# Infographic: Camera Industry Sales Facts for 2016



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 2, 2017)

```
<p><a href="https://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-happened-photography-industry-2016/">LensVid</a> has completed their yearly infographic showing camera and lens sales for 2016. The drop in sales of compact cameras, DSLRs and lenses continues. Although, in total cameras shipped, the share of DSLRs actually increased in 2016 at the expense of compact cameras, mirrorless cameras saw a bigger share of the total pie as well.</p>
<p>2017 is predicted to show further decline of compact cameras, but we could see that the mirrorless and DSLR segments have bottomed out and may stabilize in 2017.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p><strong>LensVid has summarized the following keys about the photography industry in 2016</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>Smartphones killed the compact camera market</li>
<li>Mirrorless are not fulfilling their promise</li>
<li>The DSLR market is shrinking</li>
<li>Cameras are for older people</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>LensVid predictions for 2017:</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>In 2017 we can safely predict that the entire global market for cameras will drop below 20 million cameras (or 1/6 of what it was in 2010).</li>
<li>Over the next couple of years camera manufacturers will continue to cut jobs – just like Nikon recently did after their announcement on major financial loses.</li>
<li>We will also see less innovation as less and less free money will be available for R&D.</li>
<li>The professional segment will get much more attention and camera and gear prices will increase (as production costs will rise due to the decreased production levels).</li>
</ul>
<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Infographics-2016-03.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-28558" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Infographics-2016-03-728x410.jpg" alt="" width="728" height="410" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Infographics-2016-03-728x410.jpg 728w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Infographics-2016-03-768x432.jpg 768w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Infographics-2016-03-1024x576.jpg 1024w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Infographics-2016-03-610x343.jpg 610w" sizes="(max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px" /></a></p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Hector1970 (Mar 2, 2017)

I'd have thought in the DSLR and lens there are less in volume but the ones they are making are more expensive.
Sigma especially are gone away from cheap to expensive. 
I'm not sure if it's correct.
In someways I think if less people buy cameras and take photos with phones my photos look better and surprise people. I'm not particularly sad if it had less mass appeal and becomes more specialist. I think it keads to more discerning products being designed and sold. The camera companies need to adapt to a smaller market but maybe with more spending power.


----------



## Sharlin (Mar 2, 2017)

Wow, that infographic is basically an amalgam of all the things you're NOT supposed to do when presenting data visually


----------



## et31 (Mar 2, 2017)

And so accelerated the death of a beautiful trade in essence and the further acceptance of the public's desensitization of the value of a photograph in general. I can have those D810 / D5 / 5d / 1dx photos for free right? No? Well, that's fine. I have an app that will snip your photo right away. Your copyright is not important. I can take pictures too. I have an iPhone!

Meanwhile at Acorn Inc.: "It's incredible folks. Keep buying our new gadget every year, help us make billions, and realize your full potential of being a real photographer with our toy that gives you Chinese plastic optics at the tap of a finger. Who needs a real camera when you have the iPhone 7s, 8, 9, 10, etc. You want bokeh? We've designed an internal app for that! You want zoom? We added another piece of industrial plastic that will give you more zoom. It's incredible. Say goodbye to your $1,000s of dollars in optics."


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 2, 2017)

things are changing thats for sure.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Mar 2, 2017)

et31 said:


> And so accelerated the death of a beautiful trade in essence and the further acceptance of the public's desensitization of the value of a photograph in general. I can have those D810 / D5 / 5d / 1dx photos for free right? No? Well, that's fine. I have an app that will snip your photo right away. Your copyright is not important.
> 
> Meanwhile at Acorn Inc.: "It's incredible folks. Keep buying our new gadget every year, help us make billions, and realize your full potential of being a real photographer with our toy that gives you Chinese plastic optics at the tap of a finger. Who needs a real camera when you have the iPhone 7s, 8, 9, 10, etc. You want bokeh? We've designed an internal app for that! You want zoom? We added another piece of industrial plastic that will give you more zoom. It's incredible. Say goodbye to your $1,000s of dollars in optics."



Very true and i saw this with launch of the iphone 7, its all a joke, now that everyone got a camera in ther pocket, they can get a image all over the world on a social media site in seconds, i understand the trade even quality have gotten affordable over the years 3500 anyone with a decent job can buy a good body today. so where do we go from here on into the next 10 years will the mobile phone kill the dslr nope will never happen however if the market can convince aka influence people that they can get the same quality from a app and the resolution is now moved to a social media website like facebook etc with some free prints from the cloud then i guess that's good enough. but as for the changing of lens and quality of the dslr will always live on.


----------



## et31 (Mar 2, 2017)

I always laughed at their "video presentations", whenever they promote the capabilities of the new phones, especially when they show you 'actual video footage' recorded by this device (aka shot with a Sony FS7, Sony F55, etc. behind the scenes with steadicams, drones, etc.). The biggest hypocrisy involves their promo photos that they take to make their products look so 'sleek and professional.' Studio? Strobes? Soft boxes? Reflectors? Light meter? D810? 5Dsr? Medium format cameras? Gasp! Say it ain't so! I thought that the phone had an app for each of those things. :

The truth is that we need professional tools to obtain the best results and the key to that is R&D, innovation, and companies that have the vision to keep the progress going. I fear for the future of professional photography in the sense that we photographers will literally have to pay the price to remain in a separate bracket among the rest. In the end, how much will our beloved companies remain true to their core before they start internally fighting to embrace another world and phase out much of their showcases, simply because people are not buying in the numbers that they would like to see?

Wow! A make believe video presentation that looks like the iPhone shoots @ 4K 330Mbps 4:2:2 10bit footage with 14 stops of latitude. Even comes with ND filters, no rolling shutter, focus peaking, zebra, waveform, etc. Silly Canon, Sony, Arri, Blackmagic, etc., trying to scam us with their $$$$$ cameras! When can I pre-order the skinny jeans pocket-fit slim phone???? ;D :


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2017)

Sharlin said:


> Wow, that infographic is basically an amalgam of all the things you're NOT supposed to do when presenting data visually



Tufte's eyes would bleed reading it, yes.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2017)

A few thoughts about this report:

1) Cell phones will consume us all -- yes, we get it. 

2) Contraction of the camera market units is certainly happening, but not nearly at the rate this infographic is reporting, _which only covers digital_. But just like vinyl LPs making a huge comeback, so have film rigs: Fuji Instax has been crushing things at the clip of 5-6M units a year. It doesn't remotely cover industry P&S losses the past few years, but it tempers the camera sales apocalypse somewhat.

3) CR's read is a _hell_ of a lot rosier than the graphic designer's view of things. These numbers imply not only the death of compact/P&S rigs but also a continuing contraction of all interchangeable lens rigs (including SLRs). The trend on total mirrorless + SLR sales = 21 --> 16.8 --> 13.5 --> 13 --> 11, so no, CR guy, if this is accurate, I don't see evidence of the SLR market bottoming out. I see it getting worse.

4) As the digital market continues to contract, lifecycles will get longer and launch prices will get higher. In effect, the imaging industry's ability to deliver value -- new models, better quality, shorter lifecycles, less expensive products -- all take a punch in the gut in a contracting market. The PhotoRumors guy quasi-ranted as much here: http://photorumors.com/2016/10/03/the-new-reality-pentax-k-1-price-increase/ How Canon continues to (largely, there is some drift) stick to a schedule on its SLR releases and continue to field such a staggeringly comprehensive array of camera lines is unbelievable. One might think they'd pump the brakes on a few product lines and focus their efforts.

