Graph courtesy: Personal View.
–
Cipa released the full Japanese camera shipment data for March 2014. And you can se plenty of great graphs at Personal View. These are some of the key changes that happened:
– Small increase in shipments for both DSLR and Mirrorless. But the results could be a influenced by the fact that Japan will soon increase the VAT on all products. So Japanese internal market shipment increase may not be a constant factor.
– The bad news is even with the small increase the situation is quite worse compared to previous years:
– Mirrorless is still not doing well in American and European markets. It’s mainly Asia that loves them 🙂
In summary: The next 2-3 years we will see who will survive this crisis. There are so many challenges I think no one really know’s with 10% certainty what needs to be done to make money with system cameras. And there is the fact that new kind of photo devices are coming out every year, Not only smartphones and tablets but now we will have Google Glass and other super portable and “always connected” stuff.
22 Responses
Here’s a very thorough analysis on what these numbers mean: http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/stuff-the-channel.html
interpreting Thom’s interpretation and using his last sentence “20k units a month of an individual product is starting to look like a big hit these days.” It would seem that the mirrorless guys who are selling at top dollar now (just read all the complaints) are the best placed. They will not need to lift prices to survive. The others may have to.
The culture of “bigger being better” for the Americans still bury deeply on their mind . Let Sony continue to show them , I’m confident the mirrorless cameras will penetrating into DSLR market , it’s the matter of time .
Current DSLR countering strategic against mirrorless cameras are lowering new products pricing such as full frame instead of coming innovative products .
The only weakness of m4/3 cameras still on the ISO performance & tracking a moving subjects .
Bring breakthough in this 2 aspects , m4/3 surely can cope with the race .
I may be wrong but isn’t the ISO difference about a stop at the same price point? Not so much weakness for not weighing about the same as a small supertanker, And isn’t the tracking fixed on the E-M1? I don’t know, I don’t have one and I’m not fan-boying m43, I just didn’t think there was that much in it now. Ronin’s comments about churn approximate my own I posted this a while ago but here it is again http://bit.ly/1krJGAj or for a view of why people won’t keep shelling out a grand every year http://bit.ly/1fSsYrc
The pricing depends where you are located in the UK EU a lot of mFT gear is overpriced .The D610 costs £1380 body only the E-M1/GH4 £1299 body only. £1200 for the 42.5mm is outrageous, even if you ignore equivalence { which many mFT fans love to do, who needs physics lol} , the equally excellent Fuji 56mm F1.2 costs £300 less. The “overpriced” Nikon 1 system F1.2 lens costs nearly £600 less than the Panasonic
I shoot FF DSLR sport, and have the E-M1 and whatever the fanboys claim the E-M1 C-AF and tracking are most definitely not up to scratch. Despite desperate attempts by mFT fanboys to lie/deceive/delude the bottom line is that from an overall market share mirrorless peaked early on dropped back a bit and has remained pretty static since. The huge losses experienced by all the imaging divisions of the big mirrorless players { Olympus, Sony & Panasonic } should make this obvious
Mirrorless are here for 4 years only so not enough time to surpass DSLR in every aspect. But in consumer market the problem with mirrorless is nothing but advertiment.
Mirrorless system cameras have been around since late 2008, when the Panasonic G1 was released. If you count digital rangefinders (Epson and Leica) they have been around even longer.
That’s useful to know re the tracking, I haven’t used an E-M1 and if I was going to get one that’s the perhaps the only thing that would convince me to ditch my E-M5 (which is now virtually unsellable btw, it’s seen a lot of hard use and looks like someone has been using it as rugby ball). I have to say as well, if I were shooting sports for a living I’d want the very best gear I could get my hands on, I don’t think that would be MFT because the chances are I’d be static, would want the very best shooting flexibility that was on offer and, as you say, have the ability to be financially flexible about lens choices – MFT is expensive, equivalence or not, but then outside of the USA hasn’t miniaturization of tech always been desirable and cost a bomb?
