Related Links:
See Turning Semipro for labor dept statistics
of average salary of photographers in USA (in $20k..)
See Death Spiral of Serious Amateur
Photography for statistics on how many people took up photography and
camera sales during 1970s thru early 1990s.
From The Fact Book (SRI Statistical Research Index) article titled
Discount Merchandiser of June 1998 (C4655-1.104 and
C4655-2.109):
For all classes of discount sales stores in the U.S. (drugstores,
wholesale clubs, discounters etc.) they reported that total sales were
$3,848,754,000 ($3.8 Billion) in photo-goods, or roughly 2.28% of the
industry total ($187 Billion). Photo-goods are in the leisure-goods class
(total $29 Billion or 17.26% of industry total).[p.46]
Gross margins range from 15 to 20% on photogoods. Inventory turns range
from 4.6 to 5.2 turns/year. Return on Investment is 1.00 (other groups
range from 0.81 to 1.6 and up). [p.46]
$1,644.95 is spent per household per year (all households in US factored
in, even if they didn't visit a discount store in year). Only $37.51 per
household is spent on photo-goods. Weekly average sales per store are
$7,598, yielding $1,292 of gross margin. [p.58]
Of the $3.848754 Billion spent on photo-goods, the breakdown is:
Film $1,685,726,000 or 43.8%
cameras $987,975,000 or 25.6%
photofinishing $951,895,000 or 24.7%
misc. remainder (5.8%)
[p. 50]
The average discounter store devotes 492 sq. feet to photogoods (about 1%
of floorspace). Sales are $.803 per sales square foot (vs. $.35 for toys and
$.25 range for clothes vs. $2.25 for prescription drugs). [p.55]
Commentary:
There must be circa 100 million households ($3.848 billion/$37.51 per
household). Must not be spending much on high end cameras for under $40/year.
Ratio of $1 for camera to $1.75 for film and $1 for processing and
misc. So spend $100 on an APS camera, and you might be expected to buy
$175 in film and $100 in processing. These figures don't account for
leakages to non-discounters (retail stores, custom labs etc.).
Under $10 per household per year for camera buys ($37.51 x25.6%). In
other words, not many 35mm SLR cameras at $300 being sold here.
My guess is that most film is bought in drug-store style discounters, so
$1.6 billion on film is useful ballpark figure. How much is the average
price per roll of drug-store film? Low prices seem to be $2/roll, while
most kodak and fuji brands sell for $3.50/roll and up. Figuring $3.20
roll gives us a rounded estimate of 500 million rolls of film sold here
(discount stores, including food and leisure). Now 100+ million
households means circa 5 rolls of film per household per year via
this source. This also matches our film cost estimate via $37.51 per year
and 43% of this being for film.
This figure is rather surprising, in that five rolls of film per year
isn't much! We can estimate one-use plastic $8.95 film plus disposable
cameras from the Death Spiral article (xx millions). Even so, we are
well under $10 per household for camera buys!
Addendum [11/99]:
There are 177 million cameras in the USA shooting an annual average of 17
billion photos.
Source: Jerry O'Neill, APS..., Photo Techniques, March/April
1998, p.49.
Commentary:
Dividing 17 billion photos by 177 million cameras yields 96 photos per
camera, corresponding to 4 rolls of 24 exposure per camera per year. This
figure of 4 rolls per year is in surprisingly good agreement with our
above estimate of 5 rolls per year - although these published statistics
were found nearly a year after writing the above!
The other implication is that there is roughly one camera for every adult
(177 million cameras for total USA population of 267 million adults and
children).
From NYIP article [12/2002]: it is estimated that only around 25,000 professional-level medium format cameras are sold in the U.S. each year.
Addendum: 12/2000
Source: British Journal of Photography IPU, p.2, March 15, 2000.
Link:
Kodak 10-K with Securities and Exchange Commission (USA)
U.S. S.E.C. 10-K filing (3/10/99) by Eastman Kodak Inc. reveals:
Overall gross profit margins improved approximately one percentage point
from 44.5% in 1997 to 45.6% in 1998, adjusting for the promotion reclass.