- A


----------



## LDS (Mar 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> 4) As the digital market continues to contract, lifecycles will get longer



Probably, lifecycle already got longer - LensVid made a good point IMHO:

_At the mid to high end segments – there just isn’t enough innovation to justify replacing gear as often as it used to be and on the more positive side – cameras are quite reliable and replacing a working camera for a new one which doesn’t offer significantly more, just doesn’t make sense to many users._

We could plot sales against the (real) improvements that were introduced, and I guess we could see a correlation. The Mpx/DR race curve could have flattened - for most uses, actual cameras are far more than capable (depite what DPReview may think), especially when a lot of images are consumed electronically.

In many ways even phone sales flattened - because it's difficult too to add new breakthrough features to them. Photo features were more outlined than in the previous years because that was one of the few areas were makers could try to compete somehow . often with pure gimmicks. Huawei needed a 5D3/70-200 2.8 photo to promote its "Leica" phone last year.

It looks the ML/SLR war doesn't interest camera buyers much, but a small minority, and it doesn't really change the final output. Camera companies would need a far bigger leap forward in photo technology, but I can't really imagine what it could be... extreme Mpx, DR and ISO are for niche markets anyway.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 2, 2017)

I think that Canon sees this as a opportunity to consolidate their position and squeeze a few makers out of the market. The development and R&D for their next generation of cameras has already been done and paid for, so we will see a 6D soon, I'd bet they are already making components, and maybe assembling them. Certainly, the design of a 7D MK III has been finished as well, so it should be here in two years, probably less.

Canon has the money to keep developing and marketing new camera models, and this lets them keep gaining market share. I'm not sure this is a good thing, but you can see it happening.


----------



## bedford (Mar 2, 2017)

Food for thought:

https://youtu.be/bfCJDIf-NeA

Mayflower Concepts Presentation at PMA, CES 2015, Las Vegas 

If you have 50 min and can bear the german accent, I think it's wortwhile.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 2, 2017)

Also, just today on PP:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/02/another-big-camera-store-fails-many-closing/

The article thoughtfully wades into a lot of industry realities: online businesses not charging sales tax, everyone price checks things in real time in the store, MAP rules, informal 'but it's kinda formal if you want the sale' rebating, etc.

But the article reads like a ship captain who is exasperated at headwinds slowing him down _*while his ship is sinking for reasons unrelated to wind*_. All of the author's reasons would explain difficult business conditions in a flat market, but when the industry is absolutely cratering, do those reasons even matter anymore?

Surely this entire article could have been these two lines:

_"Camera sales are down 81% from 7 years ago due to the rise of cell phone photography + social media. Camera stores are closing because the dedicated camera market is disintegrating."_

I don't mean to be callous -- I think camera stores are awesome, but it seems like they ought to be shaking their fists at iPhone users a lot more than large online resellers or tough corporate pricing rules.

- A


----------



## Chaitanya (Mar 2, 2017)

So I am fool for having invested few thousand $ in lenses and lights for macro photopgraphy. That whole cellphone nonsense of overexaggerating the capabilities started by CrApple needs to stop as facing fanboys is really hard.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 2, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Also, just today on PP:
> https://petapixel.com/2017/03/02/another-big-camera-store-fails-many-closing/
> 
> The article thoughtfully wades into a lot of industry realities: online businesses not charging sales tax, everyone price checks things in real time in the store, MAP rules, informal 'but it's kinda formal if you want the sale' rebating, etc.
> ...



THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING!

Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs. 

What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers. Those sales are going to be higher value lower volume because the volume market, P&S's, are effectively dead. Seen over a longer time frame there is no cause for concern, just another wave, not a sinking.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 2, 2017)

It was sort of enlightening, for both of us, when my wife's friend took a picture of us after the marathon recently. The pic was from a second floor balcony, with a smartphone, maybe a half dozen yards away. It was, of course, blurry and heavily cropped and crappy in general without detail. My wife asked if I could "work on it" (as I do with raws) and I said no, the data just isn't there, and that's why my cameras and lenses are so big. It finally clicked for her, at least to a degree, how limited smartphone cameras are.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 2, 2017)

Maybe there is something positive in the marketplace now, camera phones have helped create the biggest ever population of amateur photographers. They are everywhere, snapping away with their phones, huddling around a table looking at the pictures - I'd have thought there must be huge opportunities here. 
Show the camera phone user what a dslr can do that a camera phone can't!!
First make it very easy to transfer an image from the dslr to the phone on ALL dslr's....if possible on models already in existence, especially the entry level models.
The dslr now is a compliment to the camera phone, let people know why they need a dslr, what it can do that is significant to them that the camera phone can't do.
The camera manufacturers have allowed camera phones to decimate the market for compact cameras, almost like taking a biscuit off a baby, no resistance.
I hope they don't sit back and allow the dslr market to go the same way.
As I started I'll finish, there is the biggest ever population of amateur photographers out there waiting to be convinced how essential a dslr is to their photography.
Marketing; Advertising; USP's......


----------



## StudentOfLight (Mar 2, 2017)

But where are the alternative facts?


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 2, 2017)

bedford said:


> Food for thought:
> 
> https://youtu.be/bfCJDIf-NeA
> 
> ...



I watched that video a while back, it makes good points (points where Nikon is still failing miserebly and Canon is arguably still the market leader), but I can't believe that the primary force in the current market is anything but saturation.
Digital happened, people bought in because one digital camera is worth a lifetime of film, and now that half the world has a good digital body that fills all their needs, sales are dropping off.
People are sold on the idea of good dedicated digital cameras, and by now practically everyone has bought one.
It was a sales burst that lasted less than five years, what did people expect?

What I really want to see is modern camera sales compared to the last 50 years of sales, that's the market everyone is going to be fighting for over the next decade.
Kind of like how a good modern laptop will probably remain a useful practical tool for decades to come, the only time people actually need to replace their 1Ds MkIII is when it gets dropped in a river.
My current camera body is an 1100D, and that's after I bought and sold a 5D2 because it didn't add any significant capabilities to my photography.
If that's the case coming from an enthusiast, pretty much everyone else who bought a camera around that time is probably thinking that any DSLR is about 10,000% overkill for their needs.

User friendliness is important to take back some of the P&S market from cellphones, but the sales levels seen around 2010 will never be repeated, that was simply the market responding to a disruptive technology reaching maturity.


----------



## Talys (Mar 2, 2017)

@privatebydesign -

I completely agree. The photography buff ship is not sinking. All that happened was that there were some giant leaps of technology that got people who were enthusiasts to spend their money for a good, long cycle. It's not sustainable, because this cycle of innovation has matured, and during each refinement iteration, there's diminished returns.

I think Point and Shoots are a lost cause. My last one was a S-series (I think 110?); I can't imagine buying another one, because a good cell phones is a viable substitute. 

For me, there HAVE been some changes in 2015-2016 that have made me spend. I purchased the 80D because it was really everything I have ever wanted from an APS-C. I will almost certainly buy the successor with DIGIC7 (even if nothing else changes), once the price comes down a tiny bit, because I want 2 copies of this camera.

And, nano-USM was cool -- not something I NEEDED, but it was something I wanted enough to buy 70-300 full retail at launch. And 18-135 I bought once kits got broken up and discounted, even though I knew there would be few opportunities to use it (I own superior lens, just not with the cool AF).

