Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida shared some quite extreme forecast about the future of the digital camera market (Source: Reuters/New York Times):
– Mirrorless cameras are not selling as well as expected because 1) buyers put connectivity above picture quality 2) in USA and Europe consumers tend to equate image quality with size and heft
– “Only those who have a strong brand and are competitive on price will last – and only Canon, Nikon and Sony fulfil that criteria,” said Credit Suisse analyst Yoshida.
– Consumers don’t want to connect cameras to phones, analysts say; they want a single interface that can instantly upload photographs to social networking sites such as Facebook Inc and Twitter Inc.
– For the analyst the real future could be the Sony QX lenscameras: Sony appears to have connected with consumers as demand soon outstripped production. Some are even using the lenses in a way Sony didn’t intend: placed at a distance while they press the shutter on their smartphone to take self-portraits, or selfies.
As usual take these analysts forecasts with care. The sometimes have the same reliability as Nostradamus predictions 🙂
75 Responses
That model works right up until Facebook and Twitter do a My Space… Or does he seriously think they’re too big to fail?
“The model” seems to work for Apple and Google ;~)
The problem is that if you have a proprietary system that you don’t let others into to program, you can’t get to the latest and greatest Internet fad. You’re right, it changes, and it changes quickly. If we have to rely on the inefficient and often out of touch Japanese software engineers to do the coding, then you’re right, it won’t work. If the Japanese companies built the right hooks into their systems and allow others to do the coding, as with smartphones, it will work.
If you steer a boat into an iceberg, you hit the iceberg.
among those big tree, i think nikon will die first..
as sony brand getting stronger they’ll stop making sensor for nikon, and dead end
Nikon got 2 other sensor providers. They choose Sony for quality, not because they have to. Canon is doing just fine with worse sensors – Nikon will too. That’s something Sony doesn’t understand – picture quality and gimmicks are not everything.
He contradicts himself. He says people don’t want to connect cameras with phones..but guess what? QX-Series are cameras that need to be connected to phones (or either you will end up with a hit-or-miss scenario).
Yes, this contradiction was so obvious it was laughable, or questionable–maybe there is some subtlety that you and I are missing.
Or maybe he’s just a typical “analyst”.
It’s only a contradiction if you get hung up on semantics and technicalities.
His claim is that consumers want a single interface – something the QX series provides – rather than taking pictures on one device and shipping them over to another device to share.
Some of Sony’s wifi cameras can function similarly to the QX cameras when using the Playmemories app, but Sony isn’t doing a good job of playing up that fact or making it clear.
If the QX series really does end up becoming the next best thing, perhaps “QX-enabled” or some other such moniker may be needed when advertising future Alpha and Cybershot products.
Please read the article carefully. And then tell us where Mr. Yoshida contradict himself.
Sony QX selling that much?! I saw it discounted a couple of months after its release.
And I have never seen anyone using it: I spend a lot of time in Venice and I have an idea of what tourists use to take photos.
Smartphone replacing mirrorless? Mmm no, not yet. Smartphone have a nice IQ, especially when the content (photo/video) is simply shared on Facebook, Instagram, Vine and so on.
A friend of mine called me and was surprised becaused she wanted to do an exhibition with photos taken with her iPhone, but they looked bad when printed 40 cms width. Wow, really?! (Sarcasm)
It is true that most of pictures (dis)appear in social networks, and we don’t need a Phase One to do a twit or post a 1024 x 1024 pixels photo on Instagram, but I don’t see it as the downfall of mirrorless cameras.
I own an iPhone4 and an iPad Mini: the only times I take pics with them is when I want to play with Hipstamatic.
I have an account on Instagram as well as on Flickr, and I simply use smartphone and tablet to upload my photos, and with latest (mirrorless) models you can use wifi to transfer files directly from the camera, if you need.
Perhaps in 5-10 years we’ll have super smartphones, with improved image sensors, but I believe (hope) also mirrorless cameras will improve.
And I don’t want to see dumb faces on people when I talk about aperture or ISO..
Photography is changing, but I think it’s also loosing some bits as days go by.
To every one its own I say: are people happy to snap pics with a smartphone? Perhaps yes, perhaps that’s enough for them.
