DSLR vs Mirrorless technology

KWNJr said:

The Leica M10 {etc} are MILC’s

Click to expand...

Technically, no. The M10 is categorized as a rangefinder. Mirrorless cameras have no mirrors and have native TTL viewing. Firstly, rangefinders have mirrors. The mirrors are in the rangefinder mechanism:





And rangefinders don't really have TTL viewing. You frame the scene through a separate viewfinder window. You can use the M10 in Live View mode (much like a DSLR) and you can attach an EVF on the M10 to convert it into a mirrorless camera. But the M10 is primary a rangefinder camera (that has mirrors) with mirrorless functionality. That's why Leica doesn't refer to the M10 as a "mirrorless" camera. They refer to it as a "rangefinder" camera. If you ask Leica for their "mirrorless" camera, they will direct you to the CL, TL, or SL models.

Mackiesback said:

That argument makes sense of the only supplier of high end anything is Amazon. Not only are they not, they tend to be a place where big box shoppers go, not high end customers. What would you think the ratio of FF cameras vs Soccer mom cameras would be at B&H, Adorama, Henry's etc?

The entire market is not Amazon best seller lists.

Click to expand...

But you are missing the historical perspective. You are missing the fact that Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to be full of mid- and higher-range DSLR. Now those cameras are mostly absent. Cameras such as the 50D, 60D, 70D, 80D, 7D used to be top sellers at Amazon just a few years ago, not only on their DSLR list but also across all digital cameras. That's not the case anymore. What we are seeing is a huge shift in the market. When I bought my 60D several years ago, it was in the top 5 of Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLR list. For as long as I can remember, there was always a Canon XXD body in the top 10. Those mid-range bodies were a great profit source for Canon because they sold at a reasonably high price (typically around $1000-1500, body only) and in high volumes. Today, the 80D is at #76 on the DSLR list!

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

Jon555 said:

Mirrorless is not 100% better in every aspect. No new technology is 100% better than the established mature technology.

You can blow tradeoffs out of proportion all you like; you can downplay all the features Mirrorless offers: The truth is that the Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stone, but because they found something better.

There may be one last generation of DSLR (stuff that is in the R&D pipeline today); but the future will totally be Mirrorless.

Click to expand...

You might get two generations... maybe three. Even if DSLR sales fell to 25% of current levels in 3-ish years that's a lot of cameras and only two serious players. Look at it this way, Olympus sell about 495k mirrorless, if Nikon had 33% of the DSLR market then that would (at 25% of the 2017 size) be 632k units.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the VAST majority of DSLRs sold today are cheap, low-end, low-margin DSLRs.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...ctronics/3017941/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_4_3109924011

The mid-range and higher-end DSLR market has practically fallen off a cliff. Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to have lots of mid-range DSLRs on the list such as Canon XXD (10D-80D), Canon 7D-series, Nikon D200-D500, etc. Now, those sales have mostly disappeared. So the incentive to continue to pour development dollars into the DSLR segment just isn't there. You don't need the latest tech in low-end bargain-basement DSLRs, which now make up the overwhelming bulk of DSLR sales. Strong mid- and higher-level DSLR sales drive development. But those sales are really poor these days. Mid- to upper-level consumers are now more interested in mirrorless because I think most people now realize that that's the future.

Click to expand...

Amazon are a really bad source for sales numbers for a wide range of reasons (who shops there and for what, how they split up every version of a product, ...). Also there's a heck of a lot of D850s and 5DmkIVs out there. I don't think mid and upper level customers are interested in mirrorless any more than DSLRs, for which they probably have lenses and are used to.

Most mirrorless sales are the cheaper ones too, especially older discounted ones. The market for 3k-before-you-buy-a-lens cameras is very small compared to the 500-for-a-kit market.

I think most people with a lot of money to spend either don't do any huge amount of research, or do and mirrorless/not is just one factor in the mix. I shoot things for which mirrorless is best and things which DSLR is best and pick accordingly. (Though that might change a little if the flaming A7sIII ever turns up, and is good when it does.)

Click to expand...

You're in denial. Mirrorless now make up 40% of ILC sales, and climbing.Furthermore, according to CIPA, the average sale price of mirrorless cameras is higher than DSLRs:

The graph below shows the average unit price of mirrorless vs DSLR sales in the Americas. As you can see, the average price of a mirrorless camera sale is far higher than DSLR!



And here's how the same data looks worldwide. Again, the average sale price of mirrorless is higher than DSLR:



The data clearly refutes your claims. These days, DSLR sales are mostly composed of low-end bargain DSLRs. The mid-range and higher-priced DSLR sales have declined significantly. Most informed consumers are now starting to realize that mirrorless is the future, and they are seeing the advantages of mirrorless technology, so they are less inclined to invest in a higher-priced DSLR now. These mid- to higher-range consumers are shifting to mirrorless, which is reflected in the higher average sale price of mirrorless cameras.

DSLRs are steadily dying, not only in sales volume but also in average sale price. That's a doubly bad impact for DSLR manufacturers. Meanwhile, mirrorless sales volume is increasing, and brings in a higher average sale price. That's a double win for mirrorless manufacturers. No wonder all the manufacturers are shifting their resources to mirrorless!

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Mirrorless is not 100% better in every aspect. No new technology is 100% better than the established mature technology.

You can blow tradeoffs out of proportion all you like; you can downplay all the features Mirrorless offers: The truth is that the Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stone, but because they found something better.

There may be one last generation of DSLR (stuff that is in the R&D pipeline today); but the future will totally be Mirrorless.

Click to expand...

