera plus a rangefinder Mamiya. Mamiya optics alone
came to almost fifteen grand ( he got three bodies). Said he
deliberately didn't look at price.


> > The real question is not whether you want a Hasselblad, but whether
> > you need one. I'm a firm believer in getting what one NEEDS, and not
> > what one WANTS. Waste not, want not. A fool and his money are soon
> > parted. You get the idea.
> >
>
> I always knew I "wanted" a Hasselblad when I finally got around to upgrading
> to medium format. I ended up with a Mamiy RZ 67 though. After a while I
> still wanted a Hasselblad so I bought a used Mamiya 6MF because a] it was
> cheap, b] I had the Mamiya 7 II and liked it and c] I wanted to see what was
> so great about a square negative. What I found out was that I don't like
> square negatives and no longer feel the desire to get me a Hasselblad :-)

The A16 back fixes that.


Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Follow up to: Kodak Lab Closing--Film Use Is spread out more...

Jeremy wrote:
> "Dave-id" [email protected] wrote
> > Personally I started to get a little worried a short while back but
> > i've come to the conclusion that film isn't going anywhere for awhile.
> > I'm actually more worried about sales droppping enough to make the
> > cost of film unfairly high. I'm also a little worried about my B&W
> > paper and chemistry. I'm far from rich and relatively young (25) and
> > I would like to enjoy my darkroom for quite awhile longer.
>
> I was the one that started the original thread, and I did not mean to
> suggest that film was dead. There IS one aspect of film-based photography
> that is dying, though, and that is "snapshot" uses. Your typical
> consumer--you know, the one that shoots 2 rolls per year--is not interested
> in film. He/she wants digital. This type of consumer could care less about
> dynamic range, tonality, or archival qualities of film. He/she wants to
> snap a photo, email it to family and friends, and print a copy occasionally
> on a cheap inkjet.

The one-time-use cameras are still the largest sales volume, and highest profit
area for Kodak, Fuji, AGFA, et al. Current information still indicates that 18%
of US households have a one-time-use camera as their primary camera. Fuji has
made great strides into the minilab business, and taken some market share from
Kodak in North America.

> This consumer was the driving force behind photography. Kodak mad their
> name on the slogan, "You press the button, we do the rest."

Their new one-time-use film and digital combination is addressing that market.
Early indications are that they are selling well. The end result of using one
is snap shots, and a CD with digital images, ready for e-mail or other on-line
viewing. It is also about the cheapest way to go digital, if you actually want
some prints.

> We tend to look down on this unsophisticated consumer, but without them, the
> price of film and film based photo equipment is going to rise, because film
> will be an endangered species. Much as we might tend to turn our noses up
> at consumers that will settle for poor quality images, we're going to miss
> the mass-market impact that they produced by their purchases.

Absolutely. We all like to bash the lower end of film users, but these people
drive the profits for the big three film producers. Except for a decrease in
travel after 11 September, sales of one-time-use cameras, and department store
quality film, have seen few times of decrease. Actually, around the September
time frame each year now, there has been a large increase in film and
one-time-use camera purchases.

> Just look at the quality stuff right now--Leica, Rollei, Hasselblad--the
> prices are sky-high, and those companies are not rolling in dough. The 35mm
> SLRs that are typically sold to advanced amateurs are likely to be made of
> plastic--and they're expensive, too.

Many things are now made of plastic. With some manufacturing techniques, it is
faster and provides for a greater profit margin. Some plastic products do
provide good dent resistance. The other issue is that the market for long
lasting and well constructed metal bodied cameras is fairly small. There are so
many good used choices for that type of consumer, and many of the older cameras
just do not wear out fast enough. Things like command dials and plastic rocker
switches can often wear out, or break, faster than the controls on some older
gear, meaning sooner replacements.

Leica and Rollei sell lots of cheaper branded products, such as consumer P&S
cameras. Hasselblad just got bought by one of their largest SE Asian
distributors, and some of their newest products are sourced, or constructed, by
Fuji. With the higher end companies, the higher priced products reinforce the
brand, and help the sales of the lower priced, and higher profit, low end gear.

> One day, film will go the way of home movies. (Remember them?) I wish it
> were not so, but it seems all but certain that film will be a niche market.
> For many photographers, digital imaging will serve their needs. Not
> everyone requires critical results--especially if they;re just shooting pics
> of the kids in the backyard pool . . .

One good aspect of film recently has been the opening of the Kodak facility for
B/W film production. It should also be noted at least in the case of Kodak, the
majority of profits come from non-consumer, commercial products. Many of those
are somewhat loosely based upon film technologies, but are not film products.
There are some similarities in products for the printing industry, and film
technology, for an example. Due to the nature of products for other industries,
and the ability to still generate profits from photographic film products, the
only reason to stop film production would be when it is no longer profitable.

Since the world is much bigger than North America, Europe, and Japan, there are
still underexploited markets for film. As long as B&H, or someone, imports
film, there will be film available. Industry financial analysis indicates that
there would be a reduction in film pricing in the event of reduced film sales.
The reduction in pricing would be to regain market share, or spur greater film
sales. Film is high profit, and high profit margin.