Echonomic crisis hit also photography world: car industry faces the same problem, selling each year less cars. Only luxury brands increase their profit (I’m thinking about Ferrari, for example). Does it mean we are all walking around now? Or are we using our “old” cars? Or just a bike because it’s enough? I don’t think the point is that only Ferrari will survive and I’ll have to get one if I want/need a new car.. 😉
Well put! I live in London so I also see what the tourists are shooting with – think I’ve seen 1 qx being used in anger compared to everyone and their dog using iphones and ipads. I’ve noticed a sharp drop in low end compacts, which makes sense given the improvements in mobiles/tablets. IMHO he’s conflating the compact market with the wider photography market. The people who used to buy compacts have phones/tablets that give results that are good enough for their needs but there will always be a smaller market that demands more. What we really need to see is better mobile tethering on the entire Sony line (hardware and software).
the QX100 is very popular in Asia, which seem like the market it is targeting
Joe, I’m just coming back from San Marco Square, Venice. (I did some street shooting) I can tell you that given the topic here and on other forums I kept an eye on what cameras were used. Most European and American tourists were using CaNikon DSLRs. Usually with kit zooms by the way. Asian tourists: I saw at least 10 PENs series held by female tourists. Some NEX too. I saw an x100s. An Olympus OM1. And countless smartphones used by younger tourists.
Why do they use smartphones? Because they can take photos without spending money to buy a camera, be it compact or not.
Its quality is enough for them. How will they use those photos? Will they actially use those photo? I don’t know.
I’m not saying that we must go back to the time when you needed to be sure to impress the film with the subject in front of you.
I’m saying that for a lot of people this is photography.
That was my experience throughout Europe this summer during a Rhine-Main-Danube river cruise from Amsterdam to Bucharest. To my surprise, low-end DSLRs, usually with just the kit lenses, were quite popular with the tourists, even among young women (which was even more surprising to me since I had not expected that). I saw very few mirrorless cameras in the crowds, in fact fewer than a dozen MFTs in addition to the Panasonic G3 and GX-1 gear that I was carrying. I was on the lookout for and noted only about a half-dozen Sony NEX models.
Having a NEX camera myself I could recognise a few of these in the crowds whilst in Paris near monuments but also a few DSLRs _ dont know if with kit lenses or not. It seemed that the NEXT are extremely popular with Asian people. The vast majority of people rely on their phones or tablets though. In the streets of Singapore I saw mostly people with DSLRs and advanced compacts such as the NEX but comparatively less people using their phones. These phones and tablets were all “on” at the SISTIC during a blues guitarist show though. I even recorded some numbers with my iPod touch and the results were not too bad. In Luanda, Angola people almost exclusively rely on their phones / tablets to take pictures even in low light conditions… these are mainly posted on Facebook. In Luanda, the people I have met shooting with a DSLR are art and or communication connected. It is good that the camera quality of phones and tablets improve but for me the image quality remains inferior to a good camera although under ideal ligting conditions the iPhone can produce interesting pictures.
Agreed. Nobody seems to take pictures for posterity anymore.
The day people suddenly realise that their social media uploads were resized to be useless for print and just about anything else (and are the only copies) will be a good day for photography.
@Shamb sadly most people don’t know the sensation of holding a fine printed photo. That’s when a picture comes to life and shows its full beauty. Not on a smartphone nor on an HD monitor.
I’m getting some fine art prints for a portpholio and I can’t wait to touch the photos with my hands (wearing gloves 🙂 )
+1 here.
Let’s use facts. In the US, vehicle sales are up, fairly substantially, after being hit by the 2007/2008 economic crisis. In 2011 the yearly sales rate was in the low 12 millions. At the moment, it’s up to the high 16 millions. During that time, camera sales started going down.
I’ve looked at a lot of economic data. I’m inclined to say that I can see no link in the US between camera sales and economic health. That’s one of the disturbing things, actually. As the US economy recovered, camera sales did not continue to rise.
Hi Tom, I can’t speak of American cars sales, since I live in Italy. What you say is weird, I agree with you.
Times are hard, really, for many people here, and even before buying a lens I think more times if I really need it or if I can afford it.
Heck, I was looking for a second Fujinon 55mm f1.8 m42 mount and I have decided not to buy it. And it’s not expensive at all.
What I find disturbing here are teen agers (15-16 yo) walking around with 500-600 euros smartphones. I guess we Italians consider smartphones as Americans consider cars..
Honestly it’s none of my business and I should not judge where people put their money: I wrote that comment above because the article sounds quite silly to me. Sony surprised of QX selling?! Perhaps they had a low expectation..
And photography is changing.
Some youngs will always believe that their smartphones are all that concerns Photography, along with Facebook/Instagram.
Others will start from there and one day they’ll learn what aperture is, and some will enjoy photography in a more complete way.
I want to be positive and I think Photography is changing because other media and technology is changing, but users are still humans and hopefully they can also learn from the “past”.
