Reading mode: Light Dark

DSLRs collapsing, Mirrorless rising in germany.

Go to last post
The mirror less figures include action cameras - that is a huge seller so not that helpful for analysis.

Mirrorless will continue to grow as they get better and dslr will decline because they will be unnecessary for most people and they are more expensive to make.

Apart from the competition from phones I think cameras just lack innovation to excite a lot of people; I think phones will drive a lot of the innovation in sensors and image creation though and that percolates into csc market easier than DSLR.
 
MFiftysomething said:
The mirror less figures include action cameras - that is a huge seller so not that helpful for analysis.
Click to expand...
sales figures in the article are for "dslr" and "mirrorless system cameras". Action cameras or fixed lens mirrorless are not considered here.
 
Dave Stott said:
Interesting, thanks.

I think another issue for Canikon is both of them only make their best glass in ff format. That means even the best apsc bodies still need the size, weight and cost of ff lenses.

With m4/3 you can get pro glass to fit. Yes, the prices are quite high, but they are there.

Dave
Click to expand...
I don't think pro m43 glass is expensive in comparison. My 12-40/2,8 did cost me 9000 SEK. Of course it's a lot of money, but a Canon EF 24-70/2,8L would had cost me double as much and a 24-70/4L the same sum as the 12-40. Canon's best APS standard zoom, the EF-S 17-55/2,8, is 7000, not quite pro quality (no L), and huge, so even if it's a dedicated APS-C lens it's much bigger than the 12-40. Better with a 17-40/4L for APS-.C maybe. But still worse than the 12-40.
 
MatsP said:
Dave Stott said:
Interesting, thanks.

I think another issue for Canikon is both of them only make their best glass in ff format. That means even the best apsc bodies still need the size, weight and cost of ff lenses.

With m4/3 you can get pro glass to fit. Yes, the prices are quite high, but they are there.

Dave
Click to expand...
I don't think pro m43 glass is expensive in comparison. My 12-40/2,8 did cost me 9000 SEK. Of course it's a lot of money, but a Canon EF 24-70/2,8L would had cost me double as much and a 24-70/4L the same sum as the 12-40. Canon's best APS standard zoom, the EF-S 17-55/2,8, is 7000, not quite pro quality (no L), and huge, so even if it's a dedicated APS-C lens it's much bigger than the 12-40. Better with a 17-40/4L for APS-.C maybe. But still worse than the 12-40.
Click to expand...
I agree! I was just trying to deflect "but they're expensive" brigade :-)

I don't have any of the primes because I don't need them for my kind of photography. If a Pro 100-300 appeared I'd be head of the queue - I actually wouldn't look at the price!

Dave
 
K25 said:
Olymore said:
I think the ratio isn't very important.
Click to expand...
well, could have some impact on shelf space given to M43 in photo shops.
Click to expand...
Very good point. Actually, the photo section at electronics megastores here look way different than just few years ago. Back then it was 80% compact cameras and few Canon and Nikon DSLRs, sometimes Sony. No mirrorless at all. Now, there's a lot less compacts on display (maybe 20-30%). And there are all mirrorless systems present, not only CaNikon DSLRs. There are even some lenses (actually I bought my 40-150 at such a store, which would be impossible 3 years ago).

The bad news is that I heard some worrying anecdotes that Olympus does a very poor job of selling its stuff (in my country obviously). And judging by my inquiry to Olympus when I was shopping for E-M10, I'm inclined to believe those anecdotes. It's not a good sign then they are often out of stock on some products, and they are unable to tell when they will have it in stock. It was frustrating for me as a buyer (wanted to buy directly from Olympus), and if they have the same attitude towards resellers (which is what I heard), I can't imagine this being good news. Still, that's only gossip and anecdotes, so take it with a grain of salt.
 
MatsP said:
Dave Stott said:
Interesting, thanks.

I think another issue for Canikon is both of them only make their best glass in ff format. That means even the best apsc bodies still need the size, weight and cost of ff lenses.

