Previous news story    Next news story

Weak Yen masks hard times as Mirrorless and DSLR sales decline

By dpreview staff on Feb 24, 2014 at 18:27 GMT

Manufacturers are putting on brave faces as compact sales continue their decline and interchangeable lens camera sales fail to shine. Canon, Fujifilm, Nikon and Olympus have all put out their financial results covering the Christmas period, and there's little to be positive about, with falling sales of interchangeable lens cameras being reported by the industry's biggest players.

Market research company IDC's report on the period describes the period as 'a bust for camera vendors.' The report's author, Director, Global Imaging Practice, Christopher Chute expresses particular concern about 'the lackluster performance of the [Interchangeable Lens Camera] segment, which had been driving market growth and profits for the past several years.'

Industry body CIPA's figures for cameras shipped during the period confirm the declines - with a 6% fall in DSLR and 22% fall in mirrorless sales volumes over the period. Mirrorless models accounted for 23% of shipments by volume and 18% by value.

They may not generate a lot of interest on the DPReview forums, but Canon's DSLRs are some of the few models that have been selling well.

The weakening Yen has helped companies by increasing the reported value of overseas sales. This has kept the books looking healthy, despite falls in sales volumes. Several makers pointed to sluggish sales in Europe and China, as their economies have not recovered as quickly as forecast.

Both Canon and Nikon forecast still-lower sales in 2014, and IDC predicted: 'more trouble for digital cameras in 2014, as camera demand remains anemic, second- and third-tier vendors question their long-term prospects in this declining market, and top vendors choose strategic choices based on growth opportunities.'

These lowered expectations for 2014 will factor-in a drop in Japanese sales that is expected when the country's consumption tax is increased in March.

Canon

Canon was first to announce, with compact camera sales volumes falling 20% in the three months to December 31st and 28% over the whole year. The company said sales of its larger sensor models and high-zoom SX range grew over the same period, but didn't break-out the figures.

It also reporting its first sustained fall in interchangeable lens camera (ILC) sales since the launch of the EOS Rebel / 300D in late 2003. Interchangeable lens camera sales volumes fell 7% for the year. These falls only resulted in a 1.7% decline in sales income, thanks to exchange rate changes - it would have been a 18.8% fall if currency effects were removed.

The company said 37% of its unit sales and 81% of its camera income came from ILCs during 2013. Strong inkjet sales drew a 16.2% increase in income, helping the Imaging Systems division (of which cameras are part) grow sales values by 3% to ¥1.4tn (~$14.2bn). The division saw its operating profit fall by 3% over the year, to ¥204bn (~$2bn).

Canon said it expected a further 1% fall in ILC sales during 2014, but only a further 20% decline in compact cameras. These figures would leave ILCs making up 42% of the company's camera sales in terms of units and 83% in terms of value (for comparison, just five years ago DSLRs made up 15% of camera sales and 44% of income).

Although none of these figures sound positive, IDC's research led it to conclude: 'Canon managed to gain share in the United States at the expense of nearly all other vendors with the exception of Sony, which gained a slight share in the ILC segment.'

Fujifilm

Fujifilm says sales of its X-Series interchangeable lens cameras are 'proceeding smoothly,' but doesn't give specifics. Its Imaging Solutions business performed well on the basis of instant cameras and lenses for smartphones, projectors and TV cameras.

Fujifilm's Electronic Imaging (digital) group saw sales fall 14.2% year-on-year in the three months to December, and 13.6% across the previous nine months. The Imaging Solutions division, of which Electronic Imaging is part, saw income rise 7.2% over the same period, thanks to sales of instant cameras and optical units for smartphones, TV cameras and projectors. The increased sales saw the division reduce its loses to ¥1.5bn, from ¥3.9bn over the same period in 2012.

The company doesn't give fine detail about sales of camera types, instead rather coyly saying that sales of its high-end X-series models 'proceeded smoothly.' This is contrasted with 'sales decreases due to the continuous worldwide decline in overall demand for compact digital cameras.'

Nikon

Nikon blamed slow sales in the Americas, Europe and Asia for a 6% fall in net sales income - to ¥553bn (~$5.4bn). Despite this, the more rapid fall of compact camera sales, compared to ILCs and lenses meant that the higher-margin ILCs and lenses accounted for a greater proportion of sales - resulting in an increase in operating income from those sales.

 Sales in final 3 mths of 2013 (¥bn)Digital Camera sales as proportion of whole company
Canon
~270
26.1%
Nikon
200
76.5%
Fujifilm
63
3.5%
Olympus
75
14.6%

ILCs made up 33% of the company's sales volumes in the nine months to December, up from 28% the year before. However, the company made the third downward revision to its sales projections - now aiming to sell 6m ILCs and 8.4m lenses, rather than the 7.1m and 9.8m projected in May 2013. The weak Yen meant the company didn't reduce its sales target of ¥710bn, despite the reduction in unit expectations, but this had already been scaled-back from the original ¥810bn projection for the year.

Compact sales declined 33%, to 9.6m units for the first nine months of the year.

Olympus

Olympus halved its camera division's operating loss over the nine months to December - losing ¥4.4bn over the period. Reductions in costs and increased mirrorless sales meant the company was able to make the improvement despite a 14% fall in overall sales values, compared to the same period the year before.

The value of mirrorless sales grew 5%, year-on-year, with them now accounting for around half of the company's camera sales by value. Much of this was generated by a 19% increase in the last three months of 2013. However, the company notes that lower PEN sales meant it didn't hit its sales target, suggesting much of this increase comes from the lower value of the Yen and a spike in sales of the then-new, range-topping OM-D E-M1 model.

The company also said it had reduced its compact camera inventory - meaning it is not sitting on warehouses full of compacts that will then have to be substantially discounted.

Comments

Total comments: 297
123
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

Do not rest on your laurels. Sure, we could use tricks to coax-out a stellar good enough picture, like in brighter more controlled light, for some limited goals. Given a choice though, a camera that gathers light better (color sensitivity, little noise and more range, and at a higher ISOs) is better at producing far better results and doing it significantly more consistently. The fact that a camera does not function without the person does not change the need for improving cameras. It matters. This is the cameras (manufactures) job.

1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

"Luck" is extremely reduced and you can create more purposeful art; starting from your mind. Not just the other way around. Otherwise it's simply pushing the button to catalog what you are pointing at(and failing more often). Moreover, even if you are missing only 25% (said conservatively) of what you could have captured, as "good enough" but then decide to wisely delete them, due to your own definition of insufficient quality, that didn't meet your goals (and target goals can greatly increase in your future) then you will never enjoy those particular shots, that time has then lost forever. You can't see the shots you couldn't capture. Some shots can not be repeated. You can not access the Raw files that were deleted, or never captured; due to your cameras lack of overall quality. Also, this DOES affect the over-quality of your keepers/portfolio. There is no question about that.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

Therefore, the question isn't about over-expectations, and being realistic. It's squarely about real quality, vs ignorance, and excuses. Does that offend you? Why should it? Remember, I think cameras are far overpriced, and there is no real justification for it. Current prices reality do not change that; but you can.

