Sonnar2
Well-known
Comparing the production output of leading camera companies, I've worked through production data given in Dechert's Canon RF book for each model and allocated them per year (some guesswork if a model was produced for a longer period; but quite precise for the years with fast model change). Dechert was precise in the range of 25 pieces with most models whereas my aim is precision in the range of 2000 in each year, and getting the most likely allocation.
What is seen is a rapid increase in the early 1950's (successfull Leica-III copies) to a plateau of ~37.000 at 1954 (launch of Leica M3), a slow grow until 1961/62 (Canon P, 7 sales success) and a fast running-out after discontinuation of the Canon 7.
What astonishes me is a break in 1957 of 10.000 pieces, for which I miss a sound reason. 1957 was the year of the "new generation" model V/L. What the data told us is that these were sold worse(!) than the Leica III copies and I don't see a reason for this except probably the price was too high, but that was something to correct Japanese companies took months but not years. Even 1957 was the "Pentax SLR" year I doubt this could decrease production at this rate for just one year. I worked to arrange the model data to the most even production curve but the break still exists. Most simple reason could be wrong data in Dechert's book for a certain model build in 1957? He probably had access to the original production figures when compiling his book, but I probably 20 years later they don't exist anymore! Anyone has his eMail address to ask him directly??
cheers Frank
my raw data (xml can be opened with common spreadsheets): http://www.geocities.com/taunusreiter/Canon_Stueckzahlen.xml
What is seen is a rapid increase in the early 1950's (successfull Leica-III copies) to a plateau of ~37.000 at 1954 (launch of Leica M3), a slow grow until 1961/62 (Canon P, 7 sales success) and a fast running-out after discontinuation of the Canon 7.
What astonishes me is a break in 1957 of 10.000 pieces, for which I miss a sound reason. 1957 was the year of the "new generation" model V/L. What the data told us is that these were sold worse(!) than the Leica III copies and I don't see a reason for this except probably the price was too high, but that was something to correct Japanese companies took months but not years. Even 1957 was the "Pentax SLR" year I doubt this could decrease production at this rate for just one year. I worked to arrange the model data to the most even production curve but the break still exists. Most simple reason could be wrong data in Dechert's book for a certain model build in 1957? He probably had access to the original production figures when compiling his book, but I probably 20 years later they don't exist anymore! Anyone has his eMail address to ask him directly??
cheers Frank
my raw data (xml can be opened with common spreadsheets): http://www.geocities.com/taunusreiter/Canon_Stueckzahlen.xml
John Shriver
Well-known
M2 introduction in 1957, the lower cost Leica M?
trittium
Well-known
Production does not equal sales. Supply and Demand. Totally different concepts that are not analogous. The slup could have been caused by anything. A bad plant manager, loss of money in the company, anything.
John Shriver said:
My thought too, and what was up with Nikon in 56 and 57?
1957...
My book said M2 in 58, but everything in my memory says 57
Nikon SP
Hasselblad 500c
My book said M2 in 58, but everything in my memory says 57
Nikon SP
Hasselblad 500c
Per Dechert it also looks like production numbers for the VT series was higher than that of the L series. Perhaps Canon overestimated the success they would have with the bottom wind lever camera.
John Shriver
Well-known
The trend starts downward at the end of the Korean War in 1953. I'd suggest no more GI's shopping for cameras in the Seoul and Tokyo PX, at steep discounts and completely tax and duty free. Consider how many Canon cameras have the <XP> markings from being sold that way.
The US import duties and excise taxes were stiff on cameras back then, so having to buy them in the states was effectively a major price increase. (At least in 1950, the excise tax on cameras and photographic equipment was 25%. Looks like they were down to 20% in 1955.)
I checked to see if it was exchange rates, but they were locked at 360 yen to the dollar from 1946 to 1971, when the US ditched the Gold Standard and the Bretton Woods agreements.
Of course, we could also blame tailfins on cars!
The US import duties and excise taxes were stiff on cameras back then, so having to buy them in the states was effectively a major price increase. (At least in 1950, the excise tax on cameras and photographic equipment was 25%. Looks like they were down to 20% in 1955.)
I checked to see if it was exchange rates, but they were locked at 360 yen to the dollar from 1946 to 1971, when the US ditched the Gold Standard and the Bretton Woods agreements.
Of course, we could also blame tailfins on cars!
