kuzano
Veteran
Interestingly I agree with you.....
Interestingly I agree with you.....
And again reiterate... What a genuinely Golden Plan!
They've re-introduced a popular product and held their price to the same as it was 5 years ago. They have a very limited expendure in product improvement..... Hell, this run may have been sitting in the boxes unsold all this time. Maybe this plan was hatched five years ago (not likely as there are some changes).
Also, it's not an "abject failure" if it was never Epson's intent to develop a "new breed" of camera. Yes, it clearly is a short term money grab.... and what's wrong with that.... as long as there are buyers who line up for the product.
Also, speaking from marketing experience, nobody is ever ahead of the game. Companies are always "back where they started" and having to come up with new wheels all the time.
Epson is taking a shot on this one. I haven't seen anything about the production run, but using a conservative number of 20,000 and a clear profit, being generous of $600, they can do a money grab that will net them approximatly $12 Million for simply cranking up an old assembly line for a few weeks, if that.
At that point, in my estimation, it simply remains to be seen how many times they can pull that off.
And while I think we are more in agreement with each other than you may think, I do have a thought about your last comment.
In this day and age, with the current upheaval in finances, I don't think many manufacturers have as much sensitivity as we consumers may like, which speaks to carelessness and regard for us. That's the last thing at most BOD meetings, coming way after survival. Lastly, I think it's actually a genuine stab at seeing how serious people are for continuing to desire, and PAY for rangefinder digital cameras.
Given the absolutely tiny market for rangefinder anythings, I sure wouldn't spend a lot for development of a rangefinder that would end up being 50% bigger to house larger sensors, and costing them out only to find that I would need to sell them for $5000 to $6000 to make a profit.
I truly think that's where a good rangefinder digital would end up, even if it was NOT a Leica.
And I do realize that my estimate of cost may be unrealistic in terms of prices and sizes that are happening in the "cookie cutter" camera markets. But, the rangefinder market is a miniscule niche market. Anybody who steps in to fill what is not even a recognizable void in the marketplace is going to demand huge returns for the risk they take in doing so. I would not be surprised to see companies who enter that market to want twice the price for the same sensor and electronics technology, on top of the manufacturing of rangefinder mechanism in very limited numbers.
Interestingly I agree with you.....
And again reiterate... What a genuinely Golden Plan!
They've re-introduced a popular product and held their price to the same as it was 5 years ago. They have a very limited expendure in product improvement..... Hell, this run may have been sitting in the boxes unsold all this time. Maybe this plan was hatched five years ago (not likely as there are some changes).
Also, it's not an "abject failure" if it was never Epson's intent to develop a "new breed" of camera. Yes, it clearly is a short term money grab.... and what's wrong with that.... as long as there are buyers who line up for the product.
Also, speaking from marketing experience, nobody is ever ahead of the game. Companies are always "back where they started" and having to come up with new wheels all the time.
Epson is taking a shot on this one. I haven't seen anything about the production run, but using a conservative number of 20,000 and a clear profit, being generous of $600, they can do a money grab that will net them approximatly $12 Million for simply cranking up an old assembly line for a few weeks, if that.
At that point, in my estimation, it simply remains to be seen how many times they can pull that off.
And while I think we are more in agreement with each other than you may think, I do have a thought about your last comment.
In this day and age, with the current upheaval in finances, I don't think many manufacturers have as much sensitivity as we consumers may like, which speaks to carelessness and regard for us. That's the last thing at most BOD meetings, coming way after survival. Lastly, I think it's actually a genuine stab at seeing how serious people are for continuing to desire, and PAY for rangefinder digital cameras.
Given the absolutely tiny market for rangefinder anythings, I sure wouldn't spend a lot for development of a rangefinder that would end up being 50% bigger to house larger sensors, and costing them out only to find that I would need to sell them for $5000 to $6000 to make a profit.
I truly think that's where a good rangefinder digital would end up, even if it was NOT a Leica.
And I do realize that my estimate of cost may be unrealistic in terms of prices and sizes that are happening in the "cookie cutter" camera markets. But, the rangefinder market is a miniscule niche market. Anybody who steps in to fill what is not even a recognizable void in the marketplace is going to demand huge returns for the risk they take in doing so. I would not be surprised to see companies who enter that market to want twice the price for the same sensor and electronics technology, on top of the manufacturing of rangefinder mechanism in very limited numbers.
