CIPA data for 2020: Digital Camera Sales Collapse accelerated

[jsrockit]

Yesterday evening, I celebrated the Lunar New Year with friends and family in Ho Chi Minh City. Most of the guests were in their early and late '20s. They took pictures, shot some video, and sent it to their friends and family all over the world. None of them had a camera. The moment their content was received a second later, these friends and family got online and shared their content. This is the type of communication the world expects today. Cheers, OtL

Yes, but that does not encompass photography as a whole. You are describing a mainstream, practical use of photography. This has always existed...just the means of distribution got way better. We get it, phone cameras are better for these people and situations. But you are wrong about one thing, ALL of them had a camera.

 

[Rayt]

In the 70’s when I was a wee lad the key to a really successful gathering was a Polaroid camera and boxes of film. People just couldn’t get enough of the instant memories. Technology just upped it game that’s all. It had nothing to do with photography. Admittedly the phone today can do a lot more.

 

[JeffS7444]

But the more severe health problem of EVFs is the light emission, especially of the blue wavelength (lots of scientific test results proving it).

Thank you for your concern: My total daily exposure to light from my camera's EVF is typically far below 2 hours/day, and does not seem to be causing my eyestrain or affecting my sleep cycles versus the Leica M8 and M9 that I used to use. But I probably spend too much time in front of a computer, mobile device or television.

 

[HHPhoto]

Such as video? How much does video add to the price of a new camera?

Depends on the kind of video features which you want to implement in a camera. A good audio quality, 4k and / or 120p does cost. And 8k costs a lot, as you need at least a 36 MP sensor and huge processing power.

Yesterday you mentioned the low-end DSLRs like the D3500 and D5600.... The body-only price of each is just a few hundred dollars, and they both shoot video.

Yes, they shoot video. But only as a "Notlösung" as we Germans would say. And have you ever seen the inside of these extremely low-cost entry level cameras? The sensor is not fixed with screws in it, neither with a special glue. It is done with tape. Yes, tape!! My trustworthy camera repair man has showed me. He said these cameras cannot be repaired anymore. They are not designed for being repaired. The sensor cannot be removed, you cannot go to the shutter.
The extreme cost reduction comes at a price. A camera without certain features (which are seldom used) could have a better build quality, but at similar price.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

In the 70’s when I was a wee lad the key to a really successful gathering was a Polaroid camera and boxes of film. People just couldn’t get enough of the instant memories.

"The old 'out' is the new 'in' ."
Instant film pictures are again very popular today: Polaroid has increasing sales for years.
And Fujifilm instax has been for several years now the most popular photo product in general. Fujifilm sold about 10.5 million cameras in their 2018/19 fiscal year alone.

Compare that to the digital camera market of 2020: Only 8.7 million units, from all manufacturers for all their digital camera types.

Cheers, Jan

 

[JeffS7444]

In the 70’s when I was a wee lad the key to a really successful gathering was a Polaroid camera and boxes of film. People just couldn’t get enough of the instant memories.

Fujifilm's Instax is still a crowd-pleaser, and I think part of the magic are those Fujifilm plastic lenses which smooth out complexions and add a bit of "glow".

 

[JeffS7444]

...the problem for lots of users who are currently in the market looking for a new camera is that they have to pay quite a lot for features they don't need at all.

How much should a camera cost?

 

[HHPhoto]

I agree with your wants. I’m totally in agreement. Yet, all I keep seeing is manufacturers making the same mirrorless cameras.

You are right. There are indeed very little differences between all the new MILCs.
And this is also one of the numerous reasons why the MILC market will continue to decline. Too much "me too" products.
Another one is that all the MILC manufacturers have said that they want to focus on the high(er) end market, because of the higher margins.
So concentration on the 2,000$ to 10,000$ segment. But how much of the enthusiasts are willing to pay so much money? If you are the "average Joe", average enthusiast middle-income photographer, who has to feed a family, you would have to think twice before you can spend so much money.
Or your wife is thinking for you, and then saying "no"......😉.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

Fujifilm's Instax is still a crowd-pleaser, and I think part of the magic are those Fujifilm plastic lenses which smooth out complexions and add a bit of "glow".

The fascination of instax has absolutely nothing to do with the lenses and with a certain "glow". If you ask the young users about that they will look at you with big eyes and don't understand what you are talking about.

Instant film photography is all
- about the magic that a picture is developing slowly in your hands in front of your eyes
- that you immediately have a real, physical, tactile picture in your hands
- that you can give this picture as an instant present to friends, or other people you want to make happy.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

How much should a camera cost?

If we listen to the market, than the vast majority would tell us less than 1,500$.
I have talked about that over years with several camera stores, and all told me that the cameras below 1,500 $ / € have a market share of 85%.
And that is in the rich and relatively "photo-crazy" Germany. In less wealthy countries, and in countries in which photography is less popular the market share of the "below 1,500" is certainly even higher.

Cheers, Jan

 

[JeffS7444]

If we listen to the market, than the vast majority would tell us less than 1,500$.
I have talked about that over years with several camera stores, and all told me that the cameras below 1,500 $ / € have a market share of 85%.
And that is in the rich and relatively "photo-crazy" Germany. In less wealthy countries, and in countries in which photography is less popular the market share of the "below 1,500" is certainly even higher.

In the USA, I think high price is not the problem: 1500 is enough to buy a number of very good camera bodies, both FF and APS-C, and I have seen APS-C systems selling for as little as 280 USD including 2 lenses from Canon USA. I think the "problem" is that cameras made 5-10 years ago were already good enough for most people!