Ironically, before 2015, there had been a bit of a dry spell for me for photo gear, so I spent a lot of my money on studio stuff, cases, and that sort of thing. But still within the hobby. Mirrorless has not been able to attract me to date, though I've looked at an M5 a few times.

My point being, there are ways vendors can get me to crack open my wallet, but the innovation has got to be there.


----------



## thepancakeman (Mar 2, 2017)

Yes, inferior quality ANYTHING tends to bug me. Don't even get me started on the fidelity of MP3's. 

However, that being said, I think that photographs can be split into 2 very distinct (yet overlapping) categories. One is to capture memories. When you look at that old, worn out, family photo and remember the good times, the much of the "quality" (as in artistic quality) of the image is irrelevant. It's a memory preserved. That being said, at least being in focus, is generally a minimum requirement, but in many cases a cell phone is more than adequate.

On the other end of the spectrum is photography for artistic sake. Pretty much anything that doesn't have people tends to fall into this category. All the sudden color saturation and bokeh and a million other things become critically important, and a cell phone isn't even close.

In between are things like a memory of a sporting event. Trying to capture that action memory on a cell phone is a pretty big challenge. So while I prefer a DSLR for most anything, the reality is that I capture a lot more memories on my cell phone simply because 1) it's with me, and 2) I don't need the control or quality of a DSLR.

Bottom line, if you can capture what you are looking for on a cell phone, you probably don't need a DSLR. There will always be a place for quality photos with quality gear, at least for those that know how to use it.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 2, 2017)

SteveM said:


> The camera manufacturers have allowed camera phones to decimate the market for compact cameras, almost like taking a biscuit off a baby, no resistance.



I fail to see how camera manufacturers have 'allowed' camera phones to decimate the compact market. The phone *is* a compact camera. People first priority is to have a phone, not to have a camera and the modern phones enable them to not carry a second device. Add to this most people happy with a phone camera have only a phone camera because they don't care about image quality, only the memory it helps recall. 
Camera manufacturers were powerless to stop this happening, bar becoming phone manufacturers.


----------



## douglaurent (Mar 2, 2017)

Aside from the smartphone factor, is it a coincidence that 2012 was the last year that Canon and Nikon released exciting cameras with the 5D3 and D800, and afterwards they simply stopped the innovation and the big decline in sales came?

If you show a regular smartphone user how much fun it is to work with mirrorless cameras like the GH4, EM1, A7 series (filming through a viewfinder, reviewing through a viewfinder etc), also with articulating screen, everybody likes it. Give them a 5D4, and it feels like using a Nokia non-smartphone from the last decade. Tell them the price of a DSLR kit, and it feels like paying 2000 dollars for a 2008 Nokia phone. Nobody needs that.

Today I received the small Lumix FZ80 camera: costs 400 dollars, has 4K video and all manual controls, got a fixed lens with 60x zoom (20-1200 equivalent) and latest stabilization technology. Now that is fun to play with and a no-brainer to buy. Makes Panasonic look cool and innovative as well.

Canon on the other hand sells you expensive DSLRs and lots of lenses that don't even have any kind of stabilization, while most smartphone users have realized that that's what they need in real life and should be implemented. Canon and Nikon still act as if it was the last millennium, and as if they were alone on the market and can dictate the pace of innovation. They are responsible for their own problems.


----------



## Joe M (Mar 3, 2017)

THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING!

Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs. 

What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers. 
[/quote]

I would agree with this. I think a lot of the sales were to people who wouldn't normally buy a camera and got caught up in the digital revolution. I'd say that the rebel series actually ate into the P&S line too, not just phone camera. And lets face it, sooner or later you have to reach market saturation. Not everyone is going to shell out thousands for cameras and lenses and upgrade those bodies every few years. I'm just going by friends who aren't making money from photos but bought xxd cameras and maybe a few lenses. Their motivation to buy a new body is created when they accidentally drop theirs in the ocean while on vacation. Just my 2 (C$) cents.


----------



## hbr (Mar 3, 2017)

I believe that it has been stated here before, but I think that for the average beginner and enthusiast the image quality has arrived to a point that they feel that there is no need to upgrade.

For myself my first Canon was the 8 mp XT (350D). Skipped the XTI (400D ?) and later purchased the XSI (450D). Skipped the T1I (500D ?) and later purchased the T2I (550D). I mostly upgraded for a better signal/noise performance.

Then I purchased the 6D for better image quality. I added the 7D II simply because the 6D would not auto focus at f/8. I love the image quality of the 6D and if it weren't for the lack of f/8 auto focus and needing more AF points for my style of shooting, I probably would not upgrade for several more years. Since I do not make any money from my photos, spending around $2,000 to upgrade to the 6D II is a major decision, especially for a few more MP, better AF, AF at f/8 and a few more goodies.

For many on this forum who have the money for the latest and greatest tech to have the best pictures they can get, My hat is off to you. Unfortunately, I am not one of them.


----------



## gmrza (Mar 3, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.
> 
> What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers. Those sales are going to be higher value lower volume because the volume market, P&S's, are effectively dead. Seen over a longer time frame there is no cause for concern, just another wave, not a sinking.



I think this is something that a lot of people are missing. The early years of digital photography saw very fast development (and obsolescence) of technology. We had a combination of something new with something that was changing very fast.
There is no doubt that phone cameras are having an impact, but they are really mainly playing in the market that was served by Instamatics and Polaroid. The people who used 35mm or MF cameras in the 70s and 80s are still using DLSRs now, they are just not replacing them as quickly.
If I look at my own cameras: my EOS650 was my main camera for nearly 15 years. Then I bought a 350D which I used for a few years. That was rapidly succeeded with the start of my wife's business and purchase of a 5DII and 7D, and then a 5DIII a short while later. Purchasing a 5DIV? Maybe in a while, but no urgent need. The 5DIII was so much better than the 5DII in so many ways that the purchase was a no-brainer. The same is no longer true.

The problem for the industry is that all the camera manufacturers thought that the digital photography bubble was the new normal. It isn't.


----------



## docsmith (Mar 3, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.



^^^ This. 

There was a massive boost to sales during the shift from analog to digital, but now most everyone that wants a camera has a camera. Myself included, Ahsanford included. We are sitting tight (for now) with our 5DIIIs. 

But now that most everyone has a camera body (if they wanted one), the market shifts to something more sustainable, new people entering the market, people upgrading, and those who's cameras eventually break and need replaced.

The camera market is dead....long live the camera market!!


----------



## Woody (Mar 3, 2017)

douglaurent said:


> Aside from the smartphone factor, is it a coincidence that 2012 was the last year that Canon and Nikon released exciting cameras with the 5D3 and D800, and afterwards they simply stopped the innovation and the big decline in sales came?



You are shockingly ignorant.

BTW, Panasonic camera sales are dropping like a stone. Their market share for MILC in Japan is taken over by Canon and Sony. Ooops, all their innovative 4K stuff isn't helping them...


----------



## chik0240 (Mar 3, 2017)

The ship is not sinking, just slowing down.

I am still a guy who's keen on dedicated DSLR and great lens (Who isn't and will lurk here, right?). But personally, I only owned 2 bodies since my first DSLR since 2007.

I bought a 40D kit to enter the world of serious photography, and then when 5D3 was out I was on preorder of it.
