# Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"



## Oceo (Oct 2, 2014)

Tuesday's U.S. edition of the Financial Times newspaper has an article entitled "Digital cameras: out of focus". It describes, from a business perspective, the status of digital cameras vis-a-vis smartphones with digital imaging ability. The FT reports analysis by Nomura Securities that the number of digital cameras sold by makers such as Canon and Nikon have fallen by 60 per cent. in the past two years. Shipments of digital cameras with built-in lenses were (in thousands) 108,577 in 2010; 77,981 in 2012; and estimated 26,480 in 2014. Shipments of interchangeable lens digital cameras were (in thousands) 12,887 in 2010; 20,157 in 2012; and estimated 12,543 in 2014. 

Apparently this is worse news for Nikon than for Canon. Reportedly, digital cameras represent two-thirds of Nikon's group sales and all of its operating profits. For Canon, cameras are one-quarter of revenue, and Canon's office division provides cash flow. 

So sales of premium DSLR's are holding up better than sales of digital cameras with built-in lenses, but the article notes that as smartphones incorporate higher quality lenses [and sensors] the camera makers risk losing the camera enthusiasts, too.

The article lists the 2013 world market shares (%) of all cameras by global brand owner:

Canon 23.1
Nikon 16.8
Fuji Photo Film 11.4
Sony 10.6
Samsung 7.6
Panasonic 7.2
Olympus 6.1
Kodak Alaris 4.2
Casio Computer 1.7
Ricoh Imaging 0.6

Financial Times, Tuesday 30 September 2014, p. 14.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 2, 2014)

Pleasantly surprised to see FUJIFILM in third place with 11.4% - especially since they are exclusively in the mirrorless segment.

Anyway, this situation (of falling camera sales) is quite obvious and inevitable, as camera-type cameras are pushed out by camera-enabled devices. The reason is quite simple and two-fold: for most people a camera-enabled devices produces sufficient image quality that is mostly on par with nearly all P&S and entry-level DSLR's with kit lens; and the camera-enabled device nearly always offers functionality and ease of use that is not provided by basically all DSLR cameras still on the market.


----------



## fragilesi (Oct 2, 2014)

Oceo said:


> Tuesday's U.S. edition of the Financial Times newspaper has an article entitled "Digital cameras: out of focus". It describes, from a business perspective, the status of digital cameras vis-a-vis smartphones with digital imaging ability. The FT reports analysis by Nomura Securities that the number of digital cameras sold by makers such as Canon and Nikon have fallen by 60 per cent. in the past two years. Shipments of digital cameras with built-in lenses were (in thousands) 108,577 in 2010; 77,981 in 2012; and estimated 26,480 in 2014. Shipments of interchangeable lens digital cameras were (in thousands) 12,887 in 2010; 20,157 in 2012; and estimated 12,543 in 2014.
> 
> Apparently this is worse news for Nikon than for Canon. Reportedly, digital cameras represent two-thirds of Nikon's group sales and all of its operating profits. For Canon, cameras are one-quarter of revenue, and Canon's office division provides cash flow.
> 
> ...



So Canon is not that far from being the equal to Nikon and Sony combined?


----------



## tushit (Oct 2, 2014)

Are these US numbers or worldwide shipments :-\?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

tushit said:


> Are these US numbers or worldwide shipments :-\?



"The article lists the 2013 world market shares (%) of all cameras by global brand owner:"


----------



## weixing (Oct 2, 2014)

Hi,
IMHO, yes, smartphone will kill the low end compact camera market, but also might increase high end compact and DSLR sales. Those user using smartphone camera most probably are not interested in photography in the first place, but once they shoot more with smartphone, they might be interested in photography and once they are interested in photography, they might buy a DSLR. Camera manufacturer should actually target those smartphone shooter by showing the different in quality and speed between a smartphone and a high end compact and DSLR.

Have a nice day.


----------



## Valvebounce (Oct 2, 2014)

Hi folks. 
Have I fallen down on the maths, or did canon really only sell 2.9 million ILD cameras? (Making the broad assumption that market share is the same 23.1% for both camera types in the article). 
This seems an incredibly low number, though much better than before I re-read the article and noticed the "(in thousands)"! D'oh!