Excluding $165 million of charges related to the 1997 restructuring program
and $68 million of the Office Imaging charge recorded to cost of goods sold
in 1998, gross profit margins improved from 45.7% in 1997 to 46.1% in 1998.
This increase is primarily attributable to cost reductions and
manufacturing productivity which more than offset the unfavorable effects
of foreign currency rate changes, lower effective selling prices, and
volume declines in emerging markets.
[page 15]
Worldwide film sales decreased 7% from the prior year, adjusting 1997 for
the promotion reclass, due to lower unit volumes, the unfavorable effects
of foreign currency rate changes and lower effective selling prices. Sales
inside the U.S. decreased 5%, as slightly higher unit volumes were more
than offset by lower effective selling prices. Sales outside the U.S.
decreased 8%, as higher effective selling prices were more than offset by
lower unit volumes and the unfavorable effects of foreign currency rate
changes.
Worldwide color paper sales decreased 4% from the prior year, adjusting
1997 for the promotion reclass, as higher unit volumes were more than
offset by lower effective selling prices and the unfavorable effects of
foreign currency rate changes. Sales inside the U.S. increased 1%, as
higher unit volumes were mostly offset by lower effective selling prices.
Sales outside the U.S. decreased 7%, as modest increases in unit volumes
were more than offset by the unfavorable effects of foreign currency rate
changes and lower effective selling prices.
[pp. 16-17]
Kodak Professional segment sales for the year decreased 19%. Excluding the
impact of the graphics business from both years as a result of the joint
venture discussed above, segment sales decreased 6%. This decrease is
primarily due to the unfavorable effects of foreign currency rate changes,
lower unit volumes and lower effective selling prices. Sales inside the
U.S. decreased 22%, or 3% excluding the impact of the graphics business
from both years, due to lower unit volumes. Sales outside the U.S.
decreased 17%, or 8% excluding the impact of the graphics business from
both years, due to the unfavorable effects of foreign currency rate changes
and lower unit volumes.
[page 18]
Sales by Operating Segment
(in millions)
1998 Change 1997 Change 1996
Consumer Imaging
Inside the U.S. $ 3,342 - 4% $ 3,477 + 5% $ 3,319
Outside the U.S. 3,822 - 9 4,204 - 3 4,340
------- --- ------- --- -------
Total Consumer Imaging 7,164 - 7 7,681 - 7,659
[page 14]
Based on a share price of $80+ US and basic net earnings per share for the
year of $4.30, the net profits per share appear to be around 5%+. Kodak's
overall gross profit margin is about 45.6%. In other words, we would
expect that circa 45 cents of every dollar spent on film is gross profit
margin, roughly 40 of those cents go to overhead costs and so on, leaving
only 5 cents or so of profit for stockholders, based on these
averages. The actual manufacturing cost would represent the other 55
or so cents of the pie, according to this very rough analysis.
Film sales appear to be down (7%) and
paper sales appear to be down (4%), perhaps different because a lot of
prints are being made from competitor's film on Kodak papers?
How much consumer film and paper can you buy for $7.164 billion dollars -
especially after deducting out other Kodak consumer products and
services, the sale of Fox Photo and Gretag (real estate) and other events?
To me, it is hard to see Kodak selling much over $3 billion in film a
year, and perhaps as much in paper plus other services in these amounts,
assuming a 50:50 split and some other consolidated activities above.
If you make this assumption, and assume that the average roll of Kodak
film sells for $5-6 US, you can estimate something like 1 to 1.5 billion
rolls of film sold worldwide. Half of that would be in the USA, per their
figures (roughly). That's 500 million to 750 million rolls of
film. That's roughly 5 to 7.5 rolls of Kodak film per household in the
USA.
