# What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2017 Infographic



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2018)

```
Every year for the last 5 years, LensVid has released their infographic and report showing the state of the camera industry. You can now check out their <a href="https://lensvid.com/gear/happened-photography-industry-2017/">report and infographic for 2017</a>.</p>
<p>Click the image above for a larger view.</p>
<p>The information is based on the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/the-final-camera-shipment-numbers-for-2017-are-in/">CIPA report for 2017</a> released earlier this month.</p>
<p>A look back at previous LensVid reports on the camera industry:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2013/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2013?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-happened-photography-industry-2014/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2014?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2015/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2015?</a></li>
<li><a href="https://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-happened-photography-industry-2016/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2016?</a></li>
</ul>

		<style type='text/css'>
			#gallery-1 {
				margin: auto;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-item {
				float: left;
				margin-top: 10px;
				text-align: center;
				width: 25%;
			}
			#gallery-1 img {
				border: 2px solid #cfcfcf;
			}
			#gallery-1 .gallery-caption {
				margin-left: 0;
			}
			/* see gallery_shortcode() in wp-includes/media.php */
		</style>
		<div id='gallery-1' class='gallery galleryid-33616 gallery-columns-4 gallery-size-thumbnail'><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2013lv.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2013lv-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" aria-describedby="gallery-1-33620" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2013lv-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2013lv-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt>
				<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-1-33620'>
				2013
				</dd></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014lv.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014lv-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" aria-describedby="gallery-1-33621" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014lv-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2014lv-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt>
				<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-1-33621'>
				2014
				</dd></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2015lv.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2015lv-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" aria-describedby="gallery-1-33622" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2015lv-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2015lv-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt>
				<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-1-33622'>
				2015
				</dd></dl><dl class='gallery-item'>
			<dt class='gallery-icon landscape'>
				<a href='http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016lv.jpg'><img width="168" height="168" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016lv-168x168.jpg" class="attachment-thumbnail size-thumbnail" alt="" aria-describedby="gallery-1-33623" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016lv-168x168.jpg 168w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/2016lv-144x144.jpg 144w" sizes="(max-width: 168px) 100vw, 168px" /></a>
			</dt>
				<dd class='wp-caption-text gallery-caption' id='gallery-1-33623'>
				2016
				</dd></dl><br style="clear: both" />
		</div>

<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2018)

So the question becomes: how much mirrorless penetration must there be before the big two SLR makers (Canon/Nikon) make the historic move to release their next Rebel / D5X00 cameras without a mirror? 

I'm not talking about selling a Rebel SLR and M(whatever) side by side, I'm talking about a Rebel update happens and this time there is no mirrored version. How far are we away from that? 1 generation? 2? 3?

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm talking about a Rebel update happens and this time there is no mirrored version. How far are we away from that? 1 generation? 2? 3?



The ILC market was 65% dSLRs in 2017, only 35% MILCs. I’d say we’re at least as far away from that as however long it takes for that ratio to flip.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 13, 2018)

There is also no data on how many people use a mirrorless ILC as their main camera vs people that have a mirrorless system to backup their DSLRs.

I think if you removed the people who use DSLRs as a primary with a mirrorless backup, mirrorless penetration is likely halved.


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

There is danger in the interpretation of these numbers. Some things to consider:

1. Mirrorless didn't really increase substantially until this year. Is it an anomaly or a trend? On the other hand, DSLRs HAVE decreased substantially every year. It's safe to call that a trend.

2. But the WHY of #1 is important. Are people buying mirrorless because it is a superior tool? Or is it because their DSLR does everything they need it to, and they don't want to buy another one? For 95% of my photography, a 5D Mark II, 6D Mark 1, or 60D or even older would work perfectly fine.

3. There are people who own both mirrorless and DSLRs. I think, lots of enthusiasts. What is the ratio of usage of mirrorless and DSLR for people who own both?

4. Will Mirrorless plateau, and eventually, decrease, as the technology matures, and successive generations cease to provide _meaningful_ benefits?

5. What is the breakdown of interchangeable LENSES sold, mirrorless-only lenses, and native DSLR mounts? I think this would be more reflective of the future of the marketplace.


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 13, 2018)

Good comments. One other observation:

The increase in cameras shipped back in the early part of the decade was in part due to a very rapid and massive technological shift, where people were buying cameras every 2 years sometimes, as the new digital technology produced very significant upgrade bumps. 

I see similarity to that now in the mirrorless segment. Not so much that massive additional functionality is being presented each time (although it's significant), but rather that the products are iterating very quickly. I venture to guess that the average A7R2 owner is several times more likely to upgrade to the A7R3 than the 5D3 owner was likely to upgrade to the 5D4, as the mirrorless side has a lot more developing going on. Maybe that example is too high end, but same would be true for the Fuji crops, etc. There is a higher likelihood to upgrade, as well as a much faster upgrade cycle going on in mirrorless (including in CanonWorld). 

Separate point:
Looking at the deeper trend, I think that the lower end mirrorless bodies are likely to be the ones most apt to suffer camera phone cannibalization (same is true for low end DSLRs). 

Final point: 
I don't think that us mirrorslapper drivers dislike the idea of mirrorless. To me it's just plumbing. I suspect there is a big cost driver encouraging the retirement of mirrors, and that'll really toll once you see EVFs being both good and very cheap. So in answer to the earlier question about when Canon/Nikon release a mirrorless-only version of its existing line.... The model whose design starts immediately after the introduction of a lagless EVF. Since they're not quite good enough now (close), they'll likely be good enough and cheap enough in 3 cycles+, as the design times are long with these large companies - longer than the replacement cycles themselves.