With m4/3 you can get pro glass to fit. Yes, the prices are quite high, but they are there.

Dave
Click to expand...
I don't think pro m43 glass is expensive in comparison. My 12-40/2,8 did cost me 9000 SEK. Of course it's a lot of money, but a Canon EF 24-70/2,8L would had cost me double as much and a 24-70/4L the same sum as the 12-40. Canon's best APS standard zoom, the EF-S 17-55/2,8, is 7000, not quite pro quality (no L), and huge, so even if it's a dedicated APS-C lens it's much bigger than the 12-40. Better with a 17-40/4L for APS-.C maybe. But still worse than the 12-40.
Click to expand...
4/3 lenses qualify as pro glass too, and they're pretty cheap by now. If you get an EM1 (which is dropping in price), you can get a mint condition 12-60mm and 50-200mm for less than the cost than a new high-end lens. Where else are you going to get lenses of this quality covering 24-400mm, possibly for well under $1000?
 
I don't see dslr's collapsing as you say, but the whole camera industry including every other type of camera.
 
Skeeterbytes said:
Sean Nelson said:
Skeeterbytes said:
Going from memory here, but isn't that similar to what's occurring in Japan? Either way, I believe this will be the trend, going forward.
Click to expand...
Who knows, maybe this will finally be enough to get Canon to take mirrorless seriously. The longer they wait the more of their user base will have converted and be potentially lost to them.
Click to expand...
Hard to imagine a company having their trousers around their corporate ankles for so very long, hoping/wishing/presuming mirrorless will just go away. It's a head-scratcher, especially considering their expertise and resources.

Cheers,

Rick
Click to expand...
 
ravduc said:
I don't see dslr's collapsing as you say, but the whole camera industry including every other type of camera.
Click to expand...
and why do you think so? The camera market has never been better than it is at the moment, and getting better.
 
The thing I like the most about mirrorless is that it actually gives me more capabilities to get the image I want.

They give me:
  1. Better framing because the active focus point can be anywhere in the frame
  2. Spot meter linked to the active focus point
So not only becomes cropping a thing of the past, I am also getting more accurate exposure which means I will have to spend less time fixing the exposure in Lightroom.
Tom Caldwell said:
Technical advancements are getting harder, most mirrorless are now better than their average owner's capabilities and and everything is "auto" to make sure that no image should ever go wrong. Taking an image on a serious camera is no harder than taking one on a mobile (cell) phone and any lack of care is easily fixed by processing the raw file (also automatically).
Click to expand...
 
franschhoek said:
interesting stats which echo those from Japan and which begs 2 observation:

Beware of market definition. The relative share of Mirrorless versus DSLR is distorted by the fact that top premium cameras like Sony D7R are reported under mirrorless despite their hefty prices.
Click to expand...
So you're saying that a mirrorless camera can't be expensive, premium and so on? Like a Panny GH4? You want to put the Sony A7 in the DSLR column? How does not doing that qualify as a distortion? You've lost me here.
franschhoek said:
Beware of selective fates. It reminds me of the cartoon of 2 guys sitting on opposite ends of a boat with one saying to the other ¨you are sinking¨. Mirrorless may be flat whilst DSLR in on a sharp downtrend but the camera market is declining and as a result mirrorless source of growth too.

It simply emphasizes that the photo enthusiasts here are a declining crowd and for the majority who are not really discerning a smart phone or a tablet does the job as long as you just post on the social networks or send pictures to a short-sighted granny
Click to expand...
Actually, photo enthusiasts may be on the rise. Decent cameras in phones are hooking a whole generation on photography. The cheap P&S camera just became redundant; people are taking more photos and way more video than ever before.

Lots of people bought DSLRs not because they were photo enthusiasts but because the P&S cams were so, well, inadequate. Many owners didn't know an F stop from a shutter speed. Now there are plenty of D40ish rigs out there and they are underused and running forever. Why make more when the world is knee deep in the things?

