Concerning Sony: I meant they may have to leave the camera production. Not the sensor production. If they don't do silly things, they will probably remain No. 1 sensor manufacturer.
But aren't they doing pretty well with their A6X00 and A7 series cameras?
Skiff
Well-known
"Well" is relative. If you look at the CIPA data you see that mirrorless is also declining.
From the manufacturers I've mentioned above considered as probably "endangered" in the coming years Sony is probably the "least endangered", the "strongest of the weaker ones".
But if we look at the Sony company history they have proven to be quite consequent or "brutal" in cutting complete product categories. And they have lots of other different products in their portfolio. They simply don't need cameras to survive as a company.
Nikon and Leica e.g. are different to that: They are (mainly) camera companies: They have to stay and have to adopt to the changing market to survive as a company.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
Let's take average, but slightly advanced consumer who knows how to google it.
I search camera model and go on Flickr to see pictures.
I'm doing it from time to time. Just did it last night again. This is what I'm finding every time. If new model comes and it doesn't have decent sensor size, the images looks like worthless garbage comparing to my 500D Rebel which we paid 1000 CAD for. Right now where are many fancy looking compacts for same price and images from them aren't as good as pictures which I could get from consumer DSLR made in 2009.
As result where is useless dump of new, expensive compact cameras with IQ worst what in my current, nothing special mobile phone.
While I have ditched dedicated digital cameras for video years ago already, because mobile phone does it better and with same quality.
To me this current trend to have tiny sensors in big, fancy retro looking cameras is dead end fetish.
Just as example, from yesterday search on Panasonic.ca web site. First, did any of you noticed what almost all camera manufacturers web sites are not fast and convenient?
Canon, Leica and Panasonic those web sites I was trying to use. Dead slow to navigate... So, back to last night search to replace my small trusty 8MP Panasonic Lumix with Leica Zoom in it. Similar size pocketable compact Lumix has same crappy IQ as my current Lumix. Zero reason to buy. And only camera which has decent IQ and somewhat compact was LX100. But it costs 1000 CAD and size is next to my old consumer DSLR, which has IQ similar to LX100. No reason to buy, either.
I search camera model and go on Flickr to see pictures.
I'm doing it from time to time. Just did it last night again. This is what I'm finding every time. If new model comes and it doesn't have decent sensor size, the images looks like worthless garbage comparing to my 500D Rebel which we paid 1000 CAD for. Right now where are many fancy looking compacts for same price and images from them aren't as good as pictures which I could get from consumer DSLR made in 2009.
As result where is useless dump of new, expensive compact cameras with IQ worst what in my current, nothing special mobile phone.
While I have ditched dedicated digital cameras for video years ago already, because mobile phone does it better and with same quality.
To me this current trend to have tiny sensors in big, fancy retro looking cameras is dead end fetish.
Just as example, from yesterday search on Panasonic.ca web site. First, did any of you noticed what almost all camera manufacturers web sites are not fast and convenient?
Canon, Leica and Panasonic those web sites I was trying to use. Dead slow to navigate... So, back to last night search to replace my small trusty 8MP Panasonic Lumix with Leica Zoom in it. Similar size pocketable compact Lumix has same crappy IQ as my current Lumix. Zero reason to buy. And only camera which has decent IQ and somewhat compact was LX100. But it costs 1000 CAD and size is next to my old consumer DSLR, which has IQ similar to LX100. No reason to buy, either.
cz23
-
As much as folks grumble about Leica's luxury branding, it's likely what could keep them from being undermined by the mobile market. It's not a good time to be a camera maker for the masses.
John
John
pepeguitarra
Well-known
Smart Phones
Smart Phones
Digital cameras include the point a shoot ones. Those have been the most affected by the smart phone. The FF DSLRs are good cameras, but the idea that every year needs to be upgraded is not sustainable. No body can afford that. Except, rich Leica owners who keep upgrading their cameras, for the benefit of the lesser rich Leica users who buy second hand.
Smart Phones
Digital cameras include the point a shoot ones. Those have been the most affected by the smart phone. The FF DSLRs are good cameras, but the idea that every year needs to be upgraded is not sustainable. No body can afford that. Except, rich Leica owners who keep upgrading their cameras, for the benefit of the lesser rich Leica users who buy second hand.
Like what? ... please provide a few models.
Pioneer
Veteran
I am more into film but the digital cameras I already own work just fine thank you. No need for any more of them.
Now film on the other hand. I always seem to need more.
Now film on the other hand. I always seem to need more.
Spanik
Well-known
What bothers me are the ergonomics of new cameras. Since a camera has become software, they have become more complicated to operate, not easier. And harder to achieve what you want to do. I think there are people giving it up because of that.
I just got a dlsr from 2004 and it feels better in the hand and everything is more logically placed than on the latest incarnation. The often needed buttons just fall on your fingers, no endless menus with settings nobody uses worded in the most idiotic terms.
I just got a dlsr from 2004 and it feels better in the hand and everything is more logically placed than on the latest incarnation. The often needed buttons just fall on your fingers, no endless menus with settings nobody uses worded in the most idiotic terms.
Skiff
Well-known
Sorry, but you are wrong on that:
Leica Camera AG, the company we are talking about here, has for years nothing at all to do anymore with the other companies with the Leica name. They only share the name, nothing else!
In former times they belonged together (under their original name Leitz), but they split the company many years ago.
