The Sky Really Is Falling

Marty4650

Veteran Member
Messages
16,434
Solutions
10
Reaction score
16,882
Location
NC, US
I just took a look at the CIPA shipment numbers for April 2014, and they really are depressing. CIPA reports that new camera shipments continue to fall, losing about a third of their market each year.

This isn't meant to be a doom and gloom thread. It is only "crying wolf" if the wolf never shows up. In this case, the wolf is here, and has been here for the past four years. The wolf doesn't seem to be going away. So this is just a discussion of the new reality facing photo enthusiasts, and the likely results that will come from this change.

534a54d95f454d9da43e06a173a70377.jpg

The actual number shipped from Jan-Apr was a little over 13 million. Since it was a four month period, I projected it for the year. The actual shipment number could be higher or lower. Higher if end of year holiday sales are much higher than 2013, or lower if the same pattern of decline continues for the next 8 months. But one thing for sure, it won't be

If this trend continues much longer, we will have a a very different future to look forward to. There will always be millions of people who prefer using real cameras to take photos, rather than cell phones or tablets. They aren't going away. But there will be a lot fewer of us in the future. So the industry will have to adjust to that.

The problem isn't just those cheap point and shoot cameras that we have little use for, and won't miss. This trend is happening with all cameras. The down trend is also happening with interchangeable lens cameras, although not to the same degree.

d74ff95ba5a3424889c6a4ab70c7619a.jpg

The ILC shipments peaked in 2012, and have been declining ever since. ILC volume is about where it was four years ago. A product that entered the mass market ten years ago is now leaving it, and will become just another niche product for enthusiasts.

And remember, this is all happening while the world population continues to grow, and there are more middle class people in third world nations with more disposable income for things like cameras.

These changes will have a profound affect on the industry, and to users in general. There is nothing anyone can do to reverse this trend, but the manufacturers still need to make strategic decisions to deal with it. At least if the camera makers want to stay in business.

What happens next is fairly predictable, and many of these things have already happened:
  • There will be draconian cost cutting by all camera makers. Even the market leaders are way down, so they will also have to cut labor and material costs, manage marketing budgets better. If Canon had a 40% market share four years ago, then it was 40% of 120 million units. If they still have a 40% market share, then it is 40% of around 40 million units. This is a major sea-change for the market leaders as well as the smaller competitors.
  • There will probably be some market consolidation. There may be more mergers, acquisitions and alliances, as the makers have to compete for fewer customers. Digital Imaging is now a mature technology, and is in about the same place where automobiles were in the 1920s. Back then there were over 100 different car manufacturers. Today there are less than 20. All of those GM model lines were once separate companies that were acquired by GM (Chevrolet, Oldsmobile, Buick, Pontiac, etc.) 600 local breweries became a small group of major brewers. A few hundred soft drink companies became "Coke, Pepsi and generic store brands."
  • Manufacturers will flee to the high end of the market, where profit margins are greatest. While they have pretty much ceeded the low end P&S market to mobile devices, the entry level ILC could be next, as cell phone makers create changeable lens devices for their products. Of all categories, the ILC has decreased the least, although it is still in decline. ILCs now represent 31% of units shipped, as opposed to 10.6% in 2010. Leica seems to be the maker best positioned going forward, and Casio the one in the worst spot, since they have no ILC products at all. ILC aren't more profitable because the cameras cost more, they are mor profitable because once you buy one you become a lens customer. And now you are committed to one brand only, since each lens mount is largely proprietary. Lenses are a whole lot more profitable than camera bodies are, especially at the high end.
  • The industry will have to find and develop more niches in order to survive. And they are doing this as we speak. Any device that is hard to duplicate with a cell phone ap will gain at the expense of those which are easy to duplicate. The number of superzoom (or more appropriately... ultrazoom) cameras sold has sky rocketed. So have waterproof rugged cameras. Cell phones are now using software to duplicate shallow DOF and their users don't seem to mind the the poor quality of the results. Those users may never come back, because for them convenience always trumps quality.
  • Almost no one makes prints any more. Those ubiquitous giant printing machines that used to churn out 4x6 inch prints have all but disappeared from drug stores and supermarkets. If you want a few small prints today, you don't have to wait to get them in an hour. You just insert a memory card or thumb drive into a machine at Walmart, and a printer will spit them out in four minutes. And for around 20 cents per print. The days of the booklet of 24 or 36 small prints is long over. Photo sharing today means "the internet" or passing around a cell phone or tablet. Prints themselves have become a high end market for those requiring really large prints. Once the mass market stops needing prints, then they they no longer need anything better than a cell phone for their facebook pages or web blogs.
  • The MILC camera is here to stay. Yes, the overall shippment number has declined a little from a few years ago when the product was brand new, and now that the pipeline had to be filled. As a mature product, new sales are being generated by upgrades, rather than by new users. Still.... one in five ILC cameras shipped today is a MILC camera, and this product didn't even exist six years ago. There really is a trend to smaller and lighter, witnessed by the arrival of the mini DSLR (Canon SL1). This market segment is so significant that virtually every manufacturer has tried to launch a MILC line (with varying degrees of success), and more MILC cameras are released than SLRs today. The Dpreview camera timeline tells us that so far in 2014 there were 18 ILC cameras announced. A whopping 13 of them (72%) were MILC cameras. This tells you something, even if they are being outsold by SLRs four to one. They are clearly betting on this new product, probably because they haven't come up with anything better to attract younger buyers.
The sky really isn't falling.... it is just changing a lot. And these changes will impact the industry a lot in the next ten years. It will be interesting to see where we end up ten years from now.

