Phone cameras probably only account for the loss of compact sales. Higher end sales are being damaged purely by people's lower spending and unwillingness to use credit.
Any maker who is centred in the enthusiast market, content to maintain a relatively small volume business, and has a relatively diverse business portfolio which can mask small losses in cameras, can probably tough it out by selling fewer models and building higher value luxury products with good margins.
Those at greatest risk are the companies whose revenues are highly volume dependent and who have substantial investment in plant, production and distribution, especially if cameras are a large proportion of total income.
Eigenmeat: ACR is still a blurry mess compare to OOC JPGs.
57even: Read the Fuji interview, then the Nikon one. Interesting.
Clearly Nikon know that the consumer (APSC) future will have to be mirrorless. They have the technology well in hand, probably even have a number of production ready prototypes, but they wont do it before Canon does, and Canon wont do it before Nikon does. No-one is blinking right now, but when they press that button the whole market will turn upside down.
The risk to Nikon will be that they have no way to differentiate themselves from the pack any more. Nikon would have to cannibalise sales of its (bread winning) mid range SLR line, with no guarantee of matching sales in a parallel mirrorless line. Indeed, by blessing mirrorless, they may open the taps for Fuji, Sony etc. since having legacy lenses will no longer be an incentive to stay with Nikon.
Of course if Canon move, they will have no choice. Which one will move first?
I think in some markets the revolution already happened, but the big brands have a lot of marketing muscle and some consumer groups just buy Nikon or Canon because they feel they are the reliable brand.
If they produced a good mirrorless product that competed with their APSC SLRs, people would look at the badge and think OK this mirrorless thing must be OK then.
But this is also a problem, because they cannot then guarantee dominance. Nor will they benefit from the reflected glory of their pro cameras because people can't buy a "mini" D4 when they buy their D3200. Nor can they buy lenses which they can later use when they upgrade to FF (not that all that many ever do).
The biggest issue for both makers is their legacy. Enthusiasts generally have a nice collection of Nikon glass which could suddenly become redundant overnight if the market perceives a general shift.
Look at the sales numbers of APSC and FF and get back to me on that.
Read the Fuji interview, then the Nikon one. Interesting.
km25: His last commet about FF. Do the lens they make now have focus circle large enough for FF? He said it was after the road map would be done. I just cannot see Fuji being like Sony and dumping a whole line of lens. What ever they do I can only hope they will keep the lens, who wants to buy a new set of lens. I hope they will keep this in mind.
FF is not an upgrade to APSC, its a more specialised format that has advantages in specific areas but it is NOT a replacement.
Any more than everyone with a 35mm SLR "upgraded" to MF. I had both, and used 35mm a lot more. MF was my landscape and portrait camera. Same is now true with APSC and FF. Weight and quality difference is about the same... about 1 print size (A2 - A1) advantage and double the overall system weight.
Fuji would do well to start with a new camera and mount optimised for FF.
erichK: Innovation indeed, when they essentially copy not only the Olympus EM-1, but even the Olympus lens in a lensecap. But then I guess that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
(It is true that Fuji has come up with some really interesting new technologies in very attractive cameras, but the provenance of the design parameters for their new flagship is painfully obvious!)
They must have developed it pretty fast to "copy" the OM1.
Be serious, there is NO similarity except for the resemblance to the SLR form, which is hardly "new". Every major control point is completely different.
Tungsten Nordstein: Oooh, it's too weird. Oooh it's too ugly. Ooooh, it's only a fixed lens. Ooooh, I don't believe the new sensor is any good. Ooooh, it hasn't got an EVF. Ooooh, my pockets are too small. Oooooh, you can't pick it up with one hand, Oooooh ,you can't pick it up with two hands. Oooooh, you can't pick it up with three hands. Ooooh. Sigma how dare you! Oooooh, Oooooh, Oooooh!
Summary of DPReview readers' opinions.
How about "Ooooh they have completely lost the plot?"
57even: Anyone posting here who disagrees with the rating, go ahead and write your own reviews. I will make sure and tell you what I think of YOUR opinions. In the meantime I can read for myself and decide if the rating applies to me or not.
If your recent purchase doesn't get a gold award, boo hoo.
Its not a D800. It has the same sensor. Is an OMD the same as a G4?
Well, that's honest of you. But I think Shaun was pretty up-front about the pros and cons - enough for anyone to make up their own minds.
If you are a long distance hiker who takes landscape photographs, its a great camera. Bit limiting though. But I guess you should judge a camera against its intended audience.
Nice one Sigma. This will instantly make every other camera on the shelf look more attractive.