Mackinaw
Think Different
Or maybe the Canon V/L series cameras just tanked big-time in the marketplace. Wouldn't be the first time something "new and improved" sold less than its predecessor.
As for Peter Dechert's e-mail address, you can try contacting Bob Shell, former editor of Shutterbug, for this information. Maybe Peter Kitchingman can help too.
Jim Bielecki
As for Peter Dechert's e-mail address, you can try contacting Bob Shell, former editor of Shutterbug, for this information. Maybe Peter Kitchingman can help too.
Jim Bielecki
Sonnar2
Well-known
I just discovered that Leica production data curve (according to batch number size and year published at cameraquest) is even more erratic. Nikon and Canon published no year's data, just model-data, so I did something to "smooth" their curve to a most likely distribution...
End of 50's there was a clear decrease signal, probably caused by saturation and expectance of newer technique (SLR, TTL...)
One can see that Nikon and Contax never played a big role. What surprises me was the high output at Canon in the beginning 60's. But they probably had a hard job to sell all the "7"s for a cost-effective price. Probably that was the reason why they ceased RF production. If Canon managers would have gone the Zeiss-Ikon way, believing in technique instead of market, they would have shared their fate.
Frank Mechelhoff
End of 50's there was a clear decrease signal, probably caused by saturation and expectance of newer technique (SLR, TTL...)
One can see that Nikon and Contax never played a big role. What surprises me was the high output at Canon in the beginning 60's. But they probably had a hard job to sell all the "7"s for a cost-effective price. Probably that was the reason why they ceased RF production. If Canon managers would have gone the Zeiss-Ikon way, believing in technique instead of market, they would have shared their fate.
Frank Mechelhoff
Last edited:
Frank, check your PM regarding Mr. Dechert's e-mail address.
Also, Dechert offered an update to his Canon RF book in the February 2006 Shutterbug Magazine. He expanded the chapter regarding the 1950. I have to find it on my hard drive, but I do have the revision and can share it.
Also, Dechert offered an update to his Canon RF book in the February 2006 Shutterbug Magazine. He expanded the chapter regarding the 1950. I have to find it on my hard drive, but I do have the revision and can share it.
Uh oh,
I can't find the document. What an idiot. I know I sent it to Joe, I hope he kept it.
I can't find the document. What an idiot. I know I sent it to Joe, I hope he kept it.
Sonnar2
Well-known
Thanks for your message, Rover. I will contact Mr.Dechert soon.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Dechert concedes in his book that his production numbers are just estimates based on fragmentary records. I'd guess that the most likely explanation for the "missing" production volumes is simply that the records for those periods are no longer available.
harry01562
Registered semi-lurker
Please share....
Please share....
Don't say that... it's there, someplace. Joe keeps everything, except his "P"'s, right? And now adds a "new" Contax. Well, I can't blame him there, as I own 5 of them.
When you find the data, please keep me in mind, as I'd love to read it. I try to have everything available on Canon, and it is a bit of a struggle :angel:
Thanks,
Harry
Please share....
rover said:
Don't say that... it's there, someplace. Joe keeps everything, except his "P"'s, right? And now adds a "new" Contax. Well, I can't blame him there, as I own 5 of them.
When you find the data, please keep me in mind, as I'd love to read it. I try to have everything available on Canon, and it is a bit of a struggle :angel:
Thanks,
Harry
and Dechert says..
and Dechert says..
I asked Peter Dechert to take a look at this thread. He replied
"With regard to the fall-off of Canons in the 1957 period, there are (I think) two causes: the obvious primacy of the then-recent Leica M3 and M2, and development of the Canonflex."
Stephen Gandy
and Dechert says..
I asked Peter Dechert to take a look at this thread. He replied
"With regard to the fall-off of Canons in the 1957 period, there are (I think) two causes: the obvious primacy of the then-recent Leica M3 and M2, and development of the Canonflex."
Stephen Gandy
harry01562 said:
PM your email address Harry.
Mackinaw
Think Different
CameraQuest said:
I find this a bit odd. Why would the development of the Canonflex, which was introduced in 1959, intefere with the sales of Canon rangefinder cameras being sold in 1957?
Jim Bielecki
John Shriver
Well-known
Well, all the Japanese SLRs were starting to come out then. Topcon R is 1957, for instance.
Another thought, as the per-camera price increased (the V and VI must have cost more than the IV), perhaps unit volume fell.
Another thought, as the per-camera price increased (the V and VI must have cost more than the IV), perhaps unit volume fell.