Just click on the image on top to see a larger size version (Courtesy of Lensvid).
Our friends from Lensvid analyzed the CIPA data and put on graphs the facts that we already knew: The camera industry is facing a deep crisis. DSLR, Mirrorless and compact camera market are shrinking. And it’s possible that the this will be the trend for the future too with the mass market focusing on using devices like Smartphones, Tablets, Google Glasses to take their pictures and videos.
I am pretty sure there will be always a market for large sensor cameras but it’s likely to become pretty “marginal”. We are on the verge of a big paradigm search in the world of photography where aspects like connectivity and creativity (in form of APPS) become more important than use of system cameras. Considering these aspects what would you suggest Sony to do?
One small thought: Unlike so many other analysts I see a bright future for Sony. Nikon and Canon depend more from the “pure” system camera market than Sony. Sony did a great job to focus on one aspect that will certainly survive: Image sensor production. They are number one and still growing. No matter if people are going to use a DSLR or Smartphone or other new kind of devices. Sony will be the one company making the sensors for it!
—
More info at Lensvid and a youtube video made by them:
0 Responses
The market for a luxury consumer product shrinks in a global recession. Who’d have thought that?
Sony should bring out A-mount camera’s now, there loosing customers.
Sony have already started the process of moving into niche premium cameras, they recognise that there is little future in volume sales of low-mid range systems, high margin expensive kit is where it’s going to be at.
We here are geeks, the rest of the World couldn’t give a stuff about systems, lenses, mirrors and ISO this and that. They are quite happy to whip out a mobile and upload to Facebook over 3G etc.
In Europe (cities), I am seeing unusually larger number of people with DSLRs now than ever before. These are DSLRs (N and C) with a standard zoom kind, occassionaly there is a high end zoom as well.
(My personal preference is the A7/A7r or NEX compact types)
So true.
I’ve been seeing a lot of people carrying around DSLRs form Nikon, Canon and Sony as well; as you said: mostly with a kit lens or a lens that will allow to do pretty much everything without carrying around a lot of stuff.
Actually I was kinda surprise (positively) to see so many Sony A mount (of course always less in % than CaNikon); NEX has been a kinda huge hit since they came out so no surprise there.
I don’t know how true is that people are not buying cameras or high quality lenses anymore, or at least less than before.
That’s not the experience I have: many people I know, that were using an iPhone to take pics or an “old” camera switched to something better in the last 6-12 months.
Some went for an RX100II, some for A7R, other to Fuji, Canon is always there.
And many of them bought as well some nice quality glass along with those cameras.
They’re talking about “shipped” quantity: what about all those people taking their time to go to the shop and talk to the seller? Those are not “shipped”.
Or maybe with “shipped” they mean “from the main factory to the stores”? (I admit I haven’t seen the video).
The store where I buy my stuff is always full of people buying every kind of cameras or lenses.
Or maybe I’m just wrong… LOL
Good day everybody.
Sony has had some real winners in the past years, in particular the RX series (1,10,100) and the 7r. They seem to be in pretty much every segment from phones to DSLR, and perhaps soon MF too. All the different mounts confuses me, but a camera like the RX10 which I would normally not even look at has me quite interested as an alternative to buying a Zoom lens for a system mount, partly because it also does a good job of video.
That is the interesting thing with Sony, they are making combinations of features that seem perhaps a little odd, but actually seem to work well in practice.
Sony seems fairly strong, along with Canon and Nikon I think they will be one of the survivors.
What they are seeing here is market saturation. There was a huge spike in the number of people using cameras, as digital appeared and improved to a usable point. But now, the number of people taking up photography because of the digital revolution has nearly stabilized (at a much higher percentage of the population than anyone would have expected, incidentally), and the cameras being sold are mostly replacements for obsolete or damaged units. The rate of replacements will soon stabilize, and they can predict future sales from that more realistic number, and adjust the business model accordingly.
The same thing happened when automobiles were new – sales went up fast, and many predicted that they would go up forever. However, when they reached near 100% of the total private vehicle sales, effectively completely eliminating horse-drawn vehicles, the rate of sale flattened to mostly only replacing existing cars. It was only an issue to the short-sighted managers who had assumed that sales would climb forever, and dreamed of repeating Henry Ford’s story.
That said, there will always be a market for replacing obsolete and worn-out models … sales will only drop so far before they stabilize. It just may not be as impressive to watch as the numbers we have seen for the last 14 years or so.
You have it spot on. Once digital arrived, there was a huge burst of activity replacing film equipment. For a few years this was driven by rapid increases in technical capability. Now that the technology has matured, there are few compelling reasons to replace existing equipment and it turns into a replacement market. We have already seen this with the PC market and there are hints it’s now beginning to happen with smartphones.
Of course, there are changes in the market, like the growth of smartphones, which are clearly substituting for compact cameras, so there will be structural changes. In the enthusiast and professional market, there will always be some sustained demand. However, it’s difficult to see what future technical development will be so compelling as to bring back the “good times”. If this becomes a replacement market, Sony’s largest weakness is that they have many fewer customers who are heavily invested into their system, which is not good news for a largely replacement system camera market. Probably the Sony’s best option is on the mirrorless market where there is not such an established supplier base. That, especially combined with the ability to mount “alien” lenses allows customers to buy into their systems without losing their existing investment in lenses. However, this is going to be hard work, especially if Nikon and Canon wake up to this and produce competitive products of their own.
Too many companies depend on increasd sales every year to survive.
That cannot continue to happen as there is a limit to everything.
As long as that is the model companies can only expand and then fail.
As corporations and wealthy individuals become wealthier and wealthier the rest of the people become poorer and poorer.