Well, if you have a Nikon D90, why do you need a D5300, or a Nex for that matter. Digital comeras are still relatively new and for now, once you have one and only use them during holidays or on family gatherings, then you don’t need to upgrade every silly new release. Compacts getting replaced by smart phones meanwhile, we know.
I am also in a town with tourists, and also see the DSLR with kit but also mirrorless a plenty.. For seeing what the enthusiasts do, I find going to the zoo much more interesting. Lot’s of heavy gear there…
“A friend of mine called me and was surprised becaused she wanted to do an exhibition with photos taken with her iPhone, but they looked bad when printed 40 cms width. Wow, really?! (Sarcasm)”
That made me lol Marco. And it’s funny cause it’s sad and true. Many people think their Instagram photos taken with a phone with all the glorious filters will look great (as in sharp and noise-free) printed out. Sorry, but unless you’re aiming for 4″ x 4″, that’s not going to happen.
I’m not slagging off smartphone photos. They can be amazing, but usually that has to do with content and not IQ.
Yes, you had to see her face. She could not believe. 🙂 I said: hey, you know, that’s why there are those things called cameras! 🙂
In 1923 a panel of experts predicted that the roads would never be overcrowded with cars as it would be impossible to train enough chauffeurs. Rule No 1 – ignore self appointed experts – they always talk c..p.
meh’ I got to play with the QX100 for a little bit, maybe it was a pre-production model, but all I know is, I wasn’t impressed at all. It was a pain in the butt just to get it to connect to the phone, only after I didn’t a reboot on both the phone and the QX100 that they finally connected… then a phone call came in and kicked the device off connection… I DID finally get them to connect long enough to shoot some photos with it, and there are soooooo many things the QX100 is lacking. One of the only times I shoot JPEG (with my a77 or a99) is when I want to actually mess around effects modes. And the QX100 didn’t have any, maybe one or two, and NO “Handheld Twilight” (which I use quite often with my NEX-5N and a77/a99 -MFNR). I would much rather spend a little more and just get a RX100 (and perhaps mate it with an Eye-Fi card for quick transfers to a mobile device) or the RX100II.
We have to read the other names, which are not mentioned:
Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax/Ricoh and Fujifilm
No question that Panasonic, Pentax/Ricoh and Olympus are in danger, but IMHO Fujifilm is as strong a contender as Canikon and Sony, and not to forget Samsung…
I think a lot of it is to do with a contracting market. Though certain mirrorless advocates/fans/fanatics 🙂 seem to have a hard time accepting it mirrorless has been largely a financial failure. The largest players in mirrorless Sony, Olympus and Panasonic imaging divisions have shown significant losses year in and year out. Though worldwide sales of DSLR’s are down mirrorless sales are actually down slightly more.
In the most affluent markets USA & Europe mirrorless sales are down 47% and 28% respectively from last year to this. The only area in the world showing growth in mirrorless sales is Japan sales are up 12.8% though DSLR sales went up 39.8% in the same period. Even in Asia where at least according to the mirrorless fans everyone is buying mirrorless the sales are down though not as down as DSLR sales , even here 75% of sales are DSLR.
All data available here:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201310_e.pdf
Looking at the CIPA data {which covers the entirety of the Japanese camera manufacturers output} mirrorless sales appear to have peaked towards the end of 2012 and are now in slow decline both volume and market share. The A7/A7r are the first mirrorless models to match the best available DSLR image quality. Though it comes with plenty gotachas , limited native lens choice , slow or expensive lenses or slow and expensive lenses. You have very poor AF compared to other FF options, poor battery life, no built in flash { very useful as a commander in Nikon for example }
My main intended use is for landscape so the A7r limitations are not a problem to me . For many types of shooting mirrorless just does not deliver be it ergonomics, C-AF, native lens choice, even fundamentals like battery life etc. The most complete mirrorless camera is probably the Olympus E-M1 which I own. While it is a great machine it lags behind in image quality to even the cheapest cameras from the likes of Nikon, Sony, Pentax and Fuji. Heck even the £199 [with a kit lens thrown in !} Sony A3000 delivers a little better image quality than the £1200 body only E-M1. I know the E-M1 offers a lot of excellent features, hence why I purchased it but image quality is not any better than the near 2 yr old E-M5.
As for who will ” survive ” who knows Nikon are most dependent on cameras as photo gear makes up the vast bulk of their business. While Olympus etc have other resources , the camera division is only a small part of Olympus. Anyhow if I could predict the future I would be in the queue at the lottery counter :-).