Back then the 5D3 offers me the FF experience which gives my L zoom lens collection a much more practical AOV during normal shooting uses, especially during vacation (e.g. 24-105 becomes really wide angle to medium tele), and to me the spending of some $2999 on the 5D3 body is no brainer coz it gets my acceptable High ISO from 1600 in 40D to something like 12800 (occasionally 25600 also) in 5D3 which allows me to shoot indoors without flash when the situation calls, or handheld photos at night during vacation.

But then I got married and goes past age of 30, so money can't be spent in the same way as I used to (wife is more important right? :) and most importantly, to me the 5DsR is inferior to my usage (using a lot more space in the drive for raw photos, worse ISO performance), so completely didn't stir my interest, and now the 5D4 is finally out, the slight ISO improvement, global shutter and much better DR is attractive in some sense, BUT, looking at my salary and wife, I goes: when do I really NEED the better DR when I took amazing photos (ok, not comparable to the good guys out there, it's about as good as I can get) in the past 6 years with <1% cases where the lack of DR is causing trouble, so why spend another $2999 on an incremental upgrade? So the decision was I am going to wait for 5D5 or the 5D3 dies on me.

So there's the case, for people who are still unsatisfied by the phone camera, normally you owned a very capable camera already, and most purchase will be on a small, handy MLC to use in casual useage (well, most already owned that also), and those ppl who jumped into the band wagon during the market hype just to be cool have lost their hype, hence the market slow down.


----------



## unfocused (Mar 3, 2017)

privatebydesign said:


> THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING!
> 
> ...Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.
> 
> What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers...Seen over a longer time frame there is no cause for concern, just another wave, not a sinking.



Very true. One of the advantages of being old is that you've seen it all before. SLRs were all the rage in the late 60s and through the 70s. Pentax was the consumer SLR of choice, and there were a whole lot of other manufacturers that have either gone by the wayside or been swallowed up – Mamiya, Konica, Minolta, etc.

Meanwhile Nikon and Canon just kept plugging away, playing the long game. When the consumer SLR market collapsed, they were well-positioned as the cameras of choice for professionals.

Of course, there were a lot more professionals around then.

Still, the fact is that both companies have seen this all before and are well-positioned to weather the current downturn, which is, in fact, a return to historical demand.



Mikehit said:


> I fail to see how camera manufacturers have 'allowed' camera phones to decimate the compact market...Add to this most people happy with a phone camera have only a phone camera because they don't care about image quality, only the memory it helps recall.
> 
> Camera manufacturers were powerless to stop this happening, bar becoming phone manufacturers.



To the extent that all camera manufacturers were painfully slow to understand the importance of internet connectivity, they certainly contributed to the market's collapse. We will never know if a larger portion of the point-and-shoot market could have been salvaged if manufacturers had gotten their sh*t together with wireless connectivity and a easy-to-use interface for sharing photos over the web (something they still haven't gotten right, although they are slowly getting closer.)

To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones. 

I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.


----------



## Talys (Mar 3, 2017)

unfocused said:


> To the extent that all camera manufacturers were painfully slow to understand the importance of internet connectivity, they certainly contributed to the market's collapse. We will never know if a larger portion of the point-and-shoot market could have been salvaged if manufacturers had gotten their sh*t together with wireless connectivity and a easy-to-use interface for sharing photos over the web (something they still haven't gotten right, although they are slowly getting closer.)



I don't think it would have mattered. Most people own smartphones, and nearly all smartphones have two-thirds of what you need for a point and shoot -- a screen and a processor. Plus, most smartphones have internet capabilities and wifi. Adding a small sensor and lens is pretty easy, and since the camera sensor is a product differentiator and a way to stratify products, it makes sense to spend R&D to improve optics.

Unless camera makers had decided to make smartphones, it really wouldn't have mattered what they did, IMHO. I think that the truth is, most people don't want to have to charge and carry two devices, and it's easier to give up some picture quality/capacity than it is to give up, well, the ability to make calls, send messages and email, and play angry birds.

Besides, except for the flash, top tier cell phones have cameras that are as good as mid-range point-and-shoots, which is to say, they can take great pictures in ideal situations, and acceptable vacation photos -- particularly of people and places -- in most situations.

And all the social media stuff puts the cell phone over the top. After all, nobody imagines blogging about sushi from your camera.



unfocused said:


> To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.
> 
> I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.



Of course cell phone camera users care about the quality of their pictures. But the vast improvements in cell phone cameras that you describe has only occurred because they had a lot of room to grow. Blackberry cameras were pretty horrible. As cell phones matured, better optics was something premium buyers would pay for. It's much, much harder to take today's $300 point-and-shoot and say, "let's make it take better _pictures_, and sell it for $400" -- because frankly the picture from the $300 point and shoot is as good or better tha most of its target market cares about.

On the other hand, what cell phone camera users often don't care about is a lot of stuff that differentiates SLR (and enthusiast mirrorless) hobbyists: The ability to reach out and take a photo of wildlife or sports at a long range, as if you were close. Blurring the background while keeping the subject in focus. Crafting a studio or stage with lighting and backdrops to photograph a model or product to make it look the best that it can be. Taking a pictures of the moon. Enjoying taking a hundred pictures to get one great one. Expecting a camera that can shoot a thousand shots on a battery. Post-photography processing. Desiring technical perfection, like color accuracy, eliminating chromatic aberration, and having distortion-free pictures.

All of these things, with today's technology and our understanding of lenses and light, require fairly bulky pieces, because what makes a lot of it possible is series of concave and convex lenses that can move back and forth, and a controllable aperture. Can it be superseded by some future tech that could fit in the space of a human iris? Of course, but there's nothing foreseeable.


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 3, 2017)

unfocused said:


> To the extent that all camera manufacturers were painfully slow to understand the importance of internet connectivity, they certainly contributed to the market's collapse. We will never know if a larger portion of the point-and-shoot market could have been salvaged if manufacturers had gotten their sh*t together with wireless connectivity and a easy-to-use interface for sharing photos over the web (something they still haven't gotten right, although they are slowly getting closer.)


I still don't think a camera with internet connectivity would have solved the problem - the point is people's priorities are phone first and camera a distant second. A standalone camera is bulky, it is a second thing to carry. if you asked anyone 'would you prefer to take a camera or a phone' how many would say 'camera'?
The phone so both so a camera cannot compete.



unfocused said:


> To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.
> 
> I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.



I didn't explain myself very well. When I said most phone photographers don't care about quality, I mean they don't care enough to spend £400 on a DSLR and then have to carry it round. I am sure if you offered DSLR quality they would over the moon but laws of physics deny us that opportunity and after that it is all about which compromise you prefer. 
Even then I would take some issue with your response because I have known people who literally cannot see the difference in quality between the cameraphone image and the DSLR image because they only look at pictures as thumbnails on social media. Discussion on this forum are within a self-selecting group who care enough about image making. And the excellent photos we see taken with cameraphones are from people who take the time to use the camera within its limitations and most people (I would say a majority) don't. in that respect I still stand by my assertion that for most cameraphone users, image quality is secondary to capturing the memory. I wasn't being snotty or supercilious, just making an observation.


----------



## SteveM (Mar 3, 2017)

Despite having 3 dslr's, I like the compact camera for its extra quality over the camera phone and its obvious portability.....I have 2 A3 prints on the wall from a compact camera. However, after having 4 compact cameras in a little over 2 years (both Canon and Nikon), none of them lasting for >5000 shutter actuations I've given up with them and now use a camera phone. This market could have survived a little better had they managed to produce reliable cameras (from my personal experience). 