This income gap will increasingly become the limit to growth. At some point business will need to be more concerned with the financial health of thier consumers in order to maintain thier own financial health..and mayby..although I am sure this will be considered heressy..profit will not be everything there is to business
I think so too. The market near to saturation. Most people that “want to make pictures” can do so. If people shoot whith their smartphone and if it fills their need, its good for them.
I see it this way, there are far more people out there with can shoot pictures, so this has much increased.
Who knows, some of them may upgrade to a better camera, some may seek the newest sensor technology?
The only reason people buy cameras today..and more so going forward..is for better guality than the more compact easier to use alternatives like cellphones offer.
As I see it the future of the stand alone camera is for super high resolution images.
While much of the general population may not require that..tbose people are more likely to be satisfied with cellphone devices especially as the quality of those devices approaches the quality of the tvs and monitors they are probably viewing those pictures on.
Cameras will in the near future need to have sensors shuch as stacked 100mp 33×3 layers or greater. Despite the 3mp is enough or 24mp is enogb or 36mp is enough shouters it will not be.
Those who are willing to purchase new cameras will want more and pass up the cameras that dont provide more.
The future of high definition photography will take a big jump if super high res video wallpaper becomes readily available with the ability to combine adjacent displays into huge high res immersive displays.
By creating displays people can walk through the cameras will need to provide images to fill those walkthrough spaces.
I see both 8k tv and display stitching for bigger higher res stuff as the future.
Yes other qualities will also need to continue to improve but the higher resolution will still allways be the foundation thes new improvements will be built on.
Already printed billboards are being replaced by digital billboard and I see that trend continuing.
As giant displays can display more images than printed ones ..more high resolution images will be required to fill those spaces.
I think the other only reason most people (99%) buy new cameras is because they think it will help them get the holy-grail shot. I also think that’s the main reason.
I wouldn’t say that the companies ship too less cameras… they shipped to many in the last years. They had a profit that everybody wanted a DSLR. only a part of them need really a DSLR.
The market for really good cameras is shrinking cause in our times you get photos in the web. Making photos is a mass phenomena everybody is doing all the time to show on facebook and so on. But the quality isn’t so important.
But a lot of people want good photos. In their minds they need a dslr for that. But cameras in mobile phones are better and better so the other markets are shrinking.
If i sell a toilet bowl lightning system and its totally “in” and everybody wants it, i shouldn’T be saddened when the hype is over and nobody buys it anymore. Cause nobody need it really….
What’s with the 20% drop in shipped lenses? Compared to what? Maybe I am missing something.
Based on the graph and description, versus 2012.
Geez, I lack focus today 🙂
Are you going through Clarie withdrawal?
Lol. Nice one!
with this in mind.. revive nex cams …
Look at the most popular images on the most popular websites. What percent were taken with big sensors and what percent were taken with cell-phones.
There is your answer.
DSLRs are a mature market. There are endless examples of mature markets like computers.
Once upon a time within 2-3 years I’d look to upgrade my PC because processors, memory advanced so quickly my old PC couldn’t keep up with newer software. Processors have gotten so powerful even a low-end Intel Atom processor in my convertible tablet/netbook will run just about anything except games and video editing. My ‘boat anchor’ desktop is 4 years old but still nicely churns through anything. People don’t upgrade PCs like they used to but are diving into the rapidly evolving tablet market so everyone’s proclaiming the ‘death of the PC.’
Sound familiar?
We’ve reached a point in the megapixel race where routine trade-ins to get closer to 35mm film quality is pretty much over. Even a budget DSLR will make a nice print enlargement to meet most needs like the old 35mm film days. Ubiquitous smartphones filling the role of the traditional point and shoot are good enough for snapshot needs.
One day my smartphone might have some crazy resolution allowing me to digitally zoom for birding and still make a 20×30 razor sharp heavily cropped image. That day isn’t here yet so we need the flexibility of long lenses and monopods/tripods and IBIS/OSS. I always get a hoot that I can’t afford Zeiss glass for my a65 but my humble Nokia 920 boasts Carl Zeiss ‘glass’. ;^)
So Sony needs to come out with a new mount. Let’s call it the SM mount (for smartphone mount) and start making interchangeable teensy tiny lenses for phone makers. The e-mount fanboys who love teensy tiny cameras will go nuts for ’em. ;^)
I’ve taken some memorable shots with my Nokia 920 but it can’t touch images from my a65. Nor can it match the fun I have shooting with my a65. Sony needs to market DSLRs to young people to get them educated and hooked. Also, we’ve got to keep in mind we’re in a worldwide poor economy so 2007-2014 isn’t going to be great years for discretionary consumer electronics purchases like DSLRs. To the degree people spend limited discretionary electronics money, it’ll be more on the newer, more rapidly evolving smartphone (quickly maturing) or tablet market.
They called it QX10 and QX100 😉
Hey, the DSLRs are now fat for no reason, E-mount bodies are “teensy tiny” because they’re advanced.
Sony should use Android as Operating system. This and an touch UI would enable photographers to play around on taken pictures will all apps they like, and share it directly via all social networks they prefer.
So the camera would have all the comforts and bennefits of an modern Smartphone alike device, combined with features and quality of an large Sensor camera.
Just take a smartphone.
Anyway you need to process RAW in a converter. If you use JPG, just go for Sony Z1 (Z2 soon).
No use to have a DSLR/Mirrorless if you don’t modify your photo afterward.
I prefer more buffer than RAM for an operating OS.
Yeah, touch-focus to take a picture of your half-eaten taco and share it on Facebook. Very professional. That’s certainly what makes a photographer.
It doesn’t matter if it’s “professional” or not. What matters is what people want or what the marketing can make people to believe they want. People want to share their photos to Facebook and they should be able to do that. You can do that with a $10000 Mac Pro if you want to. The ability to share photos doesn’t mean that the camera has to be less pro. Make it easy enough for beginners and customize-able enough for pros. Like a computer, a camera should also be suitable for user with different level of knowledge.