Some people do not keep their personal hygiene on the clean side either, and will say it's "good enough"(at some distance). Their good right to choose it does not mean they can't ignorantly abuse it. The problem is real, irrespective to perspective. Even a product we assume is as simple as "soap" is a very special, delicately balanced (manufactured) formula. That's actually required so as not irritate people and get the job done completely, with less to do. What's wrong with better quality soap(such as specific and very long-lasting shave soap), and lower prices for it?

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

Why shouldn't the irritating soap manufactures go out of business in favor of low-cost higher-quality products? You can still find high priced soap; if that makes you happy. You can also find very high quality soap; but extremely inexpensively. These are all mass produced products! Tech is usually mass production, as well. Why wouldn’t the buyer be the dominate cause of this? You are the buyer. If you let them lower that "good enough bar" and set it to years gone by, and then also raise our prices artificially, then you will get your collective buying choices, and that is all.

Sorry if this is not "sound bite", and requires some attention span.

0 upvotes
Low Budget Dave
By Low Budget Dave (1 month ago)

I don't even understand how camera companies are able to lose money. The markup is huge, and they come out with new products every 20 days or so.

Canon and Nikon make a pretty reliable profit even in a down market, but everyone else breaks even. I don't get it. It costs them a couple of hundred dollars to make a product that they are selling for a thousand.

Where is all the money going? Those commercials with Ashton Kutcher must cost a lot more than I thought.

1 upvote
tkbslc
By tkbslc (1 month ago)

Where is the money going? R+D. Engineering optics and sensors is not child's play.

Incidentally, Canon is making the most money and they haven't had a major sensor tech update in 5 years. R+D savings = profit.

0 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

Who says that (wafer costs and expenses); but camera industries, and their propaganda campaign believers?

They point out multiples of tiny sensors are exponentially less expensive (per area), than the relatively much bigger sensors per round wafer. They are getting away with excessive profits on relatively poor performing tiny sensors. It is no real limit to stellar profit on larger sensors, nor any reason to kill some good affordability. It's profit only.

They want you to believe a company couldn’t survive with somewhat lesser larger sensor profits, and the numbers say differently. The truth is, they are pumping the uninitiated masses; because that pays better, and you buy it. My only issue with a company doing that, is it's corrupt to fail quality, with miscellaneous often non-photographic technical feature distractions, and short lived products, with artificially inflated prices.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

Note: It is about the sensor quality(one thing of total quality and after lenses), at any size, that really matters. It's just easier to obtain light quality, on bigger sensors. It's a balance; I know.

They say go smaller (less than m43 for example) to "make" it affordable, like that can be the ONLY way to reduce costs. It is only *their* preferred way. It is more profit for less camera. If we would collectively raise the bar(education), then the larger ones (perhaps APS-C, or FF for one balanced example) would in fact be affordable! Why? Because we are massive! Their profits would still be sky high, even when reduced. It's your choice.

Comment edited 5 minutes after posting
1 upvote
rugosa
By rugosa (1 month ago)

Nikon blamed slow sales in the Americas, Europe and Asia. I guess sales in the Antarctic were on the increase.

3 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (1 month ago)

Or we can assume Africa and Australia are doing well.

0 upvotes
GREG HUTCHINS
By GREG HUTCHINS (1 month ago)

My experience in the photographic retail industry is that a large majority of customers by an slr because they think they need one. They than find them to bulky to complicated and revert back to a small compact ,camera phone etc.
I have even had customers say how there slr equipment ruined their over seas holiday because of the size of their photographic equipment. Photographic enthusiasts. Have to realize they only take a small percentage of the worlds photos. And with all this talk of full frame slrs with more and more photos being stored on tablets the need for them is probably becoming less every day. In the end size and convenience will win out not just over the top picture quality that most people don,t appreciate or need.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
GaryJP
By GaryJP (1 month ago)

With mature technologies, sales decline. The PC sales decline because many of us don't get a new PC every year now. Software sales decline because the software already does more than we need (which is why they push the rental model). My cameras are probably already beyond my abilities. I already spend more on them than I should, so I probably need a more compelling reason to upgrade. Sometimes a turn down in sales does not signal doom but maturity.

Comment edited 34 seconds after posting
5 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (1 month ago)

There is a large untapped upgrade market (from APS-C to FF), but the manuracturers don't want to start a price war, because it will not just lower the margin on FF, it will also lower the margin on APS-C and on small sensor megazoom fixed lens cameras. It will therefore remain untapped. Upgrading to another APS-C model just brings you larger files, but little else. Unless manufacturers start lowering FF prices in earnest, the market is going to stagnate.

1 upvote
KatManDEW
By KatManDEW (3 weeks ago)

Finally someone who agrees with me on software and the rental deal...

0 upvotes
Anastigmat
By Anastigmat (1 month ago)

It is no surprise that sales declined. The economy is not good so people don't spend money unless they have to. The DSLR revolution is about 11 years old. Most people who wanted to switch to a digital SLR have switched. There is also little incentive to upgrade because camera prices are still artificially high. High end APS-C models still cost more than $1,000 and FF DSLR cameras are stubbornly high at $2,000 even though sensor prices have fallen dramatically. Sooner or later, if the camera makers want the market to grow, they would need to cut prices on FF models. A cut to $1,500 for an entry level FF is what is needed.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
lighthunter80
By lighthunter80 (1 month ago)

I am still sitting on my old 5Dmk2 and are just waiting for the right time to get FF mirrorless when it is ready. Ready means for me the same AF performance and a wide range of native AF lenses at fast and slow speeds (e.g. fast 35/1.4 and a compact 2.8 alternative).

Sony seems to go he right way but I cannot see a decent and affordable lens selection within the next 2 years.

Fuji X seems to be much better here but damn it... not FF. I am well covered in m4/3 and would only consider a FF system if I change over and wouldn't consider to maintain 3 systems. To me m4/3 and FF are the right balance. Mirrorless in m4/3 is mature but FF by far not yet.

So I think that many people are watching the changing market and perhaps hold back in purchasing decisions. Or... it's just a market saturation or regression...