The dslr market will eventually bottom out, but they do need to get beyond the seeming expectation that the majority of revenue comes from existing users upgrading from the mk l to the mkll to the mklll to the MklV.......cameras are too good to bother upgrading regularly anymore and useful features are thin on the ground.
Most companies I am aware of 'hunt' new customers for growth.
I was in 2 large tourist areas over the weekend and out of the couple of thousand people I saw I counted 4 dslr's. All 4 in the hands of the over 50's. Is this the future of the dslr?


----------



## Mr. Shakes (Mar 3, 2017)

I'm not worried about R&D drying up, it finds its own path. With the rise of the Surveillance State, there will be plenty of new toys needed, much of that developed technology will find its way into new DSLR's.


----------



## hendrik-sg (Mar 3, 2017)

i started photography at age 35 with a ixus 65 i think, film was not practical for me and by 2004 HDD space was cheap enough to store pictures on the computer and backup them regulary.

after an excursion into the video world, with a camcorder and very unhandy AVCHD Data i was inspired by a friends 400d which was a serious, real camera with great ergonomics. After a weekend with a rented 50d i not even gave it back and loved it, got several expensive lenses and accessories. My wive one day upgraded the Ixus to a S110, which was a big step forward, mainly for it's fantastic image stabilisation, little bigger sensor and brighter lens. It replaced the camcorder as well.

For the holiday trip of my life (before our child was born) i wanted the better low light capabilities of FF and bought a 5dii as a compromise, even when i knew that i did not like it's AF performance and it's noticable slower speed than the 50d. I already then knew that i would replace it by a 5diii as soon as possible. After this trip the 50d was replaced then by a 1.4x converter fo my telezoom.

Now whith the 5d3, if i can not get the pic, it's maybe my fault not the camera's. What should i buy next? maybe paying for lessons to improving my artistic skills would be the best investment.

or some lenses? 

- a 24-70 2.8 IS would give me 1 stop of low light capability in a zoom lens
- a 35 1.4 lens would be nice
- a 85mm lens i do not have....
- a big white would be wonderful for the gearhead in my

but all of this is bulky equipment which not helps if it's at home in the bag. Normally i go out with the "small" bag, it takes camera and 2 more items, 1 more lens and flash or 2 lenses. 

If i could afford one more special trip, to Arctis maybe, with birding and polar bear opportunity, then maybe a crop body with f8 capability, or a big white  would have to be bought.

Or for luxury, a 5d4, which is better but very expensive, because the market situaltion killed the resale value of my 5d3

and one important point which i did not read so far..... :

Some years ago, it was assumed that good lenses would keep their values. This is no longer true, and will be less true the more dslr's are replaced by phones or are sitting at home. Today, the release of new lens versions kills the old ones... a 24-70 2.8? a 70-200 2.8 IS, a 100-400, a 35 1.4, they all lost 1/2 of their value. So i am much more cautios now, buying expensive lenses. I must buy them as a luxury consumer article, which i buy and never see the money again.

Next point is just coolness. 5 years ago it was cool to have a cool camera. Today it's consedered old fashioned and bulky, one has a cool phone. A big camera is again what it always was: A workhorse for professionals and enthusiasts, who go out for taking pics as a main motivation. Everything else is done by the phone.


----------



## hbr (Mar 3, 2017)

A little rambling here:

The advantages of the smart phones over the traditional cameras are many for the average person, but they do have limitations. Even without getting into the phone market, I think some creative and far sighted engineers could produce tiny cameras that could capitalize on these limitations and come up with some innovative ideas and possibly replace the current point and shoot market with something that is compact, very easy to use and simple.

Most of the people that I know that take pictures with their smart phones and/or entry level DSLRs with kit lenses do not want to learn photography. They simply want to take nice pictures. They don't want to know about RAW files vs JPGs, shutter speeds, aperture values, iso, depth of field, etc. They simply want to point the camera and take their pictures.

The point and shoot cameras are really miniature full featured cameras with all the knobs and menu selections that go along with them. Now that touchscreens are becoming popular many of these knobs, etc could be replaced by touch functions. Same thing with the picture style choices. For example: suppose I want to take a picture of my child or dog running. Select an icon that indicates movement. Have a slider for faster or slower and another slider for darker or brighter, etc. Include a 80D style AF system along with touch focus. Have tiny interchangeable lenses. You could, in more expensive versions, include RAW capabilities. The key here is simplicity and lower cost, not necessarily a mini, full featured DSLRs.

How many people that purchase Rebels with kit lenses to only photograph their kids, pets and families, ever take the camera off the Automatic settings?

My daughter went on a once in a lifetime Alaska cruise and I begged her to take along some of my expensive gear, but she declined and took all her pictures with her iPad. The photos were just fie for her, even if the whale was just a tiny speck in the picture.

On of the funniest things that I have seen was when I visited Cades Cove in the Great Smokies National Park. I would see several people in a minivan with the side doors open and people sticking out of the sun roof all shooting pictures of a bear or deer over 100 yards away with their smart phones. Cell phones sticking out of every window.


----------



## tcmatthews (Mar 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> Also, just today on PP:
> https://petapixel.com/2017/03/02/another-big-camera-store-fails-many-closing/
> 
> The article thoughtfully wades into a lot of industry realities: online businesses not charging sales tax, everyone price checks things in real time in the store, MAP rules, informal 'but it's kinda formal if you want the sale' rebating, etc.
> ...



Nearly every store on that list failed because of a failed business model. As soon as cameras became electronics devices camera companies started selling them as electronics. So they failed because they were not able to move their merchandise fast enough. This is the same reason Circuit City failed. It sounds like the only way this latest store could have stayed in business is through internet sells. 

That brings up a fact that we should all realize cameras and lenses are what the retail goods sector calls Hard Goods. Most Hard Goods have low profit margins. Hard Goods often end up as retail store loss leaders. Big retailers will sell the items at a lost to bring in customers to buy higher margin products. Now that cameras are electronics they also have rapid depreciation as soon as a new model is released. This is why most of the big electronics retailers went out of business. Print like clothes or printer ink is a Soft Goods. They have high profit margins. It sounds like these camera retailers needed to fine more Soft Goods to replace their failing print business. If they fail to diversify into other areas it is impossible to stay in business selling only cameras unless you have extremely high volume. 

Ritz failed because of poor merchandizing (stupid high prices) and an over reliance on print services. I remember going the the Ritz store at the Galleria Mall in Houston. It was filled with accessories and newly introduce digital cameras. (This was a long time ago digitial cameras were just now becoming a thing.) I could not believe the prices for their prints. At the time we took everything to Fox Photo to get developed. Ritz was 100-200% more expensive. The camera selection was worst than the local Best Buy and Walmart. They were also priced like luxury goods almost all of them point and shoot. I did not see any SLRs. I would guess they were all over MSRP as well. Best Buy had them beat on merchandising and on price by a huge margin. I left wondering how in the hell they stayed in business.

I think that the actual camera market is returning back to normal late 80 - 90s state before the explosion of digital. At that time we used disposable cameras for most things. We only brought out the real camera for important stuff. Cell phones have replaced the disposable cameras for most people. And they only need a real camera for the important stuff. For my aunt a high quality point and shoot has replaced her DSLR. This is why I think at some point point-and-shoot, and enthusiast cameras market will stabilize. There will always be DSLR or interchangeable lens camera in general for pro users. The only problem is enthusiast like myself may find ourselves priced out of the shrinking market.


----------



## Old Sarge (Mar 3, 2017)

gmrza said:


> I think this is something that a lot of people are missing. The early years of digital photography saw very fast development (and obsolescence) of technology. We had a combination of something new with something that was changing very fast.