I don’t know what the future holds, most buyers know more about spending money than they do about what they want from a camera, especially their first ‘decent’ camera. I never expected to like the E-M5 until I picked one up…
It would be nice to hear if it doesn’t track well with m43 or FT lenses.. or both….
“desperate attempts by mFT fanboys to lie/deceive/delude” WTF are you talking about? People just buy what makes sense for them. Go stroke your FF toy and STFU. I do mostly video and there’s no better tool for the money than a GH4 with a range of excellent MFT lenses. I have no idea why you’re bleating about equivalence or whatever your problem is. I’ve used a FF 85mm 1.2 lens and it’s inferior in every meaningful way to the PL 42.5mm. IQ is inferior, can’t shoot wide open, no IS, autofocus is worse and slower, heavier, more expensive, etc. why do idiots like you come on this site? I don’t spend time on a Nikon site. WTF?
Interesting example you gave, seeing as you have chosen the most expensive lens on the mFT system as your comparison. Here I have one for you: Oly 12-40 2.8, arguably the sharpest f2.8 zoom from 12-30 (24-60), weighs half as much as the Canikon equivalent, is almost half the size and is $1,000. The Canikon equivalent is $2,000. Would I like it if mFT lenses were cheaper? Sure, but they are not as overpriced as you think when you actually compare them down the line with their equivalents in the DSLR world (or Sony E-mount).
The CaNi equivalents are the F3.5-F5.6 zooms, they are way cheaper and roughly the same size. Physics is physics.
The Oly 12-40 2.8 isn’t “equivalent” to a Canon F3.5-F5.6. Stupid is stupid.
A CaNi F3.5 zoom at 3.5 isn’t even close to as sharp across the frame or renders the image as well as the Olympus. Stop equivocating by using the DoF numbers instead of actually looking at the quality of the glass and the actual exposure time (ie: an Oly 2.8 lens is still a 2.8 lens in terms of exposure time. DOF is equiv to 5.6 on a FF lens).
Oh, please. Quit blaming the customer because the manufacturer products are not selling.
DSLRs have superior viewing (no lag, infinite resolution, true wysiwyg, no tearing, no false colors, true contrast range), faster autofocus, better battery life, better chance of long term vendor support and viability… AND CHEAPER
micro 4/3 used to be smaller and lighter. That’s an advantage.
An informed consumer can choose their mass produced toy accordingly. It isn’t a religion.
But let’s leave the silly psychological analysis out of it if the vendor is unable to address a demographic.
The numbers “shipped” are an interesting data point, but more revealing would be the numbers actually “sold.”
I don’t know how manufacturers designate “shipped.” At retail stores? At the shipper? Or, more likely: out of the plant but in a distribution center in an area “ready to be loaded into a container?”
This is the real norm. The last few years until say 2010-11 were the real discrepancy, with new products delivering measurably new results. The current plateau has manufacturers delivering follow-on products with no real imaging advantage over the previous two iterations (Fuji XE-1, XE-2, Xt1; Olympus OM-5, OM-1) other than minor features with importance blown out of proportion by interweb shills.
I think we can make some predictions if we follow the trends:
The “DSLR is dead” is dead. After six years the DSLR is still viable and mirrorless is making no noticeable growth. That’s fine, there is entirely no reason the two consumer toys can’t co-exist, and the meme was always just an internet shill game anyway.
Image production technology has hit a plateau of excellence. Product churn has not resulted in significant improvement, just vendors trying to me-to each other with old-timey designs.
The trends show continued loss in sales and volumes. There is no reason to think this trend will end. The result is that a couple of the big players may out of the camera business in 18 months.
The cynical product pricing strategy by the marketing departments has gone about as far as it can. That is, deliberately underproducing (to create ‘excitement’) at launch while overpricing it, then skimming down the next pricing layer every 3-6 months until the follow on non-improved product is introduced. Remaindering the stock after 18 months and causing the consumer’s “investment” to plummet in value is not a long-term approach. Why do they hate their customers? I know, the astro turf line is that this is just the way things are in high tech. No, this is the way things are when it’s a sellers market and the sellers convince customers that this is just the way things are. There’s no law of nature saying this must be so.