You might get two generations... maybe three. Even if DSLR sales fell to 25% of current levels in 3-ish years that's a lot of cameras and only two serious players. Look at it this way, Olympus sell about 495k mirrorless, if Nikon had 33% of the DSLR market then that would (at 25% of the 2017 size) be 632k units.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the VAST majority of DSLRs sold today are cheap, low-end, low-margin DSLRs.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...ctronics/3017941/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_4_3109924011

The mid-range and higher-end DSLR market has practically fallen off a cliff. Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to have lots of mid-range DSLRs on the list such as Canon XXD (10D-80D), Canon 7D-series, Nikon D200-D500, etc. Now, those sales have mostly disappeared. So the incentive to continue to pour development dollars into the DSLR segment just isn't there. You don't need the latest tech in low-end bargain-basement DSLRs, which now make up the overwhelming bulk of DSLR sales. Strong mid- and higher-level DSLR sales drive development. But those sales are really poor these days. Mid- to upper-level consumers are now more interested in mirrorless because I think most people now realize that that's the future.

Click to expand...

Amazon are a really bad source for sales numbers for a wide range of reasons (who shops there and for what, how they split up every version of a product, ...). Also there's a heck of a lot of D850s and 5DmkIVs out there. I don't think mid and upper level customers are interested in mirrorless any more than DSLRs, for which they probably have lenses and are used to.

Most mirrorless sales are the cheaper ones too, especially older discounted ones. The market for 3k-before-you-buy-a-lens cameras is very small compared to the 500-for-a-kit market.

I think most people with a lot of money to spend either don't do any huge amount of research, or do and mirrorless/not is just one factor in the mix. I shoot things for which mirrorless is best and things which DSLR is best and pick accordingly. (Though that might change a little if the flaming A7sIII ever turns up, and is good when it does.)

Click to expand...

You're in denial. Mirrorless now make up 40% of ILC sales, and climbing.Furthermore, according to CIPA, the average sale price of mirrorless cameras is higher than DSLRs:

The graph below shows the average unit price of mirrorless vs DSLR sales in the Americas. As you can see, the average price of a mirrorless camera sale is far higher than DSLR!



And here's how the same data looks worldwide. Again, the average sale price of mirrorless is higher than DSLR:



The data clearly refutes your claims. These days, DSLR sales are mostly composed of low-end bargain DSLRs. The mid-range and higher-priced DSLR sales have declined significantly. Most informed consumers are now starting to realize that mirrorless is the future, and they are seeing the advantages of mirrorless technology, so they are less inclined to invest in a higher-priced DSLR now. These mid- to higher-range consumers are shifting to mirrorless, which is reflected in the higher average sale price of mirrorless cameras.

DSLRs are steadily dying, not only in sales volume but also in average sale price. That's a doubly bad impact for DSLR manufacturers. Meanwhile, mirrorless sales volume is increasing, and brings in a higher average sale price. That's a double win for mirrorless manufacturers. No wonder all the manufacturers are shifting their resources to mirrorless!

Click to expand...

But these graphs aren't telling us the more interesting number. How fast is the overall market shrinking?



If the annual sales of ILC cameras falls to a few tens of thousands a year, it really doesn't matter how they are distributed between mirrorless and DSLR.

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Mirrorless is not 100% better in every aspect. No new technology is 100% better than the established mature technology.

You can blow tradeoffs out of proportion all you like; you can downplay all the features Mirrorless offers: The truth is that the Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stone, but because they found something better.

There may be one last generation of DSLR (stuff that is in the R&D pipeline today); but the future will totally be Mirrorless.

Click to expand...

You might get two generations... maybe three. Even if DSLR sales fell to 25% of current levels in 3-ish years that's a lot of cameras and only two serious players. Look at it this way, Olympus sell about 495k mirrorless, if Nikon had 33% of the DSLR market then that would (at 25% of the 2017 size) be 632k units.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the VAST majority of DSLRs sold today are cheap, low-end, low-margin DSLRs.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...ctronics/3017941/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_4_3109924011

The mid-range and higher-end DSLR market has practically fallen off a cliff. Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to have lots of mid-range DSLRs on the list such as Canon XXD (10D-80D), Canon 7D-series, Nikon D200-D500, etc. Now, those sales have mostly disappeared. So the incentive to continue to pour development dollars into the DSLR segment just isn't there. You don't need the latest tech in low-end bargain-basement DSLRs, which now make up the overwhelming bulk of DSLR sales. Strong mid- and higher-level DSLR sales drive development. But those sales are really poor these days. Mid- to upper-level consumers are now more interested in mirrorless because I think most people now realize that that's the future.

Click to expand...

Amazon are a really bad source for sales numbers for a wide range of reasons (who shops there and for what, how they split up every version of a product, ...). Also there's a heck of a lot of D850s and 5DmkIVs out there. I don't think mid and upper level customers are interested in mirrorless any more than DSLRs, for which they probably have lenses and are used to.

Most mirrorless sales are the cheaper ones too, especially older discounted ones. The market for 3k-before-you-buy-a-lens cameras is very small compared to the 500-for-a-kit market.

I think most people with a lot of money to spend either don't do any huge amount of research, or do and mirrorless/not is just one factor in the mix. I shoot things for which mirrorless is best and things which DSLR is best and pick accordingly. (Though that might change a little if the flaming A7sIII ever turns up, and is good when it does.)

Click to expand...

You're in denial. Mirrorless now make up 40% of ILC sales, and climbing.Furthermore, according to CIPA, the average sale price of mirrorless cameras is higher than DSLRs:

The graph below shows the average unit price of mirrorless vs DSLR sales in the Americas. As you can see, the average price of a mirrorless camera sale is far higher than DSLR!



And here's how the same data looks worldwide. Again, the average sale price of mirrorless is higher than DSLR:



The data clearly refutes your claims. These days, DSLR sales are mostly composed of low-end bargain DSLRs. The mid-range and higher-priced DSLR sales have declined significantly. Most informed consumers are now starting to realize that mirrorless is the future, and they are seeing the advantages of mirrorless technology, so they are less inclined to invest in a higher-priced DSLR now. These mid- to higher-range consumers are shifting to mirrorless, which is reflected in the higher average sale price of mirrorless cameras.

