Kodak Top, Sony up there, forget Nikon, get a Canon

[james_frater]

I think for those who want to dump their Minolta, and in the process

tell me when you are selling so I can pick up more great Minolta

bargins.

 

I would go for a Canon SLR. I know below which was posted on Steve-

Digicams only shows a US market. But Canon looks the goods.

 

Give it another year and Nikon will also be in the dumps. They had

to stop making all but their top of the line Film camera, to compete

in the digital market. They simply are not cutting the mustard in

Digital it seems either.

 

As for Sony, No 2 in the Digital world market is not so bad, looks

like Sony will continue it's battle for world digital domination

with Canon. Poor old Nikon, HP digital camera will soon be beating

them.

 

http://www.steves-digicams.com/diginews.html#kodak_tops

 

Kodak Tops U.S. Digital Camera Market, Canon and Sony Follow

Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, N.Y., USA, captured the No. 1 slot in

the ballooning U.S. digital camera market for a second straight

year, extending its lead over Japanese rivals Canon Inc. and Sony

Corp., reports The Associated Press.

 

Kodak shipped 7.05 million digital cameras to U.S. retailers last

year, 43 percent more than in 2004.

 

Tokyo-based Canon moved ahead of Sony into the No. 2 spot with 5

million shipments, a 16 percent increase, but its market slice still

shrunk from 18.3 percent to 17.7 percent, according to data released

by IDC, a research firm in Framingham, Mass., USA.

 

Japan's Sony, which lost its front-runner position in the U.S.

market to Kodak for the first time in 2004, was third in 2005. It

shipped 4.78 million cameras, up 10 percent from 2004, but its share

of the U.S. market slumped to 16.9 percent from 18.5 percent, IDC

said.

 

Canon benefited from robust sales of digital SLR cameras, IDC said,

and Kodak is now increasingly shifting its focus toward boosting

sales of higher-end models. Its new pocket-sized EasyShare V570

couples two lenses -- a 3x optical zoom lens and a specialized lens

for ultrawide-angle pictures.

 

In the global digital-camera race, Kodak was third in 2004 with an

11.8 percent market share to Canon's 17.1 percent and Sony's 16.7

percent. Behind the top trio in the U.S. ranks in 2005 were Japan-

based Nikon Corp. with an 8.2 percent share and Palo Alto, Calif.-

based Hewlett-Packard Co. with 7.5 percent. Next in line were

Olympus Corp. with 6.9 percent and Fuji Photo Film Co. with 6.3

percent, IDC said.

[anupam]

Shouldn't this at least be in the Photography business forum along with stock tips and such. The "fact" that Nikon isn't cutting is whereas Sony and HP are would surely be more at on Wall Street than amongst people who actually use cameras!

[anupam]

... more at HOME on Wall St ...

[james_frater]

I think because of the recent transfer of KM Digital Assets to Sony. It would be of some interest to KM users, thus posted here. Good to know that Sony is one of the top Digital leaders in the world. looks like at least KM technology will have a successful company behind it.

 

Some all KM user may be would like to know.

[oceanphysics]

Kodak propaganda.

 

I think only Kodak measures market share in number of cameras. It makes them look good because Canon and Nikon sell a lot of DSLR's, and Canon, Nikon and Sony sell more high-end digicams as well. Kodak sells mainly lower-end digicams, a much lower-margin and less desirable business. Measured in dollars and yen, it would be a very different story.

 

You're dead wrong about Nikon. Their profits are through the roof.

[franklin_polk]

Agreed. You have to look at profits, not raw number of cameras shipped. The cameras that Kodak was selling more of were most likly lower profit makers than the DSLRs that Nikon and Canon are selling. On that note, BOTH Canon and Nikon's profits are very high.

[Michael R Freeman]

<i>Give it another year and Nikon will also be in the dumps. They had to stop making all but their top of the line Film camera, to compete in the digital market. They simply are not cutting the mustard in Digital it seems either.</i><P>

 

Guess you missed the D70. One million plus high end digital SLR's with high profit margin (not dinky P&S me-too cameras with low margins and very short product life cycles). And the reason they discontinued most of their film SLR line had *NOTHING* to do with "competing" in the digital market. Nikon film SLR's weren't selling. Nikon DSLR's are selling at a pace that Nikon is having trouble keeping up with (hence the shift in resource allocation - make what moves, discontinue what doesn't). <P>

I predict Kodak will be in the "dumps" before Nikon. Oh wait - they already are.