It should also be considered that the majority of digital camera users own
computers, and that barely 11% of them print anything. Wireless imaging may
very likely prove to be the next great thing, and eliminate digital P&S
cameras.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com


From: Mark Tuccillo [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: The real Nikon/Canon battle
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2003 

For those of you who think that cameras, be it film or digital, are
where Nikon and Canon are at each others throat, check out:

http://www.e-insite.net/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA309739&stt=000&industryid=21366&industry=Capital+Equipment

http://www.e-insite.net/electronicnews/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA309738&stt=000&industryid=21366&industry=Capital+Equipment

At this point Nikon has nearly twice the market share as Canon. Untill
ASML acquired SVG about 2 years ago, Nikon was the market leader.

Mark


From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 2003
From: Tim Atherton [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Kodak Film and Digital: "Kodak's plans spur (investor) rebellion"

"ROCHESTER, N.Y. - Eastman Kodak Co.'s decision to bet its future on digital
photography has touched off a battle with a potent group of dissident
investors.
Investors reacted with fury last month when Kodak slashed its annual
dividend by 72 percent to fund a major shift away from its ailing
conventional film business and into the fast-growing but highly competitive
digital arena.

Institutional investors led by Providence Capital Inc. are staging a forum
today to examine ways of prodding the world's biggest photography company to
alter its new course...

...Citing doubts about the potential profits in digital imaging compared to
conventional photography, Standard & Poor's Ratings Services and Moody's
Investors Service downgraded Kodak's credit rating last month to BBB-minus,
one notch above "junk" level... more"



http://denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%7E33%7E1714108,00.html?search=filter


From: "Nick C" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon to go all digital or not?
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 

"P.A." [email protected] wrote ...
> First came this article from Pacific Business News:
>
> Nikon to shutter old camera business
> http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/10/daily44.html
>
> Then came Nikon's not-so-complete denial:
> http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/2003/1113_e_03.htm
>
> Now comes the question - Nikon is saying that its film-based compact
> camera business will continue, but it makes no comments on film-based
> SLRs - will these go digital now?
>
> Paul


In the October issue of Pop Photography, page 52, there is an insert that
briefly tells of Nikons future plans for digital cameras.

In digest form, the article says:

"Future pro-level digital Nikon SLRs will have full size 35mm imagers,
while amateur digital SLRs will use the APS-sized sensors similar to those
in Nikons present DSLR lineup. The pros in the future will be able to use
the entire array of Nikon AF lenses, from the extreme wide-angle upward,
with no 35mm lens factor needed. For amateur Nikon digital SLRs with the
smaller sensor that add a 35mm lens factor of 1.5X, the Nikkor lens system
will be supplemented additional wide-angle-oriented lenses to cover the
smaller APS sized sensors."

"Because of the swift growth of digital SLR innovation and sales, makers
will have to introduce new cameras at very short intervals-digital SLR
models may not last in the market for more than a few years before they're
replaced by newer models. Digital prices will continue to drop but not to
the level of film SLRs, he (Mr. Kimura) suggested."

New model Digital cameras being introduced every few years may have an
impact on proprietary battery's being used in today's models. OEM's may not
continue to make battery's for obsolete digital cameras and these battery's
may have to be manufactured by third parties, so long as there is a volume
demand for a particular model battery type. Who knows, the price of special
type and size of camera battery's may go up or not be available.

Nick


From: [email protected] (P.A.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon to go all digital or not?
Date: 14 Nov 2003 

Here is further clarification on this topic from Dow Jones Newswires:
"Nikon will, however, continue development and production of its highly
regarded SLR (single-lens reflex) film cameras as demand stays brisk."

--
TOKYO (Nikkei)--Nikon Corp. (7731.TO) plans to discontinue its 35mm
compact film camera operations in Japan and focus instead on digital
cameras, The Nihon Keizai Shimbun reported in its Thursday morning
edition, citing company sources.

The company, which posted a pretax loss for the fiscal first half
ended Sept. 30 due to sluggish chip-manufacturing equipment
operations, aims to strengthen profitability by shifting to digital
cameras, an area that continues to grow at a rapid clip.

Nikon shipped about 1.5 million 35mm compact cameras worldwide in
fiscal 1998. But because of the subsequent proliferation of digital
cameras, shipments are expected to reach just 680,000 units this
fiscal year. Domestic shipments in particular have fallen
significantly from slightly more than 40,000 units in fiscal 2002 to
just above 10,000 units anticipated for fiscal 2003.

The company will halt all development of 35mm compact cameras for the
domestic market from this point on and end shipments to stores
starting next fiscal year. It will continue supplying its compact film
cameras overseas, but with the market shrinking outside Japan as well,
it expects global shipments in fiscal 2004 to be down 70% on the year.

Nikon will, however, continue development and production of its highly
regarded SLR (single-lens reflex) film cameras as demand stays brisk.

The firm currently does not make any compact film cameras in-house,
instead outsourcing production to Japanese companies that manufacture
the cameras overseas.

Reflecting brisk demand for digital cameras, Nikon has upgraded its
fiscal 2003 shipment estimate to 5.5 million units from the 4.6
million units it estimated in May.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires

November 12, 2003 


From: [email protected] (P.A.)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Nikon to go all digital or not?
Date: 14 Nov 2003 
First came this article from Pacific Business News:

Nikon to shutter old camera business
http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/10/daily44.html

Then came Nikon's not-so-complete denial:
http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/news/2003/1113_e_03.htm

Now comes the question - Nikon is saying that its film-based compact
camera business will continue, but it makes no comments on film-based
SLRs - will these go digital now?

Paul






End of Page