Cheers, Graham.


----------



## AmselAdans (Oct 2, 2014)

The trend of merging functionalities into one device continues
- who still buys a dedicated gps device, if he has a smartphone with GPS functionality?
- who still buys a P&S, if his smartphone delivers IQ that completely fulfills his needs?
- who still buys a handheld gaming device, if he has a smartphone with cool 3d graphics and games?
...

the answer to all these questions is the same:
One buys a dedicated decive, if the smartphone cannot fulfill his intentions. This is the case, when he wants to do something, which exceeds the most common uses:
- he wants to use GPS for hiking, manually create routes, waypoints etc. -> he buys a dedicated gps device
- he wants to have a nice Bokeh, he wants better IQ, shallower DOF -> he buys a dedicated camera (either P&S/DSLR/whatever)
- he wants to play games, which are more elaborated than most casual games available for smartphones -> he buys a ... (boy, I'm too old. What's a recent device for this? Let's say em a "Nintendo Game Boy Color 3D")

Long story short, my opinion:
- the cheap P&S segment will die (the cheapest 80€ Canon P&S I had in my hands are truly weak in overall performance)
- the DSLR segment will be thinned out, there remains a high end segment, potentially only existing of FF sensors
- the entry level DSLR segment (EOS XXXXD, XXXD, XXD series) will eventually become mirrorless and completely merge with the ILS market
- few P&S without ILS will remain with entry prices around 200€


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> Long story short, my opinion:
> - the cheap P&S segment will die (the cheapest 80€ Canon P&S I had in my handy are truly weak in overall performance)
> - the DSLR segment will be thinned out, there remains a High End Segment, potentially only existing of FF sensors
> - the entry level DSLR segment will eventually become mirrorless and completely merge with the ILS market
> - few P&S without ILS will remain with entry prices around 200€



I think that is a realistic prediction. I think you covered it well.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

dilbert said:


> Nikon doesn't have the same cost as Canon does either (just buys from Sony.)



Would that not make the sensors Nikon uses more expensive as not only are the costs of Sony R/D passed to Nikon so are the Sony profits for the sensors. These are passed on to the Nikon customer along with Nikon's profit. 

One of the advantages of inhouse production is cost savings


----------



## AmselAdans (Oct 2, 2014)

Another point I'd like to mention is the over-saturation of the market: Everybody, who wants to have a cam already has at least one.
When I look at my family, everybody (even the children at the age of 6) has his own cam. Not counted the old cameras that nobody wants to use anymore. And this despite this fact, the only one actually interested in photography is me. (my father omitted his old Minolta SLR and lenses a long time ago and is happy with a P&S)

So when is the point in time to buy a new P&S? I made the experience that most of my family members and friends are fine with their camera, even if its 5, 6, 7 years old. And they probably wouldn't see any benefit in buying a new one. So there is little market for the P&S anymore.


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

1st and foremost, the author is an idiot and their conclusion out of focus (See what I did there  )

Cameras like the Canon 1D did not come out til 2001 and even there there was a definite barrier to entry. But looking at DSLR sales you see 12800 in 2010 20,000 in 2012 and 12500 in 2014. While that shows a decline, I think more of what it shows was a huge surge between 2010-2012 where I believe a lot of P&S camera owners made the jump to DSLRs. This is also shortly after cameras like the 5D MK II and 7D came out at the end of 2009.

These cameras are still solid, while they may not be pushing the envelope, how many DSLR sales between 2010 and 2014 were people buying used gear like 7Ds, 5DMKIIs, etc. 

A more telling number are number of cameras / DSLRs in use.

As an example, between 2010 and 2012 I bought 3 DSLRs, from a Rebel T2i, to a 5D MKII and a 5DMKIII

From 2012 - 2014 I sold the t2i and replaced it with a t5i just as a cheaper dedicated video camera body. 

I will likely upgrade the t5i to the 7D MK II but wait on a refurb deal as well as upgrade the 5D MK II to the 5D MK IV or a 1Dx if price drops a little more... depending. 

