I guess some of you already saw that well made infographic made by Lensvid. It clearly shows you the decline of the overall camera market (Compact, DSLR and Mirrorless). There is no escape, the market is shrinking and will probably shrink further the next couple of years. There are many reasons for that, economic crisis, market saturation and so on. It’s also interesting how the IDC prediction of mirrorless camera shipment is way off the reality. Shows us once again how well paid analysts do (often) big mistakes.
I will give you my forecast based on pure animal instinct: Unlike all these negative reports Mirrorless will do well the coming 2-3 years. You wanna bet a beer with me? 🙂
Something local: Pekka Potka analyzed the Finnish Camera Market. It’s one of the few European market where Olympus is actually doing pretty well with 21% share of the full system camera market (DSLR+mirrorless). Not far behind Nikon and canon (both around 32%).
161 Responses
I blame smartphones. everyone’s a photographer now.
Smartphones get people interested in photography, it’s upto camera companies to capitalise on that interest…
a friend of mine uses her iPhone to take photos of the sea, shares them on facebook and everyone loves them. lots of ‘likes’. recently she WON a Canon100D (or whatever, a DSLR) on some Twitter competition….she is more than happy to carry on using the iPhone and the general public (ie facebook users, twitter, instagram etc) don’t give a shit how it was shot, it’s the content….and the Canon camera is gathering dust.
The DSLR sits on the shelf because of its bulk, while the smartphone continues to be used because it’s always along and always accessible. Even though it’s tiny in comparison to a DSLR, in the two years I’ve had my EPM1, I have yet to fill a 16 gig card, but I’ve filled up many 16 gig cards on my Olympus TG620, which is eminently pocketable (and rugged) and always with me.
@YouDidn’tDidYou: Absolutely correct. But the problem is that smartphones aren’t limited in what they can do as cameras. The current R&D going on with smartphones, which will show up in a year or two or three, pushes the smartphone camera bar further and further up into the space cameras used to occupy. There’s a strong likelihood that they’ll cannibalize all the way up into what is currently regarded as the low-end mirrorless and DSLR realm. That’s disastrous for all camera companies, as it implies a very small remaining market. This is exactly what killed the consumer HiFi market.
Smartphones have their major problems for when taking photos eg how do you keep the lens clean, major stability problems for the average user, major under powering of flash, lack of speed when changing controls etc
I have about a 1,000 photos on my smartphone 96% taken with a mft camera and transfered over, the other 4% are utility pictures for work.Smartphones haven’t killed sat navs and they won’t kill the market for folks that want to take good pictures, Smartphones only killed the market for those that begrudgingly previously spent a $100 on a point and shoot because they had no choice.
A German newspaper showed an investigation that 60% of Germans don’t have a camera anymore, instead they only use their smartphone.
Of those who have both, 40% don’t use cameras anymore, they leave them at home.
The number of people (spec. younger people) buying cameras shrank, too, by 40%.
So this supports your view that the camera companies battle over a smaller remaining market every year.
What I noticed was that household penetration of DSLRs in the US stopped its upward growth curve within a couple of years after smartphones became popular here. The implication is that the market is now turning mostly to replacement and not attracting new customers. The problem, of course, is also that if you think your current camera is good enough for what you do with it, why would you replace it? This is the same problem the film market had in the 90’s and which led to the weakening of a number of camera companies.
It seems clear to me that at the currently projected decline in sales for 2014, the only way you even hold your current ground is to take sales from someone else. As the duopoly gets pressed, pricing is going to become a big weapon, I think.
Canikon can’t use downward pricing as it would damage their brands and also the sales if high end cameras.
Looking at the lens sales a different trend is seen. Yes, the phones are biting into lower end camera sales but also it may be that users are rejecting the makers annual new model philosophy. Keeping the old body longer and buying more lenses. OK lenses were down last year but show a different patern to the cameras.
It’s now incumbent upon photographers to offer something that clients can’t get with their smartphone.
Real artists will always have something to offer that a smartphone can’t emulate.
Well everyone thinks they are a photographer…but as Doug points out artists always have something different to offer clients. Cameras will be around for a long time despite the smartphones…I don’t even own a cell phone…but I see images from the iphone 5s and very nice…but still nowhere near what I can do with my E-M1 and multiple flashes
I think it is the exact opposite. That is the problem with the camera industry right now. Nobody was ever a photographer and companies haven’t realized it yet. To make money they need to adapt to what the masses, the non photographers, are buying and most likely, they are not buying expensive $1500 camera bodies.
Make a Nikon phone. make a canon phone. Etc. Use their brand name as camera companies to sell to people that want a phone with better camera functionality.
by doing this they will sell to the masses as they once did with point and shoots or Polaroids.
The real photographers realize the gig is up. They are preoccupied with exhausting their current gear practicing their skills in composition etc. instead of buying.
“Make a Nikon phone. make a canon phone.” I wish they would haha!
I would use this infographic as a test tab for color rendition and sharpness of lenses. 🙂
Why do all those peoples who make growth prediction is always so “optimistic” about infinite growth. As if the world will end if those numbers stabilized and went to a plateau.
They are made by economists. It is a well known fact that economists never agree unless they are paid by the same organisation, even then it is a difficult process. Half sit on the side of doom and gloom and the other half on the side of boom and glory.
It become clear now which work for manufacturers and which for governments.
OK, I’ll take the bet, don’t mind to pay for that beer.
After the downturn in the last couple of years, I would expect surging sales because many people who already bought into mirrorless systems say in 2010 maybe did not upgrade until now. So the upcoming months may see stronger sales supported by people who replace their aged camera model. Just my 2 cents…
It’s smartphones. All most people ever needed was an Instamatic camera. No one makes (prints) anymore and if they do crap is ok..as long as they have something to post on social media…or better yet..immediately to Snapchat. Couple with that dwindling pay checks and no free time and there you have it….
I agree. I think it is smartphones, especially the impact of larger phones/tablets with very sharp displays. The photos look good on them, and there is no interest in having them printed. I haven’t printed out a photo in years. What’s been missing on smartphones but is now starting to creep in is image stabilization. Dynamic range is still poor but ordinary users don’t know what that is and think washed out highlights are normal.
