Skiff
Well-known
Yes really.
Just look at the numbers of CIPA. They publish the production numbers of mirrorless cameras.
And in the last two years there simply was not any boom at all.
The volume has decreased.
That is just the simple fact.
Skiff
Well-known
Digital cameras 'killed' film camera sales, doubt it is film cameras that 'kills' the digital camera sales now.... but we can hope so
Yes, at that time digital cameras 'killed' film camera sales.
But also some manufacturers killed film cameras, because despite a demand in the 7 digit range they just stopped production.
I've never said here that we will see a reversal back to film as the main media.
Film will be niche in the future compared to digital.
But it wil be a significantly bigger niche in some years compared to the current status.
And with increasing interest in film we will see new film cameras (same development as we've already seen in the markets for mechanical watches and turntables).
With increasing interest in film the prices for good (mint) used gear will rise (we are already seeing that; PKM-25's example with Hasselblad is spot on).
Then with a reduced price gap between used and new gear it will be more attractive for some (not all) camera manufacturers to make new film cameras (see the Voigtländer Bessa III example).
80% of the production volume of digital camera manufacturing have been compact cameras.
This market is vanishing now, killed by over-saturation and smartphones. Maybe 5-10% of the former volume can stay in the long term.
So the digital camera manufacturers are currently loosing their "backbone".
DSLRs and mirrorless are significantly decreasing, too.
Therefore in the next years some manufacturers will simply be thankful to have an additional profitable niche, like film cameras.
Skiff
Well-known
+1.
And the "average joe" / "average photo enthusiast" just can not afford a new DSLR or mirroless every 2 - 3 years.
They are just too much expensive for such an upgrading cycle.
If you buy a such a camera in such short time spans, like the industry want you to do, you are spending much much more money on digital imaging compared to film photography.
And people have realised that.
And they quit the "upgrading rat race".
Skiff
Well-known
E.g. I well remember wrong information about IR film on their website, lacking supply, refusing offering material which is easily available at other sources etc.
They really could do much better.
And in the last two years they have more turned away from film, and concentrated on promoting ink jet instead.
What I meant was the structure of film supplies. In the US there is a very tight oligopol with B&H, Adorama and Freestyle dominating the market.
Such a concentration, so little competition is not good for a market.
In Europe there is a much better supply situation, more distributors, more specialists in addition, more competition and so on.
Extremely easy to get all you need here, even special items.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
And based on that perception, they no longer care about film sales and film use? Sorry, but I would have to say that is an erroneous misconception.
I've never purchased film from B+H. But I can get on my bicycle and pick up a wide variety of film from a choice of several local shops. It's "extremely easy to get all you need here, even special items."
btw, our department gets all the basic B+W darkroom student chemistry from here: http://www.claytonchem.com/
A local business.....
I feel that you're not only generalizing based on some personal assumptions, but what started out as being informative about the current digital market has now turned into being didactic.
Ranchu
Veteran
Within the subset 'mirrorless' you mean.
Thanks for not providing any proof of the supposed propaganda.
Huss
Veteran
I can cycle to my local shop, but I buy my film across country from B&H because they are about 1/2 to 2/3 of the price, after shipping.
Originally I wanted to support my local shop, but after I bought several big ticket items from them (Leica gear) and they did not support me with warranty issues post sale (within the warranty period), they lost my business.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
That's unfortunate. All the shops here have offered to match B+H pricing on all soft and hard goods. Although I do buy a lot of film, plus I'm an educator and bring in a lot of student customers (but who do get student discounts, and the stores here also have 'educator discounts' on film and other materials; lots of photo and art programs in the region.) And I don't mind paying the tax on items since that goes back into the state and communities (and by law I have to declare non-taxed internet purchases anyway, although not many people do.)
Pricing and service issues will vary of course from business to business, geographic locale, etc.. It's like that with any business (car dealers, etc..) Some are clearly more competitive than others.....
Skiff
Well-known
Of course they do.
The mirrorless camera market decreased in the last two years (in 2013 stronger compared to 2014; but that was mainly because of a stronger first half year 2014: the second half of 2014 was significantly weaker compared to the second half of 2013).
There is no boom in mirrorless in general.
If one mirrorless manufacturer would have an increase, an other would have a stronger decrease. And if that trend then is going on, maybe the weaker manufacturer will have to stop production in the mid term.
In an overall weak / declining market the success of one company will be the loss / failure of the competitors.
Furthermore I've given you the links to other sources as well.
I do it again:
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/interpreting-data-reveals.html
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/the-numbers-are-in.html
But it looks like that just some members here simply refuse to study the data and the current reality.
Anyway, just don't let us waste our time in a discussion which is going in circles.
