Sales of real cameras (not phones with cameras) have collapsed by 84% since 2010. Canon's CEO recently predicted the market will implode by up to 50% more in the next two years. Just comparing this year to last year (which was not a stellar year for cameras) is sobering; a drop of 34% so far.
I know what this means for camera companies and I suspect that you do to, but what do the numbers tell us about the practice of, and the business of, photography?
I'm currently waving goodbye to any camera, lens or lighting company that doesn't have deep pockets. Really deep pockets.
04/09: adding a few links to older posts that discuss this trend:
seems like we've been thinking about this for a while....
22 comments:
I've been saying this for a while now: young people have 0 interest in traditional cameras. Photos yes, cameras no. Lenses even less so. In a decade or so the teens of today will not be taking pictures of their families and friends on digital cameras with interchangeable lenses.
I'm also going to start saying this more often: The digital camera of 2019, mirrorless or otherwise, is now the film camera of the 21st century...it's dead, it just doesn't know it yet. Samsung might have been on to something when they pulled out of the camera market. They make a mighty nice Android phone that takes nice pictures and does 4k video. I was given some prints from one such camera phone not too long ago, 5x7s, and they looked really good. It was at that exact moment it dawned on me that traditional cameras are not long for this world. RIP.
I can draw a parallel for you. I play guitar as well, electric. The film equivalent in the rock guitar world is the tube amp. Good old fashioned tube technology. Picture Jimi Hendrix with that stack of Marshall amps behind him, or AC/DC, or Led Zeppelin. They sound great. They feel great. Wonderful organic experience playing an electric guitar through a kick ass tube amp. Except, about 20 years ago, computer amp modeling became a thing. Real smart guys with a passion for rock music started using computers to emulate the sounds of these famous amps. The first generation of computer amp modeling was a joke. Nobody took it seriously and for good reason because they sounded awful and felt awful when you plugged in to one. Guitarists scoffed at the amp modelers. A computer could never replace a real tube amp. No way. Then about 5 years ago, something else happened: computer amp modeling got REALLY REALLY REALLy good. The technology caught up. The computer geeks didn't give up (they never do). Here we are in 2019. Name an amp and I can show you a computer model of that amp that can sound absolutely identical to that amp. You want Jimmy Page's amp from the recording session of Zep's first landmark album? No problem, there's a computer model of it. You want Eddie Van Halen's amp from his first album? Got that one too. So here I am, amateur guitar player, and I have one of these fancy units that does amp modeling. I think it has something like 36 amp models in it. Did I mention guitar effects? Delays, reverbs? Sythesizer effects? It has those too. It's also a computer audio interface. Probably about 50k worth of guitar gear in it (that's a conservative estimate btw). It sounds phenomenal. I plug my guitar into that unit and I have an entire studio at my fingertips and it all sounds wonderful. I can carry it in one hand or in a backpack. I paid about $1k for mine, you can pay a bit more or a bit less for similar units.
Now about that Leica I've always wanted...
I have bought 10 cameras and more lenses than I can remember since 2010. So, if Olympus, Nikon, Fuji, or Sony goes out of business it won’t be my fault 😄
It's hard to get the actual figures.
Certainly DSLR sales are tanking. My guess is that a lot of that 84% fall into that category.
The era upgrading digital cameras every year or two in order to take advantage of new features is gone. Fuji owners tend to just wait for the latest software update.
Another factor is that most camera manufacturers are sticking to what worked in the past, and failing to provide features buyers want. Can't blame people for going to smart phones, but can't blame smartphones for the decline, anymore than one can blame digital for the demise of Kodak. They did it to themselves.
As far as Fujifilm goes (where I have an interest in the game), it's not easy to get the relevant numbers. Their Instax sales have really boosted their profits. Take that and lens sales out, and it appears that their camera sales are fairly solid, with the X-T3 and GFX leading the charge.
I don't know how Olympus and Sony are doing. I doubt Sony are staring at an 84% decline.
Kirk, appropos of nothing, you probably know this already but the X-H1 can display both roll and pitch with a "star wars" 3D display, but only if a function button is assigned to "Electronic Level". Very handy when I want to be square on to a subject.
I suppose I could also use a bubble level, and spend time searching for it in a backpack, and then put it on the flash shoe and lose the flash shoe cover in the process and then also miss the shot.
Canikon and others killed the DSLR market with their idiotic race a few years ago for megapixels and sensor size.
Why is it that "full frame sensors" are the same size as a 35mm film frame?