Hmmm…fall for marketing, indeed it is those that often fall for marketing that yield the most spoils isn’t it?
Well, you could do that with a Mac Pro, but isn’t it true that those who really do mostly buy something much cheaper than a Mac Pro? There’s a market for workstations and another for netbooks.
I could argue that space shuttles still have the most basic of computers installed with no extra function, and it may not hurt to be able to share photos on Facebook with it, but that’s taking the conversation a little too far.
I think of manufacturers that still release purist products, like the new dpq series that doesn’t even have video, as being truly devoted to its own market segment, and being loyal to target consumers. But the whole scene is money is all and whatever moves the units, right? I don’t approve of this strategy you’re talking about but I believe it is and will be the strategy that most companies adopt.
Ah, yes. Samsung. Samsung is the company that takes this strategy to the extreme. IMO it’s a company with no…spirit. So it’s the company I dislike the most.
Where’s my reply? Oh well, never mind.
They should invent a new term like “selfier” or something.
Of course most people will be more than happy with their smartphone cameras. Apple, Nokia and other companies are constantly innovating in this space.
The biggest problem with camera market in my opinion is that manufacturers are afraid of eating into their own higher margin sales and thus limiting the features of cameras in the $600-$1200 price range. By doing this the value proposal for many cameras is not as good as it could be.
I think people also expect standalone cameras to match the feature set of their smartphones and offer better image quality and additional features not possible with smartphones. They expect their cameras to have touch screens, Wi-Fi, GPS and other things their smartphones offer. Some smartphones, even those made by Sony are water-sealed, but the latest A6000 isn’t even weather sealed. Go and figure. I believe that in the future things like internal storage will come to cameras, not replacing memory cards but as an additional feature.
The second issue in my opinion are the lenses. Why isn’t there option (again, in addition to the traditional zoom) to buy a camera with a small and fast prime as the kit lens to show new customers what the camera is capable of? Why would an uneducated customer buy a prime lens if his kit zoom lens already covers this focal length and more? Do most customers understand these things? I mean F5.6 is more than F3.5, right? If I look at the available Sony E-mount lenses I see there’s a lots of things to improve. For example the 16-70mm zoom. This would be the perfect walk-around lens for many but not at the given price point. What about a 50-150mm or similar relatively compact zoom? Or what about faster lenses? Or 85mm and 135mm primes? Anyways, who buys an enthusiast-targeted camera (A6000) without the “pro” features at $650 and then goes and buys a $1000 travel zoom? Not the mention to fact that for those coming from a smartphone, all lenses probably seem expensive.
I bought a Nikon D70 in 2004. Someone suggested the 50/1.8 was a really good lens. I bought it since it was just $100 back then. I was very disappointed that I couldn’t zoom it since I didn’t know what a prime lens was at the time. It was a wasted $100 for me back then. I suspect there are tons of ignorant customers in the same vein, so many would be returning the camera and prime package. And f/1.8 versus f/3.5 meant nothing to me. At least for lower end interchangeable lens cameras, the zoom kit is probably the best route to take. For the A7 then I would like to see primes as an option for the kit package.
“limiting the features of cameras in the $600-$1200 price range” I think you mean the big C and N mainly? The NEXs are definitely more bang for buck than mainstream DSLRs, except for the limited lens selection, which is a big problem for the less educated since manual operation and adapting lenses scares the hell out of them.
I’ve looked into Pentax equipment before since somebody once came to me for advice on buying into a system and I’ve noticed that K-3 does everything just as good or even better than the 7D (APS-C flagship vs. APS-C flagship, fair comparison) but is much cheaper, only 2/3 the price. The limited edition silver model includes a matching battery grip and leather strap for about the same price as a body-only 7D. Main problem again is a weird (I mean the focal lengths and aperture numbers, for example 21/3.2 on half-frame) and slow lens selection that emphasizes portablilty over usablilty.
Fuji’s got unique style behind its back since all its models look retro, and has high end lenses with a good feel and actual aperture ring, very rare in the industry these days. It also provides continuous support to its dated products. You can’t demand this kind of attention from most competitors.
I’d like to see primes go with bodies too, but like some of the less educated are afraid of manual operation and the sort, I’ve seen some even less educated that feel repelled toward primes. “Huh?! It can’t magnify?!” What they really want is a zoom range with large aperture that’s out of their reach.
Nokia 1020 is ridiculously good, portable, connected and in my pocket. real OIS, Zeiss Lens, shutter, large sensor for phone, 41MB, xenon flash and shoots in RAW format and easy to share photos in an instant and has a supporting apps and camera apps to go with it. This IMHO is the first truly ‘connected camera’ in the P&S segment.
More pictures being taken, memories shared, but not on traditional cameras.
There are more photographers today than ever before.
Most of them use smartphones, but many of them will go on to use dedicated cameras.
Smartphone photographers are spoiled with decent image quality in a very convenient package. Future cameras are going to have to approach the overall performance*convenience rating of the smartphone.
The ones happy with their smart phones may indeed one day buy a dedicated camera. However, how many of them will buy a “new” camera is another matter. The second hand market has so many choices to please even the most discerning “upgrader”
I think they will buy a new for two reasons:
1. The young generation does not buy used.
2. The camera they will want as an acceptably convenient upgrade from a cameraphone isn’t on the market yet.
“Sony did a great job to focus on one aspect that will certainly survive: Image sensor production.”
This makes them more vulnerable to macro environment of the camera industry as a whole, unless they predominately make mobile phone sensors, which are probably higher volume but less margin.
they already make most of the phone camera sensors. I believe both Apple and Samsung use Sony sensors.
I wouldn’t have thought Samsung, that must be big business for Sony.