DSLRs are steadily dying, not only in sales volume but also in average sale price. That's a doubly bad impact for DSLR manufacturers. Meanwhile, mirrorless sales volume is increasing, and brings in a higher average sale price. That's a double win for mirrorless manufacturers. No wonder all the manufacturers are shifting their resources to mirrorless!

Click to expand...

Well, your Worldwide average selling prices are all going upwards, and for most of that period a lot of mid/high end DSLRs were sold. Also the DSLR market is still more valuable than mirrorless (which will change at some point, when probably depends on which new DSLRs get introduced, the less the sooner mirrorless will exceed it on value). Remember mirrorless models are mostly newer than expensive DSLRs, which leads to higher prices anyway (as they tend to decline over a camera's life) and people have mostly been launching mirrorless.

Jan-Oct 2018 Units:
DSLR - 5,741,534 (down 10%)
Mirrorless - 3,448,763 (same as 2017)

Value (Yen)
DSLR - 257.6B (basically 2 manufacturers)
Mirrorless - 215B (plenty of people so profits will be lower due to higher costs)

I'm not surprised mirrorless prices are higher as most manufacturers weren't making money (probably Sony and Canon are the only ones who might be happy in mirrorless, possibly Fuji but Instax buries the numbers) and so as the market wasn't growing they've been pushing prices upwards to try to get more money that way (and openly say so). The higher selling prices are due to this rather than people leaving mid/high end DSLRs (which they probably will do somewhat in Q4 due to new mirrorless arrivals).

I don't have a side in this, just get a bit fed up with people having a side to support getting ahead of things.

BTW the 2018 ILC figures show another year of falling total sales. I don't think Mirrorless is the answer to that, but doing other stuff that people would see as compelling would be (probably mostly on mirrorless cameras though). A seamless CarPlay-like link to phones for example would, I think, do way more for sales than making a greater percentage of cameras mirrorless will.

T3 said:

Mackiesback said:

That argument makes sense of the only supplier of high end anything is Amazon. Not only are they not, they tend to be a place where big box shoppers go, not high end customers. What would you think the ratio of FF cameras vs Soccer mom cameras would be at B&H, Adorama, Henry's etc?

The entire market is not Amazon best seller lists.

Click to expand...

But you are missing the historical perspective. You are missing the fact that Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to be full of mid- and higher-range DSLR. Now those cameras are mostly absent. Cameras such as the 50D, 60D, 70D, 80D, 7D used to be top sellers at Amazon just a few years ago, not only on their DSLR list but also across all digital cameras. That's not the case anymore. What we are seeing is a huge shift in the market. When I bought my 60D several years ago, it was in the top 5 of Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLR list. For as long as I can remember, there was always a Canon XXD body in the top 10. Those mid-range bodies were a great profit source for Canon because they sold at a reasonably high price (typically around $1000-1500, body only) and in high volumes. Today, the 80D is at #76 on the DSLR list!

Click to expand...

The 80D is very old, if a 90D arrives that will presumably appear further up the list. DSLRs are really just getting developed by C+N and they've been doing more mirrorless models so many DSLRs are pretty old now. It will be very interesting to see which models (especially higher end DX and FX ones) go mirrorless and which don't.

Michael Fryd said:

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

Michael Fryd said:

Mirrorless is not 100% better in every aspect. No new technology is 100% better than the established mature technology.

You can blow tradeoffs out of proportion all you like; you can downplay all the features Mirrorless offers: The truth is that the Stone Age didn't end because they ran out of stone, but because they found something better.

There may be one last generation of DSLR (stuff that is in the R&D pipeline today); but the future will totally be Mirrorless.

Click to expand...

You might get two generations... maybe three. Even if DSLR sales fell to 25% of current levels in 3-ish years that's a lot of cameras and only two serious players. Look at it this way, Olympus sell about 495k mirrorless, if Nikon had 33% of the DSLR market then that would (at 25% of the 2017 size) be 632k units.

Click to expand...

The problem is that the VAST majority of DSLRs sold today are cheap, low-end, low-margin DSLRs.

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers...ctronics/3017941/ref=zg_bs_nav_e_4_3109924011

The mid-range and higher-end DSLR market has practically fallen off a cliff. Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to have lots of mid-range DSLRs on the list such as Canon XXD (10D-80D), Canon 7D-series, Nikon D200-D500, etc. Now, those sales have mostly disappeared. So the incentive to continue to pour development dollars into the DSLR segment just isn't there. You don't need the latest tech in low-end bargain-basement DSLRs, which now make up the overwhelming bulk of DSLR sales. Strong mid- and higher-level DSLR sales drive development. But those sales are really poor these days. Mid- to upper-level consumers are now more interested in mirrorless because I think most people now realize that that's the future.

Click to expand...

Amazon are a really bad source for sales numbers for a wide range of reasons (who shops there and for what, how they split up every version of a product, ...). Also there's a heck of a lot of D850s and 5DmkIVs out there. I don't think mid and upper level customers are interested in mirrorless any more than DSLRs, for which they probably have lenses and are used to.

Most mirrorless sales are the cheaper ones too, especially older discounted ones. The market for 3k-before-you-buy-a-lens cameras is very small compared to the 500-for-a-kit market.

I think most people with a lot of money to spend either don't do any huge amount of research, or do and mirrorless/not is just one factor in the mix. I shoot things for which mirrorless is best and things which DSLR is best and pick accordingly. (Though that might change a little if the flaming A7sIII ever turns up, and is good when it does.)

Click to expand...