> There is no doubt that phone cameras are having an impact, but they are really mainly playing in the market that was served by Instamatics and Polaroid. The people who used 35mm or MF cameras in the 70s and 80s are still using DLSRs now, they are just not replacing them as quickly.


I think you are exactly right. During my film days a camera body would last a long time. When I got back to taking pictures (and doing darkroom work), shortly after my son was born, I had a single body (Mamiya Sekor) and a couple of lenses which lasted for fifteen years or more. Replaced with a AE-1 and A-1 which lasted several years. Then a couple of F1 bodies and a few lenses. During all that time I also played with some MF bodies (Mostly Bronica). But to get better quality didn't necessarily mean I needed a new camera, I would just change "sensors" which we called film. 

Now cameras are released with better IQ on a regular basis because it takes new bodies to handle the improvement. This caused a spike in sales but I never believed it could be sustained. Phones are, IMHO, used primarily by those who used to by 110's and put them in their pocket or purse. Those who have an interest in photography are still buying DSLR's, and many will buy mirrorless just like we would buy rangefinder cameras.

I agree with those who say the ship isn't sinking. It is just changing.


----------



## bholliman (Mar 3, 2017)

Mikehit said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.
> ...



+1 From my experience and personal network, I would agree that most cameraphone users are more interested in capturing the moment/a memory than image quality. Sure, they don't want blurry or under/overexposed pictures, but they are happy if the pictures are "good enough" to share on social media. 

My brother is an active cameraphone photographer and he often gives me a hard time for lugging around my heavy photo equipment (including my M5 and 22/2!) when I have a cell phone camera in my pocket. I've shown him side-by-side comparisons of the technically much better images from my cameras side-by-side against a phone image and his response is that the phone image is "good enough" and to him the differences are insignificant. To me the differences are huge (subject isolation, sharper, better color accuracy, etc., etc. but our expectations are very different.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 3, 2017)

Couple brief points...
=> I've read in electronics journal that roughly 50% of the cost of smartphones is related to photo/video capabilities. They are P&S cameras.
=> People forget that smartphones are also both the library/catalog for photos and the display. Passing around ones phone to display a photo is common... how often do we pass around our dSLR's to show photos from our catalog?
=> Instant gratification is key. Put photo on Facebook/Instagram and have friends respond in seconds is what's expected. Who cares if the focus is off or it's all in shadow from backlight... the half-life is only 2 seconds anyway.
=> Before the digital bubble 4.5 million units was a great year for ILCS shipments. A return to similar level is not out of the question.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 3, 2017)

9VIII said:


> I watched that video a while back, it makes good points (points where Nikon is still failing miserebly and Canon is arguably still the market leader), but I can't believe that the primary force in the current market is anything but saturation.
> Digital happened, people bought in because one digital camera is worth a lifetime of film, and now that half the world has a good digital body that fills all their needs, sales are dropping off.
> People are sold on the idea of good dedicated digital cameras, and by now practically everyone has bought one.
> It was a sales burst that lasted less than five years, what did people expect?
> ...



Part of this is there is a demand today for more total photography than there was two decades ago. 

In those days, if you wanted to sell your old "whatever", you did it with a classified ad, at the neighborhood yard sale, or at a swap meet. Today, you use Craigslist or eBay, and having an SLR (and being at least vaguely competent with it) help a great deal in selling things on those venues.

In those days, if you wanted to show pictures to your friends, you had to make a big heavy album with (probably) 3x5 or 4x6 prints that you'd insist they look through when they come over, or invest in a slide projector, have slides made from your negatives, and then annoy everyone by sitting them down on the couch for an hour to show off your vacation snapshots. Today you can put them on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Flickr, and a million other places, and people can look through at their leisure, if interested.

In those days, if you wanted to send pics of your kids to your parents, you'd have to print out and mail them those same prints from the album, probably paying for more copies and then hefty postage, and hoping they don't get bent. Today, the grandparents can look at the pictures on those same platforms as above.

These uses, and other similar ones, all create the demand for more (digital) pictures, artistic and skilled or otherwise. However, none of them demands the latest SLR, or even the latest P&S. Today, many of those uses can be satisfied with a newer smartphone camera, or an old T1i, S120, or similar. Digital photography is becoming a mature market of gearheads and infrequent replacements instead of a growth market to meet this new demand. You posted about laptops, and then the same thing happened with tablets, which exploded for a while and then slowed down. Now even Apple still sells the iPad Mini 2 which handles most tasks for most people, even though the hardware is a few years old.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 3, 2017)

hbr said:


> How many people that purchase Rebels with kit lenses to only photograph their kids, pets and families, ever take the camera off the Automatic settings?



Ha, I did, though I'm still far less skilled than most of the people on here. And I spent years with my old D40 (not 40D) afraid to leave the green box until a long time later I picked up a 7D and started at least learning something.

Then again, I'm also one of the few who showed up at a bike shop to get a bike "for group rides and maybe some triathlons" and actually went on to race triathlons for years and years, so I'm already an outlier.


----------



## SkynetTX (Mar 3, 2017)

To stop the market shrinking camera maker companies should simply explain smartphone users what the difference is between their phone and a dedicated camera when it comes to taking pictures.

1. Smartphones have a lens with fixed focal length of about 27 mm or so. The focal length of the DSLR lenses vary from 16 to 800 mm.
2. Smartphones have a fixed aperture of about f/2. The aperture of the DSLR lenses can vary from f/1.2 to f/36. It means that you can never take a real macro photo with large DoF using a smartphone. With a smartphone the DoF can be changed only by increasing or decreasing the distance between you and your subject.
3. Using an ND filter you can set a long exposure time even with wide aperture on a camera so the people or the cars won't ruin your picture when you want to take a photo of a statue or building (or whatever you like) and the picture won't be too bright.

These there reasons are more than enough for me to use a DSLR camere instead of any smartphones.


----------



## ahsanford (Mar 3, 2017)

SkynetTX said:


> To stop the market shrinking camera maker companies should simply explain smartphone users what the difference is between their phone and a dedicated camera when it comes to taking pictures.
> 
> 1. Smartphones have a lens with fixed focal length of about 27 mm or so. The focal length of the DSLR lenses vary from 16 to 800 mm.
> 2. Smartphones have a fixed aperture of about f/2. The aperture of the DSLR lenses can vary from f/1.2 to f/36. It means that you can never take a real macro photo with large DoF using a smartphone. With a smartphone the DoF can be changed only by increasing or decreasing the distance between you and your subject.
> ...



Sure, but you are talking like a photographer. That's not the issue here. Average photographers will skate right past f/numbers, tripod applications and macro DOF.

_People don't want to bring a second device with them_, so the camera must do things the cell phone simply cannot do. Don't try to sell them on DOF or waterfalls, think much higher level than your examples -- tell them a dedicated camera will be able to zoom optically, focus much more quickly, capture usable low light shots at concerts, etc.

(And re: #2 above, I think you've got your DOF math in reverse. An f/2 shot on a 1/3" iPhone sensor has similar DOF to an f/14 on the equivalent full frame setup, so you usually have bags of DOF with a cell phone. It's _small_ DOF that cell phones are poor at.)

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Mar 3, 2017)

I see very much the same issue in hifi.

Hifi still sells itself as a way of playing music and has never managed to market itself as a lifestyle product that the mass-market aims to own simply for its own sake. Music is a commodity and people treat it as such - why pay for better music when an iphone will play music. Cameras and picture-taking have the same problem with kudos.