Let's wait and see.
In 2- 4 years we will see whether I have been right or you.
But we all should consider this:
If someone here in the forum in the year 2010 would have said that in the following years until 2014 the market will crash down, and will loose 2/3 of its volume, all here in the forum (including me ! ) would have said he is totally crazy.
We should think about that.
And we should not underestimate the dynamic and power of the current changes in the market.
I'm not so sure that is the case. Most people don't buy cameras every year or multiple times a year like forum dwellers. Digital cameras were in their infancy, the cameras saw rapid advancements that meant something to people, and the numbers could have never been sustained where people upgrade constantly. Now it just goes back to being able to sell to people when they need a replacement. It worked for film cameras, why shouldn't that work for digital cameras? And film cameras couldn't even rely on sensor advancements...since film was sold separately. If companies could figure out how to sell film cameras (with minor advancements) over a huge period of time, they will figure out how to sell digital cameras the same way. It will likely follow the computer market in regards to when and how people upgrade. I'm sure film camera sales had ups and downs as well over the years.
Skiff
Well-known
If you would have read my posts attentively you would have realised that I have never questioned that
.But you have to consider that:
1. Lots of film camera manufacturers had to quit the market even in the 'golden era of film' because when the first boom was over the market declined significantly. And the left over market was too small for all manufacturers.
Just look at all the film SLR companies in the seventies. And compare the number to the surviving SLR manufacturers at the end of the nineties. About only half remained.
With the collapsing digital camera market we will probably see a similar development: In 2 - 4 years the market will be too small for keeping all manufacturers alive.
And as we have much more competitiors in the mirrorless segment, and the mirrorless market is much smaller than the DSLR market, we probably will see market exits by some mirrorless manufacturers.
2. In the most important market for digital cameras (based on unit sales volume), the compact cameras, we see currently a kind of paradigma change, caused by the smartphone.
So at some time in the future the compact cam sales may stabilise, but on an extremely low level.
Maybe 5-10% of its original volume.
As said before, the manufacturers are loosing their 'backbone' here.
And that makes the situation completely different to the situation in the film era.
Film cameras automatically benefit from 'sensor' advancements:
Better film = better 'sensor' = improved image quality = no new camera needed
.In know what you wanted to say, you are right, with film cameras the customers has much much less pressure to 'upgrade'.
Very good for the customers, not so good for the manufacturer.
Skiff
Well-known
We'll see......
I don't think it will be a "bloodbath", but I share the assessment of lots of people in the industry that in a such fast shrinking market with so many competitors (especially in the compact and mirrorless segment) not all manufacturers can survive.
But for a potential customer the decisive question is: Which can survive?
Does it make sense for example, now to get into a new system from Olympus, Samsung, Panasonic, Fuji, Sony etc., or are these systems in danger, and you cannot get e.g. new lenses in some years?
Aristophanes
Well-known
Expect everyone forgets that the capital assets in the camera and optical biz grew exponentially at the expense of film asset capital.
Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Sony, Fuji, and even Pentax tech arms grew substantially as capital went from film to digital.
They lost some of their capital base when smartphones took over the P&S market (not entirely), but that was always low margin, high volume, capital intensive stuff with rapid product cycling which is an R&D and distribution hit and miss.
So the whole idea that the suppliers will shrink as the digital market matures forgets that the Japanese optical manufacturers—especially Nikon—are much, much larger than they were in the film era. They are totally different companies. Only Fuji was able to recapture a % of its film capital asset loss to digital. Most of the rest of consumer spending on film went to the fab and tech side of the industry, measured in billions of $$'s annually.
Canon and Nikon still sell far more units of their bread and butter SLR and lenses than at anytime in their history by large margins. What used to go to film went to digital, and now photography is even more ubiquitous as a communications medium (Instagram, text attachments, cloud) that the market is actually more robust than ever before. It is maturing and retrenching for these reasons:
1) Upgrade cycles are simply not necessary for many consumers of higher end photo gear as the tech has stabilized and matured. This is a perfectly normal cycle in all tech industries. It is happening in the PC market as well.
2) The market is saturated, but also many smaller players left or consolidated as the smartphones took over P&S sales. However the large sensor/quality optics market is still very active and generates substantial revenues overall as a subset of the overall electronics market. Small sense smartphones have their limits and a great many consumers know this. The equivalent is the audiophile market which has hundreds of boutique suppliers and is robust and thriving today.
3) The megapickle wars ignored the communications revolution and this caught the Japanese manufacturers out. They were caught in their own little island nation, insular mentality on this. People want their DSLR to act more like a smartphone, so wi-fi and connectivity are only now catching up to where consumers want their imaging tech to be.