How do you get from “worldwide sales of DSLR’s are down mirrorless sales are actually down slightly more” to a “financial failure”? And what do you mean by USA and Europe being affluent? Are we looking at the same numbers?
It has nothing to do with any “mirrorless fans”, it has to see with reading and trusting numbers (we’ve already seen IDC fail in their calculations, for example). Mirrorless is clearly in its infancy, Fuji was launched last year, NEX less than 3 years ago, the first FF just arrived. Even m43, launched earlier, wasn’t as complete as it is today, a couple of years ago. Even if mirrorless “only” have 25% of some market, I’d say it is a pretty good number for a few limited systems.
In the end, I don’t see mirrorless being a financial failure. I see a changing market, companies who overestimated demand and camera systems that need more time to reach their potential.
Since all point & shoot compacts fall into the mirrorless category and we saw a transfer from these to mobile phones it is natural that their sales drop. In order to better understand what is going on in the market, perhaps we should try to differentiate between tiny point & shoot and the more “expert” type of compact cameras i.e. NEX, Pen, OM, A7/R, X100, etc… which are also mirrorless. Although the global camera market may be shrinking, I believe that this later category of camera is gaining market share whilst the point & shoot may be loosing out in favour of the mobile phones.
“Since all point & shoot compacts fall into the mirrorless”
No they don’t we are talking about interchangeable lens cameras .Cameras with a built in lens are not surprisingly in a different category .
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201310_e.pdf
“how do you get from “worldwide sales of DSLR’s are down mirrorless sales are actually down slightly more” to a “financial failure”? ”
Vlad, There is no doubt about the fact that mirrorless has been a financial failure. Look at the imaging division results for the big players in mirrorless Sony,Olympus and Panasonic. Mirrorless sales peaked in late 2012 and have been declining ever since. mFT came out in 2008 its now going into its sixth year..
The mirrorless market has contracted from its peak. You now have Olympus,Panasonic, Sony ,Fuji, Pentax Canon and Nikon all taking a bite from the pie.The Asian market covers billions of people yet the uptake of interchangeable cameras is smaller than the European market.
I am getting the A7r for a lightweight ad on to my Nikon kit. Do you honestly think that a couple of limited utility £1000+ cameras with £850 F1.8 standard lenses and a £1050 F4 standard zoom are going to make a significant difference to the overall mirrorless market share.
I still do not understand how you define a “financial failure”. They shouldn’t have made these mirrorless cameras or what? And which imaging division numbers should I look at, exactly? As far as I know, there is nothing available from any camera manufacturer pertaining to mirrorless sales specifically. If I am missing something, please, point me to it.
MFT is in its sixth year, but up until the E-M5 in 2012 their best cameras were with rather low IQ and not that well featured. Most of their interesting primes, such as the 12mm, the 17mm or the 75mm, or zooms (12-35, 12-40 etc.) (just as examples), arrived in the last 2 years. As to the A7, no, I don’t think it will change the market by itself. I used it as an example to support my point that mirrorless are still in their infancy.
As to the Asian market, looking at the numbers you provided, it does look like quite the big market. And that is without Japan. Anyway, these numbers are not even actual sales. They say more about company estimates than actual interest in the market.
“There is no doubt about the fact that mirrorless has been a financial failure.”
I couldn’t fucking care less if it is a financial failure or not. The whole airline industry is a financial failure, yet it has done more good to man kind (or for myself) than going to the moon.
“Mirrorless sales peaked in late 2012 and have been declining ever since.”
Well, I don’t know what monthly numbers you have, but annually speaking, 2012 is the last data point there is. 2013 is not even over!!!! So your “ever since” is kinda funny…
“Well, I don’t know what monthly numbers you have, but annually speaking, 2012 is the last data point there is. 2013 is not even over!!!! So your “ever since” is kinda funny…”
Perhaps instead of going down the abusive schoolboy road you could simply read the data which I linked to:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-201304_e.pdf
The CIPA data covers every single interchangeable lens camera made and exported from Japan. The data currently covers up till the end of October 2013.
@vlad
“. Anyway, these numbers are not even actual sales. They say more about company estimates than actual interest in the market.”
These are actual produced and exported numbers not made up numbers. There is an almost blind faith from many mirrorless users even when the data is there in front of them. There are always a boatload of excuses why they are not doing well.
Terada from Olympus made a speech making ridiculous excuses about women’s spending power being the reason for poor mFT sales.