Ultimately content producers will still need real cameras. Focusing on this market is wise. Connectivity and ease of sharing is important for the consumer products – which Sony has been doing. There will probably be less choices in the future as camera makers consolidate product lines and less frequent updates to camera models as the risk of r&d rises.
Maybe camera makers should stop with the trend of raising lens prices so high, as they have been doing for the last 5+ years ( well beyond inflation) – Sony & Canon have been particularly egregious. It makes the barrier to entry seem daunting to those considering ILC systems.
Agreed. I wonder how far this consolidation will go.
It could be the middle class that gets squeezed the most, those that currently buy cameras & lenses that are a step up from base models & kit lenses.
The inhibitive price and strong demand (at the time) of the E-mount 24/1.8 Zeiss was what’s gotten me into adaptors and legacy lenses in the first place.
Now I buy legacy lenses that are more expensive than their modern counterparts! : )
This is not surprising. It has been happening for a long while already.
Saturation is an issue, yes, as someone pointed out. But the issue is not to “desaturate” the market but to create your own space. In this, I believe Sony to be doing well. Whilst the RX1, RX100, RX10 and A7/r cameras have put Sony in the spot light and are known to have done very well overall in sales, how does this translate to Sony’s imaging business bottom line at the end of the day? If anyone, with no opinion or guesses, can answer this in a straight manner here, please do so. That way we know what the “bright future” for Sony looks like.
Admin, while I also want to see a bright future for Sony, I don’t believe sheer interest and love for their products can imply this for them. Honestly, I want to believe. I really want to see them succeed but I see a general lack of presence in overall marketing. Is this because they don’t believe its worth promoting more? or is it because they do not feel like they have to? Calumet, one of the biggest brick and mortar camera retailers in the UK sells Sony products but they always look like they are left to a corner instead of the front page presentation of the competitors (read Nikon, Fuji, Canon, Sigma) Same goes for the consumer end of things, everyone gets front page but Sony. But why? I hear you ask…the answer is “I don’t know”.
Do retailers believe that although Sony is truly innovating they don’t have the sex appeal of the other brands? Would Sony be selling more if they had kept the Minolta brand on their bodies and cameras because of the legacy attached to that brand? Would that even make sense at all?
I have always sustained that the reason why Fuji sells well and people “respect” the brand more is because of the sex appeal of their cams. The “retro user interface” is appealing to some. These “some” have been prominent bloggers and some professionals (see Fuji’s X photographers site) and that makes the masses go and buy these products too. Sony doesn’t have this because “Sony” has little legacy behind it and a lot of ‘geeky’ factors in front of it (FF compact, 1″ large sensor compact, 2.8 constant zoom, fastest AF APS-C, low high iso noise, etc etc)
Whilst Panasonic has decided to grab the zeitgeist of video attention, and Olympus of fast-compact-stills photography, Sony has grabbed the zeitgeist of “innovation” or “future building”. Nikon and Canon are “bread and butter”, the workhorses proven to deliver time and time again. Fuji is the “renaissance” and Pentax is… no one knows. Leica is the Kremlin’s and the People’s Neuvelle Riche choice and Hasselblad wants a piece of that cake too.
There must always be an appeal to a brand. If one delves in SAR too long, it becomes hard to see why would anyone buy any other than Sony. The truth is, Sony is carving a place for itself in the camera business…but how does this reflect into Sony as a business…not many people truly grasp that answer.
As I said, I want to see a future for Sony because I love their gear, but I find it hard to see how would that happen without Sony breaking the stigma clinging on everyone who hasn’t bought their products yet.
“I see a general lack of presence in overall marketing. Is this because they don’t believe its worth promoting more? or is it because they do not feel like they have to?”
> Or they are clueless. It happens.
“Do retailers believe that although Sony is truly innovating they don’t have the sex appeal of the other brands?”
> Sony has the sex appeal, but Canon and Nikon are better moms, I guess.
“I have always sustained that the reason why Fuji sells well and people “respect” the brand more is because of the sex appeal of their cams.”
> Probably because retro is a a known and sure value. It is already accepted. New stuff takes time to get there. I’d say that the reason why people like Fuji is all this kaizen talk, the countless firmware updates (maybe on purpose) and the transparency as to their design process and goals. Marketing.
three words on the popularity of Fuji: compact bright primes.
Agreed. They certainly know what they are doing when it comes to the lenses.
Then start offering cameras for professionals!!!!
What a nonsense infograph. They should recalibrate their calculators and here’s just one example why.
According to their graph, mirrorless shipments fell by 25% in 2013 and DSLR shipments by 19%. Major third grade (primary school) rounding errors in there.
The CIPA numbers show that mirrorless shipments (units) fell by 16.4% (not 25%) and DSLR shipments fell by 14.7% (not 19%). Shipment value of mirrorless fell by 2.8% while DSLR shipment value fell by 11.4%
Mirrorless share of the ILC market went from 19.6 to 19.3% in units and from 16.6% to 18.0% (up) in value.
Don’t take my word for it, look at the numbers yourself to verify the nonsense numbers in that Lensvid graph:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/d-2013_e.pdf
I think that they may be looking at actual production the shipment numbers include old stock not produced in that year. In 2012 4.228 million mirrorless cameras were produced , in 2013 the number of mirrorless cameras produced 3.182 million a reduction of 24.7% { rounded up to 25%} with the production fall for DSLR being 19.1% rounded down to 19% .
So their mistake was saying shipments rather than production, the selling off of old stock at bargain prices has been quite harmful to mirrorless in general and to the companies finances specifically
Even then their rounding of millions is off. 13.6 million does not round to 13 million, nor does 16.9 million round to 16 million. If you’re going to round down everything like that, 24.7% wouldn’t make 25% either…
So both the description and the rounding are off.