No need whatsoever for that! Other than old lens compatibility.
And what do Canikon go and do now? They threw away the compatibility! Talk about shooting one's foot...
Colour me weird, but when a "pro" dslr costs in excess of 4 grand it is no surprise that folks are not interested in them to fill up their smartphones and tablets!
Sure, true professionals can always use the best.
But lo and behold, there ain't enough of them to make a "market"!
Perhaps the problem is not so just smartphones, but also the camera makers' failure to respond to the challenge.
Samsung, Apple and others are making tons of money selling phones with integrated cameras. Why have Canon and Nikon not countered by offering cameras with integrated phones?
I expect there are a good many buyers who are driven by the desire to buy and carry only one device -- and deal with with only one battery, charger, and the rest. How many of those buyers would have opted for a slightly larger device with higher photo quality and better photographic features if such an animal had been available?
Sure, Samsung and Sony have made some efforts in that direction, but no one has stuck with it long enough to get it right.
Beyond that, I think crsantin is on the right track in the earlier post. My guess is the future of photography is small -- smaller sensors in smaller cameras enhanced by computational techniques. Imagine the image quality of today's full frame cameras in a device the size of a compact camera with cell connectivity. That would get my credit card out of my wallet.
-- JR / Gato
The way I see it is we are returning to a more normal business model. Camera companies inherited a great deal of the film companies business (compact digital point and shoots replaced instant cameras and disposable cameras) all while the technology climb had a profitable upgrade cycle for a period.
Well it has matured, and phone companies have snatched the film company business of quick & easy picture taking and sharing. The camera companies now have to adjust their business to accommodate this much slower sales cycle and many of them are.
I am not a pessimist when it comes to this subject, people will buy cameras and those companies with established lens line-ups can carry them for years with minor updates. There has been technological consolidation which is fine, Sigma is fast becoming the sony of lenses making lenses for lots of companies and I am good with that, Sony making superb sensors etc.
You also wrote an article some time ago about the fall off of all the DSLR users pretending to be photographers, and it is happening as more and more people realize it isn't so much fun and the excitement of owning the equipment evaporates...
Rambling a bit, and I have to get back to work... Keep well Kirk!
As a wild-@rsed guess, what ever the device will be that captures 3-dimensional, or holographic images ;)
Well, my take on things is that people are done with frequent updating. Period! The updates/refreshes to cameras are generally not as compelling for a lot of photographers as camera companies would like to believe, and tend to come with fairly-hefty price increases. And as far as the effect of smartphone cameras on camera sales go, I have read reports that smartphone sales are not as strong as they used to be either. This is largely due to a similar issue - the newest high-end smartphones (the ones with the high-end cameras) aren't that much better than their predecessors, and now cost as much as a premium laptop computer. With stagnant or slowly-rising wages and salaries, who can afford to frequently upgrade? My camera bodies were all introduced and/or manufactured 5 to 8 years ago. They work fine. I have had my current smartphone for 4 1/2 years. It also works fine. At some point in time these items will be replaced - either when they stop working, or there are cameras and smartphones are significantly better than what I have now. I also need to have the cash on hand to make that happen.
Lots of interesting reading on this topic. I enjoy Thom Hogan's viewpoint a lot, as he has long had his finger on the business side of cameras and lenses. You're assessment is a nice, concise summary of several sources. Nikon, Canon, and Sony are going nowhere, they will continue to manufacture ILC cameras and glass for some time to come. Fuji seems to have a realistic view of their business and are successful (and satisfied) being a lower volume player, so I expect them to be in the market for some time to come. I would not be surprised to see Olympus exit the camera business in the next five years, but they may hang in their. I'm no longer considering m4/3 though because I don't see a future for it; the market shift (right or wrong) to focus on more profitable full frame and the excellence of APS-C with Fuji means that it is difficult to justify even Panasonic's fantastic offerings now. I don't see Panasonic being successful in capturing market share in full frame, they're way too late to the party, and it has distracted them from moving their m4/3 offerings significantly forward.
ILC, especially mirrorless, will be around for many years to come. Eventually we'll see some computational photography features find their way into these products. I disagree that phones, even with significant computational abilities, will ever supplant ILC and professional digital cinema gear as the physics of light will always favor larger formats, and no amount of computation can do what a well designed lens in front of a larger (than phone sized) sensor is capable of. This isn't even considering the advantages in handling, configuration, workflow, and lens selection to specific tasks.