You're in denial. Mirrorless now make up 40% of ILC sales, and climbing.Furthermore, according to CIPA, the average sale price of mirrorless cameras is higher than DSLRs:

The graph below shows the average unit price of mirrorless vs DSLR sales in the Americas. As you can see, the average price of a mirrorless camera sale is far higher than DSLR!



And here's how the same data looks worldwide. Again, the average sale price of mirrorless is higher than DSLR:



The data clearly refutes your claims. These days, DSLR sales are mostly composed of low-end bargain DSLRs. The mid-range and higher-priced DSLR sales have declined significantly. Most informed consumers are now starting to realize that mirrorless is the future, and they are seeing the advantages of mirrorless technology, so they are less inclined to invest in a higher-priced DSLR now. These mid- to higher-range consumers are shifting to mirrorless, which is reflected in the higher average sale price of mirrorless cameras.

DSLRs are steadily dying, not only in sales volume but also in average sale price. That's a doubly bad impact for DSLR manufacturers. Meanwhile, mirrorless sales volume is increasing, and brings in a higher average sale price. That's a double win for mirrorless manufacturers. No wonder all the manufacturers are shifting their resources to mirrorless!

Click to expand...

But these graphs aren't telling us the more interesting number. How fast is the overall market shrinking?

If the annual sales of ILC cameras falls to a few tens of thousands a year, it really doesn't matter how they are distributed between mirrorless and DSLR.

Click to expand...

Of course, it matters. Manufacturers will go where the money is. If the only DSLRs that are selling are cheap low-end models because higher-end users have mostly shifted to mirrorless, you can bet that manufacturers will put far more effort and resources into mirrorless. Look at the average unit price of mirrorless vs DSLR in the US for 2017: $671.62 vs $376.83! That's a huge gap. It's not looking good for the DSLR market. And the shift toward mirrorless will be even greater once the 2018 numbers come in. The shift is only accelerating. You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the market is absolutely changing, and quickly-- especially now that Canon and Nikon have entered the market with their FF models. I think in a few years we're going to see that as a watershed moment for the camera market, where the ILC world truly started to flip towards mirrorless. Within a year or two, I think we'll definitely see certain DSLR models and lines being discontinued. I wouldn't be surprised if the next Canon 90D is a mirrorless model.

T3 said:

Michael Fryd said:

...But these graphs aren't telling us the more interesting number. How fast is the overall market shrinking?

If the annual sales of ILC cameras falls to a few tens of thousands a year, it really doesn't matter how they are distributed between mirrorless and DSLR.

Click to expand...

Of course, it matters. Manufacturers will go where the money is.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if the market shrinks, there's no money there.

Think about this, which has the lion's share of the film market? SLR or medium format? Are manufacturers pouring R&D dollars into the film market leader?

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Mackiesback said:

That argument makes sense of the only supplier of high end anything is Amazon. Not only are they not, they tend to be a place where big box shoppers go, not high end customers. What would you think the ratio of FF cameras vs Soccer mom cameras would be at B&H, Adorama, Henry's etc?

The entire market is not Amazon best seller lists.

Click to expand...

But you are missing the historical perspective. You are missing the fact that Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to be full of mid- and higher-range DSLR. Now those cameras are mostly absent. Cameras such as the 50D, 60D, 70D, 80D, 7D used to be top sellers at Amazon just a few years ago, not only on their DSLR list but also across all digital cameras. That's not the case anymore. What we are seeing is a huge shift in the market. When I bought my 60D several years ago, it was in the top 5 of Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLR list. For as long as I can remember, there was always a Canon XXD body in the top 10. Those mid-range bodies were a great profit source for Canon because they sold at a reasonably high price (typically around $1000-1500, body only) and in high volumes. Today, the 80D is at #76 on the DSLR list!

Click to expand...

The 80D is very old, if a 90D arrives that will presumably appear further up the list. DSLRs are really just getting developed by C+N and they've been doing more mirrorless models so many DSLRs are pretty old now. It will be very interesting to see which models (especially higher end DX and FX ones) go mirrorless and which don't.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the 90D was a mirrorless model.

The reality is that I don't think there's all that much interest in a 90D DSLR. There's only so much it could offer over an 80D. Same old stale DSLR technology. Just look at the Canon 6DII. There wasn't much interest in it. Canon released it at $1999. Within a year, it had dropped down to $1599. Now it has dropped further, down to $1299. That is the quickest price drop of any newly released Canon DSLR I have ever seen. The camera was just introduced June 29, 2017! But that's just how the market is these days for DSLRs. That market is more interested in mirrorless now. For example, the Sony A7III has held its price at $1999, and far outsells the 6DII which was introduced only a few months prior. The original 6D held its price and sold well for far longer. But it didn't have to compete against mature mirrorless cameras like the A7III.

Michael Fryd said:

T3 said:

Michael Fryd said:

...But these graphs aren't telling us the more interesting number. How fast is the overall market shrinking?

If the annual sales of ILC cameras falls to a few tens of thousands a year, it really doesn't matter how they are distributed between mirrorless and DSLR.

Click to expand...

Of course, it matters. Manufacturers will go where the money is.

Click to expand...

Yes, and if the market shrinks, there's no money there.

Think about this, which has the lion's share of the film market? SLR or medium format? Are manufacturers pouring R&D dollars into the film market leader?

Click to expand...

If the market shrinks, there won't be room for both DSLR and mirrorless. DSLR will have to go. We will see DSLR lines be discontinued. R&D, production, and sales will be consolidated around mirrorless. You're a fool if you think that the ILC market will go away. It won't. It's the DSLR market that will go away. Plus, I think the manufacturers are quite confident about mirrorless, particularly FF mirrorless. Just look at what all the manufacturers are doing:

Think about this: Sony, Nikon, and Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Canon and Nikon started new FF mirrorless lens systems. Nikon introduced two FF mirrorless bodies. Panasonic will be introducing two FF bodies next year. Sigma will be introducing a FF mirrorless body of their own. These companies aren't stupid. They know where the market is going, and they know there's a market to be pursued. Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica collectively have a MUCH better understanding of the market than you do! You're just some nobody who is spouting insecure nonsense. These camera companies are working off of real data, real projections, real understanding of the camera market, and they are spending real money on pursuing the sales opportunity that they all see. You don't have 1/100th the information they have.