Olympus stated that sales were down 12% Olympus,Panasonic and Sony have all posted huge losses in heir respective imaging divisions,so high that the drop in p&s sales cannot possibly cover it.
Considering Asia contains such a huge chunk of the world population the actual cameras sold are disproportionately lower than Western affluent markets. This is obviously a consequence of the very significant number of people on low incomes in these areas. My point was that I have seen wild claims about the phenomenal uptake in Asia which just isn’t true. The thinning of some fanboys seems to be that their is a potential market of a billion Chinese which is wildly foolish.
“These are actual produced and exported numbers not made up numbers.”
> Where did I say otherwise?
“There is an almost blind faith from many mirrorless users even when the data is there in front of them. There are always a boatload of excuses why they are not doing well.”
> That wasn’t really an excuse. Over-estimating demand is hardly good.
“Olympus stated that sales were down 12% Olympus,Panasonic and Sony have all posted huge losses in heir respective imaging divisions,so high that the drop in p&s sales cannot possibly cover it.”
> Agreed. Except we don’t know how much is due to p&s, mirrorless and even DSLRs respectively. I am being cautious.
“This is obviously a consequence of the very significant number of people on low incomes in these areas. My point was that I have seen wild claims about the phenomenal uptake in Asia which just isn’t true.”
> Agreed. However, it still is a big market and one which buys differently than Europe/USA.
The reason I am arguing this is that many explain doom and gloom for mirrorless, >unconditionally<. I think that the numbers we see are directly related to (1) the current state of mirrorless and (2) the current state of the market. To clarify:
1. current state of mirrorless – most systems are hardly that mature; I certainly believe that there will be additional uptake when features mature (AF for example) or when systems get more complete
2. current state of the market – I will simply quote Marinus Vesseur (comment below) who explains it all too well : "Most camera buyers have no time to study all the aspects of the hardware – they simply rely on what has been popular for a while. They trust the brand and the reputation of DSLRs. A lot more will have to happen than a two-year experiment with a new format for that to fundamentally change."
3. current state of the market – this time having to see with the whole market not being in great shape
The actual real interest in using mirrorless, I believe, will be seen in the near future. I seriously doubt DSLRs will disappear, but the numbers we are seeing today are merely what is happening in today's rather specific conditions.
Btw, thanks for the nice discussion and Happy New Year!
“Btw, thanks for the nice discussion and Happy New Year!”
Thank You Vlad , its nice to be able to agree to disagree without the ensuing drama that follows on the likes of DPreview.
A happy Hogmanay and Lang may your lum reek
well, I guess I won’t be buying the EM1 now. I really wanted that 75mm 1.8 but if they really aren’t that great…meh. What a bummer, I had high hopes for it since it was so small and quite nice.
I kinda figured it didn’t make sense since I’m a Sony shooter. This confirms it.
I suggest you to try the Em1, before judging it. Feel its ergonomics. Stick that 75mm on it and try it. 🙂 being a Sony shooter does not prevent you to buy a different brand camera: the only downside is that building up a new system is expensive, but maybe it’s not a problem.
Shooting with Em1 reminds me of latest RicohGR: a camera made to take photos and to make you happy of it.
(Forget the video features though)
The best survivors are usually those who have enough cash set aside to take their ideas from R&D and put them into production. Next are those who are successfully in raising the money from investors or who can gain from a collaboration or merge their business with someone else.
I put this in with these:
“I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” — Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, 1943.
“There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” — Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977.
“640K ought to be enough for anybody.” — Attributed to Bill Gates, 1981
Has anyone actually read the link? His forecasts were based on very recent, very dismal numbers for mirrorless.
The quotes from Watson and Ken and Bill were about future products and future sales.
This article deals with current sales of existing products, which have fallen off a cliff for mirrorless.
Obviously we are not buying enough of these high-priced luxury consumer toys that 90% of the world could not dream of affording.
He barely speaks about the actual numbers, not to mention that IDC, for example, is hardly that reliable. It is surely interesting to discuss, but I agree with Andre here.
Numbers provided sound pretty specific to me:
“A 40 percent drop in Panasonic’s overall camera sales in April-September left the imaging division vulnerable as the company’s mid-term plan to March 2016 demands unprofitable businesses turn themselves around or face the axe.
“If you look mid-to-long term, digital camera makers are slipping and the market is becoming an oligopoly,” said Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida.
Panasonic held 3.1 percent of the camera market in July-September, down from 3.8 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Canon Inc, Nikon Corp and Sony Corp controlled over 60 percent between them.