0 upvotes
Imagemaven
By Imagemaven (2 months ago)

The market is always changing yet at the same time stays the same. In the 50's and 60's Nikon had the Ftn and people could have used smaller Leica M cameras. Nikon did not go away for lighter and smaller. In the 70's Nikon F2 and Olympus had the OM and pentax followed with mx but Nikon still was the choice. The 80's and 90's Nikon F3 and contax came out with GREAT G cameras but Canon joined the pro market to copy Nikon. etc... What I am saying is that there are reasons to use the Nikon as a professional camera. The continuous F mount, built like a tank, vast accessories, NPS, etc. I have used Nikon since the 60's first as a student then as a pro. But I have carried with me a Rollei 35 or similar.
I could take great photos with my Leica X-1 but on a job but would never think of using it. Clients would look at you as an amateur if you brought a small camera. Nikon I trust, the only true Camera / lens company left, sorry Leica you're a luxury goods company now.

0 upvotes
jon404
By jon404 (2 months ago)

Looks to me like Nikon is extremely vulnerable, with 76% of their income from cameras. The others are more diversified. They should probably merge with Samsung, and start developing a line of Nikon-branded smartphones to cover their bets.

1 upvote
G G
By G G (2 months ago)

N13L5 has a good point. And the camera market has probably reached some sort of saturation point where everyone who wanted a camera has at least one.

On another ground, to promote the so called "mirrorless" camera, the first thing to do would be to stop calling them in a way that suggest something is missing. We should simply call them ILC's and call the DSLR's SMILC's (Superfluous Mirror Interchangeable Lens Camera)

Sony and others, including Olympus, have clearly demonstrated that ILC's are at par with DSLR's in terms of image quality and operational parameters.

0 upvotes
N13L5
By N13L5 (2 months ago)

People seem to have collectively forgotten how to run a business without perpetual growth. Perpetual growth is the wrong goal to chase on a finite planet.

5 upvotes
Antonio Antunes
By Antonio Antunes (2 months ago)

I'm an economist specialized in economic growth. I have never seen a colleague arguing that growth could actually come to a zero long-term rate. I think such an outcome might very well be the case at some point in the future. Some economists will argue that while the planet is finite, human ingenuity is not. Ingenuity could fuel economic growth for the foreseeable future. I'm not of that persuasion.

0 upvotes
StillandMovingImages
By StillandMovingImages (2 months ago)

It is the cost. Even though the DSLR's and MILC's are being made in China for less, the prices we would pay are so much higher than the cost of a compact digital or a cellphone that there is no comparison. While cellphone cameras still leave a lot to be desired for a true photo enthusiast, the pictures from a compact digital with a good lens and sensor are not that far off from DSLR or MILC. Throw in the factors of bulk, weight, and the poor quality control issues and it is a giant stop sign. I've spent plenty in the past on film based cameras, but despite my love of photography, I just cannot justify the outlay for DSLR or MILC at the prices being charged. Plus if my compact conks out, gets lost or stolen, I can afford to buy another. With a DSLR or MILC system, my insurance deductible is 2 to 4 times the cost of a new compact. Lower the prices, fix the quality control problems and the sales will come back. My 2 cents.

Comment edited 47 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Antonio Antunes
By Antonio Antunes (2 months ago)

Except that compacts' sales have declined faster than DSLRs and MILCs for most companies.

0 upvotes
GeorgeD200
By GeorgeD200 (2 months ago)

After reading the comments here, I am amazed at all the "MILC are the future" posts. Take note, people: Canon, the company with the LEAST presence Iin the MILC market is the strongest in the industry. They continue to put out 18mp Rebels with incremental upgrades to speed and features (mainly video). I'm not saying that MILC aren't good, but the average consumer doesn't even know what that means. We, the photo gear heads, (and if you're reading this, you are one) represent 1% of the market. I think Sony and Fuji should be applauded for innovative new designs, but 99% of consumers don't realize or care that an A7 isn't an SLR. To them it's a dedicated camera that they have to decide to buy, and then decide to carry (an option) when a cellphone with a capable-for-90%-of-their-needs-camera is a passive decision that they won't leave home without. For the average consumer, carrying a seperate camera, wether compact, MILC, or SLR is a thing of the past. Even if you use the larest greatest MILC, you're still a dinosaur to the masses. Just like view camera users were when 35mm came out.

4 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (2 months ago)

Take note, Canon reported its first sustained fall in ILC sales since 2003.

2 upvotes
Banhmi
By Banhmi (2 months ago)

Agreed: most consumers are poorly educated re: cameras
However: consumers do, collectively, learn over time

Agreed: many young consumers only need their smartphone cam
However: many young consumers also are interested in producing youtube content, sharing bokeh-licious photos, and producing other digital content that favors a serious ILC.

1 upvote
Richt2000
By Richt2000 (2 months ago)

Weak Yen? Up until 2007 camera equipment was affordable. When the £ and euro fell, prices went up. A brand new Canon 300/2.8 L IS was £3200. Now it is £5300.

As the yen comes down, the prices don't. Just like oil price vs petrol price.

5 upvotes
Keith66
By Keith66 (2 months ago)

Keith
Take my Canon 600D. It cost me £600 when I bought it in 2011; less than a year later the 650D came along), offering little more than a touch screen (I don't want one),then 6 months later the 700D. Same basic spec, plus "better outer body finish, 360 degree mode dial, and preview of Creative Filters in Live View mode". WOW!!! Down went the - still available - 600D price to about £350. To get these fantastic (!) new features in the 700D, I would have to lose some 3/4 of the purchase price of my 600D on a trade-in, and pay out hundreds of £ more - for a camera that gives me pretty much the same performance as the one that I currently have. Why would I buy a 700 D when I already have a 600D with virtually the same basic spec?

Camera manufacturers seem to be taking their customers for fools who will drool over and rush to buy their latest offering at the drop of the hat. And us customers aren't the fools that they take us for - are we?

1 upvote
Richiemore
By Richiemore (2 months ago)

There is a segment of the market who are "early adopters of technology". This segment's desire for new technology will outweigh sound economic analysis and they will buy even if they incur a loss on trade-in. They just like to have the latest and greatest!

0 upvotes
topstuff
By topstuff (2 months ago)

Problem with these forums is that they are the opinions ( generally speaking, for I am sure there are many exceptions ) of people of between middle age and retirement age, generally white and western and with English as their native tongue. And with a heavy bias toward North America.

This is not representative of the world. We talk as if we understand what is happening but we forget that we see things through the lens of our own , narrow, perspective.

DPR forum members look at the world through a 500mm telephoto lens and simply do not realise that there is a much wider field of view with aspects to the environment that they cannot see. Therefore, most of the opinions here ( while passionately held and as legitimate as the next mans ) are irrelevant - my own opinions included.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
wburychka
By wburychka (2 months ago)

topstuff, you are right about the people here, I imagine. However, it is that same demographic that built the industry. Our opinions are not irrelevant--We're the ones with the disposable income to buy the stuff. What's more, as we get older, we want to downsize. The MILC is where the mfrs could do us and themselves a favor. We still have the money, but we're not going to continue buying the same old 1960's-designed mechanical cameras. Sony is on the right track. Canon is walking backward, thinking we'd buy a mirrorless without a viewfinder.