----------



## canonnews (Feb 13, 2018)

[email protected] said:


> I see similarity to that now in the mirrorless segment. Not so much that massive additional functionality is being presented each time (although it's significant), but rather that the products are iterating very quickly.



There's alot of this.

also mathematically a segment of the industry which is gaining companies versus another which is basically losing companies producing articles, should have a shift.

Some of 2017 gains can be attributed to the earthquake, but it's more 2016 was so poor overall in terms of camera shipments for mirrorless (sans Canon) and DSLR's (sans Canon again).

2017 as was 2016 are both really awkward years to try and make any predictions based upon. Both of them were affected by Sony's sensor fab disruption. Both Panasonic and Olympus (and I believe Fuji as well) postponed major product announcements from 2016 and put them into 2017. That would have caused, shipment wise, too much of a gain in 2017 because some of those units would have shipped in 2016 in a normal year. So while 2017 was breathtaking if you are mirrorless fan, some of that just may not be there in 2018, some of that rate of increase is because of earthquake. The total number of mirrorless shipped is probably pretty close though, with the exception of the 1st quarter amounts.

Of course we'll get a better picture starting in 15 days 

As far as the rebels and such moving over because of mirrorless gains - I think is backward thinking (not you, but a prior post)

Canon or Nikon (or both) will move to mirrorless to save assembly, alignment, manufacturing and warranty costs when they feel they have credible cameras for that segment, and the segment isn't put off by having an EVF. Even then I would imagine that Canon will implement more of a "let the better camera win" by running mirrorless and DSLR's side by side competing against each other, than they would simply vanishing the highly successful DSLR lineup.

It's really only been this current generation of Canon cameras where you could really say they have all the pieces (DPAF across all cameras, DIGIC 7 for processing). Nikon supposedly has all the pieces now as well, but time will tell on that.


----------



## mppix (Feb 13, 2018)

The "Camera Market Overview" graphic is misrepresenting its own numbers
- 52% in 2016 is more than "half"
- The 2016 numbers don't sum up to 100% (but probably due to rounding)
- 30% in 2017 appears to be smaller than 28% in 2015
- 16.4% mirrorless share in 2017 appears to be similar than the 30% DSLR share

At best, the intern that did the graphic did not know better but this should have been caught. Lensvid is over-representing (visually) the importance of mirrorless in this overview and under-representing the importance of non-interchangeable cameras.

This is unfortunate because the mirorless vs DSLR discussion is already heated enough. The few solid numbers that we have should not be manipulated.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 13, 2018)

Talys said:


> 2. But the WHY of #1 is important. Are people buying mirrorless because it is a superior tool? Or is it because their DSLR does everything they need it to, and they don't want to buy another one? For 95% of my photography, a 5D Mark II, 6D Mark 1, or 60D or even older would work perfectly fine.
> 
> 3. There are people who own both mirrorless and DSLRs. I think, lots of enthusiasts. What is the ratio of usage of mirrorless and DSLR for people who own both? ...


I can only speak for myself... I originally bought ML (m43) instead of getting a 7D as a small, light 2nd back-up body. Plan was to only have one lens for it. I felt it would be good enough for much of what I do. (Non-profit stuff that goes into newsletters, flyers, web pages, etc. I also evaluated original Canon M - it wasn't good enough - AF was horrible.)

Quickly I found I enjoyed using the ML more than expected. Added a second ML body (less EVF lag), got battery grips for both bodies, upgraded to full complement of PRO series lenses, and now use mirrorless probably 75% of the time. Lighter, much smaller lenses for equal focal length & f-stop (I know, not the same DOF), fit in smaller bags and honestly can do 95% of what I do. In reality though, most of the size/weight savings are due to smaller sensor, not ML vs. dSLR. For me, given the current state of ML development, it really is a toss-up with dSLR's. Either get the job done.

I still like my dSLR Canon gear and L lenses. I'm hoping Canon will bring us some exciting stuff before I wear-out existing and need to replace.


----------



## ahsanford (Feb 13, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > I'm talking about a Rebel update happens and this time there is no mirrored version. How far are we away from that? 1 generation? 2? 3?
> ...



Hence my question: *can* that ratio flip if CaNikon stick with mirrors in their high volume Rebel / D5X00 lines? One might argue that ratio can't realistically get past 50-50 until either those two lines abandon their mirrors or (in Canon's case) the EOS M line is dramatically discounted vs. a same-spec'd SLR -- which they clearly won't do.

So I contend the market won't truly transform from mirrors to mirrorless until the bosses of the SLR world say that it's time and put their crop high volume mirrors out to pasture. 

- A


----------



## Talys (Feb 13, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



But why would they do that?

Entry level DSLRs will keep some people -- who want cheap DSLRs -- from considering mirrorless competitors. And, Canon/Nikon are tooled up to produce DSLRs so efficiently that they have effectively created a duopoly. That's actually a really good place to be.

The only reason I can imagine to kill DSLRs is because (a) MILCs are just way more profitable (I think this is unlikely to ever happen) or (b) because nobody wants to buy mirrorless cameras anymore.