It isn't just DSLR refugees who are buying mirrorless. The DSLR could die completely and photography would go on anyway.
 
rolleiman said:
Lots of people bought DSLRs not because they were photo enthusiasts but because the P&S cams were so, well, inadequate. Many owners didn't know an F stop from a shutter speed. Now there are plenty of D40ish rigs out there and they are underused and running forever. Why make more when the world is knee deep in the things?
Click to expand...
True, and there are still many.

However, The manufacturers have to continue making products that are better than the ones before in order to survive , and then the consumer gets in because they think that they have to have the latest. Who really needs more than 24 million pixels in a camera (except maybe the pros)

Who really need more noise control when you consider that most film actually topped out at iso 400, and with the software available today, we are miles ahead of the game. The same goes for television and cars, but this is progress for sure, so the market will never die.

rolleiman said:
It isn't just DSLR refugees who are buying mirrorless. The DSLR could die completely and photography would go on anyway.
Click to expand...
 
I wish that were true, but the number of units manufactured has dropped for two or three years running, by almost everyone, and sales have dropped as well. At the risk of being flamed for naming him, Thom Hogan has charted that across virtually all the manufacturer.
 
Sergey Borachev said:
traveler_101 said:
JohnLock said:
Looks like 2014 was quite a bad year for 'enthusiast' cameras in general though mirrorless did a bit better than dslr. I see these high end cameras becoming a distinct niche market over time. Thanks for interesting graphing
Click to expand...
I may not be reading the graph correctly but it appears to me that mirrorless is bucking the general downturn, growing, albeit growing slowly. DSLR on the other hand has taken a huge hit.
Click to expand...
I think you are right. Mirrorless (in Germany, according to the graph and the text in the source document) in the last 5 years has been growing steadily.

This is however just Germany. Japan and I think some other smaller markets are also seeing growth for mirrorless. US is however still the dominant market and I believe still hanging on to their DSLRs, and may continue to do so for many years yet. After all, they are still using the pounds and miles, feet and quarts.... :-)
Click to expand...
Mirrorless shipments to Japan in 2014 were 724,775 units versus 814,466 units in 2012. Thus, while the decline has been less than that for DSLRs, mirrorless shipments have also dropped in the country where mirrorless has the largest market share. CIPA data also indicate that mirrorless market share in declined from 44% in 2012 to 40% in 2014. Given that mirrorless has stalled in the country where it is most popular, I think it is understandable that Canon and Nikon aren't rushing to embrace MILCs

Global mirrorless shipments by Japanese companies totaled 3,956,602 in 2012 and 3,289,278 in 2014. Thus, in addition to the drop in Japan, there has been a 17% drop in mirrorless shipments by Japanese camera makers over the past two years. While this is not nearly as bad as the 35% drop in global DSLR shipments, it obviously isn't what I would consider good news.
Sergey Borachev said:
Sergey Borachev said:
Sean Nelson said:
Who knows, maybe this will finally be enough to get Canon to take mirrorless seriously. The longer they wait the more of their user base will have converted and be potentially lost to them.
Click to expand...
The big boys face the same dilemma as Kodak did with its film business: the undisputed market leader cannot innovate without destroying its own market. But I believe that as long as the very best full frame cameras are DSLRs, Canikon will hang on. In other words, their sales depend on the reputation of their best cameras. To change that SONY (or someone else) must succeed in building a full frame mirrorless that out-does the DSLR for the full range of photography, including action photography. If (or when) mirrorless emerges as the best -- and assuming they have not anticipated that innovation -- then Canon and Nikon will be finished.