Dr_Jon said:

Well, your Worldwide average selling prices are all going upwards, and for most of that period a lot of mid/high end DSLRs were sold. Also the DSLR market is still more valuable than mirrorless (which will change at some point, when probably depends on which new DSLRs get introduced, the less the sooner mirrorless will exceed it on value). Remember mirrorless models are mostly newer than expensive DSLRs, which leads to higher prices anyway (as they tend to decline over a camera's life) and people have mostly been launching mirrorless.

Jan-Oct 2018 Units:
DSLR - 5,741,534 (down 10%)
Mirrorless - 3,448,763 (same as 2017)

Value (Yen)
DSLR - 257.6B (basically 2 manufacturers)
Mirrorless - 215B (plenty of people so profits will be lower due to higher costs)

I'm not surprised mirrorless prices are higher as most manufacturers weren't making money (probably Sony and Canon are the only ones who might be happy in mirrorless, possibly Fuji but Instax buries the numbers) and so as the market wasn't growing they've been pushing prices upwards to try to get more money that way (and openly say so). The higher selling prices are due to this rather than people leaving mid/high end DSLRs (which they probably will do somewhat in Q4 due to new mirrorless arrivals).

I don't have a side in this, just get a bit fed up with people having a side to support getting ahead of things.

BTW the 2018 ILC figures show another year of falling total sales. I don't think Mirrorless is the answer to that, but doing other stuff that people would see as compelling would be (probably mostly on mirrorless cameras though). A seamless CarPlay-like link to phones for example would, I think, do way more for sales than making a greater percentage of cameras mirrorless will.

Click to expand...

You can stay in denial all you want, but Sony, Nikon, Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Nikon introduced two! Panasonic will introduce two FF mirrorless cameras next year. Sigma will also be entering the FF mirrorless market. Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica joined together for a mirrorless system alliance. See a pattern here? All these manufacturers are moving into the FF mirrorless market. Why? Because they know that that's where the market is going. And that isn't just where they think the market is going, they are actively going to push the market in that direction! We're talking millions and millions of dollars collectively being poured into mirrorless product development and marketing. It's not a good picture for the future of DSLRs. Sorry to break it to you. But feel free to bury your head in the sand if it makes you feel more comfortable.

T3 said:

T3 said:

...

Click to expand...

If the market shrinks, there won't be room for both DSLR and mirrorless. DSLR will have to go. We will see DSLR lines be discontinued. R&D, production, and sales will be consolidated around mirrorless. You're a fool if you think that the ILC market will go away. It won't. It's the DSLR market that will go away. Plus, I think the manufacturers are quite confident about mirrorless, particularly FF mirrorless. Just look at what all the manufacturers are doing:

Click to expand...

We disagree.

If the market shrinks, R&D dries up. You don't waste money on R&D for a market that will soon disappear. It's just not a good long term investment.

We'll probably see a few more models of ILC come out, as money on development has already been spent.

T3 said:

Think about this: Sony, Nikon, and Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Canon and Nikon started new FF mirrorless lens systems. Nikon introduced two FF mirrorless bodies. Panasonic will be introducing two FF bodies next year. Sigma will be introducing a FF mirrorless body of their own. These companies aren't stupid. They know where the market is going, and they know there's a market to be pursued. Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica collectively have a MUCH better understanding of the market than you do! You're just some nobody who is spouting insecure nonsense. These camera companies are working off of real data, real projections, real understanding of the camera market, and they are spending real money on pursuing the sales opportunity that they all see. You don't have 1/100th the information they have.

Click to expand...

They know the mirrorless market has a few more years left, and it throwing existing DSLR technology into a mirrorless body doesn't require a lot of R&D.

Throwing out a few mirrorless bodies is a good way of squeezing a few more dollars out of a disappearing market.

I wouldn't expect much in the way of new technology in development.

In terms of the recent mirrorless introductions from Canon and Nikon, those cameras have been in development for many years.

If these companies were serious about investing in mirrorless, we would see a long term roadmap of the sorts of bodies and lenses we should see in the future. Such a roadmap would make consumers feel more comfortable about the new platform. A lack of public roadmap suggests a lack of commitment.

====

Arguing over whether mirrorless or DSLR will survive is like arguing over whether 35mm film or APS film will win. After all, back then we were all sure that digital was a novelty, and that digital cameras would never displace film.

APS film is gone, and I haven't seen much R&D spent on film cameras.

Michael Fryd said:

T3 said:

Michael Fryd said:

...

Click to expand...

If the market shrinks, there won't be room for both DSLR and mirrorless. DSLR will have to go. We will see DSLR lines be discontinued. R&D, production, and sales will be consolidated around mirrorless. You're a fool if you think that the ILC market will go away. It won't. It's the DSLR market that will go away. Plus, I think the manufacturers are quite confident about mirrorless, particularly FF mirrorless. Just look at what all the manufacturers are doing:

Click to expand...

We disagree.

If the market shrinks, R&D dries up. You don't waste money on R&D for a market that will soon disappear. It's just not a good long term investment.

We'll probably see a few more models of ILC come out, as money on development has already been spent.