4) The home PC darkroom is now a fraction of the market. All imaging solutions now have to accept and play well with the dominant mobile OS environment. This will revolve around file size and cloud services, plus streamlined editing and presets. The whole Adobe "workflow" structure is about t be a tiny subset of the market which is why Adobe had to go subscription to keep alive revenues.
5) Whole swaths of the world will want higher end optics and larger sensors (think 4k screens and retina everywhere) but will never use a home PC to process. Asia and emerging economies never heavily invested in home PCs so that "darkroom" option means that the cameras have to do more of the processing work. This will drive sales to those regions which are growth areas in their own right.
We are NOT seeing a "collapsing digital camera market". The P&S market was never the margin backbone of the industry (save for Olympus and Fuji). Note how those two quick exited the P&S market and went higher end. If your guts and brains and heart are built around optics, that's where you go.
Ranchu
Veteran
I thought at first that you meant 'bloodbath' of Kodak, not of digital. It seemed more amusing that you waited 20 years for that. But then I realized you meant digital. That won't happen though, as long as people simply pronounce that cell phones with cameras in them are still cameras. Easy!
That company was such a bunch of xxxxs for so long, they deserve everything they get. I'm really glad Alaris is separate.
Skiff
Well-known
Wrong.
Look at the income numbers (value of sold digital cameras):
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
The industry has almost fallen back to the income level of 2002 (before the digital boom really started) concerning digital cameras.
But:
In 2002 the industry sold additionally still 28 million film cameras (!!) (much more than digital cameras in 2002).
So the income situation today is indeed much worse compared to the time before the digital boom.
And the situation is getting worse each year, because the trend of decreasing digital camera sales is very strong and will continue.
At the end of this year the digital camera sales and income will be significantly lower compared to the film camera sales in 1998, 1999 (the years in which digital camera sales were so low that they were negligible compared to film camera sales).
Aristophanes
Well-known
Not only that but Canon is almost 3x larger now only in cameras than it was in 2002.
Digital greatly increased the high-end photography market in both size and breadth, far, far beyond what ever occurred in the film era.
They gained from film, lost P&S to smartphones, but are still much larger companies more integrated with the consumer electronics industry and consumer preference than before. The home PC being far more utilitarian than a home darkroom greatly expanded the market.
The income levels of 2002 are a poor benchmark in any case after the dotcom bust, and the hesitance of anyone to buy EITHER film or digital due to the growing uncertainty of medium.
The digital photography market is manyfold larger then the film market ever was. Once you factor out smartphones there is still a lot of market to share between multiple suppliers for higher-end gear (that both in sensor and optically above any smartphone). We have benefitted as prices now are very good for low- to mid-range gear. A Nikon D5200 is a huge bargain given its IQ. We've never had it so good.
daveleo
what?
..................................
EDIT: I should add some text to my smarta$$ picture.
We say "Ten years ago, who could have predicted....." and then we turn around and predict what will happen in an extremely dynamic marketplace.
It's fun to do, yeh, but the market forces of 10 years ago will not drive the market place of 10 years from now.
Skiff
Well-known
No, because the CIPA data give the exact numbers of the whole camera industry.
And that is important.
Nikon and Canon are exceptions, but not representative for the whole industry.
Fact is that the income situation for the whole industry is getting worser every year. And that it is now even worse compared to 2002, before the digital sales boom started.
Even if you are very optimistic, and expect this year only a 20% decrease in sales (instead of the 40 and 30% decreases in the last two years), at the end of 2015 both the sales and the income of the manufacturers will be significantly lower compared to the film camera sales in 1998 and 1999 (before the digital era).
There are good reasons for the current panic of the camera manufacturers. Especially those who have not such big market shares like Canon and Nikon.
Skiff
Well-known
Again wrong. In 1999 3 billion (!!) films were sold, and dozens of billion prints were made worldwide. And more than 40 million film cameras were sold.
The film and photo-finishing part of the photo market has always been the much bigger part compared to camera sales.
And a significant part of that major market disappeared because of the digital revolution. In consequence thousands of photo shops worldwide had to close (and distributors, labs and so on).
If digital would have been able to compensate the losses of these photo shops, they would have been stayed in business.
But the losses in the major market segments were bigger than the additional sales in digital cameras.
Therefore thousands of the shops had to close.
Currently we see a second closure wave: Because of the collapse in digital camera sales lots of the remaining photo shops are either laying of staff, or completely closing, or extend their business with additional products outside the photo industry.
The major digital camera distributor in Europe e.g. had to cut his staff by 30% recently. And that will not be the end because the trend of decreasing sales is strong and will continue for some further years.