Right now Canikon must appear to be unconcerned and unimpressed with mirrorless, putting on a brave face to protect their position. Sean, do you think it would be Canon, rather than Nikon, which might be the first to flinch?
Click to expand...
I hope neither of them flinch for another two years, and thereby give more time for others to establish themelseves, for more competition, innovation, choices, brands and less domination and blind following/faith. The world would be a much better place with less domination, control and monopoly by the ever growing number of super companies, businesses, pharmaceuticals, software companies, and other such forces and powers.
Click to expand...
EOS M has done quite well in Japan, despite its shortcomings. Thom Hogan's estimate that Canon shipped 670,000 ILC units in Japan in 2014 reflects an estimate of approx. 78,000 EOS Ms and 592,000 DSLRs. This puts Canon one model on par with Fuji's 76,000 units and within striking distance of Panasonic's 89,000 units. The EOS M was the 8th best selling ILC in Japan in Jan 2015 and the 2nd best selling MILC behind the EPL6. I will be surprised if Canon doesn't pass Panasonic in MILC sales in Japan this year.
 
You are correct. It's not looking good in the Japanese mirrorless market, unlike Germany. This year will be crucial as another drop there will give a very confusing picture with the sales in the home country of these Japanese mirrorless brands becoming even less significant and unreliable as a guide of the trend as in the early years. I think the downturn in Japanese sales also has to do with the poor economy and the poor yen there, and not necessarily a loss of interest in photography.

I believe Canon can at any time, if it wants, become the leader in mirrorless simply because there are so many Canon lens owners. All Canon has to do is release a MiLC that is DSLR like and that has PDAF to use DSLR lenses, like the E-M1. Then it can count on millions in sales, especially in US. Whether that camera is so good and whether it has enough native lenses are, unfortunately for the other mirrorless makers, not important to numerous Canon lens owners and supporters. Such is life. It's not a level playing field and not a clean slate of new buyers or intelligent consumers. EOS-M is doing well not because it's special, just because it's a Camon

In such a scenario, when Canon should go serious in MILCs, and give legitimacy to this, I think M43 will fare better than the other smaller mirrorless makers because M43 cameras are smaller and offer something that Canon cannot, besides the lens lineup. Sony, Fuji, Samsung will have a harder time distinguishing their cameras our their systems from Canon's once Canon starts making serious MILCs.
 
Last edited:
Sergey Borachev said:
You are correct. It's not looking good in the Japanese mirrorless market, unlike Germany. This year will be crucial as another drop there will give a very confusing picture with the sales in the home country of these Japanese mirrorless brands becoming even less significant and unreliable as a guide of the trend as in the early years. I think the downturn in Japanese sales also has to do with the poor economy and the poor yen there, and not necessarily a loss of interest in photography.

I believe Canon can at any time, if it wants, become the leader in mirrorless simply because there are so many Canon lens owners. All Canon has to do is release a MiLC that is DSLR like and that has PDAF to use DSLR lenses, like the E-M1. Then it can count on millions in sales, especially in US. Whether that camera is so good and whether it has enough native lenses are, unfortunately for the other mirrorless makers, not important to numerous Canon lens owners and supporters. Such is life. It's not a level playing field and not a clean slate of new buyers or intelligent consumers. EOS-M is doing well not because it's special, just because it's a Camon

In such a scenario, when Canon should go serious in MILCs, and give legitimacy to this, I think M43 will fare better than the other smaller mirrorless makers because M43 cameras are smaller and offer something that Canon cannot, besides the lens lineup. Sony, Fuji, Samsung will have a harder time distinguishing their cameras our their systems from Canon's once Canon starts making serious MILCs.
Click to expand...
Good analysis. I think Canon will do exactly what you predict when they feel the time is right.

I'm also optimistic about M43, although I am concerned about what Panasonic will do if sales continue to fall. They are making some excellent M43 cameras, but market share has fallen dramatically and the GH4 is probably their only profitable model.
 
MichaelKJ said:
Sergey Borachev said:
You are correct. It's not looking good in the Japanese mirrorless market, unlike Germany. This year will be crucial as another drop there will give a very confusing picture with the sales in the home country of these Japanese mirrorless brands becoming even less significant and unreliable as a guide of the trend as in the early years. I think the downturn in Japanese sales also has to do with the poor economy and the poor yen there, and not necessarily a loss of interest in photography.