0 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (2 months ago)

wbury, you may be right long-term, but don't forget: millions of western consumers have disposable income and are not gear heads. Many of them buy according to the "safe" names, meaning Nikon and Canon. The traditional DSLR from the big two may soldier along for a long time.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Chris G B
By Chris G B (2 months ago)

In theory, the weaker Yen should mean lower prices on Japanese made goods. I have my eye on a lens and have been following it's price, waiting for it to drop in line with the currency exchange differences. Trouble is, the items price has crept upward.

A weaker currency is supposed to improve exports. Perhaps these companies need to look at the margins their distributors and retailers are applying?

1 upvote
murfteri
By murfteri (2 months ago)

Dare I say it, there seems to be a release of a "new" camera about every 5 minutes. Maybe the market is flooded and we all have as many cameras as we need and just can't do with another!

7 upvotes
tingkr
By tingkr (2 months ago)

I wanted to respond to those who think the smaller form factor of the mirrorless cameras is some sort of disadvantage -- at least to the extent that some (?) users will not want to pay a high price for a small camera. I am pretty much on the other side of this: I would like to see the Sony Alpha 7r -- with its full frame sensor -- with the same form factor as a NEX-7. That fits perfectly well in my hands.

What would I like to see different about the 7r ? More user-friendly programming, as my Canon 5D II has, lose the viewfinder bump on top of the body, and silence the shutter. In general, make it SMALLER, friendlier, and quieter.

I am baffled that Sony designed a noisy shutter for a high end camera. Perhaps they think the people that pay $$ want to know the camera is taking a picture.

Comment edited 30 seconds after posting
1 upvote
CameraLabTester
By CameraLabTester (2 months ago)

Somebody should have cashed in on the pellicle.

But they did not...

.

2 upvotes
snegron2
By snegron2 (2 months ago)

Camera manufacturers have to accept the fact that there is not as much disposable income as there was prior to the real estate market collapse (or as I like to refer to it by its true term; the millennial depression). Lower camera/lens prices to affordable levels and maybe people might buy more of them.

There is only so much of the "higher prices due to research and development" excuse we customers can tolerate as we grow weary every year spending outrageous money on plastic, mass produced equipment.

6 upvotes
kodachromeguy
By kodachromeguy (2 months ago)

Not sure if I agree. If the normal US consumer gets excited about something, he seems to have almost infinite disposable income (or at least he is willing to make poor lifetime choices) to fund his purchases. For example, extravagant automobiles (luxury trucks??), cell phone plans, and women's purses sell immediately. To tap this market, camera manufacturers will have to excite their potential customers. There is a big difference: a camera requires work. Many of the other prestige purchases are passive, meaning the pleasure in in their possession.

2 upvotes
Banhmi
By Banhmi (2 months ago)

The future is mirrorless, full-frame stills/video-fully-capable cameras that are as sophisticated as my smartphone.

Sony is pretty much doing this with the a7.

If the other camera manufacturers want to be part of the future, they need to get with the f@#%ing program. Honestly, there's no good reason that Canon and Nikon haven't delivered an "a7" to the market by now.

3 upvotes
Donnie G
By Donnie G (2 months ago)

Smartphones have changed the game dramatically at the low end of the camera business. So much so, that I expect all of the camera manufacturers will quit making their lowest priced compact all in one models within the next year or two and concentrate on selling higher end models, like large sensor mirrorless super zooms, MILCs and DSLRs. It would make sense since those are models that smartphones can't compete against. The traditional low priced compact shirt pocket camera is dead and buried, except for rugged waterproof types. Canon, Fuji, and Sony can concentrate on their higher profit customer base in the broadcast and cinema industries. Nikon and the rest may have tougher choices ahead of them. The next two years should be interesting.

0 upvotes
GeraldW
By GeraldW (2 months ago)

Mirrorless photographic devices have been around since the Kodak box camera. The mirror was added to allow direct viewing of the subject without parallax. Today, with digital imaging and Live View, the mirror has become redundant with regard to parallax; but still holds on to a small niche in sports and action photography where the best LCDs and EVF's are still not quite as good for following fast action (refers to the user's visual input) and the mirrorless have not yet closed the gap in AF that can track fast motions. But neither gap seems insurmountable and it's only a matter of time before they are closed.

That has to be keeping industry leaders awake at night.

Jerry

Jerry

3 upvotes
wburychka
By wburychka (2 months ago)

I'm sure both of those gaps have been closed. The mfrs choose, however, to let the technology out a little at a time. Why sell you one great camera today, when they can sell you s slightly better one today, then an improved one tomorrow, and a still better one next week. Meanwhile, their R&D is five years ahead of what they sell. How else could you explain a "new" Canon Rebel about once a quarter???
Could be that the sales drop will motivate one of the mfrs to jump ahead and release next year's technology today. Sony kindof did that with the A7/A7r shortly after Canon insulted us with the EOS-M.

0 upvotes
whyamihere
By whyamihere (2 months ago)

I don't have much to add, but here's what I agree with:
-Few people upgrade as often as camera manufacturers think they do.
-Most ILC owners only have a few lenses, and they're not likely to buy more over time.
-We've reached the age of 'good enough' photography where sales have plateaued & most consumers have the camera they'll need for the next several years, even if it's only their smartphone. New equipment is purchased only when old equipment is retired.
-Iterative camera releases are mostly in vain, and hardly anyone in the industry is being innovative.
-Compacts are a mostly dead market.
-Mirrorless cameras should be having more penetration, but, as mentioned above, they won't really take off until DSLR users retire their old equipment & realize the advantages of mirrorless (though I still feel mirrorless has a little ways to go before the category as a whole is a suitable replacement for DSLRs).
-Pros will buy the equipment they need, but they're the exception, not the norm.

3 upvotes
Heaven is for real
By Heaven is for real (2 months ago)

Good job Sony…the only company left producing innovative cameras…and maybe Fuji...

6 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

Mirrorless is the future, and the future is now. All cell phones and all compact cameras are mirrorless. They don't have interchangeable lenses, but they are mirrorless. The vast, vast majority of cameras in use today are mirrorless, and the percentage of mirrorless cameras will only be greater tomorrow. The only way to avoid seeing this is to artificially define categories of cameras in a way which excludes cell phones, etc. from the ranks of mirrorless cameras, which is really only lying to yourself.

DSLRs are a niche (mirrored cameras) of a niche (ILC cameras) market.

I have always found incredible the "improved IQ" argument for DSLRs. As sensors and IQ improve across the board, people need LESS camera, not MORE! Seems obvious to me. The 6, 8, and 10 megapixel cameras of a few generations ago produce top quality 13x19 prints. I am not a pro, and the needs of some pros are different. But most of us aren't pros.

