Digital camera market is collapsing

[HHPhoto]

Sales are not "the market".

The topic is sales and the severe problems of the camera manufacturers.

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

I read the google translate version of that article and it presented a position pretty much identical to their published report.

Forget the Google translation, it is crap.
The statement in the German article is very clear.
Besides Fujifilm has recently repeated their commitment to film at the Photokina.

Cheers, Jan

 

[VertovSvilova]

I read the google translate version of that article and it presented a position pretty much identical to their published report.

You're correct. And HHPhoto isn't quite comprehending the quoted statements he posted: "Film is our roots, and will remain our roots". We are coming from the film business, and we are a film company." That was said in respect to the question of pharmaceuticals, the use of collagen, and how those 'roots' play an important part of this sector for FujiFilm (which yes, has the word 'film' in it. 🙂) But the 'film business' does not only (nor does it specifically) mean photographic film consumed by photographers. Film plays a big part in a lot of industries and also in FujiFilm's future plans. But not necessarily consumer photographic film which the CEO admits is now only 1% of their business.

The digital camera industry has reached a plateau during a period where almost everyone who wants/needs one now has a vary capable digital camera, and buying new cameras isn't quite the same as it was years ago when sensor and processing technology was moving forward quite rapidly (and when digital capture itself was still relatively 'new.') There comes a saturation point where things start to stall out. And of course today's smartphone digital imaging capabilities has captured much of the compact camera market, everyone knows that.

But to imply or hint that the digital camera market is in decline because of a shift to film makes no sense to me. Film use is certainly on an upswing right now in certain demographics, but is still very miniscule to what it once was (and compared to digital capture.) Today's film consumption has nothing to do with the current state of the digital camera industry, I think that's another story altogether. I'm both a film and a digital user (after all they are definitely different media and it's important for me to have both at my disposal.) And as much as I like using film, I would never imply that the current state of affairs in digital camera sales has anything to do with people dropping digital and moving over to film.... or that film is now the better choice because of the "collapsing of the digital market."

 

[shadowfox]

Everyone...
Let's chill a little bit...

Imagine a crisp autumn day, walking by a brook, listening to the streaming of unbelievably crystal-clear mountain-spring water, watching the beautiful reflection of the golden leafed tree, right there, side-by-side with the cool blue pebbles of the shallows...

(Shot on Fuji Pro 800Z, very expired)

Ok, back to the discussion...

 

[Skiff]

But to imply or hint that the digital camera market is in decline because of a shift to film makes no sense to me.

No one has said that in this thread.

Back to topic, the first post in this thread. Digital camera sales.
The official numbers of the CIPA are:
Total sales of digital still cameras in 2010: 121,463 million.
Total sales of digital still cameras in 2013: 62,839 million.
Is that a crash? Yes, of course.
This year will be even significantly weaker, the trend is continuing.
So far in this year from January to September only 30,8 million digital cameras have been produced in total.

Therefore it is very very likely that next year the total production of digital still cameras will be even less compared to the total production of film cameras in 2001.

 

[VertovSvilova]

No one has said that in this thread.

Never said "said." 🙂 Only "imply" and "hint." But yes, you're quite right that it was not expressed very well by me. I didn't mean to say that anyone was suggesting that the decline is only because of new film users. However, there are several comments posted here which do say that while digital sales have been crashing that there is also a new shift to film. The implication being stated is that there are people fed up with digital in general and some of those have shifted over to film, thereby contributing to reduced digital sales.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2406683&postcount=24

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2407388&postcount=131

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2407288&postcount=117

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2412015&postcount=206

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2411893&postcount=196

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2413236&postcount=246

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2412883&postcount=220

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2413293&postcount=250

"2. Reasons for the sales crash:
-if you want a better sensor, you have to buy a complete new camera; with film you just change the film and keep your camera."

"For real medium format: film will stay as the medium with the best price-performance ratio, and affordable for everyone."

Apparently I'm not the only one who got that feeling....
"Your hidden agenda here is to insinuate that somehow the masses are rejecting digital photography. "The sky is falling". This is simply not even close to being the case. There are now more digital imaging devices sharing photos than the entire history of film photography combined."

 

[semilog]

Andecdata: Just got back from Japan. Last time I was there was four years ago. The film sections at Yodobashi, in both Kyoto and Osaka, were much smaller than they were on my last visit.

 

[traveler_101]

The digital camera industry has reached a plateau during a period where almost everyone who wants/needs one now has a vary capable digital camera, and buying new cameras isn't quite the same as it was years ago when sensor and processing technology was moving forward quite rapidly (and when digital capture itself was still relatively 'new.') There comes a saturation point where things start to stall out. And of course today's smartphone digital imaging capabilities has captured much of the compact camera market, everyone knows that.

But to imply or hint that the digital camera market is in decline because of a shift to film makes no sense to me. Film use is certainly on an upswing right now in certain demographics, but is still very miniscule to what it once was (and compared to digital capture.) Today's film consumption has nothing to do with the current state of the digital camera industry, I think that's another story altogether. I'm both a film and a digital user (after all they are definitely different media and it's important for me to have both at my disposal.) And as much as I like using film, I would never imply that the current state of affairs in digital camera sales has anything to do with people dropping digital and moving over to film.... or that film is now the better choice because of the "collapsing of the digital market."