What the march forward -will- do, unfortunately, is continue to convince people that they are capable photographers or videographers, and we'll see an increasingly difficult market for real professionals in the lower end of the market. Ironically, though, for the talented and persistent professional, I think there will be an era of opportunity ahead, as many businesses will reach a level of frustration with the output of inexperienced creatives who think that computational photography and editing will replace real experience and talent.
ODL Designs pretty much summed it up. The boom has come and gone. It’s been a transitional period in which a new player aimed at and grabbed the true mass market, the market for convenience. Makers of traditional cameras have innovated, iterated, and raised the bar of excellence an amazing distance over the past ten years. Unfortunarely, they’re performing for an audience which largely has left the building.
I wonder if you are guilty of seeing this from a western perspective. Panasonic and Oly cams sell pretty well in Asia and Japan.
I also do not agree with your analysis of why "larger sensor means better" - essentially. It does not.
These changes are about "sufficiency". A camera phone is sufficient for most needs - which is why the camera market is collapsing except for enthusiasts and older people. Even for those people, "sufficiency" is not a full frame 35mm sensor sized camera - not when most people view images on a electronic screen that is completely wasted on a 43mp image. It is impossible for the extra resolution to be of any use unless you crop heavily or stare at a 4k screen from 12 inches away at 200%.
No-one really prints anymore but where they do, they know that 20mp at 300 DPI will give you a lovely print 2 feet wide. Any thing more is superfluous. This is all about viewing distance.
Perhaps the worst development of modern photography is people who make their decisions based on staring at that screen at 200% and justify their purchase of high resolution gear that will not improve their pictures
I think you predicted this trend and nailed it pretty exactly in an old article of yours with the title: "The Graying of Traditional Photography." When was that?Maybe five years ago? Perhaps camera makers should have read that one at the time.
You and Mike Johnston seem to be fishing in the same pond these days. See,
https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2019/04/has-photography-gotten-too-easy.html
I bought my first 35mm camera in 1963, used it for 20 years, then bought a new one in '83, used it until 2001, when I switched to digital. Ten digital cameras in the last 18 years, as they evolved and got better, until any camera is good enough.
Today, I'm getting ready to upgrade my wife and my Samsung S4s to S10s, which will be our "carry everywhere" cameras, and I'm pushing a flock of lenses and cameras to eBay, mainly to get money to do one final camera upgrade from a GX7 to a GX9, and one good zoom for my Nikon D700. (Any suggestions for the latter?) At my current age of 77, I'd say these will last me a lifetime.
Prints? I do 'em for local art group exhibitions. I still like the tactile nature of prints, even if most people don't seem to care anymore.
Surely one of the main drivers of falling sales is the quality of the cameras being produced over the last few years.The reality being for most that cameras have been so good for such a period of time that an upgrade is completely pointless for the small gains.Sure there are those that simply think the next best thing will improve their image taking but soon realise that its the image taker and not the image maker that makes the difference.
Rufus, I'm not a great writer, but I think my point was a bit missed, along with some missed context. My comments on Olympus are based on both their performance from CIPA numbers and constantly watching their corporate news. Their camera business, while part of their DNA, is not a darling of their shareholders and I believe it is at risk of getting jettisoned sometime in the next five years or so. Panasonic have flat out stated that they're evaluating if they should stay in the consumer camera business (they see themselves as more of a broadcast video company). I think their FF offering will falter, and with it their interest in non-broadcast market.
I'm not saying that small sensors cannot perform, like many people I take thousands of photos a year, and a lot of video, with my iPhone. It is capable of remarkable quality for what it is. But it does not compete in raw image quality with my Fuji cameras, or with any contemporary DSLR or mirrorless camera. The physics of light and electronics ensure that. Optically, you cannot achieve shallow DOF effects easily with tiny sensors, and no amount of computational power is going to hide that fact. And more pixels do have their place, as it gives me more latitude in post processing (including cropping, effects, tonal adjustments, noise control) towards a given output goal.
I know the overall trend it towards less print, but at the same time in my own world I see an uptick in it. I have much more demand for my photography in print than in digital form, and many of my clients are investing in high quality imaging for print as a differentiator in services and products. A printed catalog or brochure lends a "high-end" image to a company these days. It isn't the right marketing fit for everything, but it has its place. And when upsizing images for promotional posters, vehicle wraps, or other large formats, you cannot have too many pixels.