I believe Canon can at any time, if it wants, become the leader in mirrorless simply because there are so many Canon lens owners. All Canon has to do is release a MiLC that is DSLR like and that has PDAF to use DSLR lenses, like the E-M1. Then it can count on millions in sales, especially in US. Whether that camera is so good and whether it has enough native lenses are, unfortunately for the other mirrorless makers, not important to numerous Canon lens owners and supporters. Such is life. It's not a level playing field and not a clean slate of new buyers or intelligent consumers. EOS-M is doing well not because it's special, just because it's a Camon

In such a scenario, when Canon should go serious in MILCs, and give legitimacy to this, I think M43 will fare better than the other smaller mirrorless makers because M43 cameras are smaller and offer something that Canon cannot, besides the lens lineup. Sony, Fuji, Samsung will have a harder time distinguishing their cameras our their systems from Canon's once Canon starts making serious MILCs.
Click to expand...
Good analysis. I think Canon will do exactly what you predict when they feel the time is right.

I'm also optimistic about M43, although I am concerned about what Panasonic will do if sales continue to fall. They are making some excellent M43 cameras, but market share has fallen dramatically and the GH4 is probably their only profitable model.
Click to expand...
Panasonic lost its direction, focusing too much on either pro level video cameras and also small cameras, but neglecting what is of more interest to the majority of enthusiast photogs, the essential part of the business. No G7 and no GX8 or more mainstream products anywhere in sight, and just some cute and small cameras and lenses, which are of short-term interest and limited importance to its business. Those little toys are great but too expensive for most consumers. And at the other end the ultra expensive 42.5mm f/1.2, which sounds great but unlikely to be profitable. All these pro video cameras and tiny products are not going to carry its business. Too niche. I am not surprised that it is losing market share particularly badly. Hopefully, it will concentrate again on cameras that are mainstream and/or that can offer more solid value, starting with a camera that has a new sensor, one that has more MPs and IQ, even if the improvements are limited. It is just not on and consumers simply do not accept cameras that has the same old sensor IQ after 3 years. This goes for Olympus as well. Sony is obviously gaining market share due to M43's lack of new sensors.

Nikon will have an even harder time when the tide changes. It's 1 system is too small and it's probably too hard for it to change course and start something new again because it aint Sony and does not have so much resources or that sort of parent company backing. I don't know what would happen, but it is looking really bad for Nikon. There will be a new world order after the change and Nikon has a lot to worry about. Sony will continue to move ahead, helped by its new FF mirorless cameras, and value cameras like the A6000. Pentax has nothing to worry about. It is already at rock bottom and unable to do much, even if Ricoh should pump resources into it, get FF, etc. Short of some miracle like some ground breaking proprietary technology, it will most likely continue to fade away, whatever it does. Except for those already in Pentax, how many new buyers would consider buying FF from Pentax when they have to spend that kind of money. Who can trust that company and buy into a brand new system with little lenses and support. Pentax really should just join M43 to become relevant again.

Samsung is an interesting case. I think it will continue to get better, even though it will remain a small player for at least a few more years. That's not a problem as Samsung is financially strong and apparently determined like that tortoise that will eventually make it to the front as it grows, albeit very slowly.
 
Last edited:
Good point but I suspect the majority of sales are now internet sales.

The first reason is that most camera stores have closed down (at least in the UK) and the second reason is price.

The last two people I knew who bought a DSLR, bought from a Hong Kong retailer with a UK online storefront.
 
Sergey Borachev said:
Sergey Borachev wrote:
Panasonic lost its direction, focusing too much on either pro level video cameras and also small cameras, but neglecting what is of more interest to the majority of enthusiast photogs, the essential part of the business. No G7 and no GX8 or more mainstream products anywhere in sight, and just some cute and small cameras and lenses, which are of short-term interest and limited importance to its business.
Click to expand...
You know why? Because no one bought them, at least where I am. The G5 and G6s were failures commercially. The GX7 despite critical acclaim didn't move enough. In a way it was the biggest bomb, because it had everything right but just didn't sell well for some reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top