Finally, prices must come down. The worst blemish on the market is the so very high prices of cameras and lenses. I know, every manufacturer and their brother wants to sell “high margin” products. Good luck, consumers already have that, despite all the astroturfing convincing us that real camera fans constantly buy all makes and models as they are released. But no one can afford such expensive mass-produced consumer luxury toys every 18 months. It’s not like they are rolexes that actually are luxury products that retain value.
That’s the hope of the industry. Cut your prices. Yep, it means some won’t make margin. That’s fine, they’ll go out of business one way or the other.
“The “DSLR is dead” is dead” Wrong (well almost). The graphs clearly show the mirrorless gaining % in a declining market total. You seem to read what is not there.
Also. Who would keep shipping a product to have it sit a warehouse for years? You write as if that’s what happens. You will also see from the graphs that mirrorless shipments follow a better production shipping cycle compared to the big ones (Oct, Nov 13). That is better efficiency and also shows the DSLR makers are more likely to get it wrong than the mirrorless makers. Again the US shipments in Oct 13 to the US were near the shipments to the EU in a smaller and declining market. Now they are on sale at massive discount. This just creates a boom bust cycle and kills the small town and local sellers.
“Cut your prices. Yep, it means some won’t make margin” I agree. Reduce prices in the EU and stop using the higher sales volume and profits to subsidise the US market.
Can you tell me where all theses warehouses full of cameras are, If they are not selling then they must be stored somewhere. They might have some sales on that admin has not found yet.
DSLRs enjoy a head start which should not be taken lightly. The millions of EOS and F mount lenses out in the wild pretty much ensure the continuity of Canon and Nikon’s dominance in the interchangeable-lens camera market. Moreover, new users of system cameras tend to choose their systems based on what they see, which is most likely DSLRs.
The market for mirrorless systems is based around consumers who are deterred by the size and complexity of traditional systems. It is a rather small segment with little room for expansion.
Perhaps the manufacturers should emphasize other attributes of mirrorless systems, such as the WYSIWYG viewfinders and the reliability of CDAF to lure more potential buyers.
WYSIWYG viewfinders …..
sure
what you see is a quick jpegs… shoot raw, or even slightly retouch the jpegs, and pffuit!
Add that the diaphragm of your lens only closes when taking the photos for modern lenses (correct me if I am wrong) so depth of field is different if not at full aperture.
you get 100% viewfinder, that for sure. For the rest…
Without a presence at Target, Best Buy, or Walmart, MFT will have a hard time picking up sales in the U.S. People need to feel the physical product. In addition, pricing is too high for the average person and there is a lack of low-priced ($200-$300) add-on lenses beyond the kit lens. All MFT bodies should have built-in EVFs. They don’t need to be stunning displays on the compact bodies, but useful in bright light situations as an alternative to the LCD. The EPM2 two-lens kit at $350-$400 were fantastic bargains. I bought two and gave one to one of my sons and my old EPM1 to my other son, who immediately put a VF3 on it and was much happier with the camera afterwards. I put the 8 mm f8 body cap lens on and stuck the camera in my shirt pocket and was stunned by the photos I got inside a church during Easter Vigil service, some of the photos taken with only candle light. Most people will stick with their smart phones, the modern equivalent of the Instamatic, but some will want more from their photography. However, the remarkable popularity of Pikkety’s economics text Capital in the Twenty-First Century is an indication of how much people are cued in to increasing income inequality and the lack of surplus cash of middle class families for buying luxury products such as interchangeable lens cameras.
Says a few things. (Personal View additional graphs)
The whole market is shrinking.
Those NOT in mirrorless will fade away. (Mirrorless is gaining % in a declining market)
So much for the mighty US market everyone wants. It is a lot smaller than the EU. So why discount for sales in the second largest market at the expense of the primary market. Which is the EU. Proof once again that the EU is supporting US sales.
I think it is more interesting to look at YOY growth of shipments as a way to compare the two segments. Mirrorless shipments are more erratic, but at least are weakly trending upward. I suspect the mirrorless market is more influenced by new product releases. DSLR shipment growth is consistently negative.