And remember, there are still a lot of people who aren't really camera enthusiasts who have preconceptions of what a "real" camera should look like, and buy something like that to take better photos on their vacation. Or, they think that if they spend $600, they'll get National Geographic quality photos from their trip. The guy at the sales counter genuinely doesn't care what the customer buys, as long as they fork over some money. I've literally seen a sales person extol the virtues of mirrorless to customers who are interested in one, telling them that DSLRs are dead. Then go on and on about how DSLRs are vastly superior to the next customer and that mirrorless is just a fad.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 14, 2018)

Talys said:


> There is danger in the interpretation of these numbers. Some things to consider:
> 2. But the WHY of #1 is important. Are people buying mirrorless because it is a superior tool? Or is it because their DSLR does everything they need it to, and they don't want to buy another one? For 95% of my photography, a 5D Mark II, 6D Mark 1, or 60D or even older would work perfectly fine.



Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol (just read neuroanatomist's postings constantly writing about his white superteles), as something to be shown off ("Look at my new 5DII sooo much detail", "OMG my 100-400 L IS II is soooo uber sharp!" or whatever). 

This is something I don't see anymore, nobody runs around showing off their 5DIV/1DX/77D with hyper swivel. People used to take snaps with their smart phones "I know it's crappy but sadly I forgot to bring my DSLR", now they use it almost defiantly "nope, I am not going to lug around 2 kg of camera equipment". 

New DSLRs seem to have completely lost their magic with Joe/Jane Shmoe, and LensVid's numbers clearly show this.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 14, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > There is danger in the interpretation of these numbers. Some things to consider:
> ...



Smacks of envy to me - someone who can't afford the to gear and tries to rationalise other people being able to. 



> Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol


Why do you think this has changed? Has the introduction of mirrorless resulted in a sudden change of photographic gestalt from status symbols to wanting to take pictures?
Of course, we never hear mirrorless Sony owners crowing about their superior dynamic range and their instant focussing do we?



> nobody runs around showing off their 5DIV/1DX/77D


I never saw anyone do that. Not even with a 77D (really??). I saw popoel paying top dollar for a camera to do a specific job, but of course if yo are happy with the picture of an eagle in flight taken with a 60D and 70-300 USM kit lens then I am genuinely happy for you. 




> New DSLRs seem to have completely lost their magic


Nope. It is because people now have a choice due to market diversity.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2018)

It used to be that people were jealous of those with better camera gear (just read Rudeofus' post whining about me having a white supertele), but now dSLRs have become so common that _most_ people have moved on to being jealous of other things.


----------



## exquisitor (Feb 14, 2018)

mppix said:


> The "Camera Market Overview" graphic is misrepresenting its own numbers
> - 52% in 2016 is more than "half"
> - The 2016 numbers don't sum up to 100% (but probably due to rounding)
> - 30% in 2017 appears to be smaller than 28% in 2015
> ...



I agree with you. But not only "Camera Market Overview" is flawed. Essentially every graph is misrepresenting the data.
Look at the "Amount of total cameras by year": note the difference between 2013 and 2015 and the difference between 2015 and 2016. 26 millions shift is smaller than 12 millions shift!
"Amount of interchangeable lenses by year": note years 2010 and 2014, both are at 22 millions, the column for 2014 is higher. What?!
"Number of cameras shipped in 2017 by region": "Others" segments in the graphs for cameras and lenses have 2 and 2.6 % respectively. But 2 % are represented larger than 2.6 %! "Europe" segment for lenses with 25 % is larger than "Americas" segment with 28 %.
Even the graph on the right with "Cameras manufactured between 2010 and 2017" with appropriate scale manages to manipulate the height of the columns slightly, so that DSLR is understated and mirrorless is exaggerated.

There are two possibilities: Lensvid made an incredibly sloppy job of representing the data or they manipulated the graphs on purpose. In both cases I would recommend rather to refer to the original CIPA data as this "representation" is very wrong.


----------



## Talys (Feb 14, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol (just read neuroanatomist's postings constantly writing about his white superteles), as something to be shown off ("Look at my new 5DII sooo much detail", "OMG my 100-400 L IS II is soooo uber sharp!" or whatever).
> 
> This is something I don't see anymore, nobody runs around showing off their 5DIV/1DX/77D with hyper swivel. People used to take snaps with their smart phones "I know it's crappy but sadly I forgot to bring my DSLR", now they use it almost defiantly "nope, I am not going to lug around 2 kg of camera equipment".
> 
> New DSLRs seem to have completely lost their magic with Joe/Jane Shmoe, and LensVid's numbers clearly show this.



I surely hope that Canon and Nikon do not design their cameras around the type of person that you're describing.

Cameras should be designed around the needs of people who want to advance their photography; to create better images, do things previously difficult or impossible, or to make real tasks more convenient or efficient. Professional cameras shouldn't be consolation prizes for people who can't afford a nice house, supercar, Learjet, or whatever.

I will also point out that in most parts of the world, cameras are nearly the lamest status symbol I can imagine. Someone who isn't an enthusiast could care less about whether you had an A7R3 or a A7.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Smacks of envy to me - someone who can't afford the to gear and tries to rationalise other people being able to.


You've got to be kidding me. In the grand scheme of things these white super teles are not that expensive, see what people spend on cars, motorcycles, houses/flats. In addition, these white lenses retain their value much better than most other status symbols, and rarely incur running costs like property tax, maintenance or fuel.