What do you think?

--
Marty
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
 
Back to 2004 numbers! But the DSLRs fall is less impressive, if this link is right: CIPA 2003 2013
 
As destructive as the camera phone has been to the P&S market, the mobile devices have also hurt DSLR sales too. And this is because a lot of soccer moms and little league dads bought DSLRs when the prices came down around seven years ago. The DSLR was the new status symbol at ball games, school plays and dance recitals.

People who really never should have bought a DSLR were buying DSLRs beause someone told them they would get better photos if they went to Walmart and bought a Digital Rebel kit for $499. And they ended up disappointed by the slow kit lenses, the blurry results they got on auto mode, and the overall inconvenience of hauling around a camera bag.

Canon and Nikon (and to some extent Sony) had a whole new bunch of customers who didn't need their DSLR products, or have the faintest clue how to use them properly. So as fast as those new customers came, they departed and moved on to using their smart phones for snapshots.

The smart phone and the tablet have now displaced the DSLR as the must have fashion accessory at these events. The users still get crappy photos, but at least it didn't cost them anything, and it's a breeze to carry around with them. And... their results are still "good enough" for their facebook page, even if every photo taken is now a square crop of a vertical shot.

For the snapshooter... once you hit the "good enough" point, everything else is totally unnecessary. It is only the photo enthusiast, hobbyist, and professional who needs or simply wants better.
 
I think that your analysis is very good. I have a few small disagreements, but generally I agree with you. The one warning I have is that it is always dangerous to project trends too far into the future. Something always happens to change the trend, and that something is often unpredicted.
 
How did you make your projections for 2014? Did you just multiply Jan-Apr data by 3, or you actually calculated the average ratio of Jan-Apr to Jan-Dec for the last few years and divided Jan-Apr'14 by that number, as you should have done?
 
How did you make your projections for 2014? Did you just multiply Jan-Apr data by 3, or you actually calculated the average ratio of Jan-Apr to Jan-Dec for the last few years and divided Jan-Apr'14 by that number, as you should have done?
I used a very approximate and quick method. I simply multiplied the 4 month results by 3, to approximate the 12 month results. It will be interesting to see if it comes close to the actual results, because:
  • CIPA shipment numbers usually peak in November
  • But peak that could be offset if the declining trend continues for May through December.
But we can also do it this way.

We can find the Jan-Apr total shipped as you suggest for 2010, 2012, and 2013, then compare it to the total for the year. Then we get a ratio for each year... of the first four months compared to the entire year. Then we apply that same ratio to 2014.

If we apply the latest complete year ratio of first four months to complete year (2013), then our 2014 projection becomes 41,000.000.

My method of simply "multiplying by three" yielded 40,000,000. So in either case we can predict a total between 40-41 million, which are down from the previous year, and by the same rate of decline.
  • Y2010 121,463,234
  • Y2011 115,524,250
  • Y2012 98,141,157
  • Y2013 62,392,637
  • Y2014 40,000,000 to 41,000,000
You are right. The method you suggested should be more accurate. My method was just an approximation, but oddly enough the results are pretty close.