Looking at 3 points in time does not give you a whole lot of information to go. While there is more availability of Camera phones, these are more the point and shoot consumer and not the DSLR market. When I start seeing wedding photographers or fashion photographers only shooting with iPhones, then maybe the shark has been jumped. 

My Blu-Ray player is probably 3+ years old. Better and cheaper players have come out, but no reason for me to upgrade really until it breaks. 

I am willing to get that the generation of cameras from 2010 - 2015 hold up better in useful life than those of 2005 -2010, i.e. While we will bet better AF, more DR, I think the MP between 20 - 40 is really a sweet spot and cameras like the 5D MK III and the like will have a longer life than say the 5D in terms of 2nd and 3rd owners


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 2, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> A more telling number are number of cameras / DSLRs in use.



Whilst this is certainly a valid train of thought, the problem with it lies in that companies - like Canon, Nikon, FUJIFILM, etc. - only receive revenue when we BUY A NEW CAMERA. They make absolutely zilch income when we continue to use our trusty 30D for six or more years; or buy secondhand. This means that as manufacturers build better cameras that people use for longer periods, revenue drops; and when revenue drops, so do profits; and this makes the shareholders very cross.

Now, if they can reconfigure the cameras so that we rent them AND pay a per shutter actuation fee ... ;D


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Oct 2, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Now, if they can reconfigure the cameras so that we rent them AND pay a per shutter actuation fee ... ;D



Don't give them any ideas!!!!


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 2, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > A more telling number are number of cameras / DSLRs in use.
> ...



Not necessarily.

How many people who buy a used 5MK II for their first DSLR buy lenses? 

Why do you think Canon basically gives away some of its printers - because the Ink is where so much of the money is... Heck often I just buy a new printer.

So if I look at my purchases over the last 4 years.
T2i
5D MK II
5D MK III
t5i

T2i I bought new, 5D MK II I bought used, 5D MK III I used Canon Upgrade program, T5i I bought refurb.

I may have $5K in bodies and around $450 back when I sold the t2i

Lenses:
70-200 F/2.8 IS MK II
24-70 F/2.8 II
16-35 MK II
24-105 F/4 (kit lens)
50 f/1.4
85 f/1.8

Canon has made another 5K on lenses as well as probably another $1.5K on flashes from 430 EX II, 580 EX IIs though waiting on the Yongnuo for the 600rt. 

Also will eventually get the 200-400 or 300 IS F/2.8 just more waiting for when I am ready, which is probably after my next two body upgrades. 

Shutters and cameras do wear out and while my bodies all tend to be under 30K actuations, what is hidden in the numbers is for every upgrade like I plan to do, there are more people who will then enter with used gear and wind up getting more lenses, flashes, etc. 

More telling, I think there is a small decline in the DSLR market, bot not as pronounced as the article leads one to believe. There appears (at least to me) to be a solid core of DSLR shooters who will likely remain DSLR shooters. There are always the hobbyiests (that is who I got my 5D MK II from) and for all those who get in and out, there are the hidden budget folks who always are buying a generation old gear, but keep the numbers higher than shown.

While they also tend to probably buy used lenses, those folks allow us to upgrade our lenses when new versions come out and upgrade far more than we could otherwise. Lenses tend to hold their value far better than bodies. 

Hell, especially for long teles, I still see FD versions sell well probably because of Ed Mika adapters alone. 

For Canon numbers, if you look at the last 2 years, they have also not had any real major releases. But in the next 12 month we should have the 7D MK II, the 5D MK IV, the 1DX II and perhaps a high MP if that is not one of the two later.

Do you think Canon's 23% might rise greatly with 3 - 4 top end Pro/Prosumer bodies in 12 months? If anything Nikon has released far more bodies over this period, yet still seemed to slip a little. I would not be surprised to see Canon up around 26% or higher end of 2015


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 2, 2014)

Maui5150 said:


> How many people who buy a used 5MK II for their first DSLR buy lenses?



Ah, but the article is about CAMERA sales, not lens sales.