We have estimated a maximum of 5 rolls of film per year for the average
household in the USA elsewhere (again based on sundry assumptions). This
estimate doesn't include any professional photography or corporate film
usage. But it also doesn't include any competitor's film either. While I
believe Kodak has the major share of the USA market, I don't believe we
can discount Fuji or Agfa or even 3M.
Still, these numbers are converging
on an estimate that suggests that the average household (2.7 persons)
uses something like 5 to 7 rolls of Kodak film per year, and perhaps 3 to
5 rolls of other film. Call it roughly one roll of film per month per
household - including professional photographers and serious amateur
photographers.
From: dont-use@this-address.com (H.Gunnarsson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: the future of Rollei? (was Re: rollei 6000 series question)
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999
Dennis E. Bosco says...
(snip)
> The Rollei simply does everything it says it can do and that > ain't bad. Only Samsung knows the future of Rollei but why would they > neglect a succesful system?
(snip)
If there still are people reading this thread perhaps someone knows in
what quantities Rollei cameras are selling right now? As often is pointed
out the Rollei cameras are not very expensive considering all their
metering features and fancy high-tech; Hasselblad OTOH earn most of their
money - I suppose - on the mechanical, low-tech, 500-cameras which should
yield lower production costs. They increased their sales in the US by 30%
still they had to fire people here in Gvteborg due to the economical
crisis in the Far East. Now, for how long will Rollei stay in business if
they don't start to sell shiploads of cameras on the US market (and
elsewhere)? Or are they?
--
From: lemon@lime.org (lemonade)
dont-use@this-address.com (H.Gunnarsson) wrote:
Camera companies are terribly difficult to get any real financial and
marketing information out of. We know only a few really minimal things:
-The Pentax Spotmatic was an enormous success by the time it reached the
milestone of 1 million cameras sold, if I remember my history correctly-
someone please correct me if I am hallucinating here. Ditto the Canon AE-1,
much later.
-Current 35mm SLR sales are nowhere near what they used to be in the 70's.
-MF cameras like the Rollei 600x series are very specialized items.
Consider a comparable specialty item, like an academic book: a typical
print run is only about 1-2000 copies.
-Hasselblads are the most popular MF cameras with a similar market to the
Rolleis; and few people who have Hasselblad systems are at the same time
going to own Rolleis (I know, Rollei fans, OK, they will all eventually
switch...).
-There is a huge used market that competes with new MF purchases; and other
cameras, in addition to the Hasselblad, that compete in the same niche,
such as Bronicas and Mamiyas.
-All told, as a moderately educated guess, it would be flabbergasting if
total Rollei 600x series sales were more than an order of magnitude greater
than a main estimate of about 1000 units per year. Since each Rollei user
probably spends, in addition to the basic camera, enough to total at least
$5-10,000 in Rollei stuff just within the first year, that would be a basic
take of at least $5-10 million per year retail, say half that net- more
than reasonable enough. (Then add extra accessories and lenses in later
years...)
Well, considering it all, let's say they probably sell between 500 and
5,000 bodies per year, worldwide. The low figure from the early days, the
higher figure now that they are promoting more...
Of course Bob would know what the USA figures at least were from past
years, but he may be under a non-disclosure agreement... but perhaps he
could give us a hint?
--
From: wilflee@netscape.net (Wilf Lee)
"Bob Salomon"
AFAIK, Samsung Electronics, Samsung Aerospace Industries, Samsung
Corp, Samsung ElectroMechanics are not private companies (which one
owns Rollei?). Its stocks are listed on the Korea Stock Exchange
(n.b. page was at http://www.kse.or.kr/company/index.html before 2/2003)
Although KSE has strict guidelines about foreign ownership, Samsung
stocks are traded in the public.
.speculation on
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
The original post was asking for places to look for market share
information. The 2nd post attempted to claim that this was effectively
asking someone to divulge a trade secret. I'll stand on my opinion of
that. Kodak may not be anxious to admit exactly how much it's lost to
Fuji, but they don't (and couldn't) attempt to conceal that they have
lost market share. If you don't like all the financial analysts
calculations, you can read the press releases from Kodak themselves.