Contrast that with cars: 4 wheels and an engine with some body work is what you need. What people in general _want _is a flashy status symbol and 'afficionados' they spend oodles putting an expensive music system into what is (musically speaking) a crap environment but they don't care because it is part of _the car_. 'Look at my flash new car and listen to the music system' = 'Look at my great new phone and it also has a fantastic state-of -the-art camera' 

I realise that hifi has issues with space needed for many systems but that does not really explain the the issue around kudos of cameras/phones vs hifi/cameras. By the time people earn enough to have a large enough pad to have hifi, it is nowhere on their list of lifestyle priorities. 

There was another thread recently about how many TV adverts have we seen for cameras. Similarly how many adverts do you see for quality hifi? Both have a problem with image and neither have managed to sell themselves as luxury items so there is not the mass-market desire to own them.


----------



## hbr (Mar 3, 2017)

The way I see it, there are photographers and picture takers. The photographer might use a smart phone to take a photo because he knows why he is using it, but the picture taker does not want to know the details. They only want to snap a photo and either share it or just look at it later. The equipment used to take the picture has no value to them.

The question is, can the manufacturers recapture a sizable slice of this market?


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 3, 2017)

ahsanford said:


> _People don't want to bring a second device with them_, so the camera must do things the cell phone simply cannot do. Don't try to sell them on DOF or waterfalls, think much higher level than your examples -- tell them a dedicated camera will be able to zoom optically, focus much more quickly, capture usable low light shots at concerts, etc.



Yup. It's why iPods went from common to rare, dash-top nav systems went from uncommon to rare, Walkmans went from common to extinct, voice recorders went from uncommon to almost extinct, pocket calculators are almost gone, alarm clocks are declining, and on and on. The more things you can cram into one pocketable device, with at-least-acceptable quality and usability, the more the discrete items will be gutted. Now it's happening to pocketable compacts. Next it'll be... well, if I knew, I'd be inventing and investing and able to afford all the SLR toys I want.


----------



## retroreflection (Mar 4, 2017)

Beginning of time, nobody had a camera.
Photography gets invented, serious entrepreneurs, artists (not accepted as such), and serious enthusiasts get cameras. Very low market penetration.
Kodak introduces the brownie. Enthusiasts show up in sizeable numbers. Eastman gets rich.
Film stock improves (mostly faster, nobody talks about dynamic range). Every newspaper gets a photographer, police forces, large corporations, etc. boost the market. Enthusiasts and new parents also get cameras in greater numbers. The time delay of developing film limits the market.
Digital shows up. No film development delay opens many people's minds to photography. Market growth is now limited by cost - everyone will buy a camera, some at 50¢, some a lot more. Size matters, too. P&S sales volume is all about small and cheap. A percentage of P&S customers get upsold to dslrs, it's bound to happen.
Smart phone cameras get good enough to supplant the P&S hold on small and cheap (well, I was getting a phone anyhow so it's kinda free. Right, honey?). You loose the chance for upselling. 
And, the smartphone is a better solution. Back with the emergence of digital I pushed to have P&S cameras available to all of my engineers. When something photo-worthy appeared we would go get a camera. Things had to exceed a certain fairly big threshold before we would bother. Now, the limit is in how fast you can get the phone out of your pocket- unless the image is beyond the capability of a smartphone. We are back to one guy in the company with specialized camera gear. 
As it was said, the market is not gone. It is just down from a crazy height.


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 5, 2017)

retroreflection said:


> And, the smartphone is a better solution. Back with the emergence of digital I pushed to have P&S cameras available to all of my engineers. When something photo-worthy appeared we would go get a camera. Things had to exceed a certain fairly big threshold before we would bother. Now, the limit is in how fast you can get the phone out of your pocket- unless the image is beyond the capability of a smartphone. We are back to one guy in the company with specialized camera gear.
> As it was said, the market is not gone. It is just down from a crazy height.



Seems a bunch of us are saying more or less the same thing. I'd note that "the smartphone is a better solution" is true on in certain situations, but you definitely pointed out one good one. Another one is things like being in the grocery store and sending my wife a picture of an ingredients list to see if it passes muster for her, or if some other item is actually the correct one. That concept didn't exist a decade ago in any real capacity, but now I can get an answer in seconds. Couldn't do that with film, still can't do it with a DLSR.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 5, 2017)

Fuji sold 5 million Instax cameras last years. But that's not relevant to the stats on the camera market? Does that make this infographic fake news?


----------



## dolina (Mar 5, 2017)

I read a lot of denial.

That's why I am thankful there are numbers to back up the infographic.

Digital camera technology will still advance because of revenue from smartphones.

Smartphone cameras have come to a point that having a dedicated camera is an inconvenience rather than a necessity.

Most phone owners tend to renew their smartphone on a 12/24/36 month cycle with postpaid plans. So new cameras gets "pushed" to them. You really need to be a photog with $$$ to do that actively.

Regular folk who want a camera just want it for taking of photos of people. So a focal length of 24-70mm is already sufficient.


----------



## dolina (Mar 5, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Fuji sold 5 million Instax cameras last years. But that's not relevant to the stats on the camera market? Does that make this infographic fake news?


infographic covers digital.


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 5, 2017)

Ok, thanks - I see the fine print.

Seems odd to produce a document that suggests that the camera market is declining when 5 million+ cameras are excluded.


----------



## dolina (Mar 5, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> Ok, thanks - I see the fine print.
> 
> Seems odd to produce a document that suggests that the camera market is declining when 5 million+ cameras are excluded.


Japan Camera industry excludes film cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2017)

dolina said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, thanks - I see the fine print.
> ...



So you're saying a company that makes both digital cameras and the Instax line of film cameras, and is headquartered at Midtown West, 7-3, Akasaka 9-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 107-0052, Japan, is *not* part of the Japan Camera industry?!? 

Care to defend that assertion?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 6, 2017)

The Infographic chart is just a reformatting of the CIPA data. Fujifilm Corp. supplies both digital camera data and interchangeable lens data to CIPA as do many other camera manufacturers. CIPA makes it clear their data and graphs represent digital camera shipments. According to CIPA, they stopped reporting film camera data in January 2008.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2017)

Exactly. My point was that CIPA is not synonymous with the Japanese camera industry.


----------



## TAF (Mar 6, 2017)

gmrza said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.
> ...




It seems to me we are returning to the pre-digital days of photography, when you bought a body expecting it to last a good long time, and then you added lenses when you could afford them. I bought my Canon F-1 in 1979 fully expecting I would not need to replace it for at least 20-30 years. Obviously I didn't see digital (and Canon killing off the FD mount for the EF) coming :-( (I do still have it and use it occasionally, anyway)

In the early days of digital, each new iteration was worth upgrading. Now the curve is flattening. So of course sales are slowing (or returning to more normal levels if you like).

As for the drop-off in P+S, its not like this hasn't happened before. Remember the Kodak Brownie? The Instamatic? Both highly successful but eventually 'overcome by events' camera tech.

As long as digital imagery exists, we'll be able to buy decent cameras. Of course, if something totally new comes along...


----------



## dolina (Mar 6, 2017)

old-pr-pix said:


> The Infographic chart is just a reformatting of the CIPA data. Fujifilm Corp. supplies both digital camera data and interchangeable lens data to CIPA as do many other camera manufacturers. CIPA makes it clear their data and graphs represent digital camera shipments. According to CIPA, they stopped reporting film camera data in January 2008.