Last edited:
mn4367
Established
they did have that questionnaire out in the japanese market. (and the screen *is* crap though i prefer the swivel)....
we can only hope that perhaps someone at Epson has an ace up his sleeve and this is just sticking his toe in to test the waters (excuse me for completely mixing my metaphors)
Cr@p, yes, maybe. But if I had to choose, I'd also prefer the swivel
.
back alley
IMAGES
large profits?
this sounds nuts to me.
how can large profits be made on an selling a limited numbers of units?
and so many assumptions being made and no real solid info being presented.
this sounds nuts to me.
how can large profits be made on an selling a limited numbers of units?
and so many assumptions being made and no real solid info being presented.
mn4367
Established
So basically you are saying that Epson has no interest in creating a good DRF, only in making quick money with almost no effort because the one time chance is there. I hope you're wrong.
Suppose they had reissued the R-D1 with the sensor of lets say the D300 or something comparable. Same nice high ISO appeal but with 12 MP. Everything else remains unchanged, maybe a better QC. Suppose further it would be available worlwide for something between 2000 and 2500$ (which should be possible). This would perfectly fit Epsons self proclaimed commitment for Fine Art. I think most of the current owners only in this forum would order it in a heartbeat (including me). Isn't that a better midterm strategy?
dazedgonebye
Veteran
I'm with you in principal...but not in the specifics.
I don't need to chase the lastest and greatest MP count, but some measure of improved image quality over 5 years ago is not unreasonable to ask for. A newer sensor with better high iso capability would have made the new version more compelling, even at 6mp.
After all, even Kodak comes out with new film now and again. My R3A just got a nice new color sensor (Ektar 100).
Wiyum
Established
My statement describing the camera as an abject failure was contingent upon the goal being to grow the market or develop a brand, two things that I think Epson could very easily have done, that would have yielded long-term gains. Two things, as well, that I don't think were part of their plans.
You're absolutely right, we agree on quite a bit of this; we only seem to disagree on our interpretation of this as a good thing. Surely, in terms of profitability for Epson, this product launch is an absolute good. I'm not terribly worried about Epson, however. For the rangefinder community as a whole, and for the future of the dRF in specific, I think that this announcement is terrible. While many here view this as a sign that Epson is poised to re-enter the dRF marketplace, I view it as the opposite. This isn't the way you introduce a product to see if your R&D dollars would be well-spent making a new dRF. By releasing a camera that required no R&D, and by maintaining the price from five years ago, Epson is essentially testing to see how little they have to do to make money. Again, not bad for short term profitability, but certainly bad for those that were hoping for more dRFs in the future to compete, on some level, with Leica's offerings.
The number of things that could have been easily changed on the camera for minimal R&D costs is staggering: a 10mp sensor (D200/D80 etc type) would have been an inexpensive addition, and justified after five years. It would also bring the camera to megapixel parity with the m8. The camera could offer a viewfinder with reduced magnification and/or more framelines. Not all customers would want a change from the 1:1 finder, but I imagine no one would balk at the inclusion of, at least, 75mm and 90mm framelines. Any of these things would represent actual, if not incremental, product development, and would make the $3000 price tag much more palitable, while yielding a product that would be more attractive to more potential new customers, thus serving as a better gauge of interest in the brand. Or, they could have made more of them with the same specs, offered a reduced price, and gauged interest that way. As it stands, it feels like a very cynical launch, and I think there's enough cynicism in the RF marketplace already.
russianRF
Fed 5C User
Considering 6mp is now approaching the high end cell phone camera domain, I agree that this camera is rather cynical. It's as if rangefinder users are so desperate they'll settle for a lot less camera at a still-hefty price.
mn4367
Established
Comparing cellphones with the Epson is considered ultimate heresy and will be prosecuted mercyless
Tuolumne
Veteran
You guys are a hoot. Remind me not to send you any horses for birthday presents.
/T
/T
Wiyum
Established
Thank you. Here and elsewhere, I'm reading complaints of people saying that "with every new camera people complain about too many MP; now that a camera is being launched in 2009 with 6MP, the same people are crying foul." Do all of these people really not understand the difference?
Given that almost every generational step has yielded an increase in pixel count *and* an increase in image quality, it stands to reason that the same tech could have been applied to a sensor with an identical pixel count to yield significantly improved image quality. As I pointed out earlier, the pixels on this 6mp sensor are almost the same size as those on the D700. If I could get the same performance at ISO6400 that the D700 gives me on a 1.5x crop rangefinder, I'd see the 6mp sensor as the smartest conceivable move. Rehashing a 7 year old sensor from the D100 isn't the same thing at all.
The 10mp D200/D80/D60/D40x sensor not only offers more pixels, it offers better IQ in all regards at all ISOs. Even moreso for the D300/D90 sensor. Each of those would cost more, but would significantly increase the value of the camera. I'd rather see the modernized "mini-d700" 6mp chip, but if Epson's going to use off-the-shelf solutions, and I understand why they would, these could have been added very easily.