This URL is from their own web site:
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/georgeFisher/carpnyc.shtml
Publicly held corporations are required to report their financial
results. Even if not legally required, as a practical matter they also
have to explain those results to analysts and their shareholders.
Market share, how it has changed, and why, are pretty basic. For that
matter, just search the Kodak site for "share" and read what they have
to say, including accusing Fuji and the Japanese government of improper
things. They're shining a rather large amount of light on something
you'd call a trade secret.
I'm not going to respond further on this. I've given some URLs that
should help the person who asked the original question find what
they're after. Anything further is not constructive.
Dave Wilson
....
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999
david_j_wilson@my-deja.com wrote:
An interesting read, with its wishful thinking about APS and all... but,
as to marketshare, what you will find is a lot of Clinton-speak that
sounds like market share figures, but which are cleverly disguised so that
they are not market share figures. This is especially true for U.S.
figures- e.g. 40% of worldwide colour negative film shipments, not sales;
2 out of every 3 consumer pictures in the US taken on Kodak film, not 2
out of every 3 films (standardized for length...) sold.
That "two out of every three pictures taken" is an especially interesting
statistic to me, which sounds much harder to obtain than a real market
share figure. How mysteriously odd...
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
alannews@my-deja.com (Alan) wrote
What do you mean by fail and successful? If it's in business sense,
Leica's sale (141453000DEM ~ 64,136,719USD) is just less than half sale of
Kyocera's Optical Division (16,173,000,000JPY ~ 145,571,557USD) in first
half FY ending 09/2000. I would wouldn't call that "much more sucessful".
--
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
alannews@my-deja.com (Alan) wrote
Here you go, they're on Kyocera Japan's homepage:
http://www.kyocera.co.jp/frame/finance/index-e.cgi
Cheers,
--
From Nikon Mailing List;
Cathal Gantly wrote:
[rant]
Cathal's right of course, but this more=better mentality mystifies me.
There is a significant market for inexpensive hi-fi which has no frills
- -- none at all -- so that all money goes on good sound. Why do
equivalent photographic products (say, the Minolta X-700) have almost
no sales?
The worst example of more=better I have seen was a report which said
of the F3, "You can get a better specification on a œ200 camera (which
you'd get a lens with)". Why is the photographic press obsessed with
counting features?
[/rant]
You might be over-optimistic, Cathal. In the Christmas 1999 "Amateur
Photographer", an article called "Photography's Vital Statistics" said
o "The average active camera in the UK uses 3.1 rolls of film a
year."
o "It is estimated that 3% of UK picture takers (1 million) are
photo enthusiasts. These consumers use ... nine rolls each
a year."
I suspect most of us use more than nine rolls a year, but we do keep
the number of rolls per camera down. As soon as any camera body is
being used for more than a roll a week, we find it essential to buy
another one. :-)
Later,
Dr Owl
- --------------------------
From British Journal of Photography's PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS'
NEWSLETTER (PPN) PPN: 1 May 2001 - Commentary section:
digital camera sales expected worldwide = 15-17 million
single use camera sales worldwide = 330 million
conventional film cameras worldwide = 85 million
[n.b. not limited to Kodak cameras obviously...]
From: "DarrenH" darrenh@overtime.ca
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
Okay, I've been tallying up my expenses for the past fiscal year on medium
format photography. I don't do photography for a living, so these expenses
are all out of pocket.
How does this compare to you? Does anyone share my sickness?
