[Martin_MM]

Now, hang on - to offer and develop different models is part of competition. And I don't think, they make the most money with those top models but more with consumer stuff. Those flagships are usually owned by rich enthusiasts or people making money with it and walk around as advertisements. And please don't think this price alliances (if there are some)is an exclusive japanese speciality, you can see that round the globe.

 

 You are right, I agree...... But I strongly believe in some price alliance or "cooperation" here indeed, that´s all I wanted to say.

 

Also, in the past there others  were competing with CaNikon, but what, if those two really had the better business models? What did the European or American (was there one? besides of monopolist Kodak?) camera industry do to get the customers back? What had they to offer except more expensive products doing the same and some arrogance to new products and possible new customers? "Entry level" in the eighties or late seventies meant nothing than cheap russian and GDR imports for some large distributors like Porst and Quelle where you had to screw the lenses to the body. Entry level of any japanese brand gave you full access to all the pro lenses, not cheap, but affordable. Everybody waxes poetry about Leica or Zeiss lenses but how many own and use them? Some legendary things are, well, legends. No competition possible, because every flaw is excused by the creamy dreaminess of their bokeh, yawn... producing a 55/1.4 @ 3000 € is nothing else than the next attempt to create legends.

 

Yes, unfortunately this is also mostly a true point....  Maybe just want to add that this "business model" also led to planned obsolescence and sometimes almost horrible consumer attitude in product manufacturing (and its inside quality related to planned longetivity). I still remember Canon bringing almost completely plastic EOS body at the beginning of 90s to the market and advertising it as "special cosmic plastic - durable like a steel"  :-).

 

And with what are most flickr pictures made today? Really, who needs complicated, over-equipped DSLR to make a good picture happen? In how many cases you simply don't need fast AF or highest resolution? To me it sometimes look like CaNikon are the last dinosaurs. If they use price fixings, then the next competitor will do so as well. If it would be japanese phenomena, which choice do we really have? Get a chinese copy? Lots of lenses already are. No, I don't want to think in that direction, that's just racism.

 

Well, first we should define the term "good picture"... technically yes, it is easier then ever before to make "good" picture. But even with the unbelievable spread of digital photography I somewhat do not see the same increase in "good pictures" - actually, I can see the opposite, to be honest.