And looking at the numbers in values, it looks like DSLR prices were actually more under pressure than mirrorless prices. The latter went up quite a bit since shipments value rose while shipments units went down.
I know you like to do your very best to try and stretch reality to fit with your blatantly fanboy approach. But if as their numbers appear to indicate they were discussing actual production volumes then
they are spot on. DSLR production in 2013 fell by 19.1% rounded down to 19% compared to 2012 , meanwhile mirrorless production fell by 24.7% rounded up to 25% this is how it is done with number rounding, under .5 you round down over .5 you round up. So the numbers do indeed add up. You are one of the mirrorless fans who has a problem accepting that mirrorless has been on the whole a financial
failure for all the major companies involved in it. Its percentage share of the interchangeable lens camera market basically peaked in late 2012 and is now in slow decline .
It could not be more simple, the mirrorless pie is smaller than it was at its peak and it is now shared by more companies than when mirrorless started. Look at the real market share numbers for the respective companies and you can quickly see where all the losses come from. It
is ironic that Fred above has posted an “oversimplification” of things when you are happy to accept that DSLR prices had problems despite having zero knowledge of the unit costs involved. All the companies have suffered from the sinking P&S market. The difference is that the big DSLR players are actually wait for it making a profit, while the DSLR market has also contracted { not by as much as mirrorless} the competition has fallen away with Sony barely registering on the DSLR charts nowadays. Look at the numbers in Japan their home market Sony are now sub 4% { Canon 49.2 , Nikon 42.5 and Ricoh/Pentax
5.2%}.
If you weren’t so blinded by assumptions and if your reading comprehension was keeping up with your efforts to troll, you would have noticed that I clearly pointed out which numbers were off due to rounding error, even if we would look at production (false) rather than shipments (right), namely the numbers 16 million and 13 million.
And how am I a mirrorless fan when:
A) I don’t own a mirrorless camera;
B) do not plan on owning one;
C) are happily shooting with a DSLR?
Then there’s the presumed decline of the percentage of mirrorless in the market, ignoring the last months (including january, where mirrorless shipments in units went up by 16%, DSLR shipments went down by 19% and in value that was respectively plus 41% and minus 9%) where it is actually going up again and by quite a bit too.
If “it could not be more simple”, how can you be so off? Currently the mirrorless marketshare of the ILC market, sits at 24.1% (january, last numbers available) in units, where it was 19.5% during the same period in 2012, despite the dip in 2013. In value it went from 17.3% in 2012 to 24.4% in 2014 during the same timeframe.
As for Japan, that has never been a good market for Sony’s DSLR/SLT, relative to other geographical markets, it’s no secret that SLT sales are in decline in general (especially without release of new models) but I fail to see how Sony DSLR’s/SLT’s, let alone in a local market, are relevant to this topic.
Know your statistics, try a few reading classes, then humor me again.
Oh dear Zohee your fanboy tendencies are rather well known, love your attempt to change the numbers when you were caught out.Even when ignoring the data from past years and pinning it down to just one month { seriously talk about stretching }
In Jan 2014 996,811 interchangeable lens cameras were produced. Of which 205,636 were mirrorless , this is exactly 20.6%.The shipment numbers do not tell the real story. When your shipments are thousands of units more than production that means that you are trying to get rid of old stock , old stock with mirrorless means huge discounts and bargain basement prices.
The continual flood of cheap low end mirrorless has not surprisingly resulted in bad financials for all mirrorless companies. Especially when you consider with some mirrorless sections notably mFT regardless whether you buy their most expensive E-M1 { £1300 body only} or E-PL5 { £280} you get identical { mediocre } image quality. If you want to get better image quality there is nowhere to go other than to another system.
A Nikon user can go from the D3300 – the D4s using the same lens mount you can even use your DX lenses on FX bodies { with crop factor obviously} .No adapters no loss of AF and so on.
The numbers that count are production and here DSLR production is down 6.7% while mirrorless production is down 12.1%
Surley a troll is someone posting in a forum that they do not own any equipment in.Unlike you I do own mirrorless {Sony A7r} and SLT {A99}. While you state you do not own either a mirrorless or an SLT . Sony do not make DSLRs now so perhaps it is you who is trolling.
Oh cute, a change of identity.
You still can’t read as anyone can see the 13 million and 16 million mentioned in both posts and in their infograph are indeed rounding errors (should be 14 and 17 million respectively) on their part, even if we assume they falsely used production numbers rather than (what they state to be) shipping numbers.
And talking about stretching, why are you looking at production numbers when shipping numbers are the interesting part? You have no insight in current or future stock, in which case production numbers, especially for a single month, are rather useless. Production of new cameras usually starts long before they are first shipped. Just to ensure direct supply. See november and december production of mirrorless showing growth, when DSLR production was still falling. Hence why LensVid stated to use shipping numbers (but didn’t) and I stated the current percentage (jan 2014) for mirrorless shipped: 24.1%. Hence why when looking at consumer products, statistics agencies almost always focus on shipments.
Your whole argument about old stock leading to low prices is based on assumptions (is that outdated stock or stock produced in advance to ensure enough supply after release?) and older (general, last year) financial figures of players other than Sony.
And again you’re throwing general claims around without substantiating them with actual mirrorless results for one of the biggest players: Sony. That’s because you don’t have them. Instead you like to sidetrack to DSLR/SLT market share in Japan.
Finally, your reading comprehension fails once more, by stating I do not own an SLT, when all I said is that I don’t shoot mirrorless but that I do own a DSLR. Here’s more news for you. I own an A77 too and if you’re really interested, I own the RX100 II, a Panasonic superzoom and a Canon 5D (original MKI) with a lot of dust on it.
“Surley a troll is someone posting in a forum that they do not own any equipment in”
Yes, it’s trollish to be interested in cameras, even if you don’t own them. But calling people names is not. Have you considered becoming a stand up comedian?