[douglas_green1]

That's in units, not dollars. The fact is, Nikon's main area of success is DSLRs with and average price of $1000 or so. Kodak's main area of success is in $200-300 point and shoots. Based on those stats, the folks who are really in deep doo-doo are Olympus, Konica-Minolta, and Pentax. K-M already got the message and acted accordingly. IMHO, Pentax will be next. IMHO, Olympus is in real jeopardy trying to be a full-line player across the DSLR, low end consumer, and pro-sumer markets with under 7% share. And I wouldn't be surprised to see Nikon bail on the low end of the consumer space, where their products are not competitive with those of Kodak, Canon, Sony, and even Olympus. It's surprising to see how high H-P still is, based on some really crappy low end cameras who's only strength is the printers that they cradle with.

[bill_thorlin]

One recent Nikon report said that dSLRs would only account for 10% of their camera unit sales but would account for over 30% of their profits. To me that says that the margin on dSLRs is at least 3 times that of the p&s variety of digicam . This would probably explain the profitability of Canon and Nikon compared to those companies that do not/can not produce dSLRs.

 

I am beginning to have a feeling of deja vu about some of these postings and maybe the poster.

[chris_at_vividoptic.com]

<p>Firstly, as requested by the thread originator, here is my <a href="http://www.maxxumeyes.com/ForSale.htm" target="_blank">For

Sale Page</a>.  (link opens new window, no pop-ups or ads just a hidden

page on one of my sites).  The sale starts on 04-Mar through 11-Mar, and is

a little like my own eBay.  Its bids, but they are blind and by e-mail, so

no need for the $15 bid for the 200/2.8, because it won't get your name on the

screen - the whole thing will remain blind until the end, then the PayPal bills

get sent out on the Sunday 12-Mar.</p>

<p>Now, that will look like I'm dumping out of Minolta.  But actually

that's my MaxxumEyes review lenses.  Which I did intend to sell "at

the March photo show when Minolta launched the 7Dii and 9D".  Well

that was my intention, I was looking to take advantage of the used price

rise.  </p>

<p>Things change!  In fact I was intending to keep 16/28/35/50/85/135/300

as a 7-lens set, and use them in pairs or three when out for a shoot.  I'm

not a zoom fan you see.  But then, I was only using these 7 for about 2

months, and I was still in the which lens do I take dilemma.  So, I have

changed to keeping just 28/100/300 - so my travel set is 28 & 100 - that

decision was based on a three day photo shoot in Paris about a month ago, I took

16/28/50/135.  And 4 primes is a nightmare in handing.  With 4 you do

spend your time changing lenses.  With two you don't.  Anyway, this

thread isn't about prime selection. </p>

<p>Back to your thread.  If I was dumping Minolta (I'm not), I would

actually go to Nikon.  Sure Canon have lots of new camera, a new one every

five minutes it would seem, and full frame etc.  But I'm not interested in

paying full-frame premium, I actually like the 1.5x crop.  And I also like

to manual focus my lenses.  I would go to Nikon and use manual focus prime

lenses.  You can get really good deals on things like the manual focus

500/4 - and move the lens from an AF dream (silly money) to a reality. 

Likewise on the 300/2.8s - in manual focus they are well priced.  And I

like manual focusing.  So Nikon and Pentax have the only dSLRs that let you

use their old manual focus optics.  </p>

<p>Me, if I dumped out of Minolta.  I would be all Nikon.  And that is

coming from someone who spent 1987-2004 in Canon, FD through EOS > D30. 

Having also owned OM, Nikon FE & FM & 55/micro & rangefinder along

the way.  If the Epson RD-1 wasn't 3x the price it should be I would get

one of those.  And have a 7D + 300/2.8 for wildlife and no other Minolta

optics. </p>

[cmphoto1]

I know a lot of pros that went from medium format to Nikon. I am not talking about gadget-guys. I am talking about people who took their time evaluating system output because they make their living by the quality of their images, not the size of their sensors.

 

If I were to sell, I would be picking up Nikon. And in that case, I might be selling everything including my MF stuff.

 

As far as Nikon's health, seen any D200s on the self lately? I haven't.

 

Chris, if not $15, how about $20 for the 200mm G?

 

chad

[terence_spross1]

If I were Kodak and I wanted to get the attention of the high end market I would use full frame sensors in a camera body with a modularized front. The front would be a click in lens baord for each exsistign set of lenses. I.E. a Minolta AF module accepts Minolta AF lenses, a Minolta manual module accepts MC, MD lenses, a Pextax screw module accepts the old Pextax, Fujica, Mamiya 35, Praktica etc screw mount manual lenses., the Canon mount acceptes Cannon, etc.

 

and after no more than 2 years when a 40MP with greatly improved effecttive lattitude and even lower noise is available in a full 6x7cm sensor, come out with a modular body with a Hassy board to use Hassy lenses, a Mamiya board to accept Maymiya, etc.