And for Nikon: Cameras and lenses are their main, most important business.
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
One should remember that the main topic here is economics. Why should I buy a separated or dedicated device for my photos when I can get decent (and in some instances great) results with my mobile phone?
Current camera market is mostly made by professional photographers, amateurs like me and companies that buy cameras to keep detailed records from events or assets (I work for an insurance company and they buy digital cameras to keep records of events and meetings), not by the average people that just want to make a selfie or take some social or personal pictures.
That means that, like it happened to the film industry, it is becoming a niche industry instead of a mainstream industry.
Those are just my thoughts through.
Current camera market is mostly made by professional photographers, amateurs like me and companies that buy cameras to keep detailed records from events or assets (I work for an insurance company and they buy digital cameras to keep records of events and meetings), not by the average people that just want to make a selfie or take some social or personal pictures.
That means that, like it happened to the film industry, it is becoming a niche industry instead of a mainstream industry.
Those are just my thoughts through.
Spanik
Well-known
I'm not so sure of that. If I look at my younger family members, then most of them do care about using a separate camera for personal pictures. Mostly it came when the kids came. But I do see a correlation between personal and professional interest in technology and use of dedicated cameras. Those in a more technical job or that have a personal interest in technology (even if it is cars or bikes or computers) will go to a dslr, those with higher but not technical education will go for a compact and those in marketing and management for a phone. Of course with the obligatory exceptions like a philosopher that develops and print film.
I think the phone is handy for those who would have never used a good dedicated camera in the first place, those who use it for social media (look at me, look at what I like, look at what I bought) purposes... it's like another language to communicate with friends and isn't really about photography.
Those who like photography, these people seek out something a little better. There are many, many amateurs out there who use digital cameras (or cameras in general). Just walk the streets of NYC for a day and you'll see a lot of different cameras.
There's no doubt that camera phones have taken out the bottom end of the camera market. No need to buy a small sensor camera unless you want a zoom. If your kid is in sports and you want to make photos, you need to go DSLR or a decent mirrorless. That market is surely still there.
Digital camera numbers were bound to come down just like computer numbers did... after a certain point, people only upgrade these types of items 4-6 years. In film, people might not have upgraded for 20 years...
zuiko85
Veteran
On the other hand if the Galaxy KS campaign comes through to shipping rewards then we will have dry plates to shoot again.
raid
Dad Photographer
People are using digital cameras, and most people are getting far superior images compared to what they used to get years ago. They are satisfied with it all. There is no need to buy new cameras to get larger sensors or more resolution for extra cost. Therefore, sales slow down. People have excellent digital cameras already.
This is my view on it.
This is my view on it.
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
Maybe digital camera manufacturers and retailers should not over-price their cameras and lenses?
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Agree with you on that raid. If you are satisfied with your current camera, you don't just buy another for a certain period of time. It means less demand for digital cameras. Add it to the large number of people that makes their photos with their phones and numbers start to add in.
Aristophanes
Well-known
Collapse? No.
Delayed replacement purchases and upgrades as technology peaks and turnover is less and less necessary?
Yes.
This is exactly the behaviour one expects from a market when the underlying technology matures.
Delayed replacement purchases and upgrades as technology peaks and turnover is less and less necessary?
Yes.
This is exactly the behaviour one expects from a market when the underlying technology matures.
Aristophanes
Well-known
No, it will remain where it is....
Honestly, I am very relaxed because I am just aware what will happen:
- the decline will continue in the coming years
- I expect the bottom of the sales volume in the 15-20 mio. units p.a. range
- at that level the market will be too small for the current number of manufacturers
- companies like Casio, Panasonic, Sony, Ricoh / Pentax, Olympus probably will have to leave the market; but do we really need them? I don't think so, the others will fill the gap
- digital cameras will be significantly more expensive in the future, because of the strong decline in production there are negative economies of scale with increasing production costs per unit
- the remaining manufacturers need compensation and new market segments, new niches: Therefore we will see new film cameras in the coming years (film demand for instant and professional film is already increasing).
Photographers who really care for photography will have the tools they need. Personally, I can comfortably live with all of these developments...
The commodification of the underlying parts will continue to make it cheaper to produce cameras. The delta between declining inputs and lower sales volumes still favours lower costs, not higher. There are no "negative economies of scale here" because the per unit cost on the factory floor continues to decrease.
That is MORE of a threat (bottom line and margins). Digital cameras will continue to get cheaper, in fact. Just like the power/cost of computing has done, and communications, and autos, and music. The biggest cost factor now for most tech items is advertising and distribution and warranty, not manufacture (not even close).
You've inverted the maturing tech curve. That's bias speaking.
There is little threat of manufacturers leaving the market, but dedicated cameras will be a sideline to larger businesses. The digital camera side is not the issue; it's the optical side where the big costs are.
The market will stabilize when cellphone camera tech (mostly optical now) matures and cannot incrementally improve the product nor its output.
Skiff
Well-known
Collapse? Yes.
From 2010 to now, in only six years, the market has lost 75% (!!) of its sales volume. And the decline is continuing at accelerated speed. Just look at the CIPA numbers.
That is much much more than a normal market saturation.
By the way, it is even much more than the film sales collapse some years ago: From the record in 1999 to 2007, in eight years, the film market has "only" lost 66% of its volume.
Huss
Veteran
The cameras on the latest smart phones are better than most digital P&S cameras from 10 years ago. Forget going back 50 years...