I know this is sick, but for reason statistics interest me....
 
What do you think?
I'm glad I am not a photo enthusiast. If I bought cameras like handbags or putters I might be very stressed.

One aspect of all this I find interesting is that when Blu-Ray came out it worked - spectacularly well- and while adjustments have been made a 6 year old device plays 6 year old discs with the same satisfaction as a new one. With digital cameras the changes, upgrades and redesigns are numerous and unending, yet instead of waiting for something resembling a final product to invest in the enthusiasts seem content to be the lab rats that the equipment is tried out on - and they pay for the opportunity. Over and over again. Each time buying a new version and almost simultaneously ranting over what is missing and what the next version should be.

Based on sales from your graphs I would conclude the lab rats are rebelling and this years model cameras are providing less and less of a fix to the addicts. Luckily my fix is in the images not the device- which I have not changed in decades.

As to the sky falling...fall away.
 
Phones really can take good photos, and they do lots that cameras can't. Larger cameras are a chore to lug around, can't upload to FB as quickly, and, well, simply unfashionable. All the manual controls simply defy discussion or quick 'n easy use.

All traditional camera sales will continue to decline, albeit less dramatically than in the last two years. The problem is that the industry's cost structure and redundancies make it unprofitable for everybody to continue making multiple competing models. There might be some growth in certain niches, but not enough for 5 or 6 companies to all make money at it.

GoPro saw a 2009-2013 boom in POV cameras, but that has peaked.

Drones are an exiting toy to pair with cameras, but legal restrictions, and the discovery that operation requires lots of practice and risk of loss, will constrain that market.

All kinds of innovation continues in the realm of such accessories as sliders, stabilizers, and so on, but it is expensive stuff.

The future of traditional cameras may be something like that of motorcycles in the US. Once they were considered low cost transportation for young types. Now they are >$50k three-wheeled toys for AARP members.
 
We haven't seen the worst yet, if you think 2013 is bad, wait for final 2014 figure. By 2016, we will see heavy consolidation in camera makers: most won't survived, or be force into an insignificant niche market.
  • Average Joe are happy with cellphone quality and don't see a need to spend $400+ for any dedicated camera or a camcorder
  • Anyone who wants a DSLR or advance camera has already bought one
  • In fact, many Camera Enthusiast is trying to sell off their excess camera and consequently flooded Ebay and Craigslist with endless used camera at fraction of the retail cost
  • Lack of true innovation in STILL PHOTO, majority of innovation are in the VIDEO front (1080p, and now 4K) which most still photographer don't' care about
I see no END in sight. It'll get much MUCH WORST, we haven't even see the bottom yet.
 
Larger cameras are a chore to lug around, can't upload to FB as quickly, and, well, simply unfashionable.
Right on. Most DPR member don't seem to realized we have an image problem. It is simply not cool to carry a big camera (DSLR or mirrorless) You look like a Audio Video DORK!
The future of traditional cameras may be something like that of motorcycles in the US. Once they were considered low cost transportation for young types. Now they are >$50k three-wheeled toys for AARP members.
Well said. Big Camera (DSLR/Mirrorless) will be the $2000 toy for AARP members soon enough.
 
We haven't seen the worst yet, if you think 2013 is bad, wait for final 2014 figure. By 2016, we will see heavy consolidation in camera makers: most won't survived, or be force into an insignificant niche market.
It would have been a reasonable if there were companies which can reasonably be named "camera makers". In fact there is just one such company, Nikon, the rest are diversified conglomerates with cameras and lenses just a small side business for them (not so small in case of Canon, for the rest simply insignificant).
  • Average Joe are happy with cellphone quality and don't see a need to spend $400+ for any dedicated camera or a camcorder
Average Joe already has a camera he is satisfied with and which is better for the cases when a phone would not do.

Lack of true innovation in STILL PHOTO, majority of innovation are in the VIDEO front (1080p, and now 4K) which most still photographer don't' care about

4K video on large-sensor cameras is actually an absolute revolution for shooting sports, and this is precisely the case where DSLRs were used for a good reason.
 