[dennisprice]

<i>"...If I were Kodak and I wanted to get the attention of the high end market..."</i>

 

<p>Last year Kodak spent about $3 billion in acquiring digital assets, including Leaf Systems, Inc, which has been a key player in the high end market for about 15 years.</p>

 

<p>Leaf is now part of the Kodak Graphic Communications business group, and currently offers medium-format camera backs up to 22 MP.</p>

 

http://graphics.kodak.com/global/product/digital_photography/default.htm

[kelly_flanigan1]

Where are all these Kodak users that the WSJ always mentions? Walmart and Best Buy here have just three Kodak digitals, Canon, Sony, HP, Vivitar and Olympus combined are the vast majority of dozens of units on display that folks buy. Maybe all the Kodak users are living in their docking stations, or are Kodak shareholders? Are Kodak users like Yugo users, just scarce?

[douglas_green1]

Really, Kodak seems to dominate the shelf space of the Best Buy near me. At least as many Kodaks there as Canons and Sonys. Also Fry's. But the Kodak camera that keeps selling at Fry's is an $89 unit, which, I'm sure, is selling at breakevenat best.

[james_frater]

I still see many pro's. especially studio shooters useing the old Kodak DCS Pro.

 

I also still hear many pro's say that the fuji finepix S3 Pro is the best digital SLR many have handled, it terms of results.

[james_frater]

I should add, my point being Kodak does or did have a shot at the Digital SLR market, but failed to take up the mantle.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Kodak had a dslr a decade ago with a Nikon mount. I think it was a 1.3 megapixel that was about 5 or 10 grand, maybe a rebranded Fuji. The one a friend had was more of a studio camera than a sports camera. This was along time ago, so feel free to poke at correcting the above.

[james_frater]

Just had a look at Steve-digicams, and in 2004 the kodak DSC Pro was 10 megapixel camera.

[bill_thorlin]

All this is based on a report covering only the US market. Seeing as the rest of the world still exists it might be more pertinent to see what the picture is on the world market - it may be very different.

 

Any one got any information on the world market figures to help put this in context ?

[james_frater]

Yes at the end of the report, I quote Again....

 

"In the global digital-camera race, Kodak was third in 2004 with an 11.8 percent market share to Canon's 17.1 percent and Sony's 16.7 percent. Behind the top trio in the U.S. ranks in 2005 were Japan- based Nikon Corp. with an 8.2 percent share and Palo Alto, Calif.- based Hewlett-Packard Co. with 7.5 percent. Next in line were Olympus Corp. with 6.9 percent and Fuji Photo Film Co. with 6.3 percent, IDC said."

[bill_thorlin]

2004 figures quoted - I was enquiring if there were any more up to date figures for 2005 to compare with the figures for the US.

[douglas_green1]

In fact, I own a Kodak DCS-760, which is a 6 MP pro-caliber DSLR built inside a Nikon F5 body. It's a great camera, but it's also a 5+ year old camera, and the more recent Kodak DSLRs were failures in the market, mainly because they were built on cheap Sigma bodies and not better Nikon or Canon bodies like they used to be. Also, their performance were not up to Pro DSLR levels of Nikons and Canons, like their prior DSLR cameras HAD been. And as a result, Kodak has failed to meet their Pro DSLR sales expectations, and thus discontinued them. And I bought my Kodak DCS-760 DSLR for under $1000 last year, used, not the $10,000 that it cost when it was new in the latter part of 2000 when it came out.

 

Nowadays, Kodak only sells point and shoots - they have gotten out of the Pro DSLR market.

[terence_spross1]

Dennis,

I was aware of the Kodak MF back, and I agree they need to be in that market. It just may be though that in a couple years full frame 35mm sensors may be at the 20MP point and so 35mm camera lenses may be a good ideal for a few years. The need for a MF sized camera may be diminished although they should supply that market too. I understand Kodak wants to modify the DSLR concept but they are leaving a hole in their offerings - My suggestion about a modular lens board front seemed like a winner considering all the 35mm format lenses many people already own. I was hoping for another alternative in addition to Sony for my older Minolta lenses. I suppose the camera would come with an integral zoom lens already in the modular lens board module.

 

I also want to suggest that the sensor should be in another quick and easy to replace module. Every two years instead of buying a new camera you could just buy a new sensor to have the best. As the number of pixels exceeds what is needed then other improvements in the sensors will go well beyond what film can do and the system that allows an easy plug-in change wins.

 

"Kodak shipped 7.05 million digital cameras to U.S. retailers last year" according to a new report. Kodak is riding on their name which they must keep visible to all markets if they are to continue this path. Women tend to be less aware of all the brand choices and in a 2004 survey Women chose Kodak more than other brands while Kodak's share for men was behind Cannon, Sony and Olympus. So Kodak cannot allow itself to be behind.

 

Models like the easy share V570 with two CCD sensors and two lenses show cost ratios of lenes and CCD sensors for the mass market. (Expect the two lens approach to be in cell phones with about 3MP before the year is up.)

(I know this concept didn't originate with Kodak. }