Owning one of these lenses is not a sign of wealth in my neck of the wood, it's just a sign, that you are inclined to spend your money on photographic items. For most folks, and this includes the photographically inclined ones here, a 500/600 F/4 is a solution desperately looking for a problem, that's why you won't see them often.



Mikehit said:


> Why do you think this has changed? Has the introduction of mirrorless resulted in a sudden change of photographic gestalt from status symbols to wanting to take pictures?
> Of course, we never hear mirrorless Sony owners crowing about their superior dynamic range and their instant focussing do we?


Photographic items went from "look at my gadget ZOMG I AM TEH COOLZ" to "I brought my cam along because it gives better quality images" all the way to "I am not lugging this weight around, my 5DIII remains at home and I'll bring my mirrorless". 

Folks really don't give a crap anymore about dynamic range or AF speed. In my fotoclub, where 1Dx users rubbed against 5DIII users just a few years ago, now the same members bring in mirror less or Olympus DSLR cameras and go "oh so small!".



Mikehit said:


> I never saw anyone do that. Not even with a 77D (really??). I saw popoel paying top dollar for a camera to do a specific job, but of course if yo are happy with the picture of an eagle in flight taken with a 60D and 70-300 USM kit lens then I am genuinely happy for you.


If only those bought a 5DII/III who needed it for their job, neither of us would be able to afford one. Selling the same design to 1.000 photographers who really need it and to 10.000.000 who just want it because it's cool - that's what makes these cameras and lenses affordable to everyone.



Talys said:


> Rudeofus said:
> 
> 
> > New DSLRs seem to have completely lost their magic with Joe/Jane Shmoe, and LensVid's numbers clearly show this.
> ...


They absolutely have to, see my above comment. Economy of scales ...

Do you really believe, that there was an honest photographic need for 7.5 million dSLR cameras last year?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Smacks of envy to me - someone who can't afford the to gear and tries to rationalise other people being able to.
> ...



Well now you have me confused because you said people buy big whites to brag 



> Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol (just read neuroanatomist's postings constantly writing about his white superteles), as something to be shown off ("Look at my new 5DII sooo much detail", "OMG my 100-400 L IS II is soooo uber sharp!" or whatever)



Now you seem to be agreeing they bought them to do a job. What exactly is your point?


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 15, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> Well now you have me confused because you said people buy big whites to brag


They used to do this, but this trend is going down - as shown by Lensvid's charts.



> Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol (just read neuroanatomist's postings constantly writing about his white superteles), as something to be shown off ("Look at my new 5DII sooo much detail", "OMG my 100-400 L IS II is soooo uber sharp!" or whatever)


Now you seem to be agreeing they bought them to do a job. What exactly is your point?
[/quote]
Those people, who buy photographic equipment to fill a photographic need, are a small minority, and these folks won't sustain the production numbers to keep prices where they are right now. Canon/Nikon/Sony can't sustain their business model (in the photography sector), if the "gotta have its" leave the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Well now you have me confused because you said people buy big whites to brag
> ...



Sorry, I must have missed where LensVid plotted the data for the big white lenses. Can you point that out on their graphic? And since their infographic is based on CIPA data, can you also point out the CIPA data on production/shipments of specific classes of lenses?

Or are you just talking out of your nether orifice?


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > Well now you have me confused because you said people buy big whites to brag
> ...




Really? Your theory on dropping sales is because people used to buy gear to brag about it but don't anymore? 
Have you any evidence that those people who used to buy big whites to brag are now going to micro fourthirds and Sony with their smaller lenses?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 15, 2018)

Some numbers to consider... In the US there are roughly 152,000 working photographers according to on-line statistics. Just over half are self-employed and about a quarter are 'underemployed' (i.e. perhaps they shoot part-time, 10-15 weddings a year). If every working pro buys a new body every other year that only accounts for 75,000 bodies a year.

On the other hand CIPA lists 2.9 million ILC bodies for the Americas for 2017 (guess 50% to US?). That must be almost entirely enthusiasts and general consumers -pros being a small percentage. Likewise, CIPA shows 2/3's of all lenses shipped are for APS-C and smaller formats. And, the average number of lenses per body is 1.6 to 1.7, so again most buyers are getting crop cameras and maybe a second lens.

The number of folks who practice photography in the US - pros, hobbyists, soccer mom's, etc. all combined - has dropped from 59.6 million in 2011 to 40.8 million in 2017. No indication why? People trying it and losing interest?

Look at the shelf space big box retailers allow for cameras... it has definitely shrunk. Sales guy at the local pro shop told me directly that he wished Canon would come out with something new - 'we need something exciting we can sell to justify the large inventory Canon makes us carry.'


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Sorry, I must have missed where LensVid plotted the data for the big white lenses. Can you point that out on their graphic? And since their infographic is based on CIPA data, can you also point out the CIPA data on production/shipments of specific classes of lenses?
> 
> Or are you just talking out of your nether orifice?


Dealing with orifices of all kinds (whatever "nether orifice" may be) is your job, I am an engineer, and therefore used to derive data from given data sets. I have seen many kinds of equipment, starting from 8x10" film cameras to just about anything dSLR and now, more recently, mirrorless cameras, but I have so far not seen too many mirrorless cameras attached to big supertelephoto lenses. I also observe the general trend towards noticeably smaller camera systems (medium format ---> 5Ds, 5DIII ---> Olympus, 70D/7D ---> Samsung/Olympus/Panasonic), also a good indicator that long superteles lost some popularity.