You can always come back to learn more though. Just ask.
Shipment is what matters, not which year the camera was manufactured. Shipment tells you how the market is doing. Manufacturing numbers tell you how the companies are managing their product cycles. And the increase in dollars per mirror less camera doesn’t support the idea of a sell-off of stock forcing down prices.
The increase in prices for the higher end mirrorless models released last year such as the £1300 body only E-M1 explains the increase in dollars per unit.
Unfortunately this does not fully compensate for the very significant discounts in over produced stock from the year before. Despite the averaged out unit cost improvement the fact remains that the major mirrorless players are experiencing very significant losses
An oversimplification since for example we don’t know whether Sony is making a profit or not on its mirrorless business. We only know how their overall imaging business is doing and that they blame that on compacts and camcorders, despite mirrorless doing better.
It also does not account for cost of production, marketing, distribution, etc. Losses are more than the sum of just shipments or sales. We do know however that on the whole, value of mirrorless sales went up in 2013. And january this year continued that line up.
Continue to improve the hardware and open up the software. Allow the community to improve and tweak the software and support them in doing it. You would see some amazing things done with these cameras and the good will from a move like that would net purchases from people that don’t even have an interest in a camera.
I agree that Sony look to be playing this quite well.
Sony have considerably improved their cellphone offering. Sony phones are selling much better than they used to. So they have a good strategy for that market.
And they have their sensors inside a wide range of other makers cameras. This leaves Sony to “play around” and “experiment” a little with cameras with their own brand – hence the QX, A7 etc, as they explore what people are going to buy in the future.
I am more worried about Nikon. Something of a one-trick pony, Nikon are not diversified and seem very exposed to the gradual, inexorable decline of sales of traditional camera gear. They have no sensor business, no exposure to mobile devices etc And their business is 100% about photo gear.
I can see Sony buying Nikon within five years!
That would be a good idea.
So Sony would go from having four lines of lenses to seven? ;~)
They would then have the largest lens portfolio available for the A, E, and F Mounts.
Diversity = Success
And very little cross compatibility.
Reconfiguring lenses to accommodate multiple mounts is not a huge technological hurdle. Designing lenses to fit every niche in the photography world is.
Sony should continue doing a lot of what it’s been doing with e-mount. It needs to now bring that momentum over to a mount land. They also need to get their naming strategy sorted out quickly. – Done.
Use clever ad campaigns touting the superb pro image quality in their new cameras as well as wifi features and lower prices…….simple but effective!
A lot of talk about nothing. There’s no fall of any industry here. Just that there was a spike in early digital days (2000-2010 ish?) as everyone got a digital camera because of convenience, even if they had little interest in photography. Now those people are absorbed back into the phone market. Who cares. Camera sales now return to what they were in film days which is fine.
No matter how good phone cameras get, the real cameras get better also and so will always outperform by huge factor. Until the distant future that is.
I agree, although I would be curious to see the precise figures.
It seemed to me that there was always a relatively slow market for cameras and lenses, especially at the top end, because the technology changed so little. Then came digital and it all went crazy!
The reason dslr is sold less and less is because people are too cheap to become real photographers. We get people buying from walmarts not serious photographers learning a craft and art. Most people are too lazy and dimwitted to become a real photographer and buy dslr on program. God forbid they actually take the time to learn anything but they bitch about not getting the shot and blame the camera
I agree – I think we’re in the midst of another photography transition/revolution, not unlike:
– the transition from large format to 35mm
– the transition from film to digital
The camera market is actually *growing* – but also shifting. Smartphones cameras will become/remain the large ‘consumer market’, and Mirrorless and Hybrid will become/remain the higher-end niche market. There will be a market/profit for both (just like there’s a market for small-to-mid sized cars, and luxury cars).
Undoubtedly during this transition period some companies will lose… and some, will win. It’s the nature of competition and evolution. I think Sony is on the right path though, and well positioned to be one of the companies that survives and thrives. I think they’ve got the right strategy:
1) establish your brand as one of the leaders in imaging
2) establish your reputation as an innovator
3) combine 1 and 2 above: establish yourself as a leading innovator in imaging
4) acknowledge (and even champion) the change that is taking place
5) bring new and innovative products to the market, listen and respond to customers at a grass-roots level. Don’t fight the revolution. Become part of it.
Sony has done (or is doing) all this through their commitment to being one of ‘the big 3’ in imaging (Nikon, Canon, Sony) and embracing mirrorless… their focus on imaging sensors for smartphones… and even their QX cameras (good idea… not sure about the execution).
On the other hand, companies like Canon are sticking by their tried-and-true products because mirrorless or other ventures are not currently profitable. They’re giving the impression they’ll only let go of the DSLR ‘kicking and screaming’ when they have to… when they’re forced to. I think that’s a *bad* strategy. They need to look at offering new and innovate produces initially as a ‘loss leader’, in order to position themselves for the future. It’s called ‘investing’. Pay-offs aren’t always immediate.
If there’s one thing I’d like to see Sony do more of is better integration of video, and pleasing the amateur film makers. Canon is currently big in the area of DSLR video. It’s time for Sony to take that role.
As far as we talk on what camera possibly would sell better, I posted my request to Sony on dpreview forum (0 replies in two days::). Here is a repost:
===
What I would like to see:
a) ideally E-mount with the IBIS, or, if that is not possible, A-mount
b) (essential) IBIS configurable for the lenses of different FL (like in Pentax bodies)
c) fast contrast-detect AF (probably hybrid). I am not sure how reliable the SLT system is in different kinds of light but the phase detect system on my current camera is definitely not good enough. SLT may be a bonus if it is substantially faster.
d) high ISO performance on par with current models from Canikon (for SLT may be lower by 1/3 stop), DR on par with Nikon which is not difficult;)
e) optimal pixel count is about 36 MP for full-frame or 15-18 for APS-C (it may sound silly but I am still undecided whether to buy a FF, though rather yes than no). 24 MP APS-C sensor is too noisy but if they can improve it…
f) DSLR-like for good handling
g) of course a good EVF with easy-to-use AF assist tools.