I am very hostile to buying into pretty anything. No special expensive food, almost no clothes, no stuff. But still, I bought two ILCs this year. If people was like me, there would not be graph like this. I guess they rather buy caviar instead of camera :-)
 
We haven't seen the worst yet, if you think 2013 is bad, wait for final 2014 figure. By 2016, we will see heavy consolidation in camera makers: most won't survived, or be force into an insignificant niche market.
  • Average Joe are happy with cellphone quality and don't see a need to spend $400+ for any dedicated camera or a camcorder
I think there is absolutely no doubt about that. Most people don't need anything more than the camera phone they already own.
  • Anyone who wants a DSLR or advance camera has already bought one
Market saturation is a big problem too, especially for mature technologies. The home computer market went through the same problem when the improvements found in new models were small innovations rather than big breakthroughs. People who were upgrading every other year were now upgrading every 5 to 7 years. And that caused a shakeout in the industry.
  • In fact, many Camera Enthusiast is trying to sell off their excess camera and consequently flooded Ebay and Craigslist with endless used camera at fraction of the retail cost
There never was much of a market for old technology. All those VCRs still work, but no one wants them now. You can buy a film camera that cost $200 in 1975 for around $35 today, and you will fully understand how much they have depreciated once you realize that $200 in 1975 was a month's rent on an apartment, and $35 today is the around the cost of one lunch for two people.

But digital cameras aren't obsolete, they still deliver the best possible results. They are just unwanted by an entire generation. Or perhaps two generations. And demand always trumps technical quality.
  • Lack of true innovation in STILL PHOTO, majority of innovation are in the VIDEO front (1080p, and now 4K) which most still photographer don't' care about
True innovation is nice, but not always necessary.

This whole 4K video thing is great for those who are into it, but the truth is, not very many people are in this category. Innovations like these merely lower the cost of doing certain things, and don't necessarily move the demand curve up.

For me at least.... 4K is the new 3D. Another fad that will come and go. Technically better, but completely unnecessary. I still haven't bought a blue ray player, because those DVDs work well enough for my needs. And I am not alone.
I see no END in sight. It'll get much MUCH WORST, we haven't even see the bottom yet.
I absolutely agree. The times are a changin' and there isn't very much that Canon or Nikon (or anyone else) can do to prevent it.

Of course, they could start selling smart phones, but Samsung is way ahead of them there, and does it much better than the camera companies could.

Come to think of it, Samsung is pretty well positioned either way. They win if you use a camera, and they win if you use a smart phone instead. Perhaps the industry problem was that most companies didn't think broadly enough about who they were competing with? But even if they had, there wasn't much they could do to stop the wind from blowing.
 
Does this really have to be said AGAIN??????

Back in the days of film people kept their cameras for 5-10 years or more (I used my SLR for 20 years and it was still working perfectly). Then digital came along and in its infancy the new model meant a BIG improvement image quality, so body sales were over inflated. We're at the point now that cameras are GOOD ENOUGH for many advanced photographers that they are keeping them and not buying the latest model anymore. We'll see more of this in the coming years. Personally I bought three digital cameras in the 90's, three in the 00's, and one so far in the 10's.

I don't blame the iPad or cellphone as those who want a GOOD (dSLR or mirrorless) camera own one. Those who use iPad or cellphones would be buying P&S cameras.

Check out this quote from "Looking at Photographs" by Szarkowski, "Toward the end of the [19th] century, with the rise of the casual snapshooter, the gap between most photographs and accepted pictorial standards widened radically. Most of the countless millions of little pictures that were made with George Eastman's new Kodak were so sketchy and obscure that only with the help of the legend on the back could one distinguish confidently between Aunt Margaret and the native guide."
 
Does this really have to be said AGAIN??????

Back in the days of film people kept their cameras for 5-10 years or more (I used my SLR for 20 years and it was still working perfectly). Then digital came along and in its infancy the new model meant a BIG improvement image quality, so body sales were over inflated. We're at the point now that cameras are GOOD ENOUGH for many advanced photographers that they are keeping them and not buying the latest model anymore. We'll see more of this in the coming years. Personally I bought three digital cameras in the 90's, three in the 00's, and one so far in the 10's.

I don't blame the iPad or cellphone as those who want a GOOD (dSLR or mirrorless) camera own one. Those who use iPad or cellphones would be buying P&S cameras.