A second source of my assertion, that visibly expensive lenses sort of lost their magic is direct observation in my photo club with its 200+ active members, including myself for 8+ years. You simply don't see these much any longer, especially new ones, when one used to see a member with an expensive new dSLR or lens quite often some years ago.



Mikehit said:


> Really? Your theory on dropping sales is because people used to buy gear to brag about it but don't anymore?
> Have you any evidence that those people who used to buy big whites to brag are now going to micro fourthirds and Sony with their smaller lenses?


That photo club I am with may not be representative for the whole world population, but we're not niche freaks either. Membership goes up, while display of "wow expensive toy" gear goes down, and has gone down for the last few years.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I must have missed where LensVid plotted the data for the big white lenses. Can you point that out on their graphic? And since their infographic is based on CIPA data, can you also point out the CIPA data on production/shipments of specific classes of lenses?
> ...



Thanks for confirming that you have no actual data to support your assertion.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 15, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I must have missed where LensVid plotted the data for the big white lenses. Can you point that out on their graphic? And since their infographic is based on CIPA data, can you also point out the CIPA data on production/shipments of specific classes of lenses?
> ...



Alternative reading of your clique:
Most photographers are generalists so a smaller camera suits them fine. Until the rise of higher quality MFTs the only option was DSLR and people had little choice in what they brought: it has always bemused me that my 35mm film cameras were so much smaller than my 35mm DSLR. The shift is not so much people no longer wanting to brag but now they have the option to buy the size of camera they would have bought had it been available. 
In addition, the quality and IQ of sensors has got to the point of rapidly diminishing returns much lower down the food chain so the incentive to upgrade has become far less. 

Also, member ship of camera clubs have changed, IME. Back in the 1980s/1990s camera clubs were largely populated by people who were keen enough to own decent gear (which was relatively costly) and people who were willing to have a go at developing their own pictures. Now, everybody has access to camera phones, compacts and DSLRs and freebie processing software is everywhere. The pool is much wider and the percentage of people with big expensive gear gets lower. 

Have you asked your club colleageus if they own a big white so they can brag about it or if they actually use it?


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 15, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for confirming that you have no actual data to support your assertion.


Neither have you, at least under the assumption that insults are not considered data. I have one more data point for you, though: compare this thread from 2015 about the upcoming 600 DO vs. the thread from late 2016 vs. the most recent thread here. Compare enthusiasm, number of postings in the first 24 hours, compare whatever you want, but there is a noticeable difference. The latest thread has mostly professionals and dedicated wild life shooters discussing a lens they seem to need, the two previous threads are full of additional people filled with excitement about a lens they will likely never buy but dream of having.



Mikehit said:


> Also, member ship of camera clubs have changed, IME. Back in the 1980s/1990s camera clubs were largely populated by people who were keen enough to own decent gear (which was relatively costly) and people who were willing to have a go at developing their own pictures. Now, everybody has access to camera phones, compacts and DSLRs and freebie processing software is everywhere. The pool is much wider and the percentage of people with big expensive gear gets lower.


Owning a camera for a few snaps does not automatically lead to people joining a photo club. People in our club a generally enthusiastic about photography, about lighting and studio work, some more into architecture and urban landscapes. It's just the excitement about new cameras and lenses that appears to have been lost. One guy actually did buy the 600 L II just recently, didn't even bother bringing it along, just showed around some shots on his smart phone for the few who cared. Such a thing would have been unthinkable five years ago.


----------



## Talys (Feb 15, 2018)

This has turned into such a crazy thread.

"Canon is ******* because the people who liked to brag and show off their CAMERA LENSES aren't feeling the testosterone with big whites anymore!!! Canon doesn't get that enthusiasts REALLY want to show off small and sexy cameras now!!!"

Sure, there is pride in ownership, and genuine excitement in owning such a thing. But FFS, who the blazes cares who wants to show off what. I want a nice, sharp, light(er) lens for taking photos at great magnification. Anyone who thinks that the vast majority of people considering a $10k+ lens for any other purpose is nuts.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for confirming that you have no actual data to support your assertion.
> ...



I'm not the one who started making assertions, you are. The burden of supporting them falls on you. If you can't substantiate your claims, they're just your personal opinion...you're welcome to share that opinion, but you may as well be claiming the earth is flat for the credibility it has. 




Rudeofus said:


> I have one more data point for you, though: compare this thread from 2015 about the upcoming 600 DO vs. the thread from late 2016 vs. the most recent thread here. Compare enthusiasm, number of postings in the first 24 hours, compare whatever you want, but there is a noticeable difference. The latest thread has mostly professionals and dedicated wild life shooters discussing a lens they seem to need, the two previous threads are full of additional people filled with excitement about a lens they will likely never buy but dream of having.



Obviously you don't understand the difference between data and anecdotes. For most people, that would be sad. For an engineer, it's downright pathetic.


----------



## bwud (Feb 16, 2018)

Talys said:


> 3. There are people who own both mirrorless and DSLRs. I think, lots of enthusiasts. What is the ratio of usage of mirrorless and DSLR for people who own both?



I fit that demographic. I got a mirrorless ILC about 2.5 years ago, but kept all my canon SLR gear. Over that time period, I probably used MILC for 90% of my shots. SLR was primarily for longer lenses. 