[Mirrorless] Sales, which globally are less than a quarter of those of SLRs, fell by a fifth in the three weeks to December 14 in the United States, which included the busy ‘Black Friday’ shopping week, while SLR sales rose 1 percent, according to NPD, another industry researcher.
Not to me.
“A 40 percent drop in Panasonic’s overall camera sales in April-September left the imaging division vulnerable as the company’s mid-term plan to March 2016 demands unprofitable businesses turn themselves around or face the axe.”
> A drop as compared to when? How relevant that overall drop is to what they say about the mirrorless in the title?
“If you look mid-to-long term, digital camera makers are slipping and the market is becoming an oligopoly,” said Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida.”
> Not a single number here, precisely the problem. Nothing to look at.
“Panasonic held 3.1 percent of the camera market in July-September, down from 3.8 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Canon Inc, Nikon Corp and Sony Corp controlled over 60 percent between them.”
> Which camera market? Overall? How relevant is that to mirrorless specifically?
> “[Mirrorless] Sales, which globally are less than a quarter of those of SLRs, fell by a fifth in the three weeks to December 14 in the United States, which included the busy ‘Black Friday’ shopping week, while SLR sales rose 1 percent, according to NPD, another industry researcher.”
Again, rose, fell, compared to when? Previous weeks? Previous year at the same time? What about SLR sales?
Nothing here to support what the title says. Or most of the article for that matter. And no links to sources.
Vlad is being deliberately obtuse, or just has no experience in reading financial summaries.
Quite clearly, the context is year over year numbers, and the context is interchangeable lens cameras- DSLRs and Mirrorless.
Pretending to not understand does not make the numbers better.
Your best bet- go out and invest all your life savings, take out a second mortgage and buy stock in those companies that sell the cameras you want to stay around. Max your credit card lines, invest your kids’ college savings, take out a second mortgage and invest it in those company shares, since you know their actuals better than anyone, and are thus guaranteed to make a good killing.
What’s with the third person? I am being “deliberately obtuse” for asking a professional who is paid to write these articles to provide their sources? Continue accepting journalism like that and see where it leads you. Not to mention that plenty of these “researchers” have been proven wrong time and time again.
Yes, I assume that they mean year over year, but I would definitely prefer confirmation. That is how you read data. Anyway, again, where do those numbers defend the idea that “Smartphones Shatter Mirrorless Hopes”? Given that I am so stupid, do show me.
“Predictions are frequently wrong, particularly when they are about the future”.
If anyone really wants to find out which camera companies will survive, why not just wait and see? In the mean time, just buy whatever camera you like. Let’s say you fall in love with a Kodak Reflex. Not to worry: As long as there is an ‘Ebay’, you will still be able to buy lenses.
Here’s another failed prediction:
“The DSLR is dead.”
lol!
In the other hand people say that DSLR will die. Now what is the truth? Canon and Nikon are badly criticized for not beeing innovative and people are not going to buy DSLR forever. Leica will survive as ling as their lenses do. Cameras are more of a hobby for that company I think and they don’t need it to survive (but they can at these prices). Olympus does well with recent mirror less models and has strong fan (sorry fanboy) base. Sony is very innovative and the only one really trying to make the move from the mirror to mirrorless and going for smaller bodies (most people will know soon that big body isn’t needed). Panasonic is like Sony and will probably survive with good mirrorless and good compact cameras.
But smartphones will always be the biggest competitor for all cameras and for most occasions it’s simply the best camera as it’s the only one we have with us. People keep moving but at the same time they admit it’s good enough for many that don’t earn money making selling fotos
“(most people will know soon that big body isn’t needed)”
Hans, when you should shoot all day with moving models, I can tell you that you have a much better grip with bigger bodies and that avoid you having forearms cramps at the end of the day. Everything has it’s field of use 🙂 A smaller body is more convenient to travel though.
Sounds about right.
As more and more amateur photographers turn to cameras phones what’s left is the much smaller enthusiast and pro markets. It seem that Nikon, Canon, and Sony are best positioned to dominate that market.
I can see…
Olympus selling their camera imaging division to Sony
Fuji (despite a loyal following) pulling out, just as they did in the past in the DSLR market
Panasonic… will, however, persevere I think (with a continued strong focus on video)
Why would Sony want to buy a money losing business?
Especially when they’d be stuck with support for all the existing recent sales- a warranty repair expense for which they made no original revenue.
good point but I think Oly’s patents and expertise would be very valuable to Sony especially if the market narrowed to just Canikon with Sony playing a distant third.