Cheers,
D
TOTAL EXPENSES: $1564.30
20/04/01 Fuji Reala ISO 100-4 rolls @ 7.19
Ilford XP-2 ISO 400-5 rolls @ 4.19
$57.17
28/04/01 Film processing:
3 @ 15.25
1 @ 13.05
$67.62
9/5/01 Film processing:
3 @ 15.25
$52.61
25/05/01 Fuji Reala 100 2 boxes (5 rolls each) @ 35.79
$82.32
21/06/01 Film processing:
5 @ 15.25 (one of the five rolls was free, with their bonus card program)
$70.15
5/7/01 Kodak Lens Tissue ($2.99) and Lens Cleaner ($7.95)
$12.59
12/7/01 Film processing:
1 @ 8.10
$9.32
17/07/01 Film processing:
1 @ 14.75
$16.96
12/9/01 Charges for camera repair (I dropped it on July 5/2001)
$296.70
21/9/01 Fuji Reala 100 2 boxes (5 rolls each) @ 35.79
$82.32
13/10/01 Film processing:
2 @ 14.70
3 @ 15.25
$86.42
8/11/01 Prints (5 11x14 enlargements)--Christmas gifts
$80
$92.00
10/12/01 Fuji Reala 100 1 box (5 rolls each) @ 33.99
$39.09
15/12/01 Film processing:
1 @ 15.25
3 @ 14.70
$68.25
15/02/02 Film processing:
1 @ 15.25
Ilford XP-2 400 film
5 @ 4.19
$41.63
2/3/02 Film processing:
2 @ 14.70
$33.81
2/3/02 Tiltall Tripod TE-01
$275.95
1/4/02 LowePro Camera Bag
$64.39
16/03/02 B+W Circular Polarizer
$115.00
From: "Steve Wolverton" steve@wolvertonphotography.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
I added up my receipts for my taxes this year so I could do a schedule "C".
All equipment bought and film and processing added up to just over $6,500.00
USD!
I earned $700.00 in photography this year.
Does this make me a professional? %^)
Steve
From: Chance2105 chance2105@eudoramail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002
Heh. YOu didn't shoot much film. 39 rolls and you spent $1564.30?
Of course, I just spent $2500 (American) on new darkroom equipment ..
-- Chance
From: rmonagha@smu.edu (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: avg=4 rolls/yr.. Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: 15 Apr 2002
well, the average is under 100 shots/year or 4 rolls of 24 exp. 35mm film
equiv. and avg expenses of about $40 per USA household on photography...
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/photostats.html
quoting:
Of the $3.848754 Billion spent on photo-goods, the breakdown is:
Film $1,685,726,000 or 43.8%
cameras $987,975,000 or 25.6%
photofinishing $951,895,000 or 24.7%
misc. remainder (5.8%)
[p. 50] [SRI Fact Book..]
So if you are spending more than 1/3rd of your $$ on gear rather than on
film and processing, you are above average on gear expenditures...
and supporting the 4 rolls or 100 photos per camera stat quote/cite:
There are 177 million cameras in the USA shooting an annual average of 17
billion photos.
Source: Jerry O'Neill, APS..., Photo Techniques, March/April 1998, p.49
========
similarly,
http://medfmt.8k.com/third/economics.html
supports stats (JCIA japan cited) in table that in 2001, 4,930,000
interchangeable lenses were sold against sales of 3,970,000 SLR cameras
suggesting only original lens on camera plus 1.25 lenses sold per camera
or just around 2 1/4 lenses per camera body. Got more? You're above
average! ;-) I'm waaaay above average too ;-)
similar stats for hassy c lens sales suggest under 2 lenses per SLR body
sold, ditto under 2 for Leica M series bodies and lenses
(see mf/mffaq.html for details).
=====
discussion:
photography seems to be front loaded to me; you spend a lot of dollars
starting out on stuff like darkroom, tripods, filters, and lenses and
film. You buy a lot of lenses and hoods to flesh out your system.
Then you spend a lot on books and processing and film, since you
have run out of big stuff you need to buy ;-)
Then you realize that your stuff is obsolete, so time to buy new stuff or
try LF or MF or 35mm RF or even (gasp!) digital and computer and scanner
and ... etc. ;-)
HTH bobm
see http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/processing.html for lower cost options.
related discussion, curing lens envy, bongo's law, cost of lens is
inversely proportional to its probability of use, and impact on cost
per photo shot with each lens, at http://medfmt.8k.com/bronlensenvy.html
;-)
From: remove.david@meiland.com (David Meiland)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: My expenses for the past year (amateur)
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002
"DarrenH" darrenh@overtime.ca wrote:
>Okay, I've been tallying up my expenses for the past fiscal year on medium
>format photography. I don't do photography for a living, so these expenses
>are all out of pocket.