I am currently evaluating whether I will start using mirrorless for long lens work, with this combination. In case anyone is wondering, the fact that it's white had no bearing on the purchase


----------



## Talys (Feb 16, 2018)

bwud said:


> In case anyone is wondering, the fact that it's white had no bearing on the purchase



LOL +1 

What do you think so far? 100-400LII with a 2x on a 6DII is a no go for me in nearly all cases. Even a 1.4x is not really enjoyable to use unless it's a very bright day.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 16, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for confirming that you have no actual data to support your assertion.
> ...



And neither of those backs up your assertion that people bought big whites so they could brag about it.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 16, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I'm not the one who started making assertions, you are. The burden of supporting them falls on you. If you can't substantiate your claims, they're just your personal opinion...you're welcome to share that opinion, but you may as well be claiming the earth is flat for the credibility it has.


Claiming that my assertion is flat out wrong is a statement as well, and requires just as much evidence - of which you have provided not a trace so far. Again, childish insults and speculation about my orifices do not constitute evidence.



neuroanatomist said:


> Obviously you don't understand the difference between data and anecdotes. For most people, that would be sad. For an engineer, it's downright pathetic.


The evidence I provided you with would well constitute empirical data, while you have provided absolutely nothing insightful to this thread until now. So far you have only brought up the kind of reactions and responses that are standard repertoire of toddlers when someone belittles their favorite toy.

Note, how others brought up circumstantial evidence, which corroborates my statements: much reduced shop floor space dedicated to cameras and lenses, camera stores going out of business left and right, people leaving their dSLR gear mostly at home, ...



Mikehit said:


> And neither of those backs up your assertion that people bought big whites so they could brag about it.


Let me state my assertion more clearly such that misunderstandings are less likely: a sizable number of professionals and serious amateurs needed and had expensive camera gear for years and continues to buy it - all for very good reasons. Then there was a huge crowd of gear worshipers (I may well have been one of them), who drooled about long glass or other high end gear but likely never bought any (my 70-200 is my only white lens, and certainly much cheaper than Canon's big whites). 

Out of this crew of gear worshipers grew a class of people who bought gear to impress and to gain reputation with this very crowd. These are the people who constantly rag&rave about their fancy gear, how life is supposedly next to meaningless without this gear, yet unconsciously leave the impression that their gear is a solution desperately looking out for a problem. These people used to bump up sales volumes for expensive gear, they co-financed Canon's R&D and made high end gear economically feasible - a great thing for those whose job and work actually depends on availability and affordability of these cameras and lenses.

My observation was, that the crowd of gear worshipers has shrunk substantially during the last couple of years. The length comparison of these three threads about the 600 DO is just one piece of evidence for this. Once owners of big&expensive gear no longer gain envious looks and high reputation, they will stop buying into this stuff, and overall prices will rise at the same time as new products get either delayed or canceled altogether.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 16, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Out of this crew of gear worshipers grew a class of people who bought gear to impress and to gain reputation with this very crowd. These are the people who constantly rag&rave about their fancy gear, how life is supposedly next to meaningless without this gear, yet unconsciously leave the impression that their gear is a solution desperately looking out for a problem. These people used to bump up sales volumes for expensive gear, they co-financed Canon's R&D and made high end gear economically feasible - a great thing for those whose job and work actually depends on availability and affordability of these cameras and lenses.



And you believe that that this group of people was sufficiently large to account for the significant drop in sales figures? I suggest you look at the sidelines of any major porting event....



Rudeofus said:


> My observation was, that the crowd of gear worshipers has shrunk substantially during the last couple of years. The length comparison of these three threads about the 600 DO is just one piece of evidence for this. Once owners of big&expensive gear no longer gain envious looks and high reputation, they will stop buying into this stuff, and overall prices will rise at the same time as new products get either delayed or canceled altogether.


How has this thread supported your view of the reasons people actually buy such gear. 
I like hifi - I drool over gear I would not buy even if I had the money.
I look at fancy cars and like talking specs and new developments - but to me cars are functional tools and I would rather spend my money elsewhere (like a 600 f4 lens if I had the choice)
All these threads prove is that people are interested in the technology, not that they are money-splashing egotists (either now or in the past).

Am I denying that some people buy things (cars, hifi, cameras, jewellry, even certain types of kitchen knives) for status? No. What I am questioning is (a) your original blanket assertion that people bought big whites to brag (which you seem to have moved away from when challenged) and (b) that this group of people is remotely large enough to account for the scale of the drop in sales shown in the CIPA figures.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 16, 2018)

I finally found some real numbers on CIPA web page, sadly they only go till 2016:
[list type=decimal]
[*]Total number of interchangeable lenses sold dropped from 30.4 million in 2012 down to 21.7 million in 2015 and even further down to 19.2 million in 2016
[*]Average lens price dropped across the board between 2015 and 2016, despite the fact that newer cameras tend to ask for better and more expensive lenses to fully exploit their potential
[*]Peak price per unit was somewhere between 2014 and 2015, while higher economic growth in 2016/2017 should have resulted in more sales of more expensive lenses in 2016
[*]The numbers shown for 35mm fixed focal and special purpose lenses completely dwarf the total number of any lens seen at any sport event. I sure hope for Canon, that they sell more white superteles than what you see at this year's Olympic games.