5 upvotes
KatManDEW
By KatManDEW (3 weeks ago)

Everyone I know asks my opion when they want to get a camera. Every single one of them who is considering a DLSR is only thinking about a DSLR because they want better image quality. Canon isn't improving the image quaility of their DSLR's. Just adding bells and whistles and video features. That's going to catch up with them as potential customers realize that the better image quality they seek doesn't come in the form of a Canon DSLR...

0 upvotes
mcshan
By mcshan (2 months ago)

Don't worry! The 1/1.7 sensor will save the digital camera market.

Just kidding.

0 upvotes
bobbarber
By bobbarber (2 months ago)

Er, small cameras ARE saving the digital camera market. Google "smart phone". Then document the number of links to dpreview connect today as opposed to a year ago. Report back.

0 upvotes
MikeKovach
By MikeKovach (2 months ago)

Smart phones in MHO has taken the prophet away from the mirrorless market. Everywhere I go all I see are people holding their cameras to take a picture; I seldom, if ever see anyone with a compact camera (except for me) using it. Gosh, even in concerts all you see are cell phones. And as the camera in the cell phone improves the compact mirrorless market will continue to decline. As for the DSLR market it appears to be saturated and many of us are not chasing technology since the expense at times can be bone crushing.

2 upvotes
Chad Hardy
By Chad Hardy (2 months ago)

Correct Mike, but here is the key. If you know how to shoot with your camera you will blow away the quality of the phone pictures for every type of shot except maybe close ups in perfect lighting. I am looking for quality and composition, and the camera phone users usually don't understand. They are there to record life's happy moments only (which is of course just fine).

3 upvotes
Wayne Brissette
By Wayne Brissette (2 months ago)

Chad, you're correct. However, the world is changing. I can't tell you how often all parents want to do is snap a quick photo of their kid so it gets posted to FaceBook or emailed. The quality is so-so, but they are OK with that. This whole thing reminds me of the music world. As a former sound engineer, I was obsessed with high quality sound. However, portable music players and technology like youtube and streaming services have made low quality music acceptable to the masses. That's the same technique that's being applied to photography in the cell phone age.

Pros and amateurs will continue to use dedicated equipment, but the general population is going to move to cell phones and call it 'good enough'.

1 upvote
waxwaine
By waxwaine (2 months ago)

"Mirrorless is the future" ( with deep serious voice) ... jajaja(lol)
You can't replace photographic experience with an lcd. Ask any photographer kow much they love the sound of mechanical shutter.
Then, MILCs can be replaced by phones, but this is not the case for DSLRs.

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
2 upvotes
57even
By 57even (2 months ago)

My MILC has a mechanical shutter. It sounds very nice too.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

This may come as a shock to you, but mirrorless cameras can have viewfinders, too. It's just that archaic flapping mirror that they don't have. As for the notion that "any photographer knows how much they love the sound of a mechanical shutter"...that's the older generation talking.

And as for the notion that "MILC's can be replaced by phones", that's not true either, because phones don't offer DSLR-size sensors and DSLR-like interchangeable lenses. So the more accurate statement is that "DSLRs can be replaced by MILC's" because MILCs can offer the *same* things that DSLRs offer (sensor size, viewfinder, lens interchangeability, etc), which phones can't.

9 upvotes
jeremyclarke
By jeremyclarke (2 months ago)

You can keep your noisy shutter, I'll take a shutter that's as quiet as possible thank you (of course I returned a NEX partially because it's shutter was louder than my Rebel, so it's not like mirrorless is even the direct solution here, it's good engineering with stealth as a priority).

3 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (2 months ago)

Any way, holding a MILC and view through a little lcd screen, like Terminator´s view, are not a pleasurable joy experience, mostly similar to hold a cellphone, so in that case I choose the phone.

1 upvote
jeremyclarke
By jeremyclarke (2 months ago)

@waxwaine Maybe you don't mean to be a troll but at this point that's what you're doing.

Surely you know that EVF's (which are often not LCD, though that's not important) have many benefits over OVFs that can, depending on preference, make up for the joy of truly seeing the world directly (i.e. see what the photo will look like before shooting, no need to chimp when reviewing, on-screen histograms etc).

Anyway for people like you that can't imagine an EVF being useful there will probably be new cameras with OVF or hybrid OVF/EFV (like on XPro1) for at least a decade. That said, you're going to watch as most new cameras start to come out with some kind of integrated EVF.

If you get upset about it every time your quality of life will be a lot worse than if you accept it.

2 upvotes
Rocky Mtn Old Boy
By Rocky Mtn Old Boy (2 months ago)

The bottom line out of all this is:
1) If you are happy with large aperture, medium resolution images (10-15 MP), continue to use your OVF
2) If you are happy with large aperture, high resolution images (24-36+ MP) that are out of focus due to the inability to magnify focus, continue to use your OVF
3) If you want large aperture, high resolution images that are actually usable more often than they are not, then better get used to EVF.

You might come up with a dozen arguments to this, but in doing so, you are only convincing a party of the one (in the mirror).

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

@waxwaine " holding a MILC and view through a little lcd screen..."

I hate to break it to you waxwaine, but one advantage of EVF's is that you can make them any size you want to, whereas an OVF viewfinder is limited by the size of the image frame. In other words, APS-C OVF's have smaller viewfinders than FF OVF's because the APS-C frame is smaller than FF. However, with an EVF, you can have an APS-C camera with a viewfinder that is as large, or larger than, a FF camera's viewfinder! Furthermore, EVFs offer benefits such as focus magnification and focus peaking, which make it a lot easier to manually focus with. Plus, just look at the EVF in the Fuji X-T1, which is so large you can put two screens side-by-side, one for framing, and one for focus magnification!

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

@waxwaine - also, EVFs can automatically adjust their brightness depending on the ambient lighting. In low light, you can have EVF gain/amplification so that you get a much brighter, easier to see viewfinder image than you would with an OVF. Obviously, there's no way to dynamically boost the brightness of an OVF, let alone magnify it on demand, etc. Plus, unless you're using a FF DSLR, most OVF's aren't really that great anyways. So if anything, in the future, if you really want the biggest, brightest, most capable viewfinder possible, I think the choice will be EVF, not OVF.

0 upvotes
waxwaine
By waxwaine (2 months ago)

Yes could be, vf bigger than the sensor. I have seen football moms shooting their kids with tablets and ipads.

0 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (2 months ago)

The digital camera market has matured. Who still owns an analogue camera for their daily use?

Mom & Pop don't want a new camera every two years and they won't buy a new camera anymore now they have got used to using their smartphone. Which is good enough for most people except for those people that demand more quality.

What I don't understand is why Nikon and Canon just released a dozen of small pocket camera's again while sales figures show that this market is hardest hit by the downturn in sales.