Michael Fryd said:

Think about this: Sony, Nikon, and Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Canon and Nikon started new FF mirrorless lens systems. Nikon introduced two FF mirrorless bodies. Panasonic will be introducing two FF bodies next year. Sigma will be introducing a FF mirrorless body of their own. These companies aren't stupid. They know where the market is going, and they know there's a market to be pursued. Sony, Nikon, Canon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica collectively have a MUCH better understanding of the market than you do! You're just some nobody who is spouting insecure nonsense. These camera companies are working off of real data, real projections, real understanding of the camera market, and they are spending real money on pursuing the sales opportunity that they all see. You don't have 1/100th the information they have.

Click to expand...

They know the mirrorless market has a few more years left, and it throwing existing DSLR technology into a mirrorless body doesn't require a lot of R&D.

Throwing out a few mirrorless bodies is a good way of squeezing a few more dollars out of a disappearing market.

I wouldn't expect much in the way of new technology in development.

In terms of the recent mirrorless introductions from Canon and Nikon, those cameras have been in development for many years.

If these companies were serious about investing in mirrorless, we would see a long term roadmap of the sorts of bodies and lenses we should see in the future. Such a roadmap would make consumers feel more comfortable about the new platform. A lack of public roadmap suggests a lack of commitment.

====

Arguing over whether mirrorless or DSLR will survive is like arguing over whether 35mm film or APS film will win. After all, back then we were all sure that digital was a novelty, and that digital cameras would never displace film.

APS film is gone, and I haven't seen much R&D spent on film cameras.

Click to expand...

LOL, you're just in denial. ILC's will be around for quite some time. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica, Fuji, etc, are not investing millions of dollars into mirrorless systems just for a few years of product life. Are the camera companies serious about mirrorless for the long haul? Absolutely:













This is millions of dollars being invested in mirrorless. And all the investment you see above doesn't even pertain to the camera bodies! There's going to be a huge investment in designing all new lenses for mirrorless! So the idea that these camera companies are investing all of these resources to "just squeezing a few more dollars out of a disappearing market" is simply idiotic. You have to be a buffoon to say or believe something like that, lol.

DSLR is gradually on its way out. DSLR was the successor of film SLR. Mirrorless is the successor of DSLR. Deal with it!

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

T3 said:

Mackiesback said:

That argument makes sense of the only supplier of high end anything is Amazon. Not only are they not, they tend to be a place where big box shoppers go, not high end customers. What would you think the ratio of FF cameras vs Soccer mom cameras would be at B&H, Adorama, Henry's etc?

The entire market is not Amazon best seller lists.

Click to expand...

But you are missing the historical perspective. You are missing the fact that Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLRs list used to be full of mid- and higher-range DSLR. Now those cameras are mostly absent. Cameras such as the 50D, 60D, 70D, 80D, 7D used to be top sellers at Amazon just a few years ago, not only on their DSLR list but also across all digital cameras. That's not the case anymore. What we are seeing is a huge shift in the market. When I bought my 60D several years ago, it was in the top 5 of Amazon's Best Sellers in DSLR list. For as long as I can remember, there was always a Canon XXD body in the top 10. Those mid-range bodies were a great profit source for Canon because they sold at a reasonably high price (typically around $1000-1500, body only) and in high volumes. Today, the 80D is at #76 on the DSLR list!

Click to expand...

The 80D is very old, if a 90D arrives that will presumably appear further up the list. DSLRs are really just getting developed by C+N and they've been doing more mirrorless models so many DSLRs are pretty old now. It will be very interesting to see which models (especially higher end DX and FX ones) go mirrorless and which don't.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the 90D was a mirrorless model.

The reality is that I don't think there's all that much interest in a 90D DSLR. There's only so much it could offer over an 80D. Same old stale DSLR technology. Just look at the Canon 6DII. There wasn't much interest in it. Canon released it at $1999. Within a year, it had dropped down to $1599. Now it has dropped further, down to $1299. That is the quickest price drop of any newly released Canon DSLR I have ever seen. The camera was just introduced June 29, 2017! But that's just how the market is these days for DSLRs. That market is more interested in mirrorless now. For example, the Sony A7III has held its price at $1999, and far outsells the 6DII which was introduced only a few months prior. The original 6D held its price and sold well for far longer. But it didn't have to compete against mature mirrorless cameras like the A7III.

Click to expand...

Most Canon DSLRs are launched at quite a high price to take advantage of people who are willing to pay that. It's interesting to see the ones that stay high. For example until recently the 5Dsr had actually gone up in price while the 5Ds had gone the other way. In the U.K. the 80D is ending the year at the same price it started it, might be Brexit of course. The A7III started at 1999 or above and is now 1849 generally (1777 on Amazon; note only ones from Sony UK included).

If I had to guess (hey, you started it ) I think the 90D will be a DSLR and there will be a M5 mk II which will cover the mirrorless end (better built M50 with DPAF in 4k and less/no crop, probably a new sensor shared with the 90D).

T3 said:

Dr_Jon said:

Well, your Worldwide average selling prices are all going upwards, and for most of that period a lot of mid/high end DSLRs were sold. Also the DSLR market is still more valuable than mirrorless (which will change at some point, when probably depends on which new DSLRs get introduced, the less the sooner mirrorless will exceed it on value). Remember mirrorless models are mostly newer than expensive DSLRs, which leads to higher prices anyway (as they tend to decline over a camera's life) and people have mostly been launching mirrorless.

Jan-Oct 2018 Units:
DSLR - 5,741,534 (down 10%)
Mirrorless - 3,448,763 (same as 2017)

Value (Yen)
DSLR - 257.6B (basically 2 manufacturers)
Mirrorless - 215B (plenty of people so profits will be lower due to higher costs)

I'm not surprised mirrorless prices are higher as most manufacturers weren't making money (probably Sony and Canon are the only ones who might be happy in mirrorless, possibly Fuji but Instax buries the numbers) and so as the market wasn't growing they've been pushing prices upwards to try to get more money that way (and openly say so). The higher selling prices are due to this rather than people leaving mid/high end DSLRs (which they probably will do somewhat in Q4 due to new mirrorless arrivals).