[/list]


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 16, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> I finally found some real numbers on CIPA web page, sadly they only go till 2016:
> [list type=decimal]
> [*]Total number of interchangeable lenses sold dropped from 30.4 million in 2012 down to 21.7 million in 2015 and even further down to 19.2 million in 2016
> [*]Average lens price dropped across the board between 2015 and 2016, despite the fact that newer cameras tend to ask for better and more expensive lenses to fully exploit their potential[/list] How do you draw that conclusion? I already own a 70-200 f4LIS, one fo the sharpest lenses in Canon's catalogue. If I upgrade my body I need to upgrade my lens? More likely that an improved body helps me to recognise the full potential of a lens I already have.
> ...



So as neruo pointed out, you have no facts, merely a personal view on the limited data presented to you. 
Surely as an engineer used to looking at data, do you not think you are pushing things too far? 
No-one is denying the fact the camera market has dropped, and just because people have more money doe snot mean they will spend more on camera gear. One thing noted recently about spending patterns is that people are moving away from buying 'things' to buying 'experiences' - so maybe the camera market reflects this as well: instead of staying at home and buying super teles for bird photography they have decided to spend money on gong places to see wildlife in exotic places. 
Maybe average lens price has dropped not because the slaes of super teles have dropped but because proportionately more people are buying cameras at the entry level so the average price drops. Or people bought expensive cameras in the boom of the 2000's but realise that they are not using cameras as much so stopped buying cameras (which are now good enough for them) and moved onto other hobbies. Or a mixture of everything. 
But no, you assign it to ego.


----------



## bwud (Feb 16, 2018)

Talys said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > In case anyone is wondering, the fact that it's white had no bearing on the purchase
> ...



I’m not super keen on the 2X, largely because the A7r (unlike the A9) doesn’t support PDAF at f/11 or smaller max apertures, and using it in continuous mode results in a lot of weirdness (strange visual disturbances in the EVF, which I am guessing are manifestations of the IS systems, but am not sure). Single shot CDAF is excellent and snappy, but if anything is moving much you’re in for some effort.

The EVF however I find advantageous over f/11 combinations using OVF. 

Sharpness is largely good. It’s significantly better than my Tamron 150-600 (not that it’s the hallmark of quality) albeit darker with the 2X.

Also, the dual IS (in lens and in body) is highly effective. I can shoot handheld 800mm shots at 1/250s, and even crop into the photos, as in this moonrise. The image is not impressive, but the fact that it isn’t just a blur is!


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 16, 2018)

Let's face it, actual facts and accurate data are not publically available. Thus we resort to personal observations extrapolated into pure speculation. In that spirit herewith are my observations:
-Counting white lenses on sidelines used to be indicative of Canon body dominance - now both Sony and Pentax have white tele's and lots of mirrorless users mount Canon big whites with Metabones, so not such an accurate measure now.
-Lots of users of big whites on sidelines are not the owners of those big whites - get close enough and count how many of them have CPS, various rental houses, or news services stickers.
-Over the past several years Canon has released mark II versions of many whites leading to a flurry of upgrades. Current crop seems good enough for 50 mp bodies, so no further need to upgrade.
-152,000 working pros with most lenses having a likely 10 year life expectancy can't possibly buy enough lenses to make a dent in the overall statistics of lenses sold. It has to be all the Rebel kits with two zooms making up quantities posted. 
-Overall improvements in zooms means fewer lenses are needed to cover wide focal length range. 18-135 is popular Rebel kit zoom- how many primes does that imply don't get sold? Leads to reduction in overall quantities produced. Current Costco kit for SL-2 is 18-55 plus 55-250 and 50 plastic fantastic - what else is that person ever likely to buy? Oh, and those are all inexpensive lenses to produce.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 16, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> Claiming that my assertion is flat out wrong is a statement as well, and requires just as much evidence - of which you have provided not a trace so far. Again, childish insults and speculation about my orifices do not constitute evidence.



The key difference, one that apparently eludes you, is that _you_ made the claim. Actually, you made multiple unsubstantiated claims:

1) "_Several years ago many people didn't buy new cameras to achieve some specific photographic task, but as a status symbol (just read neuroanatomist's postings constantly writing about his white superteles), as something to be shown off._"

How do you know anything about peoples' motivations? How do you know about _my_ motivations. It's also worth pointing out that you are the one who went down the path of insulting someone, right out of the gate. 

2) "_They used to [buy big whites to brag], but this trend is going down - as shown by Lensvid's charts._"

LensVid's charts show nothing of the sort. Period. Full stop. 

Or it should have been...but you went on to cite several other 'sources', all of which are anecdotal, and some of which don't even support your claim.




Rudeofus said:


> The evidence I provided you with would well constitute empirical data...



What evidence? You provided anecdotes. 

Your photo club? In my photo club, five years ago there were about 20 members using 500/4 or longer lenses. Today, there are >30 (just those with long+fast lenses, not counting those with the Tam/Sig 150-600 variable aperture zooms). That increase is driven largely by newer/younger members, and more than countered several of the more senior members who stopped using the big lenses after developing arthritis (and some of those switched to mirrorless, for that reason). But...you don't find me citing that as evidence that sales of big white lenses (or their black Nikon counterparts) are increasing, do you? No. Becuase that's an anecdote, not data...and I know the difference between them.

Forum threads? The two most popular threads on these boards are the Show your Bird Portraits thread (>15K posts, ~4.7 million views) and the BIRD IN FLIGHT ONLY thread (~5K posts, ~1.5 million views). A substantial fraction of posts on those threads are with big white lenses. But...you don't find me citing that as evidence that big white lenses are maintaining their popularity or that people's main use for big white lenses is to take pictures with them, do you? No. Because that's an anecdote, not data...and I know the difference between them.