I think we are heading back to the 1980's and 1990's where you could buy a cameramodel and use it for 5 to 10 years. To then buy a new camera with just minor updates.

With 24MP to 36MP sensors available I just don't see the need for anything bigger in the near future. Who prints larger then 22", if they print at all. Most pictures end up on the internet anyway.

And as for ISO most people will never use anything beyond 12800 ISO. Which is already quite good for most modern digital DSLR's

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 5 minutes after posting
17 upvotes
Astrotripper
By Astrotripper (2 months ago)

My thought exactly. I was quite surprised with the latest compact camera lineups from the big boys. It's as if they didn't get the memo :)

These days, it seems it should be enough for a company to release a single ultra-zoom, a rugged model, and an advanced compact. Maybe a pocketable one if you're feeling lucky.

I wonder if we'll see another megapixel race in hopes of bringing in new customers.

2 upvotes
Chad Hardy
By Chad Hardy (2 months ago)

Just a thought, many of our images today are hitting the WEB and digital media outlets. As display technology matures (think 4K right now), the picture quality required will go up. We all know prints are eventually going away, and everything will be digital. At that point, quality really matters. The 13x19 that might look incredible when help could look terrible in a 30 inch 4K monitor, or a billboard for advertising.

1 upvote
jeremyclarke
By jeremyclarke (2 months ago)

@Chad Hardy makes a good point. I remember thinking my old cameras had more megapixels than I'd ever need since I don't want huge prints cluttering up my walls. Then I got a retina MacBook and realized those photos won't even fill it's screen when viewed at 100%! (okay so those were some pretty small images, but we're gonna have wall-TVs people!)

0 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (2 months ago)

@Chad

How often do you think people look at stills on the internet full size, completely filling their monitor? The answer is almost never. Just go to 500PX or Flickr and search for any random thing and see the initial size the pops up when you click on a thumbnail. That is the size the image is being viewed at the vast majority of the time. As long as a camera can produce a file that looks decent at 1000-2000 pixels on the longest edge it will be more than enough for web use even if 4K becomes widely used. Pretty much all current cameras can do this already.

0 upvotes
Picturenaut
By Picturenaut (2 months ago)

Would be interesting to get an update of this report including Sony's sales figures.

Reading all those posts here I am amazed to see how many people exactly know what the industry is doing wrong. So, maybe they should fire their CEOs and hire one of those masterminds posting here?

2 upvotes
meland
By meland (2 months ago)

Indeed, too many masterminds with the combined intelligence of a pot plant and the business experience to match.

1 upvote
wburychka
By wburychka (2 months ago)

Japanese executives are notorious for holding consumers in contempt. Indeed, they don't even regard final consumers as their customers, but rather distributors. If you don't buy 10,000 units, you're not a customer. So why would they listen to us consumers? We're being sold, with DSLRs, a combination of 1960's cameras and 2000 technology. The flipping mirror and crude mechanical shutter should have been gone ten years ago. We're supposed to believe that the EVF and electronic shutter is only suitable for compacts and cell phones? The real reason is that there is so much more profit in the mechanical monsters we've been suckered into buying. Well that's it for me. Canon 5DII and 7D--the last mechanical cameras I'm going to have. If Canon releases a true MILC with the existing lens mount, I'll at least keep my lenses. Otherwise, they're all going on the block when a modern camera arrives.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
0 upvotes
Chris_in_Osaka
By Chris_in_Osaka (2 months ago)

I'm one of the few people I know who shoots with a camera. Most people around me use their smartphones and have no desire to buy a camera anytime in the future.

3 upvotes
R Thornton
By R Thornton (2 months ago)

There's no value proposition in what photo equipment industry offers. In 90% percent of the world cameras and lenses cost several months' to several years' wages. That is too dear an investment to play the what-a-new-camera cannot-do-this-time-around routine over and over again. The U.S., Europe and Japan are just a tiny portion of the world, for the rest there are cameraphones. So, start rethinking, you slow bastards!

3 upvotes
Josh152
By Josh152 (2 months ago)

Even in the U.S. with our record unemployment, record homelessness and rampant inflation more and more people are barely making it let alone have the money to be buying a new camera every 6 months. Add that to how good the current and last generation cameras are/were and it's no wonder new cameras aren't selling well anymore.

0 upvotes
Hugo808
By Hugo808 (2 months ago)

I think camera manufacturers have got too used to releasing a new camera every two years and having people get excited enough about it to buy one.

We aren't so easily fooled anymore, they all have more than enough pixels, the picture quality is uniformly brilliant, video is as good as you'll get from a non-camcorder.

There just isn't anything to tempt the serious photographer each year to make him buy the new model, look at Nikons trivial updates to the 3xxx and 5xxx lines. These new cameras are identical to the ones before apart from the addition of wi-fi which I doubt anyone ever uses beyond seeing if the gimmick actually works.

Face it, they've had it easy when everyone still believed that new meant better but now we all know it doesn't they should go back to making cameras that last, my D90 is falling apart already and it's only four years old! Whereas my Spotmatic works fine and was bought in 1974.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 10 minutes after posting
8 upvotes
Jerry Bennett
By Jerry Bennett (2 months ago)

Can't speak for the other Nikon users, but I haven't bought a new camera since my D300 because most of the rubber started coming off and Nikon won't fix it for free. I've been a Nikon guy since the F3, but I don't feel to inclined to ever give them another cent of my money.

8 upvotes
cheetah43
By cheetah43 (2 months ago)

DSLRs all look hideous. The mirrorless have big screens at the back with no space to put a viewfinder; and if somebody squeezes in an EVF but reducing the screen size people start yelling. As for 'high quality but high price' lenses - people should calculate compound price inflation at 3, 4, 5, 6% per annum over 40 years and then ask the question "A high quality lens cost so much 40 years ago. what would be a reasonable price now?". Is the new Zeiss for A7 really expensive? The manufacturers ought to get their act together by concentrating on the quality of sensor, lens, design and build, useability. A plastic body is not acceptable.

2 upvotes
kwa_photo
By kwa_photo (2 months ago)

"The mirrorless have big screens at the back with no space to put a viewfinder; and if somebody squeezes in an EVF but reducing the screen size people start yelling" ~cheetah43

What? Almost all "good" mirrorless HAVE EVF's built in now...check out the Olympus OM line, Panasonic GH3 & 4, G6, etc., Sony A7 and their others, then you have Fuji with the X100s, X-T1, X-E2...all with EVFs' and some with EVF/OVF hybrid. The Fuji's, the OM-D line and the GH3 & 4 are all Solidly build, not plasticly at all. I havne't seen an A7 in person, so I can't say.