I don't have a side in this, just get a bit fed up with people having a side to support getting ahead of things.

BTW the 2018 ILC figures show another year of falling total sales. I don't think Mirrorless is the answer to that, but doing other stuff that people would see as compelling would be (probably mostly on mirrorless cameras though). A seamless CarPlay-like link to phones for example would, I think, do way more for sales than making a greater percentage of cameras mirrorless will.

Click to expand...

You can stay in denial all you want, but Sony, Nikon, Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Nikon introduced two! Panasonic will introduce two FF mirrorless cameras next year. Sigma will also be entering the FF mirrorless market. Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica joined together for a mirrorless system alliance. See a pattern here? All these manufacturers are moving into the FF mirrorless market. Why? Because they know that that's where the market is going. And that isn't just where they think the market is going, they are actively going to push the market in that direction! We're talking millions and millions of dollars collectively being poured into mirrorless product development and marketing. It's not a good picture for the future of DSLRs. Sorry to break it to you. But feel free to bury your head in the sand if it makes you feel more comfortable.

Click to expand...

Not in denial at all, just don't see it as a war I have to take a side in, so look at what's going on and comment. I shoot DSLR, Mirrorless and fixed-lens and my lifetime total is more mirrorless purchases (4) than DSLRs (3, although I just currently use one of each). Oh and a Rangefinder (no, not Leica).

Everyone except Canon/Nikon (err, and Pentax) is doing mirrorless as C+N have DSLRs as their own private market, plus mirrorless cameras are cheaper to make and so the profit can be more, or at least not dreadful at the fairly low volumes they sell (Sony and Canon are the only people selling over 650k mirrorless p.a., and that's assuming Fuji are actually over 600k as rumoured, they used to be below Oly's 495k).

I really see:
The overall camera market not growing much and probably declining a little.
Mirrorless sales doing no more than eroding DSLR sales at a modest rate. (How fast really depends on what DSLRs launch, especially which format the 7DmkIII and D600 are.)
DSLR sales declining to fall below mirrorless at some point (but C+N will still be making more DSLRs than most Mirrorless manufacturers are making ILCs, and making more profits from that).

I don't think mirrorless is some great answer to reviving camera sales, it's just a way to make a camera. As I said, if they want to grow the market I think it's a software/workflow issue for consumers and pros. Plus Japanese companies and software... well. Oh and of course the SoCs (processors, DSPs, custom hardware, etc.) in cameras are really so far behind what you get in phones, partly as the money isn't there to develop them (maybe $40M each, plus a 7-figure sum per respin).

T3 said:

T3 said:

... but Sony, Nikon, Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Nikon introduced two! Panasonic will introduce two FF mirrorless cameras next year. Sigma will also be entering the FF mirrorless market. Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica joined together for a mirrorless system alliance. See a pattern here?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

True facts!

T3 said:

T3 said:

All these manufacturers are moving into the FF mirrorless market.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep!

T3 said:

T3 said:

Why? Because they know that that's where the market is going. And that isn't just where they think the market is going,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable conclusion.

T3 said:

T3 said:

....they are actively going to push the market in that direction!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's how things work.

T3 said:

T3 said:

It's not a good picture for the future of DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No.

And that was the OP's question.

The remaining question is, I think, what will we see, if anything, in new crop-sensor camera developments.

Ilfotografo said:

T3 said:

Ilfotografo said:

... but Sony, Nikon, Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Nikon introduced two! Panasonic will introduce two FF mirrorless cameras next year. Sigma will also be entering the FF mirrorless market. Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica joined together for a mirrorless system alliance. See a pattern here?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

True facts!

Ilfotografo said:

Ilfotografo said:

All these manufacturers are moving into the FF mirrorless market.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep!

Ilfotografo said:

Ilfotografo said:

Why? Because they know that that's where the market is going. And that isn't just where they think the market is going,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable conclusion.

Ilfotografo said:

Ilfotografo said:

....they are actively going to push the market in that direction!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's how things work.

Ilfotografo said:

Ilfotografo said:

It's not a good picture for the future of DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No.

...

Click to expand...

It's interesting how this all mirrors APS film.

Major manufacturers were on board with moving film to the next level. However the market was about to leave film behind.

When the market moved to digital, APS went away. It appealed neither to those who wanted the latest, nor to those that wanted traditional.

As smartphone quality and performance improves, who's left to want mirrorless?

====

As to why companies are producing Interchangeable Lens Cameras -

Of course Nikon is pushing Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC). They have yet to find a way to profit significantly from smartphones.

Canon can try to move into the camera module business, but they have an existing ILC infrastructure that still has some profit left in it.

Sony has the best of both worlds. They are milking the ILC market, and producing smartphone camera modules.

It also helps that Canon and Sony can find cost reductions due to synergy with their high-end broadcast markets. Those markets are still using big glass lenses (although not as big as they used to be).

Michael Fryd said:

Ilfotografo said:

T3 said:

Michael Fryd said:

... but Sony, Nikon, Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Nikon introduced two! Panasonic will introduce two FF mirrorless cameras next year. Sigma will also be entering the FF mirrorless market. Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica joined together for a mirrorless system alliance. See a pattern here?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

True facts!

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

All these manufacturers are moving into the FF mirrorless market.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep!

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

Why? Because they know that that's where the market is going. And that isn't just where they think the market is going,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable conclusion.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

....they are actively going to push the market in that direction!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's how things work.

Michael Fryd said:

Michael Fryd said:

It's not a good picture for the future of DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No.

...

Click to expand...

It's interesting how this all mirrors APS film.

Major manufacturers were on board with moving film to the next level. However the market was about to leave film behind.