Check out this quote from "Looking at Photographs" by Szarkowski, "Toward the end of the [19th] century, with the rise of the casual snapshooter, the gap between most photographs and accepted pictorial standards widened radically. Most of the countless millions of little pictures that were made with George Eastman's new Kodak were so sketchy and obscure that only with the help of the legend on the back could one distinguish confidently between Aunt Margaret and the native guide."
Well said, Mike. Everybody who wants a high quality ILC already has one, and with the technology fairly mature now sales of camera bodies were bound to level off. It becomes harder and harder for camera makers to come up with new models compelling enough to inspire "upgrades" given how good the cameras already in people's hands are.

Ditto for those supposedly "unable" to use a DSLR properly - they don't have any such trouble, they're just continuing to use the one they already bought, because they areen't photo "enthusiasts" and the one they bought is STILL "good enough" (and better than their phone).
 
People who really never should have bought a DSLR were buying DSLRs beause someone told them they would get better photos if they went to Walmart and bought a Digital Rebel kit for $499. And they ended up disappointed by the slow kit lenses, the blurry results they got on auto mode, and the overall inconvenience of hauling around a camera bag.
Most of the pleasure of photography is taking the picture, the idea that you saved it for eternity. It is a result of the excitement people feel when seeing something new and beautiful. Few people ever go and look at the results. I have friends who came back from a trip with 5000 pictures but they do not have the energy and dedication to sift through them, delete the bad ones make a slide show or an album. That 5000 x 2.5Mbit digital garbage sits comfortably in the cloud and Google backs them up regularly for eternity.

For these camera owners it really does not matter what button they push to make photo. (cellphone compact or DSLR) It does not even need to produce a photo. It needs to create the feeling that the a photo was taken. In rare cases when somebody "looks" at a photo, what's important is to be able to recognize the person in the photo. If in doubt just look at the name tag.
 
"The MILC camera is here to stay."

In Japan, yes. In North American and Europe, I'm not so sure.

Are the camera divisions of Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony here to stay? I'm not so sure about that either.
 
Larger cameras are a chore to lug around, can't upload to FB as quickly, and, well, simply unfashionable.
Right on. Most DPR member don't seem to realized we have an image problem. It is simply not cool to carry a big camera (DSLR or mirrorless) You look like a Audio Video DORK!
It's weird to see big digital cameras become so out of fashion so quickly. Cell phones and *shocker* film cameras are what appeal to young people now.

None of this matters to me as a photographer. Sure the prices might rise and selection might fall, but there will still be quality cameras to purchase if you need them. And the reality is most of us don't need all the new cameras and gear we buy. My workhorse DSLR camera was produced in 2008.
 
jkoch2 wrote: Larger cameras are a chore to lug around, can't upload to FB as quickly, and, well, simply unfashionable.
007peter wrote: Right on. Most DPR member don't seem to realized we have an image problem. It is simply not cool to carry a big camera (DSLR or mirrorless) You look like a Audio Video DORK!
It's weird to see big digital cameras become so out of fashion so quickly. Cell phones and *shocker* film cameras are what appeal to young people now.
Before 9/11 and its security paranoid, before the rise of iphone and its social media APP, people were comfortable with other people using BIG DSLR on the street. Big DSLR were well accepted as the main tool for high quality "family" photo.

This all change after 9/11 for me, the airline become very stringent on the weight of my camera bag, security guard become RUDE & CONFRONTATIONAL toward any DSLR photographers, people's attitude change as well, they begin to associate DSLR photographer like a terrorist.

The rise of SmartPhone Social App (Facebook, Instagram) doesn't help. People's narcissism and they just assume you'r taking a photograph of them, never mind that you're taking picture in the public spaces. There is an ongoing thread about a 23 yrs old Female assualting a teenager for using helicoper to take photograph in public places.

Finally the era of cellphone camera has arrived (picture decent enough to compete against P&S). The world has been taken over by cellphone photography, this means shooting photograph from an arm's length looking through big 4.5~5.7" LCD is the new norm for family photography.

Conversely, this also mean that it has become increasing ABnormal to using DSLR for family photography. There was a time in 2006 when I can go to any restaurant with my Canon 30D, external grip, with a 430ex bounce flash without incurring attention. Now I am being ask to stop taking photograph if I bring a dslr w/bounce flash to most restaurants.

The social expectation has changed. The only "socially acceptable" DSLR usage is now reserved to professional photographer on-the-job, or paparazzi. In LA and its star paranoia culture, I can't bring DSLR to fancy restaurant. You live in New York, is it as bad as LA here?
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top