Lack of quality sensors in mirrorless? What? :-) A7 (full frame), Fuji's X-trans (highly praised as the BEST APS-C you can get) and the OM-D is highly regarded as well. Where you mainly thinking of the little Nikon and Canon offerings?

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
6 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (2 months ago)

"DSLRs all look hideous. The mirrorless have big screens at the back with no space to put a viewfinder; "

Ever taken a look at the new Fujifilm X-T1 and the Sony A7(r)?
They have very good viewfinders with nice large screens. Mirrorless seems to be the future and looking at sales figures, they are declining but not as fast as DSLR's. Once DSLR owners see its potential they are going to put their bulky equipment aside.

At least I am already thinking to sell my Nikon D4 and D800 to buy something mirrorless soon.

Nikon and Canon invest in lower end models to be released, but forget that the future is smaller and lighter. Something that is not going to happen with current DSLR's due to the needed mirrorbox.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Antony John
By Antony John (2 months ago)

Well Nikon are moving slowly in a 'new direction' with the introduction of NX-D software.

0 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

It's a bit mis-guided to assume that Nikon is moving into a "new direction" simply because they decided to update their own in-house image processing software. First of all, it's free, so that doesn't exactly provide a "new" revenue stream-- or any revenue stream, for that matter. And secondly, it's only for Nikon users, so it's not exactly a broad-reaching product. So, hate to burst your bubble, but the NX-D is not a "new direction" for Nikon. They simply updated their old NX freebie software. How is that a "new direction" for Nikon?

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Neodp
By Neodp (2 months ago)

No it's ALL our fault. It's our fault every time we give-in and buy a camera with poor light gathering ability, unbalanced, missing, basic photographic benefits, and at far over inflated prices.

Nikon (alone) has lowered their projection to over 8 MILLION lens [ALONE]. Plus 6 million bodies or kits. Since we are all so versed in how much we can find these things and at that minimum price, learn to add!

No really, add-up (multiply) their MINIMUM gross sales from those numbers. All you need to do that, is there. Just figure the average system camera price that you know, and use the least price. You know it will be far more; but figure conservatively, to be fair.

Now tell me how the poor manufactures can't get it together enough to cover their expenses. I'm telling you.... they are waiting on us to demand real camera quality, comprehensive state-of-the-art benefits and at a reasonable price.

We are LETTING them sell crappy sensors/lens, and unfinished cameras; because they can.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 3 minutes after posting
5 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

I see it in a completely opposite way. Basically, cameras equipment has reached a level of quality, performance, and capability that many people simply don't find the need to continually buy new cameras. At a certain point, good enough is good enough. All this non-sense about how terrible camera equipment is...is just rubbish. The reality is that camera equipment is better than it has ever been in the history of photography. It's mainly just the anal pixel-peeping equipment-addicts on DPreview forums who think that today's camera equipment is so "crappy" that they can't take any decent photos!

So, since people find that camera equipment is good enough, they've slowed down their camera purchasing. And the other factor is that for casual shooting, smart phone cameras have also risen greatly in quality, further diminishing the need for most people to be buying cameras.

Time to take your perfectly-fine existing cameras and go take pictures with them, people! Shoot more, buy less.

21 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

If there's anything that's "our" fault, it's that we've given the manufacturers the false impression that camera sales growth would continue to rise indefinitely...when, in fact, with the rate that camera equipment was rising in quality and performance, there was no way that those levels of camera sales would be sustainable. At a certain point, people would start to realize that good enough was good enough...and sales rates would drop down to what they used to be back in the film camera days, where the upgrade cycle and purchase cycle for cameras was MUCH MUCH lower and slower. And that's basically what's happening. For example, for me, I've gotten to the point where I may not upgrade my DSLR until my current one dies! I'd just as well never buy another new DSLR ever again. And it's certainly not because newer offerings are so "poor". It's simply because my current ones are so good, or certainly good enough for my needs.

12 upvotes
John Carson
By John Carson (2 months ago)

I agree with T3. Modern cameras are amazingly good and people may quite reasonably stick with what they already have.

I think that the main growth potential is in mirrorless, which still have a way to go to catch up with DSLRs, especially with autofocus tracking.

2 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (2 months ago)

@T3 - infinite growth is the plague of every CEO and planning executive in large companies. the types of people that majored in "business management" and never took a physics course other than what was required in the 5-8th grade, which they forgot already, because it was for nerds. the Conservation of Mass principle can be expanded to mean that you simply cannot grow forever using finite resources (materials for manufacturing and people for sales).

so, no, it's not our fault that some out of touch air heads think that they can sell more and more of anything (cameras, computers, cars, etc.) until the whole planet is covered in their products.

2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (1 month ago)

Oh you guys totally missed it. They know exactly what they are doing. They are making cameras that will be outdated, just so you will buy another and sooner. They make far more greedy profit on smaller sensors, that do not do what a camera is supposed to do, in the first place. That's Gather light. It's not just noise it's color sensitivity.

Yes, there is a point of "good enough"; but in many metrics we have not passed that yet. m43 is not yet better, and has a long way to go. Comparing it to past cameras, and concluding it is therefore good enough(better), is false. You wind up with "good enough" crappy in real world situations. Understanding that is not just "pixel peeping" or being unrealistic.

When did we decide camera's are done and can't improve (photographically). Why are you OK with photographic stagnation, and disposable products? Who really decides what they make; but the buyer. That's you.

Are we to pay them and expect them not to provide a better camera?

1 upvote
meland
By meland (2 months ago)

The downturn in ILCs (both DSLRs and mirrorless) is partially our fault. Not the manufacturers, not lack of innovation, not high pricing, not even the economy.

No unfortunately it's our fault. It's our fault because of the negative image we as photo enthusiasts project to potential new entrants to photography.

Of course we can't help it that we are mostly old. But the anal, whining,tribal, harking back to the past, we know more than the unwashed, smug attitude sure isn't an attractive role model.

Not sure what the manufacturers can do about that though. Well I do but it's probably illegal.

2 upvotes
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

This is complete (and weird) non-sense. No one makes a camera purchasing decision based on a broad-stroke characterization of an entire photographic community that is as diverse as-- if not more diverse than-- any other community. Nope, the reasons are much more banal: lack of innovation, high pricing, slow economy, and the rise of smart phone photography. These reasons may be a bit too mundane for you, but they are far more true than your absurd attempt at melodramatic sensationalism.

1 upvote
meland
By meland (2 months ago)

Pity there aren't emoticons available for insertion here. Maybe that would have helped? Tongue in cheek.

0 upvotes
Thomas Kachadurian
By Thomas Kachadurian (2 months ago)

One reason. Prices too high. Canon issues an overdo update, calls it mark II and doubles the price. The way tech prices evolve the canon 5d3 should be 2,000, tops.

We're still buying stuff, but we're buying it used.