Meanwhile I suspect when the lytro/light-field tech hits cell phone cameras in 2014/2015 it could cause a further shakeup. Unless you print at all the market for “real” cameras of any type will take a hit. Selective focus (i.e. shallow depth of field) is one of the biggest appeals of DSLR.
Things are like that: only p&s will really die. Mirrorless will survive but not in the today shape. They will have phone OS, big touchscreen and a very compact size. This is because mirorrless is targeted to young users. Today lens size on mirrorless is just a joke, you buy a small cam but the lens is twice bigger so no more compact cam. Dslr, that is targeted for old people will survive the way it is now but the market will shrink every day.
You should check out the demographics of interchangeable lens cameras sales, including mirrorless. Hint: They are not that young. This is one of the main problems camera makers are facing: the move-up crowd they have been targeting never materialized.
Maybe you’re right, maybe is not gonna happend soon but I think that shooting with 3″ screen cam without VF is obsolete. Also no conectivity is from the past. RX100 with a 5″ touchscreen display and android will be really something.
So now Credit Suisse is the expert at forcasting the future of the camera industry.
I.guess we can expect the same level of expert camera forecasting as we have come to expect from thier previouse track record of expert economic forecasting.
You’re right – better the predicitons be left up to random know-it-alls on the internet, than to a financial holding company that has been in business for 150 years.
Believe me, they sure wouldn’t tell you were the camera industry is heading to if they knew! They made their money much much different.
So I guess samsung will be number one since they did attach a phone to the back of a camera and will probably do it again??
The ‘experimental client’ is in the minority. I sell used cameras by the side. Mirrorless cameras of all brands lose value fast. The cameras that keep their value longest are Canon and Nikon DSLRs. Why? Reputation. Most camera buyers have no time to study all the aspects of the hardware – they simply rely on what has been popular for a while. They trust the brand and the reputation of DSLRs. A lot more will have to happen than a two-year experiment with a new format for that to fundamentally change.
People want DSLR cause it looks like DSLR and “DSLR makes good pictures”. SLT is no DSLR but it looks like, so its a DSLR. A RX1 is a small camera, doesn’t look like a DSLR, so its a bad compact camera.
But carrying stuff around is bad, so the folk wants DSLR + 18-400mm hyperzoom.
It doesn’t matter that a rx100 would be better for them… So sony did the right thing. Give them a cheep DSLR like camera like the a3000. If the NEX would look like a DSLR they would sell the same *3 although everybody wants small cameras..
For sure, what I am looking for is the best IQ from the smallest package and I’ll always change my camera with this objective in mind. In 2001 I started with my first digital camera after using a reliable Olympus OM-2 and Zuiko lenses for years as well as a Canon waterproof camera. The IXUS-5 from 2001 surprisingly made very pleasant pictures fitting a 11″ laptop screen. In 2008 I swapped for the Canon S90 which has a larger sensor with the idea to get a better IQ. In 2010 I complemented it with a NEX-5 which was lost in 2013 and replaced by a NEX-6. Then last week I ordered the A7r and Zeiss lenses that go with it… So, interestingly enough the size of my cameras has never ceased to increase but the IQ too ! I doubt I’ll ever get a DSLR as they are much too large to travel with although these havev faster AF… There is a trade off.
Oh, yes, and I can remember such analysts having recommended Apple to give up their OS to switch to Windows or recommending Lehman Brothers until the day they collapsed, and also this one here missed the most important argument for Sony’s success on the digital camera market, since they’re controlling the sensor market and are also supplying to Nikon.
Note the forecasts are based on horrendous year over year sales and marketshare crashes, numbers that are shared.
Your task is to use those same numbers and come to a rosy conclusion, showing the analyst wrong and the future glorious for mirrorless, based on stated trends.
Pretty sure Sony’s consumer camera sector is a completely different and independent line of business from commercial b2b sensor sales.
The point is that analysts shouldn’t be trusted too easily. Neither the forecasts, nor the numbers they are based on are faultless.
Mirrorless can’t compete with DSLR’s for price and lens selection. What’s worse than a shrinking market while trying to sell a high priced, underperforming technology. This is coming from a guy who thinks the MTF system is awesome, but seriously thinks the market is flawed in it’s thinking.
Many of us don’t own an A7/R because we don’t want to spend 1k on a 55mm 1.8. Fantastic lens at a stupid price point….aaaaand it just keeps getting worse. Mirrorless needs to drop in price to hit the market it’s aimed at. MFT such as the OMD need to be halfed in price. 1300 for the new OMD EM1? Are you crazy! 900 for the 75mm 1.8? These are half lenses…as in half the coverage man. You can’t charge big guy prices for small guy lenses. I can buy a freakin A7 with a FF for a little more. And yes, I think the A7 lenses make more sense price wise…but I still think they are overpriced. I can get a 6D if I stretch a bit- with tons of lens options and superb IQ.