In the same way the music industry does not report sales of audio cassette tapes.

When film camera becomes more significant as LPs then perhaps CIPA will report sales of these cameras.


----------



## dolina (Mar 6, 2017)

Not everyone will buy the latest and greatest and upgrade to next year's model.

It might apply to this forum but not to the public at large. 

Typical consumer will buy 1 camera and use it until it breaks down or gets lost. If the person becomes passionate and if the spouse allows they will then upgrade years down the road. They might talk the talk about the latest and greatest but wont buy because they got no money to buy.

Cameras on smartphones have come to a point that point and shoots arent worth batting an eye at unless they have a larger image sensor.

Most will say "you can't photograph a flying condor 100m up in the sky with an iPhone" well then not everyone wants or even needs a camera for that as not everyone is a birder.

CIPA did right by not including film cameras. They cater to a way different market segment.



TAF said:


> It seems to me we are returning to the pre-digital days of photography, when you bought a body expecting it to last a good long time, and then you added lenses when you could afford them. I bought my Canon F-1 in 1979 fully expecting I would not need to replace it for at least 20-30 years. Obviously I didn't see digital (and Canon killing off the FD mount for the EF) coming :-( (I do still have it and use it occasionally, anyway)
> 
> In the early days of digital, each new iteration was worth upgrading. Now the curve is flattening. So of course sales are slowing (or returning to more normal levels if you like).
> 
> ...


----------



## leGreve (Mar 6, 2017)

I offed all my Canon gear last year... buying nothing to replace it. Although it was my private stash, and we still have loads at work.... but for general usage, I find that its much more useful using my smartphone for every day footage. Heck even in some cases Id be able to get away with using my phone for a proper photo.

I blame the development with smart phones. I went and got the S7 Edge and to my pleasent surprise it shoots DNGs....

Also we are moving towards a paperless future, meaning that massive pixel counts become less important since we will be watching the end product on a digital screen instead.

Right now Im holding off buying anything at all... the market simply doesnt make sense according to where we are.
If anything, Id be looking at lighting. Id be able to do decent shots with this phone if I just brought the right light with me. I positive clients wouldnt be impressed... but thats just how clients are and always have been...


----------



## Hillsilly (Mar 6, 2017)

dolina said:


> ...When film camera becomes more significant as LPs then perhaps CIPA will report sales of these cameras.


One manufacturer alone sells more film cameras than all mirrorless cameras combined. And probably sells more film cameras than Canon sells DSLRs. And that's just the cameras. The real money is in the film where Instax dominates the most popular camera items on Amazon and other similar sites. To me, that's pretty significant.

Anyway, the more I look at the infographic, the less relevant it becomes if it excludes manufacturers from Korea, China, Australia, Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, the USA etc etc.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 6, 2017)

SteveM said:


> Despite having 3 dslr's, I like the compact camera for its extra quality over the camera phone and its obvious portability.....I have 2 A3 prints on the wall from a compact camera. However, after having 4 compact cameras in a little over 2 years (both Canon and Nikon), none of them lasting for >5000 shutter actuations I've given up with them and now use a camera phone. This market could have survived a little better had they managed to produce reliable cameras (from my personal experience).
> The dslr market will eventually bottom out, but they do need to get beyond the seeming expectation that the majority of revenue comes from existing users upgrading from the mk l to the mkll to the mklll to the MklV.......cameras are too good to bother upgrading regularly anymore and useful features are thin on the ground.
> Most companies I am aware of 'hunt' new customers for growth.
> I was in 2 large tourist areas over the weekend and out of the couple of thousand people I saw I counted 4 dslr's. All 4 in the hands of the over 50's. Is this the future of the dslr?


I was on vacation in Dubai three weeks ago most of the tourists were young Chinese, Korean or Japanese and plenty of them had DSLRs. The older tourists like me had opted for high end compact cameras.

The young from the UK all used smart phones that I could see apart from one lady in her early twenties who had a Canon 5D MKIV.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 6, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > ...When film camera becomes more significant as LPs then perhaps CIPA will report sales of these cameras.
> ...


B&W film dropped dramatically from 1991 until 2015 when it grew. Sales were up again in 2016 its a bit like the return of records.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 6, 2017)

Air shows, Wildlife (think safaris), Birds, Distant Landscapes, True Macro, Studio Strobes, try doing any of these on a smart phone!


----------



## dolina (Mar 6, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> Air shows, Wildlife (think safaris), Birds, Distant Landscapes, True Macro, Studio Strobes, try doing any of these on a smart phone!


Yes, they far out number close range people photography.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 6, 2017)

Hillsilly said:


> dolina said:
> 
> 
> > ...When film camera becomes more significant as LPs then perhaps CIPA will report sales of these cameras.
> ...



+1

CIPA data are useful regarding digital cameras, but not for the entire industry. Still, while the Instax line is major in terms of units sold, its far less so in terms of revenue.


----------



## LDS (Mar 6, 2017)

jeffa4444 said:


> I was on vacation in Dubai three weeks ago most of the tourists were young Chinese, Korean or Japanese and plenty of them had DSLRs. The older tourists like me had opted for high end compact cameras.
> The young from the UK all used smart phones that I could see apart from one lady in her early twenties who had a Canon 5D MKIV.



Which could say that what fashion (especially as a status-symbol) dictates in the respective cultural areas is not irrelevant.


----------



## bedford (Mar 6, 2017)

hbr said:


> The way I see it, there are photographers and picture takers. The photographer might use a smart phone to take a photo because he knows why he is using it, but the picture taker does not want to know the details. They only want to snap a photo and either share it or just look at it later. The equipment used to take the picture has no value to them.
> 
> The question is, can the manufacturers recapture a sizable slice of this market?



The picture takers, as you call them, are not interested in taking photographs, all they're interested in is creating social content. It will be difficult for a camera manufacturer to produce a product with added value for this type of consumers.

As I see it, there was a hype for digital cameras around 2007-2011. Digital cameras were cool at that time. Today even smartphones have lost their coolness factor, as the phone market reaches saturation. At best the camera market should go back to the healthy level before the hype. 

I think it's also important to note that people, when it comes to taking "meaningful" pictures (birthdays, weddings etc.), often use a camera in addition to the smartphone. They seem to be aware that the camera produces better pictures (or at least _feel_ that way). Camera manufacturers should build on that and on creating a better, simpler, easier, more fun user experience (and not like Sony on blowing up the spec sheet).

Oliver


----------



## Talys (Mar 27, 2017)

bedford said:


> hbr said:
> 
> 
> > The way I see it, there are photographers and picture takers. The photographer might use a smart phone to take a photo because he knows why he is using it, but the picture taker does not want to know the details. They only want to snap a photo and either share it or just look at it later. The equipment used to take the picture has no value to them.
> ...



There are people who see a point-and-shoot take a washed out picture with using built-in flash and say, "Beautiful!" -- because the picture captures a group of friends at a pub. What's beautiful isn't the photograph, but the content: if it's a photo of the next table over, it's no longer beautiful. The requirements for that photo are just to be in-focus and to capture the moment.

But they're willing to pay money for a family or wedding portrait, and they still say "wow" when they see an amazingly composed landscape or sunset. Although seeing those photos makes them happy, they're not really interested in trying to make that shot themselves.


----------