And the sensor Z-shift AF for the compatibility with any lens (as far as the geometry allows) – the absolute dream. I realize, though, that any manufacturer is willing to sell a lot of pricey lenses…
===
… + 6fps with CAF, + 1080p60.
On a global scale, perhaps nobody can resist the fact that high-quality photo and video (as well as audio, by the way) is essential only for the minority of people, whereas the quality of iphones is growing.
I think the fall of the camera industry is largely due to people that used to use point & shoot cameras now migrating to smartphones….those that use dslr/mirrorless will continue to demand the quality that smartphones can’t provide so I don’t think we should be scared to be honest….
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photograph + Design
This is precisely what I was going to say. Less and less people are buying point and shoot since cell image quality is getting so much more usable. I would like to see the numbers of cell phones sold with cameras included in this study.
I don’t think anyone really knows where the market is going at the moment, but one thing I think we can all agree on is that it’s going through a period of change. During a time like this, what Sony is doing is already a pretty good strategy – i.e. showing the market they can innovate, trying new ideas no other company is etc.
However, as an e-mount user, I would really like to see a budget line of lenses from Sony. All of Sony’s step-up lens options are pretty stupidly priced, especially the Zeiss zooms that don’t have great image quality (and yet, are $1000+). Canon and Nikon can afford to make and sell cheap 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm primes, so why can’t Sony? And as someone else mentioned, does it really make sense to make $650 bodies and lenses that can be $1100 for it?
Personally, I’ve used both the 35mm f/2 and 35mm f/1.4L lenses from Canon, and realistically, there is little if any difference in image quality. Build quality, sure, but I’d rather take the low price and low weight any day. There usually isn’t a huge difference in image quality (see the tests that compare the $99 50mm f/1.8 lens to the $1700 50mm f/1.2L version). Particularly because of this, I find far greater value in cheaper primes, and would buy quite a few of them if Sony made them.
Like many others, I’m considering getting an A7r but I’m not exactly swept off my feet with the lens choice. The 55 is nice, and while overpriced for a 1.8 lens, would probably be one that I buy, however, the 35mm being a 2.8 doesn’t work for me. There isn’t much point of going to full frame if all the lenses are going to have smaller apertures and therefore roughly equivalent DoF to their APS-C counterparts, is there? For an A6000 user who has a SEL24F18z, there’s almost no advantage at all in going to an A7 + SEL35F28Z. That lens should have been at least f/2. I would have considered the 24-70, but at f/4, I’m not going to get seriously shallow DoF, so again, no point to the full frame here, and the performance kinda sucks… and the cherry on the cake of bad is the $1200 price point. I’d really like to see a 24mm f/1.4, but I doubt it’s gonna happen.
Comparatively, I think Fuji is really getting it right with lenses. Good quality and size, yet you’re getting the DoF you’d want from full frame at the focal lengths you’d want. The 23mm f/1.4 (like a 35mm f/2 more or less, great), the 35mm f/1.4 (like a 52mm f/2), the 56mm f/1.2 (equivalent to about 85mm f/1.8), and the 10-24mm zoom too. The lenses could be cheaper though (still offer far better value than Sony lenses). I’m still not sold on Fuji bodies, and I think the X-T1 is priced far too high for an APS-camera, but Sony could still learn a few things from them.
I am saying, pls, give us the possibility to choose the glass regardless from the bodies! If YOU can make competitive glass, I will buy YOUR glass. Otherwise, do not force me to buy what I do not want. Simple but not business-wise nowadays?
I agree with you that the FE lenses so far have been “slow lenses” and I also wanted to see faster lenses for the prices being charged but big aperture lenses are not always the only factor to rate a lens…there are so many other factors like micro contrast, distortion, CA, etc.
You said you wanted to see cheaper lenses but why would you want cheap lens for your full frame camera? Those that chose to go full frame demands quality and quality lenses are inherently more expensive. Going with a cheapo lens on a full frame doesn’t make sense to me….imo the lens have a bigger impact to IQ than the body.
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photograph + Design
Well, the reason I’d want cheap lenses is because as far as image quality is concerned, there isn’t much difference between cheap and expensive lenses a lot of the time, and sometimes, the cheaper variants even outperform the (far) more expensive ones. Canon’s 85mm 1.8 vs the 1.2L, 50mm 1.8 vs 1.2L and 35mm f/2 vs 1.4L are all examples of this. The L variants are faster, but as far as pure image quality is concerned (sharpness, contrast, CA, distortion), it’s not all that easy to tell the difference at the same aperture, and what little differences there are can easily be counteracted in post. Have a look at this for example http://d1ax9dx3gero0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Dress-f4-50mmf1.2-50mm1.4.jpg as well as this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuHEn4nLhJU (6:16 mark)
There used to be a time when full frame meant significantly better image quality and detail, but not anymore. APS-C sensors are right there in terms of dynamic range, colour depth and detail, so there are only two factors that make a FF sensor better, which are high iso performance and DoF. I remember seeing a comparison where the NEX-7 resolved better detail than the D600. Crop sensors keep improving in terms of noise performance, and the FF sensor in the A7/A7r is not great with noise performance, so the gap is pretty small. Have a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13x4gF1RPBQ&list=UUuw8B6Uv0cMWtV5vbNpeH_A (around 6:56 mark). So the only really important difference remaining is DoF, and if we’re not getting that (because of slower aperture lenses), what’s the point?