When the market moved to digital, APS went away. It appealed neither to those who wanted the latest, nor to those that wanted traditional.

As smartphone quality and performance improves, who's left to want mirrorless?

====

As to why companies are producing Interchangeable Lens Cameras -

Of course Nikon is pushing Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC). They have yet to find a way to profit significantly from smartphones.

Canon can try to move into the camera module business, but they have an existing ILC infrastructure that still has some profit left in it.

Sony has the best of both worlds. They are milking the ILC market, and producing smartphone camera modules.

It also helps that Canon and Sony can find cost reductions due to synergy with their high-end broadcast markets. Those markets are still using big glass lenses (although not as big as they used to be).

Click to expand...

You are totally delusional in your belief that ILCs are going away. I think you just feel threatened by the rise of mirrorless and its being the eventual replacement for DSLRs, so the only way you can deal with it is by saying that all ILCs are going away! LOL. It's like a child saying, "If I don't get to win this game, then I'm taking all my marbles home and no one gets to play!" I hate to break it to you, but the ILC market will be around for many, many years to come. The collective minds of Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica, Fuji are definitely smarter and more informed than you. You're a sad man to think that you know more than they do.

T3 said:

Michael Fryd said:

Ilfotografo said:

T3 said:

T3 said:

... but Sony, Nikon, Canon all introduced new FF mirrorless cameras this year. Nikon introduced two! Panasonic will introduce two FF mirrorless cameras next year. Sigma will also be entering the FF mirrorless market. Panasonic, Sigma, and Leica joined together for a mirrorless system alliance. See a pattern here?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

True facts!

T3 said:

T3 said:

All these manufacturers are moving into the FF mirrorless market.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yep!

T3 said:

T3 said:

Why? Because they know that that's where the market is going. And that isn't just where they think the market is going,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's a reasonable conclusion.

T3 said:

T3 said:

....they are actively going to push the market in that direction!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

That's how things work.

T3 said:

T3 said:

It's not a good picture for the future of DSLRs.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

No.

...

Click to expand...

It's interesting how this all mirrors APS film.

Major manufacturers were on board with moving film to the next level. However the market was about to leave film behind.

When the market moved to digital, APS went away. It appealed neither to those who wanted the latest, nor to those that wanted traditional.

As smartphone quality and performance improves, who's left to want mirrorless?

====

As to why companies are producing Interchangeable Lens Cameras -

Of course Nikon is pushing Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC). They have yet to find a way to profit significantly from smartphones.

Canon can try to move into the camera module business, but they have an existing ILC infrastructure that still has some profit left in it.

Sony has the best of both worlds. They are milking the ILC market, and producing smartphone camera modules.

It also helps that Canon and Sony can find cost reductions due to synergy with their high-end broadcast markets. Those markets are still using big glass lenses (although not as big as they used to be).

Click to expand...

You are totally delusional in your belief that ILCs are going away. I think you just feel threatened by the rise of mirrorless and its being the eventual replacement for DSLRs, so the only way you can deal with it is by saying that all ILCs are going away! LOL. It's like a child saying, "If I don't get to win this game, then I'm taking all my marbles home and no one gets to play!" I hate to break it to you, but the ILC market will be around for many, many years to come. The collective minds of Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica, Fuji are definitely smarter and more informed than you. You're a sad man to think that you know more than they do.

Click to expand...

"Idiot"

"Denial"

"Buffoon"

"Delusional"

"Sad man"

Add to that about a thousand exclamation points. I am suddenly remembering why I had you blocked at one point. Why don't you calm down and engage like an adult? Michael has done nothing other than have a differing view on the future of imaging. He doesn't deserve this treatment.

T3 said:

T3 said:

...

Click to expand...

You are totally delusional in your belief that ILCs are going away. I think you just feel threatened by the rise of mirrorless and its being the eventual replacement for DSLRs, so the only way you can deal with it is by saying that all ILCs are going away! LOL. It's like a child saying, "If I don't get to win this game, then I'm taking all my marbles home and no one gets to play!" I hate to break it to you, but the ILC market will be around for many, many years to come. The collective minds of Sony, Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sigma, Leica, Fuji are definitely smarter and more informed than you. You're a sad man to think that you know more than they do.

Click to expand...

You misunderstand me.

Nothing would make me happier then for there to continue to be a strong robust market for Interchangeable Lens Cameras. It doesn't really matter to me whether that's mirrorless, DSLRs or both. As I have consistently said, both mirrorless and DSLRs are good solutions for the vast majority of high end photography.

We both seem to want ILC cameras to flourish.

Where we differ is whether or not we think that will happen.

As you have pointed out, mirrorless cameras are very good. Where we seem to differ is in our predictions as to how good smartphones will become.

Let's suppose for a moment that smartphones reach the point where they can produce the same quality as current mirrorless cameras. Furthermore, let's assume that they use multiple camera sensors to gain a few features not possible with a single lens camera. Obviously, the quality from mirrorless would also have improved.

Clearly that's the future. The question is what happens to ILC cameras at that point?

Clearly the vast majority of photographers will switch to smartphones. They will be more convenient, more than good enough, and the incremental cost of adding some cameras modules will be low.

The question becomes who will stay with ILC? Will that market be big enough to support major R&D and future development?

Clearly, that market will be small. It's already rapidly shrinking.

Where we differ is who we see staying with the ILC market, and what we see them wanting.

You see them as wanting mirrorless cameras because you see mirrorless as being superior. I see the luddites who stick with ILC as wanting DSLR as DSLRs are more traditional, and offer things not possible with mirrorless. Also, the DSLR lens market will have slightly higher volume as it includes the 35mm SLR film luddites.

However, no matter which ILC is preferred, I see that market as shrinking to the size where significant future R&D doesn't make business sense.