Maui5150 said:


> ... what is hidden in the numbers is for every upgrade like I plan to do, there are more people who will then enter with used gear and wind up *getting more lenses, flashes, etc*.



Of which many will be bought secondhand from "upgraders" - as you also stated. 



Maui5150 said:


> There appears (at least to me) to be a solid core of DSLR shooters who will likely remain DSLR shooters.



True. However, there are also a lot of people who bought middle-range DSLR's and have now found that their iPhone is just so much more convenient ... and takes alright'ish enough pictures semi-equivalent to the kit lens. So they sell the practically brand-new 60D to finance the next-generation iPhone. Canon makes zippola, because the DSLR is not "upgraded" with a new DSLR.



Maui5150 said:


> Hell, especially for long teles, I still see FD versions sell well probably because of Ed Mika adapters alone.



For which Canon doesn't get a dime, penny or cent.



Maui5150 said:


> But in the next 12 month we should have the 7D MK II, the 5D MK IV, the 1DX II and perhaps a high MP if that is not one of the two later.



You wish. ;D



Maui5150 said:


> Do you think Canon's 23% might rise greatly with 3 - 4 top end Pro/Prosumer bodies in 12 months?



Canon already has too many DSLR models on the market, IMO. This causes buyer confusion.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 2, 2014)

The actual figures, except for market share are readily available from the CIPA website on a monthly basis. Market share are a guess based on polls, and can be way off, just like the election polls.

http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

Sales of P&S cameras has tanked. Canon and others publically acknowledged this over a year ago. Their strategy is to drop out of the low end market, and push hard at the high end P&S Market where the profits are. That's why we see the Canon G1X series, and now the G7X. We will likely see a new Canon mirrorless model early next year. 

While sales have dropped sharply over the last two years, prices per unit have increased across the board. This indicates that buyers continue to move to higher end cameras, so we will see more activity there. Camera manufacturers have tightened their belts and are now more efficient, so they are selling less, but profits are increasing.


----------



## 9VIII (Oct 2, 2014)

AmselAdans said:


> Another point I'd like to mention is the over-saturation of the market: Everybody, who wants to have a cam already has at least one.
> When I look at my family, everybody (even the children at the age of 6) has his own cam. Not counted the old cameras that nobody wants to use anymore. And this despite this fact, the only one actually interested in photography is me. (my father omitted his old Minolta SLR and lenses a long time ago and is happy with a P&S)
> 
> So when is the point in time to buy a new P&S? I made the experience that most of my family members and friends are fine with their camera, even if its 5, 6, 7 years old. And they probably wouldn't see any benefit in buying a new one. So there is little market for the P&S anymore.



I think this is as critical an issue as anything.

For the last ten years people have been rushing to upgrade with every new release (or not, given the number of 5DC users I hear about around here), whereas I expect to get a good 10-20 years out of the next full frame body that I buy (as long as it's over 32MP).

I have to wonder though, how much did the P&S department actually affect SLR lenses and bodies? Did development in one area actually carry over to the other at all? Did they share any machinery, technicians, staff, etc?
If selling a high end body and a big white was profitable before, I don't see that changing. Canon as a whole will shrink a little, the loss of P&S will hurt, but I don't think it's going to drastically alter the business model for high end cameras
Camera companies got along just fine for half a century with bodies being of minimal importance, going back to that model shouldn't tear the industry apart.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 2, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Camera companies got along just fine for half a century with bodies being of minimal importance, going back to that model shouldn't tear the industry apart.



The only difference then was that DR, ISO (aka ASA), etc. wasn't their problem; now it is.


----------



## e17paul (Oct 2, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Nikon doesn't have the same cost as Canon does either (just buys from Sony.)
> ...



That depends on volume. Sony are able to soften the burden of development by taking profit from Nikon, Pentax etc. 