Tuolumne
Veteran
The D200 sensor sucks in comparison with the R-D1. I use both, and I can't stand what I get from my D200. That's one reason it will soon be sold.
/T
/T
kuzano
Veteran
I'll go with your comment. NO, Epson is not interested in creating a better (as opposed to good, which it was at the time) DRF, as evidenced by this current move. They've had 5 years to improve the camera. Have they done anything remarkable here. NO. This is a decision to feed an existing product into a hole in the market that will very likely gobble it up at the asking price. That's the way I personally interpret the redux of the RD-1. Am I right... ???
Only in my mind. These are my thoughts alone, unless somebody chooses to agree with me.
Don't get me wrong. I love Epson.... for their Printers. When was the last time anyone saw a serious camera product from Epson (before the RD), and even then it would have been a camera built by someone else and branded for them. Furthermore, I never perceived Epson as a camera company at all. I do see them as a viable corporate entity, that makes reasonably good decisions.
This is one of the good decisions. Lacking the ability to come up with a dynamite new technologically current DRF, they are taking what has worked for them before, and resurfacing to the market with it. Good for the signal to the market that indicates, "Hey, we believe in the camera we put out 5 years ago and we are going to re-commit to it's survival". They're simply renewing vows with the same old girl. Kudos.
Do I expect Epson to ever come out with the DRF so many seem to want and be waiting for. NO, but then I don't expect Leica or anyone else to provide that product either. The market doesn't exist in the numbers that any good company can achieve a profit from.
As to whether this is a good thing, here is my rationale.
If my numbers are anywhere near correct, and if $12,000,000 would be a good thing for my bottom line, I'd make this move in a heartbeat.
While it's not what we are all wanting, or waiting for, I still think it's a smart move. But we can disagree on that part of the plan, and still have some hearty discourse.
Thanks guys/gals.
Last edited:
LCT
ex-newbie
The R-D1 and R-D1s has the same sensor as that of the D100 and Pentax *ist D (Sony ICX413AQ) whereas the D70 has a Sony ICX453AK and the D40 a Sony ICX453AQ. Not sure about the suffix -AK or -AQ though, so perhaps the D70 and D40 have the same sensor.
ampguy
Veteran
back alley
IMAGES
has anyone asked epson?
MikeL
Go Fish
My cynical take? The RD-1 had few problems. There were occasional problems with the swivel LCD, and therefore fewer LCD parts are left over from those set aside for repair. With the warranty period done, round up the leftovers, add a LCD design with less problems, keep x number of parts for new warranties, sell the 'new' cameras.
My cynical take? The RD-1 had few problems. There were occasional problems with the swivel LCD, and therefore fewer LCD parts are left over from those set aside for repair. With the warranty period done, round up the leftovers, add a LCD design with less problems, keep x number of parts for new warranties, sell the 'new' cameras.
Allow me to throw some more gasoline onto the conspiracy fire
I dropped by my local Yodobashi Camera store in Yokohama the other day, and noticed that the new R-D1s they used to have on display (since I can remember) is no longer there. Just now I checked Yodobashi Camera's website, and not only do they have no R-D1s stock, they've also completely removed the R-D1s product page. I find it very hard to believe they sold their whole inventory, so what could have happened to all those new R-D1s cameras they had in stock ???
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Allow me to throw some more gasoline onto the conspiracy fire
I dropped by my local Yodobashi Camera store in Yokohama the other day, and noticed that the new R-D1s they used to have on display (since I can remember) is no longer there. Just now I checked Yodobashi Camera's website, and not only do they have no R-D1s stock, they've also completely removed the R-D1s product page. I find it very hard to believe they sold their whole inventory, so what could have happened to all those new R-D1s cameras they had in stock ???
It's been windy in Yokohama and there was a shortage of doorstops?
Anyway ... recycling's good ... it will save the planet! :angel:
It's been windy in Yokohama and there was a shortage of doorstops?
Anyway ... recycling's good ... it will save the planet! :angel:
Oops my bad
Yodobashi Camera in Yokohama has their last R-D1s on sale now. Here's a photo of it (inside its box) in the cabinet. (Apologies for the crappy photo quality. They were taken with my cell phone camera)Here's a shot of the Zeiss Ikon cabinet (where the last R-D1s is) from further away. Thye Nikon cabinets are on the right, and the Canon cabinets are to the left. There's more cabinets outside the shot to the left with Pentax and other gear.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I thought they were in use on a grassy knoll some where.......
B2 (;->
B2 (;->