Anyone posting here who disagrees with the rating, go ahead and write your own reviews. I will make sure and tell you what I think of YOUR opinions. In the meantime I can read for myself and decide if the rating applies to me or not.
Not bad considering the price and build. Better than the non-collapsible version even?
You've seen retro cameras, and cell-phone cameras, now Sigma brings out a retro-cell-phone camera, only without the phone part.
The bunch of gearheads moaning about the quality of sample photos posted should be grateful I don't have time to personally critique your own galleries. Have looked at a few and so far have not seen much that would impress anyone.
As sample photos these are perfectly fine. As for the camera, the quality unsurprisingly looks very similar to other X cameras. So far so good, and thanks to Barney and co. for the information. Last I checked I still haven't paid a penny for the services of this site.
kadardr: From a manufacturing point of view a mirrorless camera must be cheaper to produce than a DSLR (fewer parts, lesser complexity). From a cost perspective a mirrorless camera should be sold cheaper than a DSLR. Mirrorless producers should also invest into concept and product PR, what they do at full extent and it shows in the prices. For their asking price Fujifilm gotta give supreme quality and sublime product support for life, and they really try their best (with moderate success so far).What I am emphasizing here is that please wait until prices get reasonable, because the reserve in launch prices must be high.
The expensive component in mirrorless cameras is the EVF. You can pretty much set the price point by the spec of that one component.Why do you think all the cheaper ones don't have one?
I would hazard a guess they cost more than the sensors.
Donnie G: If a camera design is done right, then there is no need to hype up any mythical marketing advantages of mirrorless ILC tech vs. traditional SLR tech in order to sell the camera to enthusiasts. The Fujifilm X-T1 is an excellent example of a camera design that is done right. No further hype required.
Judging by the responses, Fuji seem to have created a level of desirability few Japanese camera makers have managed in recent years. Desirability is a hard thing to quantify, but the fact it LOOKS like a camera should seems to be 80% of the appeal.
JaimeA: Consider this: David (nuts about photography) and I had a talk last night. The inconspicuous Fuji X-M1 sells today for $700 (with the good kit 16-50 lens $800). (I am very happy with this camera.) The new X-T1 costs $1,300 (with the top-rated 18-55 lens $1,700); almost double the price. The sensor size, MP count and engine are the same in both and will produce the same results at any given time. Essentially, it is the same camera with new clothes. Of course there are some hyped improvements here and there, but do you really need them? Will they noticeably improve your shooting? He’s got a point there.
Was a time when all cameras had the same sensor. It was called film. I seem to remember there was a large array of film bodies for the 35mm format that ranged from a couple of hundred $$ to several thousand.
You say the extra features are over-hyped, I say it depends what you want to do. There is a much more logical argument that says beyond a certain point the sensor is irrelevant, especially if you don't print large or shoot in the dark. Nowadays they are all pretty good.
Given the same IQ, what become more important is the versatility of the camera and how many types of task it can perform. The X-T1 is much more versatile than the X-M1, and for many that's worth the price.
Mike99999: I'm delighted to see another great alternative to the horrible APS-C Canon and Nikon cameras with non-existent lens selection.
So now the original OM-D has spawned two clones: on one hand the APS-C Fuji X-T1, and on the other hand the full frame Sony A7/R.
So with the Fuji you get a 24% larger sensor than the OM-D, but you have to give up IBIS and blazing fast AF.
Sounds like a great option for those who can't decide between an OM-D and an A7.
Though with the full frame alternative priced so competitively, that itch for the full frame magic might be unbearable. No matter what the equivalences say, the bokeh of the Fujinon 23/1.4 cannot even match the slow and tiny Zeiss FE 35/2.8.
Clone? EVF humps are not exactly new (Panasonic and Samsung have had them for years, and so have bridge cameras).
57even: Whether you like this camera or not is rather missing the point. It can shoot 8fps with liveview and predicitive focus tracking, and according to Fuji rumours who tested it, it actually seems to work. This is a first, but where one company goes others will follow. The key was EVF lag and this one seems to have the issue fixed.
The one area where DSLRs were untouchable was AF tracking. If that has finally been dealt with, then technically there is no reason for buying a DSLR over a mirrorless camera.
If you prefer an OVF, well fine. Can't help you there, but with the same size view as a FF SLR on an APSC camera, with live exposure and a focus check window, this particular EVF has a lot going for it.
Hi Andy - thanks for clarification. I guess a 1/8s lag is OK for something moving on a fairly predictable track.
Mind you the fact it tracks so well is a major improvement on most mirrorless - Nikon 1 excepted. Even my D700 was a long way from foolproof.