It’s a different use-case too. Camera companies might have misunderstood that the majority use of photography isn’t to produce a beautiful image, but to document a moment without having to take too much attention away from it. It’s utilitarian, not artistic. They want to record something, not create something.
That’s different from the artist, who actually wants to work with light to produce a beautiful image. Artists buy system cameras. People who just want to take a picture use their phone.
Well put! Record something vs create something. The MAJORITY just record something….it is utilitarian…not art….and if the idea of art was involved it is just a passing afterthought and not something to spend a whole lot of time and money on. They put about as much thought into it as they do buying a cup of coffee. The new smart phones are MORE than they need. The camera manufacturers have not even begun to take the hit yet… It is going get a lot worse.
The truth of the matter is ..that with a smart phone and a little ability, you can produce results that are as good or better than the old Instamatics or disposable cameras…and it is getting better every day. Your average person used to own a DSLR…that is going by the wayside.
Yeah, exactly. My dad just got into photography. We got him a Panasonic point and shoot for Christmas. He’d never shown any interest in it before and he doesn’t have a smartphone.
He loves the camera, but the kinds of shots he takes are what I find most interesting. He photographs signs to remember what they said or to show people. When he’s working on a piece of electronics or machinery, he photographs the disassembly so he can remember where things go. He photographs documents so he can remember what they said. And if he sees something cool, he takes a picture so he can show his family.
I thought it was neat. He’s an engineer, a very good draftsman and has a keen eye for art. And he does do a little bit of that with his photography. But mostly it’s just an aid to his memory or to share an experience or sight with other people.
I’m pretty sure Olympus is doing well in Germany and the UK too…(along with Panasonic)
Here you are again…pulling all these numbers and ideas out of your a$$……
I think IDC expected Canon and Nikon to replace their aging DSLRs with mirrorless, but hey canikon won’t introduce any real advances/changes until 2016+ =)
I’ll see your beer and raise you two beers that Fuji, Sony, Olympus and Panasonic will do well in Mirrorless in the next 2-3 years =)
Just like the admin, you don’t bother to define “well.” Thus, you’ll likely declare victory no matter what the result. This is not predicting anything, it’s called cheering on your favorite.
My definition of well:
To continue to take market share from DSLRs, to grow sales in photography and the video segment (including lenses), to not be weighed down by point and shoots, to have largely recouped mirrorless development costs and to have faster introduction of new technology.
You do realize that your definition of “well” could include DECLINING mirrorless sales, right? ;~) If both mirrorless and DSLR sales went down, as they did last year, but DSLR went down more than mirrorless, “well” would only mean “less ill.”
Again, your definitions and predictions are vague, and in most cases unmeasurable. Thus, anyone that would make a bet against you would have a hard time collecting.
Try something like “Mirrorless shipments according to CIPA will grow X% from 2013 numbers to final 2015 numbers” coupled with “DSLR shipments according to CIPA will decline X% from 2013 numbers to final 2015 numbers” and then you might get a taker.
I’ve always been very specific about my prognostications, in ways that can be measured. One of my current prognostications is that Olympus will report final current fiscal year shipments of m4/3 cameras UNDER the 630k unit volume they projected. We’ll know in May whether or not I’m right. We’ll never know whether your “well” definition is right. Oh, wait, we will. You’ll tell us, right? ;~)
CIPA numbers don’t break out brands so 2011 and 2012 figures could easily be distorted by the Canon EOS M and the Nikon 1 fails along with the Pentax Q fall back, so CIPA doesn’t tell you anything about how Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic are doing in mirrorless.
Proving my point, are you? ;~)
Your original contention was that Fujifilm, Olympus, Panasonic, and Sony would do “well” in mirrorless in the next 2-3 years. Now you’re saying that this would only be if we don’t count Nikon and Canon. As I’ve pointed out for some time, it seems clear that DSLRs will eventually migrate to EVFs and essentially become mirrorless. I believe we’ll see the first Canikon shot at that this year.
No, CIPA doesn’t tell you anything about how the individual companies are doing. But how are you going to find that out. Fujifilm has released only vague numbers that include the X100, Olympus is all over the place with their projections/actuals, sometimes releasing them, sometimes not, sometimes contradicting themselves.
Canikon have pushed themselves into a corner telling everyone that EVFs are useless and LCD isn’t really shooting, how are they going to migrate their DSLR users?
If they were going to they should of started this 2-4 years ago and taken a different stance.
“Now you’re saying that this would only be if we don’t count Nikon and Canon.”?????????????????
Sources please. Exactly where have Canon and Nikon told “everyone that EVFs are useless”? Given that Nikon alone sells 14m or so non-OVF cameras a year, that would be a pretty stupid thing to be going around telling everyone, wouldn’t it?
Canon CP+ 2014 interview on dpreview [YI] We and our competitors market both types of camera, but mirrorless is only a small part of the market in the USA. American consumers seem to place priority on the superior speed and ability to capture the moment with DSLRs. DSLRs can capture the moment better than mirrorless, because you’re viewing directly, not through an LCD.http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2097339172/cp-2014-canon-interview-we-dont-see-the-smartphone-as-an-enemy
As usual, you’ve taken something out of context and then put your own exaggeration to the nth degree on top of it. The key words there are “capture the moment.” While the EVF cameras have gotten better, there is still viewing lag in them. But more to the point, he’s also responding to a point about American preferences. IN context, the sense you get is that Canon is trying to serve customer needs/desires, and Americans are different. Indeed, you skip right past the “We are very serious about mirrorless cameras” comment, which is far, far, far, far away from “EVFs are useless and LCD isn’t really shooting.”
In short, you haven’t actually responded to my question. Instead, you’ve pointed to a statement out of context that you decided meant something entirely different than the gentleman actually said.
How is it taken out of context?
People buy cameras to “capture the moment” so only a DSLR with an OVF will do according to Canon.
“”We are very serious about mirrorless cameras”” is too vague as in we are very serious about EOS M or all research and no product implementation.
Both canikon have said many times that an OVF is better than EVF and why haven’t they made their LCD and EVF shooting better than what it currently is.
I’m punting Olympus will do about 700k mft camera bodies plus have the best extra lens sales per body out of all the mirrorless players.
There’s over 10% difference in our projections for the current year, so it should be easy enough to tell who was closer. Assuming, of course, that Olympus decides to release that number (I think they have to, since they have made several projections using unit sales).
The lens sales numbers aren’t projectable currently. To my knowledge, Olympus has never released those numbers, nor has Fujifilm or Sony, so there’s no way to measure whether you’d be right or not. Based upon what I know about lens sales at a large US dealer, I’d say you’re wrong (Fujifilm wins on a per body basis according to them), but one data point isn’t enough to project from.
When Nikon was asked the amount of lenses owned per a Nikon 1 body the answer was “above one”!
I would say Fuji is second behind Olympus on lens sales mainly due to the lack of Fuji lenses at the moment, with Panasonic being 3rd and Sony a close 4th
I would say you’re probably wrong. I suspect that you’re trying to compare “lenses owned per camera” versus “lenses sold per camera.” In other words, Olympus is doing good because everyone has a bunch of lenses now (after four years, if you’re serious, you should ;~). I’m going by current sales. This is one of the trickier parts of calculating how camera companies are doing, because while the average in the industry has trended around 1.5 lenses per camera sold for quite some time, there are two very different groups involved: (1) buys only the kit, rarely upgrades; (2) upgrades the body and constantly adds lenses. Group 1 is far larger than Group 2. But Group 2 is very very hard to dislodge from their choice once made.
Shrinking markets seem to be too much for the average person’s intuition. The numbers presented, as I mentioned in a comment above, could not be used to conclude that the DSLR market is shrinking more slowly than the mirrorless one. My guess, they’re very close, but as I said:
“I don’t imagine these numbers are precise enough to conclude that the DSLR market is shrinking more slowly than the mirrorless market, especially given that the percentages are clearly calculated from the rounded figures given. (4 million -> 3 million vs 16 million -> 13 million) Worst case of single digit rounding error (3.4 million and 16.4 million) DSLRs shrunk 21% and mirrorless shrunk 15%. This is why real data has error bars and more than 1 significant figure of precision.”
It’s actually not the worst case…my mistake. The 4 million could actually be 3.5 million and the 13 million might be 12.6. But it’s a perfectly plausible case that illustrates the point just as well. There’s just no way to know without better quality data which it is.
Canon ,Sony, Pentax and Nikon will be hurting more on DSLR sales because their’s was a drop of a bigger pie between 4 players ie they lost 3 million units at a higher selling price while the 7 mirrorless players lost 1 million units (who knows maybe the EOS M, Nikon 1 and Pentax Q accounted for a large portion of that 1 million drop)
Good point. No doubt you’re correct. And with DSLRs, Canon and Nikon would have taken most of the losses. With mirrorless, I think we already know it’s spread fairly evenly, with Nikon 1 and EOS M doing worse.
The way it’s looking, Canon and Nikon might actually have taken the biggest hit here.
Forget the %’s, the critical question is which company was in the best/worst position to absorb such a hit.
More exact data is that DSLR’s declined 14.66% according to CIPA numbers, mirrorless declined 16.45% according to CIPA numbers. The ratio of DSLRs shipped to mirrorless in 2012 was 4.09:1, and was 4.18:1 in 2013. Personally, I don’t see a lot of difference in those numbers: both groups were hurt in 2013. In US retail sales numbers the percentages are a little more tilted towards DSLRs, but still not enough to say that one did better than the other.
This, by the way, is one reason why Canikon are in no hurry to move the DSLR designs over to EVF: their dominance in interchangeable lens cameras has not yet really been challenged, and the challengers had as weak a year as Canikon did. The weakness problem is industry-wide, not specific to one group of cameras, though compact cameras are an area where there was a huge drop (41.39% y2y).
CIPA currently is forecasting the mirrorless/DSLR shipments to drop another 4.1% in 2014, and lens shipments to drop 4.1% as well.
Ah, so that’s a massive rounding error. 25% and 19% is a far cry from ~16% and ~15%. Those data analysis skill leave a heck of a lot to be desired.
> that’s a massive rounding error. 25% and 19% is a far cry from ~16% and ~15%
It is not only rounding, 25/19% are production, 16/15% are shipments.
This is what’s important: it means DSLR produces more than ).
BTW: CIPA doesn’t count Samsung (currently #2 mirrorless in US), which could surely help to mirrorless statistics
If inaccuracies, or downright lies, are repeated long enough and loud enough they become fact. Right?
Reality can be a real inconvenience. 😉
Take maker share from DSLR’s? Are you high??
Panasonic and Olympus should be more concerned about losing market share to Fuji/Sony!!!
Say what you want about USA, but sony is the leader in mirrorless here and Fuji is making moves to try and take the lead. Sony is messing up by not providing good glass and changing names and M43 is almost irrelevant, from lack of marketing, aside from the GH series, which is held very highly.
If M43 doesn’t make the cameras like Canikon does, say bye bye. Hype won’t save them.
I’m pretty sure Sony and Fuji will do well (being relative) with Olympus and Panasonic becoming extinct if/when Nikon and Canon decide to get serious in this category. m43 will be the odd-man out.
The EOS M and Nikon 1 weren’t serious? Weren’t they suppose to wipe the floor of Micro Four Thirds?
So it was their game plan to drop prices by upto 90%,have stock gathering dust on supermarket shelves, not to launch future models in USA, to be also rans in their home market and to not get above 15% mirrorless market share and not being to maintain even 10% market share
Nikon and Canon press releases stated that they were going to “wipe the floor of Micro Four Thirds”? 90% reductions? Seriously? Where could one find these cameras for less than $100 U.S.? Ah, revising history and making up stats once again to fit your agenda.
I bought a new Nikon J1 with lens for $65 equivalent ie £40…don’t cry, your apology accepted http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53038459
Well you got me. A picture of a box with a strange sticker slapped on it. And it must be “new” since you say so. Seriously? That is your proof? Looks more like a two generation old auctioned refurb or display model.
You want a picture of the receipt????
btw Supermarkets don’t sell two generation old auctioned refurb or display models.
This conversation is just bizarre.
That is because you are talking to a fool.
There’s a reason I’ve been recommending Nikon 1’s to everybody and their dog lately. They’re one of the cheapest system cameras you can get and a fantastic bang for buck.
Now I don’t shoot one because they’re not that good, but if I wanted a cheap camera for social photography, they’re amazing. Around here they usually go for $100-$200. An E-PM2, which is a much more serious camera, goes for $350 with dual zooms, so I always recommend that if people are willing to pay a little more.
I find the 1 series lacking for social photography due to its low light performance. However, for a few specific purposes (outdoor action and extreme telephoto) it shines. I use the V1 exclusively and only for my kids’ outdoor sports. The size and AF make it the best solution at this point. For other uses I have Nikon DSLR and Fuji/Olympus mirrorless models. I believe that is why so many people are currently staying with DSLR’s – value. When one only wants/needs one system (which is most consumers), the current mirrorless offerings can not handle the two main requirments – fast action (kid’s sports) and low light (indoor events) photography – as well as the DSLR. This will change one day in the future but I fear it may not happen quickly enough in the shrinking camera market to matter.
I agree on low light, especially with the kit lens. If you slap a f/1.8 prime on it, it’s going to be far better than any phone or point and shoot, though. And it’s not far behind APS-C and 4/3, amazingly, at mid-ISO.
Still, I’d take a E-PM2 over it with the new 25mm f/1.8, or the PL 25mm f/1.4 any day.
Nikon 1 does really shine in telephoto, speed, and focusing.
I disagree with the comparison of m43 to “a DSLR”, saying it doesn’t handle low light as well. We need to unpack that a little and point out that m43 does just as well as an APS-C DSLR. For all intents and purposes they’re the same for low light. Where the statement rings true is with FF DSLRs, but you’re talking a whole different type of customer at that point and a much higher price point.
That I still disagree when comparing both current generation m43 and APS-C. Close but not the same. Probably not enough gap for a typical consumer to care though. In low light I was referring to AF. My experience with the E-M1 shows it less capable than even APS-C DSLR’s. Again, overall value. DSLR’s still lead, albeit much slimmer than in the past. Add on the name brand recognition of Nikon and Canon which instills confidence and the only remaining differentiatior is price. Oops, m43 is no cheaper and in many instances more expensive than APS-C DSLR’s. Compounded that with no shelf presence at the larger retailers, at least here in the U.S., and mirrorless has a tough uphill battle. I am heavily invested in mirrorless and might even consider the A7 next generation around. But for now the signs look ominous.
If you group all APS-C DSLRs and m43 cameras together, the latest m43 do fall right in the middle of the pack, towards the upper end in terms of ISO, and towards the top in terms of colors and dynamic range. That makes perfect sense, because at 16 megapixel m43 sensor has the same pixel pitch as a 24 megapixel APS-C one. The size is very similar too…the heights are almost the same.
In theory, a 16 megapixel APS-C sensor could have a little less than a third of a stop ISO advantage and the same in shallow depth of field. So yeah, no point in treating APS-C as “large” and m43 as tiny. They’re very very close.
If “Nikon and Canon (finally) decide to get serious in this category”, they will be following . . . not leading.
It’s the same as with other technology: It gets better and better to the point where you only want to buy something new if the old breaks. Let’s take the D800. This thing is 2 years old and it’s still hot. And I’m pretty sure the same will go for the X-T1 and the E-M1. They have everything you want. So if you buy one, you will use it till it breaks and not till the next thing comes out.
Also people should unterstand that DSLR vs. Mirrorless is not a match with the last man standing. Both have their place, both have their use and both will co-exist. The numbers may change, of course, but i cannot imagine an EVF being as good as my eyes looking through an OVF.
It was the first time i join discussions here……. My point is that a lot of people assume that dslr is always the better option. Ofcourse it depends on your needs and there are areas where dslr is the better or only option. But for many m43 will have a better price/performance ratio.
I had trouble imagining an EVF could be that good too. What I didn’t realize is that it can be better in a lot of ways, for example in extreme lighting, helping you measure the intensity of light in different areas (highlight and shadow alert), exposure preview. And it’s not hard these days to produce a screen which can fool the human eye in both responsiveness and resolution.
There are still reasons to prefer one over the other, but I’ve been reluctantly convinced that both are more than adequate to do the job, and that EVF might have more potential in the long run.
I’m pretty sure that the EVF will one day beat the OVF as it can “do more” with the image like highlighting focus or show where there is too much or not enough light, magnify and so on and so on. But right now I can picture an image with my eye, take it with the camera and then adjust so that it looks like the picture I saw. With the EVF you will always see what comes out of the camera and not what goes in, because the camera can’t collect colors, dynamic range and just the reality itself as it is. It is always processed. And for now and the next few years the OVF will still be in favor me. But I’m pretty sure that I will switch one day when it matches my criterias…
I see what you’re saying. I just don’t see that as a disadvantage. Seeing what the cameras sees seems to me to be a more natural way to work, but that’s my style, and I understand that you have your own way of working.
When I look at a scene, I imagine what I want the image to look like, I look through the camera and think about which highlights I want to preserve, where I want the focal point to be, what I want the framing to be. I adjust the exposure accordingly, and I take the shot. I enjoy being able to look through the shallow depth of field of the camera to see if what I saw is going to be preserved in the final image. Not every situation is the same, but the EVF fits my style quite well, I feel. And I find the so-called drawbacks are actually useful to creating the image I want.
Having shot extensively with both rangefinders and SLRs, I can say that magnified focus assist and focus peaking (as a rough guide) makes manual focus with an EVF faster and far more accurate than through an optical viewfinder.
The ability to shift the focus point and zoom in on it is icing on the cake!
Absolutely. Although this isn’t something I do much of, for one simple reason: I can easily tell when someone’s eye is in perfect focus on my E-M5’s EVF, at least to the degree of accuracy required. How? I watch of the pattern of reflections on the surface of the eye. Little tricks like that make all the difference. 🙂
Eyelashes also produce some identifiable patterns when they come into focus. Hair, too. There are lots of special cases which you can use.
Same here Thomas; and the prices must be OK, too.
In fact, I am pissed off at Canon for not coming out with a good EVF. Even a reflex can benefit from a good EVF. I guess we’ll have to wait; in the meantime, enjoy your light.
I usually look at the spot I will shoot before without a camera. So I already know how it looks in this actual light. I can easily set my camera to match that.
So, I don’t see the advantage of an OVF, except for AF points.
My problem is that I have the same situation with an e-m5. It’s reached the “good enough” level.
That’s not a problem, for you as a consumer or a photographer. It’s a benefit. It is, however, a problem for the camera manufacturers.
I am curious if more and more photographers will discover that m43 is a better option than mediocre dslr’s.
Better option for what exactly?
Apparently fewer and fewer photographers do.
To satisfy the wish to make good photographs
First of all, it seems that this comment was intended for me, but if you want to reply, there is a button that actually says “reply”, but anyway…
You don’t seem to get the point here. I could ask you again “What is a good photograph?”. The thing is that it all comes down to what you need and there is a right tool for every job, but not one tool that is better than all others. Therefore an m43 is not better or worse than a DSLR. It’s only different. And if you wanna shoot sport with a shallow DOF, fast AF and massive burst rates on a 600mm lens, you wouldn’t go with a m43. On the other hand if you wanna climb a mountain, you wouldn’t pack several kilos of DSLR gear if an m43 could do the same job.
Of course all of the things you listed except shallow depth of field are not in any way related to it being a m43 camera. Fast AF on m43, check. 600mm equivalent focal lengths, check! And at 600mm, shallow depth of field is a given, so check.
So the choice of system makes even less difference than you think. The biggest difference, and arguably the only major difference, is the choice of viewfinder. The choice of format is independent of it being mirrorless or DSLR which is what everything else you mentioned comes down to.
There may be size and weight differences with or without the mirror, but that’s not necessarily the case. Full frame mirrorless is likely to have very little weight difference for long focal lengths. Smaller formats like m43 certainly have advantages there, though.
Agree, long lenses is where a smaller format makes most sense, moneywise. Quality will still be inferior, but who cares, look at the price and size gap.
Now where are the 4/300s at =< 1500 USD? I have only seen some funny zoom that goes to F 7.1 or something like that and a 2.8/300 with a price tag designed to amuse.
Instead, we are getting pathetic F5.6 equiv zooms, priced like jewels, or F0.85 primes, priced like gold. For me, no value, no buy; for trekking and casual shots, I gave my money to Nikon instead.
Four thirds is so close to APS-C that the quality and cost differences are negligible. That’s why the lenses are half the cost of full frame lenses but not as cheap as Nikon 1. People don’t have a sense of the difference in scale. Yes, it’s smaller, but no, it’s not significantly different from APS-C.
Nikon 1 is really superb value, though. They’ve managed to squeeze amazing low light performance out of the 1 inch sensor. If you ask me, for the savings in weight and cost, if that matters to you, it’s a good choice.
“That’s why the lenses are half the cost of full frame lenses but not as cheap as Nikon 1”. Sorry they are not; M43 equivalent lenses are usually way dearer than FF lenses. I am open to all discussions but this is physics, which is a bit like religion 🙂
Pricing is physics?
I might be wrong about the prices. I’m sure interested in the comparisons you’re making.
M43 equivalent lenses are usually way dearer than FF lenses, unfortunately. The equivalence is physics and the prices are readily available.
For example, most F1.8 lenses for FF are cheap; F0.9 lenses for M43 are hyperpricey, and not smaller. Even 1.4 lenses for M43 are expensive.
F5.6 zooms for FF are dirt cheap; F2.8 zooms for M43 are again very dear, and not much smaller.
Wide angle prices look better, probably because the short flange of M43 allows for simpler designs, rather than retroprojection designs.
The fact is, fast lenses are always expensive to produce; a system that requires them is going to be expensive, unless the buyers give up on some depth of field. But how much are we prepared to give up? That is entirely subjective. To some, more DOF is better; myself, I like having more options.
On a tele, I’d be prepared and even willing to give up on shallow DOF; there is where M43 should rev up in my view.
Nikon 1 also came out with an absurd F1.2/32, while they should have done an F1.8 instead. Now, there is hope they come out with some tele in the region of 200mm.
Ah, yes, then we’re in agreement, to get the same image in the extreme case (wide open FF lens) would cost about the same. And yes, to be equivalent in every way, m43 needs fast glass, and lenses faster than f/1.2 can be incredibly complex to design.
We are *nearly* in agreement: it would cost more than the same if you own a few lenses, about the same (as you say) if you own one.
Close enough anyway 🙂
It appears that Nikon is going to announce a 70-300 for the 1 system. Here is hope for a cheapish smallish wildlife lens.
Yes. And by more than the same, you mean that you’d be shooting two or three primes on m43 vs. a fast zoom on FF? I’d agree with you, assuming that extra two stops was worth the money and that the system didn’t have other advantages, which it does. It’s just that cost vs. low light or DOF isn’t one of them. I’d personally be happier with dual f/2.8 zooms on an E-M5 than dual f/2.8 zooms on a 5D Mark III because I’d be trading a little DOF and low light for a lot less bulk and I like the EVF. If you’re willing to make this kind of tradeoff, the system makes a great deal of sense.
The equivalence problem is a nasty one. If you compare equivalent lenses, M43 is *way* dearer than FF. They must slash those prices, or they will only ever manage to sell the E-PMs at 100 USD.
Price only price. If camera costs max 100$ (GH4 100$ for example). The production costs are very low so it would fall very well. In most pieces sell an immensity of bringing stellar earnings
The problem is M43. When people see those smeared pictures, taken with the wrong light, they think “my phone can do better” and skip buying a camera, ignoring that Canon and Nikon are worlds better.
*Bollocks…
That is what your mother said when you were born…”oh God…my cell phone could have done better than THIS!”.
So, you don’t know how to use a camera and think equipment is the answer?
My E-M1 images are razor sharp
Worlds better? In which universe?
Maybe we should investigate the Oort Cloud for solid evidence?
Troll alert. 😉
M43 users have no humour, but they have great cameras at least LOL
We come here to waste time, exactly as everyone suspects.
:):):)
you talking to yourself?. . . . thats funny . . . LOL LOL :)))) ROTFLMAO LOL
Looks like both the DSLR and compact markets are being cannibalized by mirrorless, until you look closer. Then you see that the whole thing is shrinking and being cannibalized by something else (the smartphone) and the only businesses not shrinking super fast the the mirrorless and DSLR market.
I don’t imagine these numbers are precise enough to conclude that the DSLR market is shrinking more slowly than the mirrorless market, especially given that the percentages are clearly calculated from the rounded figures given. (4 million -> 3 million vs 16 million -> 13 million) Worse case of single digit rounding error (3.4 million and 16.4 million) DSLRs shrunk 21% and mirrorless shrunk 15%. This is why real data has error bars and more than 1 significant figure of precision.
Dare I say that in the end, the company that mainstreamed the use of 35mm film in the 1930’s Leica, might come out on top of this. They keep their prices high, with superlative optics and even with what some consider subpar chip technology, their products continue to sell.
Last I heard, Leica makes under 1000 cameras a year. Their lenses are very good, but part of that is the mythology that’s built up around them. If you put a Voightlander up against a Leica optic, you’ll be surprised.
I think they will continue to sell, as long as they can afford to make them, but I don’t see how that put them on top. And I think you’re likely a better off with an E-M5 if you actually care about image quality and usability.
The M9 was produced in about 80 cameras per day, so about 15000 per year. The M240 should have even higher numbers, the 1000 might be closer to how many Leica S are produced. While Voigtländer lenses are great – I also own one – they are not as good as their Leica equivalents, but very close at a much lower price.
Ah, they’re not doing too bad, then.
In my view, the only way they’re going to come out on top is with a mass produced camera which most people aren’t going to consider a real Leica. The people that know the brand and value their products are looking for high quality hand made rangefinders and those just aren’t a volume commodity.
Still, at $10,000 a pop, a few thousand is a respectable business.
It also helps if one can take Panasonic point and shoots, or superzooms, remove the Panasonic logo, place a Leica sticker on it, and double the price.
That won’t last long. Using the name for their high end optics is one thing, but in a few years, the name won’t mean anything, because they’re sticking it on everything they make.
As I’ve mentioned before, that happened with Sony. Sony used to be considered the deulxe brand of Japanese electronics (any electroncis). Do you remmber those days? And I think Panasonic was a distant 2nd. Then, Sony slapped its precious Walkman reputation by putting the Sony name on crappy electronics (we are still in the late 80’s and 90’s for this part of the saga). Sony didn’t realize it was dragging its own name through garbage even as far as the late 90’s and early 2000’s, when it thought it could get away with its own type of mp3 player, or was it a format or whatever. Anyway, no go.
Now, Sony is like all other Japanese brands, and in cameras, it is still distant.
I do remember. Sony electronics were very desirable. More to the point, there are many western brands that have greatly diminished in significance. Westinghouse, Magnavox, etc…
That’s why I think Olympus has a chance here. The quality of products like the E-M5 and E-M1 is unmistakable. Just beautiful products, durable, reliable… They do for cameras what apple tries to do for computers, phones and tablets: make them look and feel premium while producing excellent results. They’re just a joy to use.
I really hope they don’t start cheaping out like Nikon and Canon do with their super-low-end DSLRs. They don’t need high volume. What they need is a solid reputation for quality across their whole line.
Really, if you asked me why I shoot Olympus, part of it is the value of the system, affordability, image quality, available lenses. But part of it is that I just love using their cameras. They look and feel great and they work amazingly well. They make products I want to use and enjoy using.
I remember that time. When “It’s a Sony” become good enough explanation for the higher price tag. It’s Sony, they priced their products higher.
Not sure about Panasonic though. Their image as component maker is stronger. After all, they started from making lamp and fixtures.
On the business side though… can counting on the higher end market (those who don’t ask for price), able to satisfy the projected growth percentage as they have now, or they will need to adjust it to smaller growth on their current size ?
Hello: I’m sure you’d agree that in the grand scheme of things, what you use to achieve the result is more important than how you get there. I am a long-standing Canon user and last year started building a Leica kit that now fulfills about 90% of my needs as a shooter. That said, if I didn’t make my full-time income with it, I’d use my iPhone/smart phone like the rest of them 🙂
I would say the results are what matters, not how you achieved it and especially not what camera equipment you use……….
I’d agree that the process and the results, these days, are more important, because almost every system camera on the market can produce amazing pictures.
At the same time, there’s nothing wrong with being interested in the markets.
I still wouldn’t use my smartphone with the rest of them because as a photographer, I like using a real camera and interchangeable lenses!
I think if Voigtländer put together lenses with full electronics, you’d be surprised about the price. Maybe then, Leica wouldn’t seem so expensive.
Leica lenses don’t have electronics either.
Mine does.
What is it? It must not be a hand-made $10,000 range finder like I’m talking about.
Don’t they build such lens for other brands ? As OEM
Rush, is that you?
Leica is one of the few camera companies making a profit these days. They have a very small but lucrative niche.
I don’t see a day when Leica will be on top with regards to market share, unless they radically alter their pricing and marketing strategy. But they will survive and do nicely, like other ultra luxury brands such as Tiffany, Cartier, Rolls Royce, etc.
Lieca makes money becuase morons with too much money to burn spend 3 times the price for 1.3 times the benefit. Though perhaps within a certain crowd it gets them aid, and then I guess its worth it, since then there’s no need to actually take pictures (save money on cards).
OK, so I took the bait. Your calling a Leica (not Lieca) user a moron assumes I’m a moron because I use a Leica, as well as Canon btw. My clients tell me that they can see the difference (cleaner) image quality coming from my Leica files than my Canon files, and I’m not talking just about image size. I guess that means all of my “paying” clients are also morons. By the way, a Leica M240 body sells for about the same price as a Canon 1dX body. I don’t need AF, 500 point af selection and 10 fps. I’ll put my M files up against any Canon file any day. Sure the Leica lenses are more costly; I also use Zeiss optics that are a lot less $$, and still fare better image quality than the Canon glass.
cd, there are certainly several types of Leica users. Thankfully, it seems like you are part of the group that know how to use your camera, and appreciate the qualities it lends your images. Good for you, and anyway: your money, your choice.
But there is another type of user! I met one the other week, in Istanbul. Russian, blonde on his arm, titanium Leica with a fast 50 mounted. I joyously watched him take 3 or 4 images of her in front of the Blue Mosque, each time taking a few steps back to adjust the framing. And he didn’t touch the lens once…
It really was a treat to see such a cliche at work.
As a frustrated pro-Leica user, I completely agree with you and quietly battle that cliche whenever I attempt these and-other blog posts. Met with another local pro a few weeks back and mentioned I shot a job with my Leica and he said, “oh, you’re one of those people” 🙁 Like what the hell is that supposed to mean? Had to defend my decision to move to Leica. Last week I purchased a used 180-R apo for my M from a seasoned annual-report shooter that has a full R-film system that he mothballed years ago. He got it completely, saying he’d like to get back into Leica; “it’s all about the glass”, he stated. I’m getting OT; I think there are a large number of pro shooters that use Leica, but they pretty much stay in-the-closet, just doing what they do. It still really is all about the image.
Oh, I forgot to add… I bet the Russian-Leica-weilding-shooter’s blond looked hotter than his Leica and she was more costly to maintain than the M :))
But Leica is a luxury brand, much like those in fashion or watch industry. Sure, they can make good cameras but these are more like snobbish status symbols or collector items. There will always be people going after what’s perceived as luxury/status items.
Quite a lot of folks already own a pretty good camera. Difficult to sell them anything additionally. Also, image sensors have become so powerful that well informed people may not like the traditional ‘it must be large / bulky equipment’.
One possible path could be the Nespresso one. Sell cheaper bodies (quite a lot of folks have already suggested that in this forum) and make it clear to the consumer that additional supplies (here: lenses) are required. I don’t know how inclined people are to buy many lenses but users who have already invested in a particular eco system are obvious repeat customers.
Innovation does not hurt, too. I am impressed by the cosistently high ranking of upscale Fujifilm cameras at Amazon (particularly in the US). In this case the kit lenses are surprisingly usable which probably creates a stronger bond with the customer than Sony does with some of its ultra compact A mount lenses.
Quite a few ordinary consumers feel that they got their fingers burnt when they spent $1-2,000 on a DSLR within the last 5 years and they thought they would be easy to use and give them great consistent results straight out of camera…
http://levelsofdetail.kendeeter.com/post/78925289251/cipa-camera-industry-stats-for-2013
nice article =)
An other variable to consider before calling it doom and gloom, it seems like Japanese companies have shifted their approach to production/distribution, in order not to be left with millions of stacked and unsold bodies and lenses. They don’t overestimate their forecasts half as much as they did anymore.
“They don’t overestimate their forecasts half as much as they did anymore.”
Sure they do. The actuals for last year vs the forecasts are way skewed.
Camera companies need to come together to engage in a huge marketing campaign to sell the public on the idea of photography as a meaningful hobby, one worthy of dedicated camera equipment beyond a smartphone.
Smartphones are only going to get better camera modules, and better software. Most people just want to take snapshots and post on social media. That is the real competition.
Also, as others have mentioned, companies like Canon and Nikon have produced such great dslr’s these past few years, that for most users who bought them, they see no need to upgrade.
So you have a small niche of photography enthusiasts, and the rest of the mass market. The key is getting a bigger chunk of the mass market and moving them over to the enthusiast category.
The camera companies need to stop trying to take share from each other, but to enlarge the pie. Otherwise the smartphone will continue to eat their lunch.
“Camera companies need to come together to engage in a huge marketing
campaign to sell the public on the idea of photography as a meaningful
hobby, one worthy of dedicated camera equipment beyond a smartphone”.
How is that possible, when Olympus and Panasonic FlameBoys can’t even co-operate? The typical smartphone user is far more gentile and mannerly than the “artists” who rant here. Why would they want to give up a fairly peaceful photographic/social life just to fit in with us?
How can I make such a claim? SIMPLE . . . SMART-Phone user’s KNOW that what they say online is attached to THEIR PHONE NUMBER. That’s enough to keep them and their photographic art a bit more civilized. There are no such constraints on camera bullies on these “artist” forums.
Some weeks ago I ordered a new E-M5 for 550 Euro from Finland, while in Germany it’s still sold for 800 Euro. In the finish store they sold an E-M5 + two lenses-bundle (12-50mm & 40-150mm) for 800 Euro. That could be the reason for Olympus’ success in Finland.
That, and the fact that Canon & Nikon DSLRs are available by the crate-load in stores like Saturn and Media Markt for close to 300 Euro in Germany.
If I learned anything since the time I bought my first DSLR, is that predictions are useless.
Buying based on future considerations always seemed to me slightly crazy.
Get what you like *today*.
By the next upgrade cycles in 2-3 years the market and technologies would change and there would be other considerations, resulting from the previous experience. And so it starts again.
@Pekka Potka
nice article and comments =)
Cellphones of the year 2019 will have an image quality equal to today’s A7r. And it will still not be enough for the photographers, who will demand 1.000mp images focused by magnetic fields (sorry, guys, the fields don’t come until 2030).
Seriously, guys, does anyone around here remember 1995, when you had to think hard about putting in 800 ISO film, because it was too grainy. Yet today ISO 3200 beats the 400 ISO of 1995. And it’s still not enough.
Yeah, exactly.
Even if small sensors like in cell phones get better, DOF control and high ISOs will still be limiting factors. For the masses it will be fine, for serious amateurs and professionals not at all. It’s so painful to take pictures with cell phones, without buttons etc…
Phones don’t need a camera button to induce shake, what they need is an camera app that shoots on sound commands.