Canon bear the immense burden of sensor development single handed.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Oct 2, 2014)

weixing said:


> Hi,
> IMHO, yes, smartphone will kill the low end compact camera market, but also might increase high end compact and DSLR sales. Those user using smartphone camera most probably are not interested in photography in the first place, but once they shoot more with smartphone, they might be interested in photography and once they are interested in photography, they might buy a DSLR. Camera manufacturer should actually target those smartphone shooter by showing the different in quality and speed between a smartphone and a high end compact and DSLR.
> 
> Have a nice day.



Smart Phone Photos have won World Press Awards  iPhone photos have been published on the front page of the New York Times  iPhone photos have been published in Sports Illustrated  The Stock Photo Agencies are seeing a demand for photos shot with Smart Phones (because of their Authentic look) 

Check-out this article in the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/technology/personaltech/smartphone-photography-evolves-with-camera-apps-and-related-tools.html

Eventually Smart Phone will kill DSLRs for many (not all) uses. BIF photographers and Professional Sports shooters will still need DSLRs and Long Lenses.


----------



## tolusina (Oct 2, 2014)

I, for one, welcome the smart phone camera underlords.
The more poor photos from smartphones proliferate, the better DSLR output looks in comparison.

My Galaxy S4's camera is pretty good as phone cams go and of course it's always along. Very rarely do I ever get results I can proudly share though, sharing is always done with reservation, disclaimer.

My 6D amazes almost every time I click.


----------



## beforeEos Camaras (Oct 3, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



no lets see uwa with very little distortion low light capability's , boka hosts of outer capability's you just cant cram in a smart phone. the list can go on


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 3, 2014)

Kirk Tuck:

"But what we're seeing in photography right now is not really the adoption of a new standard or product. People are not just moving from one type of camera to another they are moving to a new mental space about personal imaging and they have just done it en masse."

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2014/09/after-gold-rush-where-is-photography.html

Go ahead and click the link. Pretty girls! I promise!


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 3, 2014)

wtlloyd said:


> Kirk Tuck:
> 
> "But what we're seeing in photography right now is not really the adoption of a new standard or product. People are not just moving from one type of camera to another they are moving to a new mental space about personal imaging and they have just done it en masse."



And does Canon's line-up of DSLR cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? No.

And does Olympus's/FUJIFILM's/Samsung's line-up of mirrorless cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? Yes.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 3, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Kirk Tuck:
> ...



You might want to actually read Tuck's article. 

The vast majority of the public are now using camera phones not mirrorless cameras. And, they are using them to document their lives – moment by moment. And, as he said, share those moments on 5-inch screens. 

Eliminating a mirror is more reactionary than revolutionary. Nobody is going to swap their phone for a big old mirrorless camera, especially for one that they can't make a phone call on, access the local weather, look up nearby restaurants, monitor their baby, or do any of the hundreds of other things that people do with smart phones. 

Too many people think the massive popularity of digital cameras during the past decade was "normal" when it most certainly wasn't. As Tuck points out, there was a similar bubble in the 60s and 70s. It burst. Canon and Nikon survived because they carved out strong, loyal niche markets for themselves and cultivated those markets. Fuji may survive because they know better than almost anyone else about the risks of disruptive change (Fujifilm anyone?) But, many of these players are ill-equipped to survive as the market returns to its traditional levels.

Mirrorless, DSLRs, whatever...they are niche products and one is not likely to supplant the other and neither will ever see the kind of adoption rates that occurred during the bubble of earlier this century.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 3, 2014)

I am one of those that remember the switch from rangefinder cameras to single lens reflex after twin lens reflex fell short.

Photographers wanted to see the actual composition and focus that would be in the final image. Canon tried to remove the flapping mirror by using a pellicle mirror in the Pellix, and then they tried again many years later with the RT. Light loss and a dark viewfinder made them unpopular.

Once we had P&S digital cameras with LCD's on the rear, that took care of the issue for most consumers, who were happy with the quality. Now that smart phones can accomplish that, and are with the users almost all the time, its a given that only those who do not have a smart phone or are looking for higher quality images will buy a camera. 

By putting a replaceable lens on a P&S and calling it mirrorless, camera makers found that they sell well in Asia, and the profits are huge. This is funding vast improvements in AF and in EVF technology. That new segment is the only one that is growing.