Rudeofus said:


> My observation was, that the crowd of gear worshipers has shrunk substantially during the last couple of years.



Oh, your observation. There were over 11 million ILCs shipped around the world last year...that's quite a crowd of buyers. How many of those 11 million have you personally observed? How many have you questioned about their motivations? Are your observations of the 'crowd of gear worshipers' worldwide? Across many countries? One country? A city? Your photo club? Or perhaps only in your own imagination?




Rudeofus said:


> I finally found some real numbers



I see. You made a conclusion, then you went out and found some actual data, and decided those data support your conclusion. They don't.

"_1. Total number of interchangeable lenses sold dropped from 30.4 million in 2012 down to 21.7 million in 2015 and even further down to 19.2 million in 2016_"

Well, the total number of ILC's shipped has dropped, and since most ILCs ship with a kit lens, obviously the total number of lenses has dropped. In fact, the number of ILCs dropped by 8.5 million from 2012 to 2016, and based on Canon's approximate 1.4:1 ratio of lenses to bodies sold, the corresponding drop in lenses would be ~12 million, close enough to the actual 11.2 million unit drop in lenses that the drop in ILC shipments likely accounts for the vast majority of the drop in lens shipments.

"_2. Average lens price dropped across the board between 2015 and 2016, despite the fact that newer cameras tend to ask for better and more expensive lenses to fully exploit their potential_"

Why are you only looking at a single year's change? Over the 2012 - 2016 period, the average unit price has gone up ~30%. Even for the one year you selected, the average lens price dropped across the board dropped by a whopping ¥1900, that's ~US$18. Given that the average lens price in 2016 was US$370, it's clear that the 'big white lenses' are a meaningless contribution to that average. If CIPA reported median prices, that would perhaps be slightly more meaningful.

"_3. Peak price per unit was somewhere between 2014 and 2015, while higher economic growth in 2016/2017 should have resulted in more sales of more expensive lenses in 2016_"

The unit prices for 2013 - 2016 were 38.3, 38.4, 40.9, and 39.0 (in thousands of ¥) – there's no 'peak' there, that's essentially flat. 

"_ The numbers shown for 35mm fixed focal and special purpose lenses completely dwarf the total number of any lens seen at any sport event. I sure hope for Canon, that they sell more white superteles than what you see at this year's Olympic games._"

The numbers shown for 35mm fixed focal and special purpose lenses have an average unit price of less than $300, meaning big white lenses are even less of a contribution to that category that to ILC lenses as a whole.

*None of the above has any significant relevance to the sales of big white lenses, and absolutely no relevance —none at all— to the motivation of people buying camera gear.* 



To summarize: you made claims that you cannot substantiate, you have either no evidence or evidence that does not support your claims. In other words, you were talking out of your ass (I will be explicit, since apparently 'nether orifice' was too subtle a reference for you). 

I was wrong about one thing, though...I didn't think my opinion of your ability to understand and interpret information could fall any lower. Pathetic is no longer adequate. Wretchedly abominable might come closer.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> In other words, you were talking out of your ass (I will be explicit, since apparently 'nether orifice' was too subtle a reference for you).
> 
> I was wrong about one thing, though...I didn't think my opinion of your ability to understand and interpret information could fall any lower. Pathetic is no longer adequate. Wretchedly abominable might come closer.


Uh boy, that really hit me hard, did it not? Apparently your big brother taught you some new bad words, sadly these new cuss words still do not make you appear any more mature. Neither does your risible camera gear, if you can't even control your temper.



Mikehit said:


> you have no facts, merely a personal view on the limited data presented to you.


I have brought up my facts, and drew some conclusions from them. We both see the numbers from CIPA, we see stagnating dSLR and lens sales, we see that average lens price rose sharply several years ago (while the economy hit rock bottom world wide), then flattened out (while the economy slowly go going) and now have begun to shrink (while the economy hit record levels).


Mikehit said:


> Surely as an engineer used to looking at data, do you not think you are pushing things too far?


You may find the facts I brought up too weak as a foundation for my conclusions, or you may find my conclusions outright wrong and present some different conclusions. I personally think that improvement/display of status (you may call it ego) is a big (and frequently underestimated) motivation for people to buy and/or do stuff. I see way too many Porsche Cayennes and similar SUVs in dense urban places to believe, that customers are rational actors. The trend from "things" to "experiences" may well indicate, that a shaky video from a safari to Botswana gains more facebook likes and wows than a selfie with a Rolex watch or big camera gear.

Well, at least thanks for keeping our discussion civilized ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2018)

:


----------



## Talys (Feb 17, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> :



Facts are malleable. You just have to live with people who are convinced that their facts are better. Like, all those photos that prove beyond any doubt that Donald Trump had the largest inauguration crowd ever in the history of the universe.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 17, 2018)

Ahhhh, alternative facts. I do accept that some people treat the truth that way, like Rudeofus and those who believe the earth is flat. It's unfortunate, but that's life.


----------



## Mikehit (Feb 18, 2018)

Rudeofus said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, you were talking out of your ass (I will be explicit, since apparently 'nether orifice' was too subtle a reference for you).
> ...



I note you have not responded to Neuro's analysis of the data you were looking at....


----------