 

[css9450]

If we listen to the market, than the vast majority would tell us less than 1,500$.
I have talked about that over years with several camera stores, and all told me that the cameras below 1,500 $ / € have a market share of 85%.
And that is in the rich and relatively "photo-crazy" Germany. In less wealthy countries, and in countries in which photography is less popular the market share of the "below 1,500" is certainly even higher.

But a much-cheaper camera with video capability is too expensive, because it has video? I don't understand the logic.

 

[jsrockit]

I think the "problem" is that cameras made 5-10 years ago were already good enough for most people!

Certainly, but in a consumer society we don't just give up like that... you always make something new and try to sell it anyway! 😉

I think what HH is trying to say is that we need some variety in cameras again and that variety could be the selling point. Additional software features aren't going to do it for people who buy $2000+ cameras. Additionally, there are many people who like their cameras to be exact how they like them. I'm 47 years old and I still prefer a pretty basic digital camera. No video, stripped down menus? Sign me up... however, I get I'm in the minority and that Leica (maybe Sigma) is most likely the only game in town for this. Therefore, I use Fuji and ignore a lot functionality. I would rather it wasn't there though... it's just how I like things.

 

[JeffS7444]

Certainly, but in a consumer society we don't just give up like that... you always make something new and try to sell it anyway! 😉

I think what HH is trying to say is that we need some variety in cameras again and that variety could be the selling point. Additional software features aren't going to do it for people who buy $2000+ cameras. Additionally, there are many people who like their cameras to be exact how they like them. I'm 47 years old and I still prefer a pretty basic digital camera. No video, stripped down menus? Sign me up... however, I get I'm in the minority and that Leica (maybe Sigma) is most likely the only game in town for this. Therefore, I use Fuji and ignore a lot functionality. I would rather it wasn't there though... it's just how I like things.

Yes but how am I supposed to bitch and moan about climate change if I won't curb my own new-toy urges at least a little bit? 😀

No matter what camera I buy, I know that I'm going to grow bored with it in 6-18 month's time. But as long as I'm happy with the results, who cares? There are more interesting ways to spend excess cash.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Certainly, but in a consumer society we don't just give up like that... you always make something new and try to sell it anyway! 😉

I think what HH is trying to say is that we need some variety in cameras again and that variety could be the selling point. Additional software features aren't going to do it for people who buy $2000+ cameras. Additionally, there are many people who like their cameras to be exact how they like them. I'm 47 years old and I still prefer a pretty basic digital camera. No video, stripped down menus? Sign me up... however, I get I'm in the minority and that Leica (maybe Sigma) is most likely the only game in town for this. Therefore, I use Fuji and ignore a lot functionality. I would rather it wasn't there though... it's just how I like things.

You're too young to be a curmudgeon, but you're showing great promise. (I'm 49 and feel exactly the same way.)

 

[HHPhoto]

But a much-cheaper camera with video capability is too expensive, because it has video? I don't understand the logic.

??
You should have really read what I have written.
Features like 4k / 120p and 8k are expensive or very expensive (8k). But 99.99% of photographers don't need it. And therefore do not want to pay for it.
The same is valid for very high fps numbers (higher than 10).
And for high megapixel counts. As 99.9% of all taken digital shots are either
- viewed on the extremely low resolution computer and smartphone screens (only 2-4k)
- or when the rarely prints are done than mostly at max. 30x40cm (for which 18 MP are totally sufficient with even 300dpi printing).

Manufacturers are more focussing their efforts on higher-priced cameras (especially in the MILC area). Offering features the huge majority of photographers simply don't need (examples see above).
This mismatch will lead to further declining sales in the coming years. Less and less photographers are willing to pay for features they don't need.

On the other hand we have an increasing demand for film cameras. Especially from young(er) people. There is a chance for camera manufacturers in the future to satisfy this increasing demand.

Cheers, Jan

 

[Out to Lunch]

But you are wrong about one thing, ALL of them had a camera.

Nope. You begin sounding like Jan: ''you are wrong"! This aside, none of them had a dedicated camera. All of them had devices that can do hundreds of different things quite well. We call these devices 'phones'.

Just wait for 5G to come online -in parts of Asia it will happen this year, and the communications spectrum will change faster and more profoundly than ever before. How 'photography' will do in this new reality is anyone's guess but I bet that the big players are spending a good chunk of cash trying to figure it out. Cheers, OtL

 

[jsrockit]

Nope. You begin sounding like Jan: ''you are wrong"! This aside, none of them had a dedicated camera. All of them had devices that can do hundreds of different things quite well. We call these devices 'phones'.

Now, you corrected it... nobody had dedicated cameras. 😉 I've seen iPhone photos (prints) in pretty prestigious galleries in NYC (Kathy Ryan, Michael Christopher Brown, etc.). I would say they are certainly considered cameras at this point. The most popular camera ever really.

 

[jsrockit]

You're too young to be a curmudgeon, but you're showing great promise. (I'm 49 and feel exactly the same way.)

I'm really not at all. I'm flexible, but I use what I like of course.

 

[JeffS7444]

??
Manufacturers are more focussing their efforts on higher-priced cameras (especially in the MILC area). Offering features the huge majority of photographers simply don't need (examples see above).

What if the 0.01% are the only ones buying new cameras? The other 99.99% already have plenty of good options starting at 280 USD, but they simply don't seem to care.

PS: USA price for Canon EOS 5DS-R seems to have been reduced to 1500 - wow. Currently out of stock at B&H Photo, Canon USA etc though.