>
>How does this compare to you? Does anyone share my sickness?
>
>Cheers,
>D
>
>TOTAL EXPENSES: $1564.30
Darren,
You're not spending nearly enough, and as a consequence you're not
shooting nearly enough either. If you really want to develop as a
photographer you need to increase this about four-fold and limit it to
film and processing! Seriously, if I can get my personal shooting done
for about $100.week I figure I'm on target. In medium format black and
white that gets me about 72 exposures, since I do not process my own.
If I'm doing something in color transparency, I can get closer to 100
exposures.
This budget, of course, is exclusive of equipment, repairs, printing,
framing, or anything else.
Anyway, I'd say you're not sick. You may have a bit of a sniffle, but
you're not sick...yet.
---
David Meiland
Oakland, California
http://davidmeiland.com/
From: "Ron Andrews" randrew1@rochester.rr.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: I need to find some Photography Statistics
Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003
"J" justin_irvin@hotmail.com wrote
> HI All,
>
> I need to know where I can find some photography statistics.
> Such As.
>
> Number of 35mm cameras sold last year.
> Number of medium format cameras sold last year.
> Number of tripods sold last year.
>
> And I don't think I can find this one, but it would be nice if I could.
>
> Number of Vertical vs. Horizontal shots published each year.
>
>
> Any help or direction you could give me would be great!
>
> J Irvin
If you are a PMA member (I'm not), you can get much of the information
you need at:
http://www.pmai.org/new_pma/Marketing_Research/03_Consumer_Buying_Report.htm
As for horizontal vs. vertical pictures, you can estimate this one yourself
with a little work. Most of the pictures published are in newspapers,
magazines, and advertising brochures. Books get the prestige, but not the
numbers, don't bother to count them. You can count the pictures in each
category and multiply by the number of publications in each category. I
don't have any data, but here's my rough order of magnitude guess
(guaranteed within a factor of 10 or so):
newspapers: 1000 per day
magazines: 1000 per month
advertising brochures: 1000 per week
From: hemi4268@aol.com (Hemi4268)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 21 Dec 2003
Subject: Re: Why did 70mm fail?
>I would like to know why 70mm failed (I have a follow up question a
>few lines down.)
Kodak sells more 70mm by sq ft then any other still flim combined. Which is 6%
of total film production.
The make up is about this per year.
Motion picture film 85% 700 million ft
Still 10% with 6% 70mm
Medical Xrays 3%
Industrial Glass Plates and so on 2%
Larry
Hekan Gunnarsson
Gvteborg/Gothenburg, Sweden
h dot gunnarsson at ebox dot tninet dot se
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: the future of Rollei? (was Re: rollei 6000 series question)
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999
> If there still are people reading this thread perhaps someone knows in
> what quantities Rollei cameras are selling right now? As often is pointed
> out the Rollei cameras are not very expensive considering all their
> metering features and fancy high-tech; Hasselblad OTOH earn most of their
> money - I suppose - on the mechanical, low-tech, 500-cameras which should
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: rollei 6000 series question
Date: Fri, 08 Jan 1999
>bobsalomon@mindspring.com wrote:
>
>> Samsung is a private company.
>
>Then I'd put even more weight to my hunch that the reason they bought
>Rollei is simply some bigshot there is a fotofreak who Victor Kiam-ed it.
>Hard to see why otherwise, a major industrial conglomerate doesn't seem to
>have a gaping hole needing the particular Rollei technology and expertise,
>let alone finances.
This means if Samsung wants to buy Hasselblad, Nikon, Mamyia or
Tamron, it can raise capital relatively easy via share offerings.