Look for even more expensive "Mirrorless Cameras as they have evolved from glorified P&S cameras to compete with DSLR's.

The technology is there now, it only takes the willingness of Canon and Nikon to spend the $$$ to make a serious Mirrorless. Canon and Nikon, along with Sony have the manufacturing capability and the product distribution channels to flood the market with them, its just a question of when.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 3, 2014)

Man, you almost had it!

I think the whole point of Tucks article is that mirrorless is "too little, too late".

The vast hordes of photo takers are not interested in how to take pictures, it's what they can do with them that matters. And it's almost entirely for ephemeral use.

You know, the opposite of us "real" photographers


----------



## tushit (Oct 4, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> tushit said:
> 
> 
> > Are these US numbers or worldwide shipments :-\?
> ...


 
I meant the shipment numbers. They seem too less to support the 10 stores within 1 mile radius of my home selling cameras and photo accessories exclusively.


----------



## Antono Refa (Oct 4, 2014)

I think people miss the article's point. It was written for investors who are interested in those companies' financial performance in the near future, so their main interest is sales of new equipment.

[I'd expect to see lens sales etc in a proper analysis, but investors are more interested in sales data than user base per se.]


----------



## Maui5150 (Oct 4, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Maui5150 said:
> 
> 
> > How many people who buy a used 5MK II for their first DSLR buy lenses?
> ...



Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but for companies like Canon, Nikon and others Lenses are just as important as bodies. As a whole I would agree the P&S market will probably evaporate because of capabilities of phones 

I am not disagreeing that their are too many cameras out there as well. I think Canon would be better served with a little more consolidation in its entry level lines


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 4, 2014)

tushit said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > tushit said:
> ...



So those stores will sell more than *26.5 million* fixed lens cameras and *12.5 million* ILCs this year? Somehow, I doubt that.


----------



## LDS (Oct 4, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> Smart Phone Photos have won World Press Awards  iPhone photos have been published on the front page of the New York Times  iPhone photos have been published in Sports Illustrated  The Stock Photo Agencies are seeing a demand for photos shot with Smart Phones (because of their Authentic look)


Remember that behind phones there are a couple of companies with immense marketing budgets. Samsung alone spends billions in promoting its phones (I guess with that budget Canon could deliver easily a 100Mpx sensor with 20 stop range...) . The press is not insensible to those money spent in advertising and the like, and most journalists are very sensitive to proper PR tactics. I'd be very cautious, and try to understand what is real and what is plain marketing...


----------



## Hannes (Oct 5, 2014)

Last weekend I went to Bruges in Belgium. It is a tourist destination for the reasonably well off. Of the cameras maybe half were proper cameras, the rest smartphones. From my estimations 2/3rds of the proper cameras were DSLRs, the remaining third an even split between mirrorless, bridge and compact cameras. Of the DSLRs 80-90% were entry level canon or nikons with the rest being other brands or the middle of the road cameras. A single pro body camera was spotted apart from my own 1D.

Now you may wonder where I'm going with this. The people who buy entry level DSLRs rarely know what ISO is and I can almost guarantee they have never even heard of the concept of dynamic range. Yet these are the people who are making canon and nikon float as companies. This is why I think canon are coming out top. They have been offering incremental upgrades along the way for the entry level bodies. At first it was ever rising pixel counts until they hit the ubiquitous 18mpix sensor. From there on they then introduced things like the flippy screen, basically things people have wanted in cameras. Nikon doesn't seem to end their splurging of new cameras with all the features yet they can't seem to grasp the simple thing of getting the ergonomics right which is far more important to the target group than some small gains in image quality.

People have also started seeing the appeal of a better camera when they come home. Also let's face it that it is more convenient to plug the camera in to the computer than it is to download the photos from the phone. What cameras need are wifi and instant facebook sharing and when we get that I think another batch of people will buy DSLRs. Mirrorless are struggling because they aren't small enough or are too small. Did you ever see that samsung commercial where they had dressed up their own camera as a pro bodied camera and asked people to say which picture was better technically? People's expectation is that a bigger camera will produce better photos. Combine this with the fact that a mirrorless won't fit in your pocket with anything other than a prime pancake lens which in itself is often undesirable since it doesn't zoom.

