Collapse of digital camera sales is accelerating

Aristophanes said:
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.
Click to expand...



Also, note that the decrease is about Quantity of Total Shipment, not income amount, which means its a problem of people not buying things, not stuff getting cheaper.
 
Aristophanes said:
Digital cameras will continue to get cheaper, in fact.
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking. The camera manufacturers themselves have declared that prices will rise. You cannot simply compensate a production decline of 75%.
The cost cutting in some companies already has led to lower quality and worse service. Nikon is unfortunately an example for that (look at Thom Hogan for detailed analysis of that, or ask D600 and D750 users.....;) ).
 
jsrockit said:
Like what? ... please provide a few models.
Click to expand...

In last couple of days I was looking at Leica X and Panasonic LX100.
Same IQ what my Canon 500D from 2009 does. No reason to update.

And I wanted something smaller to replace my pocketable 8MP (which aren't real 8MP) Panasonic Lumix, but everything with smaller what LX100 sensor is just not worth of the payment, because of still bad IQ.
Yesterday, if I open full size file from Panasonic camera with sensor smaller what 4/3 (which is in LX100) it was total crap. Just same as my don't know how old small Lumix compact Leica Zoom lens camera is.

This one is with iPhone 5c at f2.4 and ISO50:
Grapes.jpg


And this one with old Lumix DMC-FS3 at f2.8 and ISO100.
P1050728_DxOFP.JPG


I don't need 1K USD camera for it. But I was hoping to be able to pay something like 500 USD and get small, pocketable camera which will have clean files to look at 100% crop/zoom.
 
This is what may end up happening:

This is what may end up happening:

The refrigerator we had in my parents home when I was growing up was a Kelvinator and lasted 45 years. They inherited it from my grandparents. And they changed it later because it looked old. The new L.G. Samsung I purchased three years ago, already got damaged and the repair cost as much as a brand new one. So, I had to buy a new one.

In case of the cameras, they may be making cameras that only last certain number of years, so you can buy new ones, etc. That is why I am staying with my Leica M5, M3 and M2., in that order. :)
 
Looking a bit more closely at this data, I see the following when comparing Jan. - June 2015 to Jan. - June 2016:
SLR sales dropped 17%; Mirrorless dropped 15%; and compact, fixed lens dropped 42%.

This makes sense to me; I'd bet that the compacts are dying off now that everyone seems to be carrying a smartphone around.
 
photomoof said:
When I am on vacation I see people lugging around huge cheap DSLRs to take the same photos, which have been taken a million times before them, to me they just seem burdened with equipment.
Click to expand...
You mean a picture like this:

:D :angel:

Some people talk about sales, but the CIPA figures are about shipments, not sales. Lets hope the producers became smart and adjusted shipments to sales.

Oh, I think that Nikon is in more danger then Sony. Sony could decide to go out of this business - but it is part of their imaging department that includes the very successful video business. Nikon on the other hand only has stills and if that market declines more, well, were will they find to money to make a D6 and D600 (oh, wait, what will be the successor of the D500?).
 
Smart phones are the reason. They're probably not counted in these numbers because they're not cameras.

I truly do hope that the numbers go down though. How many million images are posted to online sites a day now? Time to see this fad peter out. If I never see another digital image w/ blown out highlights, muddy or missing middle tones, and weak colours (yes, digital DOES suck) it will be too soon.
 
Bill Clark said:
Skiff,

Nothing is simple anymore. Companies are sometimes bought and sold if the price is right, especially today in the twenty first century.

I see Danaher owns Leica Microsystems.

I used to be close to this but just look at all the names changes of manufacturers of this line of tools (danaher was involved at one time):

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craftsman_(tools))

I wonder how many of the Leica divisions, although seperate, use Leica glass? Is it part of Leica camera?

Checking Nikon, I see imaging seems to be their largest by sales. Didn't spend a lot time trying to figure out what imaging means. They could be selling OEM products from one division to another.

It seems funny why leica dot com shows all Leica divisions.

Black or white and usually some gray present kind of like black and white film photograohy.

At any rate, it's interesting.
Click to expand...


Zeiss has a niche market: All satellite's and aircraft lenses, as well as the optometrist equipment.
 