Here is an interesting link comparing the A7 with FE 35mm to an NEX-7 with the SEL24F18z… http://verybiglobo.blogspot.cz/2014/01/sony-alpha-a7-ilce-7-and-sony-alpha-a7r.html I find this interesting because the NEX-7 sensor tech is pretty old and beat pretty well by the A6000, yet, the difference is not as big as one might think from the A7. A6000 vs A7 will probably not be that far apart in pure image quality.
There are some lenses out there with great character, micro-contrast and overall look, but these are relatively rare gems. The Nikon 14-24mm is a great wide angle lens for example, a lot better than the ones it competes with. One of the best L lenses is the 135mm f/2, which is only around $900, showing that more expensive does not necessarily mean better.
The point I’m making here is that choice is good. Having two tiers of lenses is an ideal system as far as marketing is concerned. Make a good $300 lens so people can buy it and use it, and for those that want, need (or need to show) a premium lens (the L/red ring thing works very as a differentiation point), they have the option… having multi-tiered options to move up to and still remain within the family is just smart business strategy. That’s why you can get BMWs, Benzes and Audis for around $30k… they want you to move up the chain.
I think now I agree with your last point….that having 2 tiers would be a good choice but I think where we’re at in terms of the FE system’s maturity level, Sony should focus on providing the best lenses possible across the focal range to give the FE system credibility before exploring to provide a cheaper line of lenses. Just my thoughts.
http://www.minipixels.net | Automotive Photograph + Design
Sorry I meant to post this image http://d1ax9dx3gero0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Dress-f4-50mmf1.2-50mm1.8.jpg and there’s also this http://d1ax9dx3gero0.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/WCA-dress.jpg
I totally agree with you. Make no sense at all for lenses to cost so much with vey little difference. The thing is.. canon, nikon and sony can afford to have high price even though the market i dropping. The cake is still big enough to feed the high pricetag.
I am very new to the dslr world and bought my first, which was a canon 600D a little bit more than 1 year ago and I am really chocked with the prices of lenses. The facts is.. canon and nikon and sony probably make more money on lenses than from bodies.
I hope the prices of dslrs get down on prices. Thats the only way they can come back unless they start making amazing cameras that are actually small. Sony has the upper hand here but nikon or canon can probably release a new one tomorrow if they want to.
Read this review:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/3/3/5463784/sony-rx10-review
The RX-10 may be pointing the way. Sell it for $800 and watch it fly off the shelves.
Sell an a or e-mount version of the rx-10 lens for $800 and watch it fly off the shelves (yes I know the image circle is too small and so on)…
Actually, it’s really could be expected. Lets dig a bit into the situation…
Back during film days and early digital, SLRs were a niche segment, cameras used bu enthusiasts and professionals. This was camera elite.
Then, in their greed, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta and everyone else began to agitate ordinary people. They wanted more and more money and they told ordinary people “Hey, we’ve made it easy, everyone can shoot SLRs!” (or mirrorless, no matter). “So go buy an elite camera and you’ll be shooting great shoots like you’ve seen in the magazines!”. Thus they achieved great boost in bought large sensor cameras quantity.
BUT we all know – camera does not take pictures. A person takes them. So an army of rookies who expected great boost in their image quality JUST from buying a good camera turned into an army of COMPLETELY DISAPPOINTED people! Now they just taking pictures with their smartphones and they are SURE that smartphones are no worse then DSLRs or morrorless cameras. Due to these people we now see a drop in the industry. They will never again buy a large sensor camera.
But this is not an actual drop. This is just gone soap bubble, large sensor market shrinks back to it’s NORMAL size. This is a sign to the manufacturers to STOP tricking their customers or this will happen once again…
I feel instructions manuals and / or camera softwares should include some form of tutorials for customers to gain a better, easier and faster understanding of how and when to use x, y, z camera settings and features… Manufacturers should help customers make better pictures not only with the gear but also how to best use it. The NEX-5 was interesting for this.
Sony needs to pull their resources together and focus on the connectivity part. It doesn’t matter that the niche group of enthusiasts doesn’t want it. For Sony to survive, they must cater to the masses. They also need to focus their resources. Spreading their resources across E and A mount makes no sense. They are spreading themselves thin and will only disappoint their end users. Take the 20million or whatever that Sony is investing into A mount development and put it into R&D for connectivity and open platform (Android).
NO kidding
Im in the process of selling all my dslr gear
Jumping ship before im stuck underwater
DSLR users wear wetsuits. You should know that.
I laugh at this nonsense.
Digital zooms will NEVER be able to compete with optical zooms. FF and MF sensors will always outperform the tiny sensors on SPs, tablets, GG, and other similar devices.
Also, the general public will be losing their minds not long from now when they go to revisit the memories they thought would last a lifetime only to realize, too late, how awful the archival properties of digital media are. Almost no one knows that if you don’t print these images within a few years or so the media degrades, sometimes severely – and that’s even with the use of quality gear, let alone phone cameras (BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!). No M-Disc backup? You’re f-ed. Not regularly re-backing up your images and video on high quality (read: expensive) EHDs? You’re f-ed. And who’s really gonna spend the time to back up the absurd number of images they take just of their first child? Their cats and dogs?
Sure, the average consumer will move away from DSLRs (mostly because they’re too lazy to learn to shoot in anything other than auto and they’ll figure out they wasted the money) and PASs, happy to simply revert to the ease and convenience of their phones.
There will always be more discerning shooters (and, of course, the pros, semi-pros, and rabid enthusiasts) and those shooters will always want the best glass AND the best bodies to go along with them.
I’m not worried. A dip in sales was inevitable. Adjustments will be made and the manufacturers will compensate accordingly.
Serious shooters should rejoice! This means the future will see a stream of great sales and people offloading equipment they weren’t ever gonna learn to use properly anyway.
WOO-HOO!!! This is GREAT news!