I agree 100% with your 200% comment. Images are meant to be assessed as a whole, not as pixels. While there is value in understanding what is going on at the pixel level, it is not how we absorb photographs.
As a hobbyist, and not a professional, I think Rufus is right. I'm one of the older enthusiasts who automatically upgraded cameras for a long time. Now my shoulders don't want to carry big cameras all day, I'm done throwing money away upgrading, and I have 0 interest in spending $4-5k on a full frame mirrorless camera and new lenses so I can show people 40Mp images on a 1Mp computer screen. Nobody in my family wants prints. My wife won't use the camera I bought her because she prefers to use (and share) pictures from her phone. So do my kids. I think when people like me who grew up with 35mm cameras are gone it will be all iphones.
Back in 2015 I was posted to Amman, Jordan. I was asked take the Marine Ball photos at the US Embassy because 1) I had a Nikon D750 and was proficient with flash, 2) No one else with a DSLR wanted the poorly paying job, and 3) the person that did them the year before did a horrible job. After showing the people in charge some of my work from previous Embassy balls I was hired.
Once I had culled down to about 800 images, the discussion between me my computer network personnel turned to how big all of this was going to be. We were going to put them all up on a server and let people browse and pick. I ended up posting all the images as very small jpegs. How small? To the point that if you zoomed in once they started falling apart.
An official email was sent out stating that for a $5 US fee I would provide a CD with all the photos as full size jpegs and even offered raw files if any were interested.
I was curious about how many people would take me up on that offer. From a pool of over 300 different attendees, I received 14 requests for full size jpegs, 1 request for raw files. Everyone else was more than happy with the minuscule jpegs. And two of the jpeg CDs were never picked up.
I wasn't totally surprised.
Al
I agree. The numbers quoted by Kirk apply mostly to the cameras that were sold by Walmart and Best Buy -- large in units but small in price. That Canon, Nikon, Sony and others are continuing to invest in the kinds of cameras we (readers of this blog) buy and use suggests that there is still and will continue to be a market for those products.
Walmart used to have displays with lots of small cameras from many manufacturers. Not any more. Those are what camera-phones have largely replaced.
I'm curious where the market for dedicated video devices will go. Canon's investments here (for example) have far outstripped those in still cameras. Or so it appears from where I am -- at the kitchen table.
Typingtalker, no. The numbers referenced in the article I included a link for are for interchangeable lens cameras, not point and shoots or a general count. Go back and see the graph. The industry factored out the fixed lens cameras a while ago. The scary thing is that the current numbers are about the cameras WE like to use. I do think we'll see everything headed to video. It's inevitable.
Thanks Kirk. I used to do market research about products with no official company-supplied numbers so I'm always skeptical.
I looked at the source (I think) for the raw data …
http://cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr200.pdf
Looking at the columns in the table "Total Shipments of Cameras and Interchangeable Lenses" the columns labelled Digital Still Cameras and Interchangeable Lenses I find the following:
Digital Still Cameras hit a high of 121 million units in 2010 and fell to 19 million in 2018. Interchangeable lenses (lenses alone) peaked at 30 million in 2012 and fell to 18 million in 2018. The fall in cameras was about 85% while the fall in lenses was about 40%. I think this supports my view that it is the point and shoots that are responsible for most (vast majority?) of the fall. Interchangeable lens less.
I realize that lens sales is an imperfect index of body sales but it's the best we have.
There are numbers in Yen there which may help and I'll look at those later. Need to process some images.
Thanks! I just find the numbers, overall, amazing but I guess I really shouldn't. When VHS players tanked they tanked harder and quicker. I wonder if cars will be next.....
I like that idea and Samsung did put a real zoom lens in their Galaxy K Zoom. Still more phone than camera, but I think a hybrid is doable. With phones being so thin, replace the rear screen of a camera with the phone.
Maybe take a decent, small camera like a Sony RX100 and get rid of the rear, physical controls for more real estate for the screen. The screen will, naturally, be a touch screen so move most of the camera controls there. For ease of use, the main camera menu could be like the Olympus super control panel where most settings you'll use the most are readily accessible. Controls not often changed will be in sub-menus.
Get rid of wifi in the camera, because you won't need to connect another device before sharing photos. The phone portion will access jpeg images from the memory card. You can apps like Photoshop Express for edits, just as you do on a phone. You can still have RAW files for upload to a computer that can run a regular editor of your choice for serious work.
Screen size will go down, but for those of us who want a real camera and don't want to carry two devices, I think this would sale.
Post a Comment