I don't think DSLR, Mirrorless and digital rangefinders will disappear, only that demand for them will get reduced and companies will have to adjust their production for that demand or leave the market. Even if some companies leave the market, others will keep making cameras because there will always be demand for them. I mean, look at Leica, it keeps making analog rangefinders even though the demand for them is pretty tiny.
 
Keith said:
I think a lot of this is due to the maturity of the technology personally. My six year old D700 is a prime example .. aside from being 12 megapixel it's still as good as anything else I own.
Click to expand...

No kidding, but I really need GPS, untethered, and WIFI. Well I guess I don't need any of them.
 
Skiff said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what? That's just a maturing market where the turnover is reduced due to marginal improvements.

This is the definition of market saturation and cannibalization. And most manufacturers are not losing their shirts precisely because their floor costs are diminishing even faster (same I might add for cellphone costs; that's the real race.

The real loss has been for any camera less than a prosumer camera. If anything that has clarified the market between cellphone and dedicated cameras, leading to simpler channel and marketing.

There is no competition for consumer $$$ between film and digital. Digital overwhelmingly and completely routed film as a tech and shooting preference. Almost all the major MF film camera manufactures have ceased (Mamiya, for example).

I should point out that the 2 companies who've bled the most red ink on cameras have been Fuji and Olympus. They had the most invested in compacts, used their own sensors with those fab overhead costs. Yet both continue to serve their niches well. In fact, the companies with solid optical pedigrees (Canon, Nikon, Leica, Ricoh/Pentax, Olympus, and Fuji) are still doing just fine. It's the ones without optical engineering heritage like Sony, Panasonic, and Samsung that have been the most watched. But for Sony their camera arm is a hobby compared to their fab biz.

It's not digital versus. It's optical versus. The need for advanced optical imaging married to sensors is where the demand curve lies. Where cellphones eventually leave off superior output will still rely on optical engineering to guide the light. The camera, not even the format, is not the issue... it's the glass.
 
Skiff said:
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.
Click to expand...

And in other news PC shipments are at 2007 levels.

This despite millions more consumers in the pipe in the last 9 years.

Collapse?

Nope.

Just much, much longer upgrade cycles as tech maturation and saturation combine.

Cellphone sales are also stalling as saturation is being reached except in emerging markets. The upgrade cycle has tripled length from just 6 years ago as well.

So this is not a camera story, but a story about digital tech maturing and saturating in many sectors and sub-sectors. The digital camera sensor is just a small sub-set of the computing and tech industry.
 
raid said:
People are using digital cameras, and most people aregetting far superior images comapred 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.
Click to expand...

I agree. Especially because most people only post their photos on the web, flickr, facebook, etc. At those resolutions, iPhone pics can look as good as dSLR pics. Why go FF?
 
Why lug around an extra piece of (uncool) single-purpose gear if you have a smartphone with you at all times that makes stunning pictures? Let's be real here, young kids will not buy dedicated cameras, and those kids are the future.

The exact same has happened to music devices, which have been replaced 100% (!) by smartphones. Portability is trump!

Nikon, Leica, and a few others will try to hang on to consumer demographics that will continue to spend money on dedicated devices, but at increasing costs, out of reach for enthusiasts -- and for how long? Why do you think Leica is getting into the smartphone business?
 
I'm hard pressed right now plunking down the case for a dedicated Every Day Carry (EDC) camera vs upgrading my phone to an iPhone 7. I beginning to think my iPhone is my main camera and then fast AF, telephoto and super-macro are covered by a system camera (e.g. Fuji X of some variant).

If they work out a tri-camera system (really wide, wide, moderate telephoto) for an iPhone I'd pay an extra $500 and be very happy.

B2 (;->
 
Pioneer said:
My 8-track ate that one a lonnnggg time ago. :eek:

Black Sabbath is still going strong though. :D
Click to expand...

The 8-track is actually a pretty good example. If you have the tapes and a functioning unit then keep using it until something become unrepairable. I took my 2 year old iPod Classic to the Genius Bar last month for repair and they said we don't have the parts to fix it so you need to buy a new one. I heard that one before from Leica about not having parts. So keep making stuff they can't or won't fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom