Image courtesy: Personal View.
Well, you didn’t see this coming: The DSLR market is considerably decreasing while the mirrorless market is slowly but constantly growing. The Japanese organization CIPA posted the latest June camera shipment data from Japanese companies. And you can see them on graph at Personal View.
In the period between January and June 2014 DSLR unit shipments did fall by 22% compared to the previous 2013 January-June period. Mirrorless camera shipments increased by 23%!
Of course Mirrorless market is still not exploding but in it’s holding well compared to the shrinking DSLR sales. And I guess that as soon that Nikon and Canon will “get serious” with mirrorless things will change even further.
66 Responses
Please Admin, can you do something with the ads in the website? It’s really annoying being automatically redirected when accessing from an android device. Thanks in advance!
https://adblockplus.org/en/android-about
I use a plugin for chrome called “disconnect”, try it!
Thanks people!
Sales, not shipments are more interesting.
Yes, they may even ship more to cover up when sales go down.
Explain that in reality. What distributor would buy more of a product that they already have in warehouses that they can’t sell? Shipments to distribution channels IS a commonly used sales figure because, in the long run, shipments and sales end up being extremely close to each other.
Exactly. Sorry the sarcasm wasn’t 100% obvious.
Typical conspiracy theorist argument. In order to ship more units into distribution, you have to first produce more units, which costs money. When sales are down, you try to cut costs, not increase them.
We may safely assume that there is a correlation between sales and shipments. High demand leads to an increase in shipments, low demand leads to a decrease in shipments. Sometimes the manufacturers over- or underestimates demand, which leads to build-up of inventory or products being out of stock, respectively.
Sorry, that’s too sensible, it may upset the nano fans 🙂
Sales are great new lenses coming out all the time, superior video, aps-c DSLR image quality…nope, doesn’t upset me one bit.
I’m sure you probably got bored of only seeing this weeks “deal” on the same DSLR since he only real news and all the most recent photo awards are going on here an nothing is happening with cannon or nikon rumors.
aps-c image quality? On m43? Are you very thick or are you a seller?
Your kidding right?
This is extremely sobering news for the industry, and really for mirrorless- by whom I mean manufacturers other than the big two.
While the profitable segment- DSLRs- is declining in shipments, it remains profitable. Whereas the profitless/mirrorless segment is only flat, failing ever to have achieved escape velocity, and showing no signs of same. Mirrorless is increasing market share by default- in a shrinking market, status quo increases market share… on the other hand how much longer can shareholders stand for a profitless product line?
Where does this leave the enthusiast camera industry? Is it really that bad? Does the shifting of production numbers vs inventory account for part of the numbers- i.e., DSLRs were channel stuffing the last few years, accounting for higher shipment numbers, but have pulled back the last 18 months to avoid inventory overstocks, whereas mirrorless has not yet done it to the same degree and hence is now having firesales on its remaining stock stuck in the channel?
In other words, it’s one thing to game distribution volumes to have CIPA numbers look good; it’s another to actually sell a unit at the retail level.
It’s mirrorless shipments that are increasing as well as (presumably) market share.
That means that mirrorless will be moving closer to profitability, particularly now that a lot of the R&D costs will be dropping out now that they’ve reached acceptable performance levels. Future models may have very similar hardware and most of the extra features will be software.
DSLRs are profitable due to the volume sold and as you say may soon become unprofitable, particularly if they have to slash prices to move the reduced volume.
That’s not likely to worry the mirrorless manufacturers who don’t have DSLRs in their line up
Mirrorless shipments aren’t increasing that much, are essentially flat over the last three years, and who knows, recent trends may be pull-ahead sales, more due to flushing out and cost slashing of older models. Manufacturers, such as Panasonic, are starting to rationalize their product mix- model proliferation is expensive.
As I mentioned, mirrorless is increasing market share less through organic growth than through attrition. Being flat in a shrinking market is not a long term strategy. Not that this is in any way cheery for DSLRs either.
If R&D levels are indeed dropping because they manufacturers declare they have reached acceptable performance levels, what is the motivation for a consumer to buy a product next year? which I suspect is the problem the manufacturers are facing: how many more model iterations of the same image quality but with minor feature changes will the consumer spring for?
Yes, they’re flat over three years but rising from the low point of last year. Typical sales behaviour in a recession. That suggests that as much of the world pulls out of recession that sales will continue to grow. No guarantees of course and sales may still not grow sufficiently.
As for minor iterations not selling. Canon with the Rebel series and Nikon with their budget models have successfully played that game for years. You’re right that the market may have now changed though.
The problem is that as they add more ‘features’ the cameras get more complicated and confusing and I’m sure that puts a lot of upgraders off.
Innovation isn’t necessarily a good thing in this case. Most people don’t want to make a hundred decisions before they take a photograph. I know they don’t have to use these features but there’s always the psychological aspects of ‘what if…’.
People are generally happier with greater simplicity.
The graphs may not be related to one another. Mirrorless is mostly stealing from P&S cameras. DSLR suffers from market saturation and the fact that Nikon and Canon have been slow recently to launch volume sellers in the lower price ranges.
Oh…no..here come all the marketing experts.
Hehe… for sure…
there are mirror and pentaprism in a 21st century’s camera is obscure to me. Mirrorless is future.
mirrors was a bargaining chip at the time of colonization, some centuries ago… but some can not take a good picture without them… at least bizarre
its a bizarre comment (though your start was promising)
Can you take good pictures? Can you please teach us how?
PS You are in line for the pillock of the week award.
Mirrorless was a survival ploy by manufacturers that failed in the DSLR world: Sony, Fuji, Olympus…
It was brilliant: Reduce their manufacturing costs by using a little TV, uncorrected lenses except in software, less materials, and charge more for doing it. Convince consumers that though miniaturized it was “good enough::” 16mp was “good enough,” slow focus was “good enough,” small sensor size was “good enough,” image quality was “good enough,” battery life was “good enough,” little tv viewing quality was “good enough…” and justify the good enoughness and higher prices by convincing the consumer of two things:
1) Smaller and lighter is always better, and
2) Mirrorless is the future, as though it were all a religious crusade.
A great marketing thrust by the failed DSLR manufacturers. The problem is, it’s going on 7 years since we’ve been being hit over the head by “mirrorless is the future!!!” as though the designs are more different than they are similar, as though this were some sort of battle. In the last few years, mirrorless has failed to grow its market organically- shipments are flat, and there is nothing in the horizon suggesting a strong upturn in sales. Given that, despite the religious fervor it looks to have plateaued, and is growing long in the tooth.
If there is any excitement in any segments, it seems to be more in 135 format or 1″ point and shoots.
I say this as the owner and enjoyer of a GX7 and an OM-D EM-5, and as one who prefers the more variety the better.
A bit strange but it’s a point of view. So we have to thank that ‘failure’.
I don’t want to have a mirrorbox inside my camera. I don’t want an 1″ sensor. I don’t want 135. I shoot a lot of video and I want to have a small and good lens when I need it or can be big ones in certain occasions. What has left?
Micro 4/3 is indeed your sweet spot.
But my comments and speculation was with regard to the actual results published, and the market as a whole, not the specific unique wants of eager enthusiasts who participate in message boards.
The majority of consumers will have their wants fulfilled by just about any format, and it becomes more about consumer product fashion, with the technological arguments becoming rationalizations for an excuse to buy a new toy.
I didnt get what you dont like, mirrorles or 4/3 format? Because you are nagging for both. Make up your mind. Anyway both the format and mirrorles have pretty good reasons to exist and of course the ide of a ploy is ridiculus…
If you can’t succeed in one segment, create your own. If not a marketing ploy, why did they first start to phase out their DSLR before turning their dev dollars into lower cost mirrorless? DSLR should be the cash cow, let them both co-exist… but of course that was a non-starter. It was a brilliant approach: disparage your former market, reduce costs and raise prices, and promise consumers they are part of a new technological revolution.
As if it really makes any difference, if you read a little more closely you would see that I use and enjoy micro 4/3.
But that’s immaterial. I just observe, and speculate, I don’t set the market. If you don’t like how the market is going, buy more product.
You can come up with your own opinions and observations based on the distribution numbers in the article, the same as me, it’s just speculation. But hint: “Mighty mirrorless is taking over!!!!” is not that.
Very true, and also funny.
“Being hit over the head”- Only someone who spends all day on this forum would think that. Most of the world doesn’t even know what mirrorless is.
Mirrorless is the future- not because of any technical reasons. Simply because of function for the vast majority of people.
“Good enough” was the most commonly used phrase among professional photographers who switched from DSLR to mirrorless, not panasonic or olympus.
As for sales, your inventing stats that don’t exist.
Look, everything I say is speculation, but at least I go out on a limb and do it. You could do it, too. Or else you can just accuse people of inventing sales stats that they never even mentioned, which I suppose is simpler for some.
No harm no foul bro. Just my two cents. There is nothing wrong with speculation, after all this website is all about rumors and speculation.
Ronin you are false in several points:
– EVF is much more expensive than a pentaprism
– Mirror design is old faishoned for analog film. A mirror disables sensor communication for video and image recognition. Worse automatic and worse video for DSLR
– Modern sensor/processing exeeds DSLR in AF-speed, low light AF
– Lenses can be both optical designed or software optimized. In m43 you have both and you can see the difference yourself. Best optical design is slow or without AF. Fast AF lenses run software optimized
We will watch a turn of DSLR manufacturers to DSLM on the one side. And expensiv DSLR with dual technology. Like they started with 70D.
Sigh. EVF is certainly not much more expensive than a reflex viewing prism mechanism.
Show me one review of a DSLR that said the viewfinder is great, but if only it had more delay, far less resolution, less ability to quickly manually focus, limited dynamic range, more tearing, less realistic rendition of colors, more distinquishable depth of near vs far subjects, more blown out highlights or murky shadows, more jaggies, and sucked up more battery power.
On the contrary, reviews of the very best of the evf’s- the EM-1, the X-T1- rate them specifically on how well they look and feel and behave like the simplest reflex viewing system.
Finally: No, mirrorless autofocus is not as fast as DSLR. Come on. Mirrorless has enough going for it without having to make up stuff.
I suspect the current cutting edge EVFs (plus associated processors) are more expensive than the prisms in all APSC cameras. FF may be a different level.
But as the technology matures that price should come down.
Look at the price of the E-M10 compared to the E-M5.
I suspect that by the time the E-M10 was designed most of the technology from the E-M5 was much cheaper a couple of years down the line, hence the lower price point.
As better versions come along the older versions will fall in price (similar to cameras really)
Optical finders will never go out of fashion.
If one would plot a graph of DSLR whiners here at 43R when those articles come out, than we would see an abysm. Most of them already have a mirrorless at this time, even if they ‘still’ don’t consider it their main camera…
I have a few, and guess what? None of them is nano four thurds.
Do you see the “abysm”, pointless troll?
Trolling again, I see. Here you have, once again, made an unimaginative concoction of another user’s log-in name – immediately began the dim-witted name-calling, and what is YOUR point . . . TROLL???
Hey, you’re using one of my names! Stop doing that!
LOL . . . How many different names do you claim exclusive rights to use?
My names are my names!
First you need basic reading / understanding skills. Then we can talk – perhaps.
Humans are amusing. people act like they are at war with digital products. It doesn’t stop there though. Now you have different sub factions in this debate. Fuji mirrorless vs m4/3 mirrorless etc. The most amusing is the m4/3 team turning on each other and arguing about Olympus vs Panasonic. And then there are the folks that say the one inch sensor sucks yet cameras with a larger sensor than theirs isn’t any better.
We are doomed! Ha ha.
Geez Louise, people! Whatever. Just buy the figgin’ camera you want and quit bashing others who have decided to purchase something else.
LOL! Check out all the idiots who spend time on internet forums instead of living in the real world. Losers!
I wonder if there’s a chart that shows growth of mirrorless market by sensor type, ex: MFT vs APSC
Outside of the small bubble that is the enthusiast/gearhead part of the market, very few people choose a camera based primarily on sensor size. In fact, most consumers aren’t even aware of sensor size. Therefore, I don’t think such a chart would tell us anything meaningful.
I went from M43 to Fuji, primarily because of sensor size. Trust me, that would be meaningful.
Yes, but you’re one of the enthusiast/gearheads who aren’t representative of the general consumer at all. You’re in the minority.
Now this. ALLC*aP is a Fuji fanboy. But wait, what is he still doing here?? Ah ok, just some trolling pointless message as usual….
“In the period between January and June 2014 DSLR unit shipments did fall
by 22% compared to the previous 2013 January-June period. Mirrorless
camera shipments increased by 23%!”
13. It is +13%, not +23%.
Really? You think statistics is anything but made up numbers? That you can tell anything about reality from that? DSLRs vastly outsell mirrorless toys, they always have and always will. That’s reality my friends, that’s the real world.
So how many DSLRs do you count as “toys” since Mirrorless cameras are the same thing as DSLRs minus a mirror box. The mirror box was invented in the early 1900s…last century. I’m not sure why anyone is still using a mirror box in the 21st century.
The first camera was mirrorless.
Nonsense, pray tell what camera was that?
Camera obscura.
Camera obscure is neither a mirrorless camera nor a DSLR. It’s design was refined into what later became SLRs/TSLRs because unlike a mirrorless camera, it still reflected an image and had to flip it 180 degrees just to get the proper orientation.
I’m going to assume Voffse has no knowledge of history or just made up some story off the top of his head. The first cameras that did not employ a mirror box were from Kodak, Zeiss Contax and Leica rangefinder film cameras. But rangefinder film cameras are still not “mirrorless” cameras because they are still rangefinder FILM cameras. Rangefinders are rangefinders, not “mirrorless”. “Mirrorless” cameras are digital interchangeable lens system cameras without the stupid mirror box.
The world’s first digital mirrorless interchangeable lens camera was the Epson R-D1 in 2004, followed by the Leica M8 in 2006, followed by the Micro Four Thirds standard in 2008, then Samsung and Sony in 2010, then Fujifilm and the pitiful mirrorless offerings by Nikon and Canon late in the game.
You speak as you are being manipulated and you treat DSLR as a religion. Oh that flapping mirror… Hahaha. Good luck my friend.
Statistics and manipulation are the same thing. And DSLRs aren’t a religion, they’re reality, the exact opposite of religion.
Another nail in the coffin of the DSLR.
Poor Olympus, poor Panasonic. Still, they get what they deserve for putting up this giant crook.
Because if and when mirrorless takes off (not yet anyway), that won’t be with m43.
Poor Canon and Nikon…I can’t even get decent video or focus peaking and zebras in a 5Dmk3. Too bad nobody wants to break their back carrying crappy DSLRs with average features, average stills quality and shitty video. It’s a good thing m43 has taken off and sales are increasing even though m43 has a non-existent dealer network, doesn’t spend millions buying up photographers at sports events and is not available at any major retailer.
Actually m43 has already taken off and accounts for most of the mirrorless sales represented in this graph.