Combine this and I think canon are doing really well considering the situation of the market. Nikon are in a scary situation given their reliance on Sony and the state of Sony's finances. I think we realistically need to expect progress to slow down somewhat compared to what has happened over the last ten years where the rate of development has been astronomical.


----------



## Tugela (Oct 6, 2014)

Oceo said:


> Tuesday's U.S. edition of the Financial Times newspaper has an article entitled "Digital cameras: out of focus". It describes, from a business perspective, the status of digital cameras vis-a-vis smartphones with digital imaging ability. The FT reports analysis by Nomura Securities that the number of digital cameras sold by makers such as Canon and Nikon have fallen by 60 per cent. in the past two years. Shipments of digital cameras with built-in lenses were (in thousands) 108,577 in 2010; 77,981 in 2012; and estimated 26,480 in 2014. Shipments of interchangeable lens digital cameras were (in thousands) 12,887 in 2010; 20,157 in 2012; and estimated 12,543 in 2014.
> 
> Apparently this is worse news for Nikon than for Canon. Reportedly, digital cameras represent two-thirds of Nikon's group sales and all of its operating profits. For Canon, cameras are one-quarter of revenue, and Canon's office division provides cash flow.
> 
> ...



Keep in mind that the journalists who wrote that probably have never owned a camera other than their cell phone and are completely clueless about why people actually buy things like DSLRs.


----------



## dgatwood (Oct 13, 2014)

c.d.embrey said:


> weixing said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



No, they really won't. There's a real feasibility problem with building zoom lenses in such a small package, so cell phones are generally limited to digital zooms. As long as that is the case, they'll never compete with DSLRs. A cell phone is like shooting with a fairly wide-angle prime all the time. Can you imagine gluing a 30mm prime lens to the front of your DSLR? 50mm, maybe, assuming you don't care about landscapes, but not 30mm.

Besides the painful lack of flexibility in composition inherent in a fixed-focal-length camera, you'll never have any real depth of field with a lens that wide and a sensor that small (excepting possible simulation thereof), and more importantly, you'll never be able to get usable shots of anything more than a few feet in front of you unless your subjects are very large (e.g. landscapes).

Cell phones are not particularly practical even in the portrait world. Outside that world, they're a disaster and a half. It's not just long zooms; you can't get a decent shot of much of anything with a cell phone unless you're right there. This mostly precludes any serious use of cell phones for capturing concerts, plays, weddings, sports, birds in flight, locations with even moderately bad light—basically any of the sorts of things people commonly use high-end cameras for, with the possible exception of landscapes shot in the daytime.

And that's why I carry a 6D with 16–35L II, 24–105L, and 70–300L lenses when I go on vacation, travel with groups, etc. Sure, with a cell phone, I'd be able to capture a few of the shots that I want to capture (along with a lot of badly smudged shots), but with a DSLR, I can get all the shots I want, without the need to rent a crane or a helicopter to get me close enough, along with a Lowel lighting kit or a nuclear warhead (depending on distance) to provide enough illumination. A cell phone simply cannot match the "keeper" rate of even a low-end DSLR from ten years ago, much less the DSLRs on the market today, and without changing the laws of physics or covering the back of the camera with a giant lens array and doing some really bizarre image processing, it never will.


----------



## tat3406 (Oct 13, 2014)

Sella174 said:


> Pleasantly surprised to see FUJIFILM in third place with 11.4% - especially since they are exclusively in the mirrorless segment.
> 
> Anyway, this situation (of falling camera sales) is quite obvious and inevitable, as camera-type cameras are pushed out by camera-enabled devices. The reason is quite simple and two-fold: for most people a camera-enabled devices produces sufficient image quality that is mostly on par with nearly all P&S and entry-level DSLR's with kit lens; and the camera-enabled device nearly always offers functionality and ease of use that is not provided by basically all DSLR cameras still on the market.



Fujifilm also have point and shoot line and they sell a lot of instant Camera.


----------