My point is options verses cost DSLR’s still win every time. For those who approach mirroless as a great secondary camera there is your answer. Most people can’t afford a primary let alone a secondary–niche market it remains.
It is quite evident..that current APSC Mirrorless cameras will die..as there is not enough boost from manufacturers and buyers. Sony is not doing enough to boost the market with not enough lenses and not much for Super telephoto-Birders and Macro-players
1.Most consumer photographer will go for smartphones
2.Little high end consumers will buy Superzooms…especially like 1 inch RX10, Canon SX60
3.High end will keep thriving with DSLR’s…maybe get converted to mirrorless version with less bulk. So lot of scope for A mount mirrorless….but less for E mount till lot of lenses are available
SONY will never succeed in system camera market as long as they continue to refuse to make significant investments in optics design and lens production. In fact, of all the companies currently making interchangeable lens cameras, Sony is the only one that lacks any expertise in optics and also the one whose mirrorless cameras have the most limited selection of desirable lenses.
Essentially Sony sees interchangeable lens cameras as simply a way to package and sell sensors and electronics to consumers rather than a way to build out an extensive *photography* franchise.
For example I just bought the Sony A99 full-frame alpha DSLT camera to replace my Sony A850 DSLR and I could not believe that Sony engineers and program managers approved the use of an APS-C AF focusing matrix in a full frame camera. The result is that it is almost impossible to avoid focus-and-recompose when shooting people with this camera and as expected many of the shots will have focusing errors and the time to focus accurately on the eyes of subjects when shooting large aperture lenses is much longer than I can afford before the subject moves or the moment is lost!
So here is a pro-level $2,800 full frame AF camera that by design can’t take fully in-focus images because Sony reused the cheap APS-C AF focus matrix from the A77 even though they knew that this would cripple AF performance on the FF A99 as a great majority of the 35mm frame does not have any AF sensors covering it. The A99 is not too bad — not as bad as I thought it would be with the EVF and SLT mirror but I’ve only used the camera for three days and I’ve already become sick of the difficulty of continually looking for and failing to find an AF sensor to use when shooting anything not in the central portion of the viewfinder.
A real camera company would never have done something like this!
I don’t recall Panasonic or Samsung having a great background in optics. Sony bought Minoltas SLR assets, and this presumably included Minolta Engineers. Sony also own 10% of Tamron, who also know a thing or two about lenses. Sony also is a large shareholder of Olympus and have signed joint agreements with them to share camera technologies, so I think Sony have plenty of expertise available.
They also know that they have to think out of the box as a straight on assault on Castle Canikon is going to fail (as did Sony’s attempts with the A700, A900 and A850).
Both Canon and Nikon have released cameras recently with serious flaws (in my opinion with far greater problems than Sony’s recent releases)
Amen
It seems that you nevertheless stick to Sony cameras 🙂 A friend of mine has a Cyber Shot SONY HX-50 V and his pictures are of better quality than mine shot with DSLR’s CANON D-60 or NIKON D5200!!!
Many people predicting the future are mixing up many things. Regarding technology, they forget that there are mainly 3 worlds, maybe a 4th one now with the all in one devices like the cell phones. Let’s start with that last one, the 4th world. People using a photo camera only because there’s one on their cell phone but wouldn’t buy a photo camera otherwise nor make any photo (analysts and other “Nostradamus” only look at this world to make their pronostics for the future). Then, there is the dilettante world, the enlightened enthusiast world and the professional world. Of all those worlds, it’s the professional world (the technologies for them) that make evolve all the other worlds technologies. Like for cars, the F1 and racing cars make evolve Mister or Miss Everybody’s cars for everyday use. Decade(s) ago, some predicted the end of the desktop computers or even the notebooks in favor of the pads or even the phones. Again, they were watching ONLY into the 4th world. I can tell you that I am glad today to have my desktop computer to edit my 4K films productions instead of my iPhone and I am glad Hollywood don’t have to make their super productions with Windows phones 🙂
Is it me or does anybody have had the same experience as me? I remember the old time I owned the great non digital just before AF era CANON T-90 and the TTL flash was much better than today’s flashes with much more balanced light especially in the twilight light. I could get the main subject perfectly exposed with the nice sunset behind her. The scene light was perfect and well balanced. Today, I have many more problems doing it correctly.