.speculation off
From: david_j_wilson@my-deja.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Kodak vs Fuji Marketshare
From: lemon@lime.org (lemonade)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.film+labs
Subject: Re: Kodak vs Fuji Marketshare
> http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/corp/georgeFisher/carpnyc.shtml
From: trungnt@NO.home.SPAM.com (T. Nam Tran)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tony Polson's obsession
>Kyocera tries to leverage that quest to their benefit. And fails. Leica
>does the same, and is much more succesful.
T. Nam Tran
From: trungnt@NO.home.SPAM.com (T. Nam Tran)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Tony Polson's obsession
>Neither would I. Could you please post a link to the Kyocera Optics Inc.
>financial reports, I have not been able to trace them?
T. Nam Tran
Date: Sat, 28 Apr 2001
From: "John Owlett" owl@postmaster.co.uk
Subject: [NIKON] Photography's Vital Statistics (was: Sigma build quality)
> ... And besides, the Sigma lenses may very well have an extra 10mm or
> 20 mm at each end, and therefore they are "better".
> The customer uses maybe four or five rolls of film a year.
> Photo enthusiasts like the members of this list are a minority.
John Owlett, Southampton, UK
From: two23@aol.com (Two23)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 26 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: Amateurs in LF
After shooting mostly med. format for the past three years, I bought a 4x5
in Sept. I mostly shoot landscapes and "rural scenes" for fun. We had a big
discussion about this on an AOL message board, and it seems that about a third
of LF users are amateurs according to our B&H; contact.
Kent in SD
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
To: rmonagha@post.smu.edu
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://medfmt.8k.com/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://medfmt.8k.com/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: "Q.G. de Bakker" qnu@worldonline.nl>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
> I don't think I know a single Leica M owner who does not have at least two
> lenses. And I know a LOT of Leica M owners.
So there must be another LOT of Leica M owners not having a single Leica
lens. Hmm... All using Cosina, i guess...
From: mceowen@aol.com (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
>I wouldn't be surprised
>to find out that very few leica owners have more than one lens.
FWIW, I own two Leica bodies and four lenses (not counting the Cosina Heliar).
THerefore I'm a little higher than average with 2 lenses per Leica sold. Before
I got my M6 I had two bodies to fill the various rolls that one body now fills.
So then I had three bodies and four Leica lenses -- or a ratio of 1.333 lenses
per body. Boy, I'm sure glad I sold those two bodies and bought one. Now I can
say I'm a more serious Leica shooter cause I have 2 lenses per body instead of
just 1.333 . . . .
From: ramarren@bayarea.net (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
> > I don't think I know a single Leica M owner who does not have at least two
> > lenses. And I know a LOT of Leica M owners.
>
> So there must be another LOT of Leica M owners not having a single Leica
> lens. Hmm... All using Cosina, i guess...
I'm sure there are some, but most all of the Leica owners I know have at
least one or two Leica brand lenses. Remember that Leica has been around a
very long time and all the LTM and M-bayonet lenses, with very few
exceptions, work on the current M6TTL.
It's also not necessary to buy only new lenses, either Leica or CV. A lot
of people also have various Russion-made lenses, Zeiss, Canon and other
lenses available in LTM.
Godfrey
From: "Martin Francis" Mcsalty@btinternet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001
Erm....
I'm assuming the thread refers to *new* M6s and *new* M-series lenses?
Because i'm sure a fair few used M6s are sold, as well as used lenses. Also,
Leica owners are often collectors, who will have owned M4s, M3s etc., and
presumably had lenses for them. And Leitz glass is damnably expensive to buy
new....
I wouldn't be wholly surprised if *more* Nikon/Canon bodies are sold than
lenses by their respective manufacturers.... I've been working in a camera
shop for nine months and I've sold only one new Canon lens, and no
Nikkors... but the reason for that is that few photographers realise the
difference between a good lens and a bad one. Leica is quite a different
matter, not least because there are no M-fit Sigmas.
Anyway, I'd recommend using (un)common sense when reading statistics.