DOF control is peanuts with multi image stacking techniques and fast buffers.
Noise reduction can also benefit significantly from stacking (if shutter speed is not an issue for the subject).
Let’s see what the All New HTC One brings to the table with it’s dual snapper.
I imagine 100’s of Japanese tourists (no offence!) to shout commands to their smart phone to take pictures ;-).
There is still some time to go until stacking techniques are really possible. Do you know how many pictures are needed to smoothly fade the fore- or background? What about camera shake in between, changing lighting conditions… High resolution on these very small sensors will probably be enough for the masses, but for most professionals, under low light?
I for myself don’t like shooting with smartphones at all.
Even the new HTC One won’t change things drastically. But who knows what happens in 5 years from now.
An interesting technique is to vary the ISO across the frame. Different areas of the sensor could have different sensitivities, much like how our eye captures dynamic range.
Although for focus, the light field camera is neat. Also, sweeping the focal range using an electronic shutter and picking the highest contrast areas is interesting. It can be done very fast in good light.
Check out Nokia’s Refocus. The Nokia 1020 with stabilisation and using oversampling delivers low light performance that is impressive for a phone and which many people would be happy enough with.
The criteria for most people is good enough for a 6×4 print or looks good on their facebook page. Mobile phones are capturing this market, which is far larger than that for interchangeable lens cameras.
That’s my point. It’s good enough for most people, but not for serious photographers. Lenses are complicated to design (CAs, flare, sharp across the frame, focus shift prevention,…). You can mitigate some flaws using software correction, but not everything. Studies show that camera phones will erode a large chunk of the camera market. But there are always those wanting more. If it’s enough for you, fine.
“(CAs, flare, sharp across the frame, focus shift prevention,…).”
Most phone pix takers would not know what your talking about and what’s more don’t care. They care just as much about software correction.
Don’t confuse pixel count for quality.
Olympus mirrorless revenue was up 5% in 2013. With good products one doesn’t have to follow the industry trends.
“Olympus mirrorless revenue was up 5% in 2013”
Link?
www . unclebobsdream . com
With the new generations of cameras there is less and less reason to keep upgrading.
As others have mentioned the world market has become saturated with cameras with a quality and features that are already good enough for most. So in this day of economic turmoil why should we be surprised for the surge in iphone sales and downturn in camera sales? For one thing size and cost matters and even more important connectivity to others to share pictures immediately.
In this and other forums we seem to just assume the IQ from these iphones and cell phones is far inferior to anything a digital camera, m4/3, or digital camera can deliver but i have been astonished at the image quality of some 8×10 photos taken by these even a few year back especially for scenery which are wide angle and greater depth of view. Some in this forum and others seem to be obsessed with the need for very shallow depth of view as produced by FF or very fast lenses etc but fail to recognize that probably more people prefer pictures such as travel scenery etc with maximum depth of focus not less. The primary thing these cell phone cameras cannot do for now is zoom lens with telephoto range although models by Nokia with larger sensors go to 3x.
If portability, small size, connectivity, and cost are the most important considerations of items to have with you all the time I would wager to guess that a capable camera cell phone and 15-20X travel cam is all you will ever need. Just my opinion so I am not surprised at the results shown in this rumor. What I expect is in the future there will be fewer camera manufactures in business, there will be fewer and less frequent models or improved advancements as these take lot of R&D money to justify.
The upward trend in lens sales, with last year a dip, seen against the camera shipments indicates that the camera user is alive and well in the mid to upper end of the market. However the annual makeover sales drive has been rejected. Along with the losing of the bottom of the market to phones it makes it all look unhealthy. A new mindset is required by the camera companies.
There are likely a number of factors going on here.
Most important is to not look at current sales numbers as an anomaly. Rather, the last 7+ years were the anomaly. What we’re seeing now is a reversion to norm.
In the film days, manufacturers did not release new replacement models every 10 months with minor feature enhancements that suddenly become must-haves. Mainly because the final image quality did not improve. This is where we are today with mirrorless. Hence, why buy a new camera now? The image quality is the same as it was 2 or 3 years ago.
Next, in the film days cameras were trendy and hip. Today the demographic has way shifted. Those who like cameras now are following those who like motorcycles, ham radios, hunting, and other activities involving fun gadgets that do things: they are older, and increasingly older. These folks tend to be wiser in their expenses.
Next, the industry got so used to people actually buying whatever they put out, and primed ‘reviewers’ on revenue-producing ‘review’ websites singing about whatever was new, that they got to slapping very high prices on their items. In short, camera prices are in a bubble, are at a point where people are understandably bulking. It’s not me saying they are too pricey, it’s the market, and the market isn’t buying it (literally).
Next, the camera makers marketing play games with pricing models. At new launch they have the whole pricing strategy built: Overprice at intro, rebates after 3 months, further incentives after 6 months, wholesale slashing begins at 10 months. They have no regard for protecting their customers’ purchases as they introduce new models with minor enhancements. Customer recent purchase value plunges as they try to get their customers to buy more more more. They justify this strategy by saying “that’s just the way things are in high tech.” No, this is just their marketing model, it’s not a law of nature.
Next, the camera makers’ reliance on the mythical ‘move up’ market. Those people who are allegedly massing to buy cameras, and for which the makers offer cargo cult models. Somehow this never materializes, so the overcapacity must be funded by pricing other models even higher.
Next, the new reliance on pricey higher margin ‘top end models.’ When everyone is trying to sell an expensive camera in the same market but just has an okay brand recognition, good luck with that strategy.
Well, the cameras are no longer a necessity. Simple as that. It used to be a case when you actually needed a camera to make pictures. Not anymore with smartphones and tablets. People don’t even know what things like ISO or DOF mean. It doesn’t even occur to them that making pictures can be “different”. So, the market gradually shifts to hobbyists and professionals (and shrinks in the process). Mirrorless faces an additional challenge, despite producing excellent cameras – if someone decides to buy an actual camera, he or she is less likely to step into uncharted territory since public perception of DSLRs is strong.
Ugliest infographic I’ve ever seen!