1 upvote
T3
By T3 (2 months ago)

Wow, it must be particularly scary for Nikon, which is so overwhelmingly dependent on camera sales. 76.5% of the whole company? Yikes. It's times like these when diversification really pays off.

5 upvotes
lightnfast
By lightnfast (2 months ago)

What ..with all the cameras on the market and in people's hands...
How come we don't have more UFO shots or...
Better video of UFO's ?

1 upvote
Sdaniella
By Sdaniella (2 months ago)

'cuz everyone is tired of seeing 'better' photoshopped fake ufos ... which have lost peoples fantasy interests ... one can fake anything, even in fake videos, not just faked stills ...

1 upvote
agentul
By agentul (2 months ago)

where's the 16MP HDR shot of BigFoot in a cave at dawn?

0 upvotes
Frank_BR
By Frank_BR (2 months ago)

Why are the camera manufacturers complaining now? In 2009, 2010 and 2011, the world sank into recession, but the sales of cameras were peaking. Then the world was becoming poorer but camera manufacturers were making money like never before. Was that fair?

Now that the economies of the USA, Europe and Japan are beginning to recover, the sales of cameras are running out of gas. That old book would describe the situation, saying that fat years are coming to the world, and lean years to the camera manufacturers. Isn't that fair?

0 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (2 months ago)

Sales has to plateau at some point. Happened to the film era, history should repeat itself. :)

2 upvotes
tvstaff
By tvstaff (2 months ago)

Recover? The world is about to see the worst financial crisis in global history. What's coming will make the Great Depression look like a tea party.

8 upvotes
aerorail
By aerorail (2 months ago)

economy of the USA is NOT recovering with 1/3 population out of work and gov't propping up the stock market with billions every month

7 upvotes
binauralbeats
By binauralbeats (2 months ago)

Nikon should make a Pure Photography phone. Bolt on some retro-y dials and watch the profits roll in.

1 upvote
new boyz
By new boyz (2 months ago)

Without video, no less.

Hahahahaha.

4 upvotes
Stanchung
By Stanchung (2 months ago)

I intend to keep my DF runnng for at least 10 years.

2 upvotes
starjedi
By starjedi (2 months ago)

Are you confident about your claim?

4 upvotes
Just a Photographer
By Just a Photographer (2 months ago)

IMO the Df is doomed already.
Much marketing hype for less camera.

1 upvote
photo nuts
By photo nuts (2 months ago)

Is this a sign that DPReview is going to cut down its digital camera content and increase its emphasis on connect.dpreview? :D

3 upvotes
agentul
By agentul (2 months ago)

well, maybe they can try to compete with GSM Arena. although that site has a serious head start, the comments section is horrible.

0 upvotes
lenseye
By lenseye (2 months ago)

The IQ of cameras of the last 2 to 3 years is sufficiently good enough that you don't have to upgrade every year anymore. We're way past the point where each new model improves markedly over the previous models to a point that it becomes a must have.

Why not make the new model introduction cycle longer and pay more attention to debugging and improving the firmware? Improve the lens or reduce the noise further as opposed to cramming in features that no one ever uses.

9 upvotes
photo nuts
By photo nuts (2 months ago)

Better still, make the camera modular. So, folks can choose the type of sensor they want by making a trip to the service center without having to buy a brand new camera.

4 upvotes
micoruiz
By micoruiz (2 months ago)

I think the problem with simply focusing on debugging and firmware improvements is that they won't earn from it.

I think that's the same reason why mobile phone manufacturers are always coming up with new devices instead of simply rolling out support for the existing brands even if they're perfectly good phones.

3 upvotes
Sangster
By Sangster (2 months ago)

This is how it was in the late 80s, early 90s. When the Canon AE1 which automated exposures then Canon and Nikon came out with autofocus sales took off for a few years. Once the market was saturated the model cycle moderated. The same should happen this time around.

2 upvotes
Neodp
By Neodp (2 months ago)

No! As much as I hate buying something only to see it depreciate; because a new model comes out that's twice as good, and half the cost, it does NOT mean we should slow down camera progress.

It's completely insane, that we are not seeing new photographic benefits (completely) COMBINED into newer and better state-of-the-art cameras more often. The industry to busy selling selling smaller and worse sensors that only make them more profit. So much so, that they fix one thing and first adopters go crazy falling all over themselves to buy it. Just so they can try it, and brag. They have test charts to shoot! No matter it's over 10 times overpriced and missing the necessary foundation of many basic and real photographic benefits. Oh! The camera companies have all that, it's already proved. They're just never in the same damn camera! It's a shell game and you're playing it. Perhaps we should turn them in. Perhaps they should do their JOB, and MAKE A BETTER CAMERA.

0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (2 months ago)

With Nikon expecting 1.4 lens sales per camera perhaps they should pay more attention in this area?
Maybe getting people to understand that the lens can actually be changed on ILCs would be a good start.
As everyone knows, Nikon's DX lens choices have stagnated and where's the replacement for the aged 24-70 and 300 F4 - lenses that many people might actually buy (as opposed to the 800mm and a plethora of mediocre wide zooms .......)?
And Capture NX3 ...........? Money to be made there too.

Comment edited 10 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Antony John
By Antony John (2 months ago)

Just visited Nikon Rumours and find there's new NX-D software. Spooky!

0 upvotes
jeremyclarke
By jeremyclarke (2 months ago)

+1 to @lenseye's original comment.

@micoruiz said:
>I think that's the same reason why mobile phone
>manufacturers are always coming up with new
>devices instead of simply rolling out support for
>the existing brands even if they're perfectly good
>phones.

Apple has made a record-breaking fortune selling iPhones that they keep updating for years after release, which increases the phone's value to customers and makes them loyal as hell. Knowing that your iPhone will get updates for a long time makes people a lot more comfortable buying the current one when they need it rather than waiting for "the new one".

Camera manufacturers could learn a lot from the mobile phone market. People want reliability in their investment and they expect their super-expensive digital equipment to have the best software that can reliably run on it. They also want open app stores to customize their devices, though no one is offering that for cameras now (Sony's "app store" is a joke).

0 upvotes
garyknrd
By garyknrd (2 months ago)

After reading this, I just realized how far behind I am. I don't even own a digital phone.

5 upvotes
CameraGuru
By CameraGuru (2 months ago)

I take that as a medal of honor! Nor do I need or want one!

1 upvote
imaginarycam
By imaginarycam (2 months ago)

Sooner or later, most of P&S cameras will be replaced by smartphones. There's nothing Canon or Nikon can do about it.

2 upvotes
the jimmy
By the jimmy (2 months ago)

After shooting some pics with my new Galaxy S4, I'd say later rather then sooner

5 upvotes
RunStrom
By RunStrom (2 months ago)

I'd like to see a 28mm - 200mm lens on a phone.

3 upvotes
Total comments: 297
123