Completely agree: if film survives (and it will because a new generation is interested) it will be because photographers appreciate the specific qualities of the medium. It's going to be expensive. Film prices appear to be rising already; the inexpensive mass production linked to film for the cinema is over and the costs of producing film on a much smaller scale will mean prices will rise substantially.

 

[Skiff]

Film prices appear to be rising already; the inexpensive mass production linked to film for the cinema is over and the costs of producing film on a much smaller scale will mean prices will rise substantially.

No. At least not in general.
Because:
Cinema film production does not have significant influence on photo film production anymore.
Fujifilm, Ilford, Foma, Adox, Inoviscoat, Film Ferrania do not produce movie film. Their adaption processes to smaller scales were done already some years ago.
Their production capacities do fit the new market.
And as in some photo film categories the demand is already increasing, the cost situation for these manufacturers is improving.

Only Kodak Alaris may have to rise prices if Eastman Kodak has to stop movie film production in the future. But currently it looks like the major Hollywood studios will sign another contracts for movie film for the next years.

 

[traveler_101]

No. At least not in general.
Because:
Cinema film production does not have significant influence on photo film production anymore.
Fujifilm, Ilford, Foma, Adox, Inoviscoat, Film Ferrania do not produce movie film. Their adaption processes to smaller scales were done already some years ago.
Their production capacities do fit the new market.
And as in some photo film categories the demand is already increasing, the cost situation for these manufacturers is improving.

Only Kodak Alaris may have to rise prices if Eastman Kodak has to stop movie film production in the future. But currently it looks like the major Hollywood studios will sign another contracts for movie film for the next years.

Your analysis is comforting (hope you are right as I continue to use Kodak products; Tri-X is my favourite film), but you seem to forget about competition as a factor in price.

I don't have the stats at hand that show what percentage of the film market is still in the hands of Kodak Alaris, but it must be a large percentage. According to Robert of Fotohuis (Netherlands), Kodak still exerts a powerful effect on the market.

You presume that Kodak would retool if they lose the cinema market, but they might just as easily abandon making film altogether in which case prices for film will rise substantially; if they retool they will also have to raise prices which will have an effect on the rest of the market--but it won't be as dramatic.

Yes, I saw that Kodak signed the contract to continue movie film production at less than 5% of former levels for a few years more. It is important, hope that the commitment lasts. Apparently it had much to do with a small group of ageing directors, Tarantino among them, who insisted that film remain a viable option for movie production. What happens after that is anyone's guess.

 

[Skiff]

Your analysis is comforting (hope you are right as I continue to use Kodak products; Tri-X is my favourite film), but you seem to forget about competition as a factor in price.

I don't have the stats at hand that show what percentage of the film market is still in the hands of Kodak Alaris, but it must be a large percentage. According to Robert of Fotohuis (Netherlands), Kodak still exerts a powerful effect on the market.

You presume that Kodak would retool if they lose the cinema market, but they might just as easily abandon making film altogether in which case prices for film will rise substantially; if they retool they will also have to raise prices which will have an effect on the rest of the market--but it won't be as dramatic.

Well, three possibilities:
1. If the cinema film production is going on, nothing is changing in comparison to the current situation.

2. If cinema film production has to be stopped. Kodak Alaris must reorganize and has to invest. One solution could be to transfer the photo film production from Rochester to their own plant in Harrow (in this factory film was produced until 2004).
Then they probably have to rise their prices a bit.
But so what?
Their BW films are cheaper than the competition, their professional colour films in some markets, too. Then the price differences will be probably smaller or gone. That's it.
Will that have a significant effect on the whole market?
No. Photographers currently buy Ilford films despite their higher prices compared to Kodak.

3. The cinema film production has to be stopped and Kodak Alaris decides not to continue film production.
Then the other manufacturers get Kodak Alaris business. Higher production volume for them = better economies of scale = lower production costs = much better chance for stable prices in the future.

If we see a film revival in the future (and I am convinced we will see it, we already have it with instant film), we will have stable prices.

 

[HHPhoto]

Just back to the original topic:

1. The current offcial CIPA sales data:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

2. Had recently a talk to photo market analyst, and he had lots of talks to the manufacturers recently. He said they are making "pokerfaces" to the public, saying "keep cool". But between the lines in the talks their panic has been obvious.
Looks like others have exactly the same assessment:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html

http://photoscala.de/Artikel/Die-Fotoindustrie-hat-keine-Ideen

(well, the analysis of the reasons for the sales crash from the analyst I talked to is different to Thom Hogan's and Heino Hilbig's opinions, but that is a different topic).

That is not a short development, that will be a longer running trend. The manufacturers are realizing that now.
Consequence:
The market will be too small in 2 - 4 years for keeping all manufacturers.
Especially the market for mirrorless cameras, because this market is smaller than the DSLR market, but has much more intensive competition:
Only 4 companies in the DSLR market, but 9 in the mirrorless market. Some manufacturers probably will have to leave the market.
And the 1 mio $ question is:
Which will quit, and which will stay?

Cheers, Jan

 

[goamules]

Just because sales are down, doesn't mean companies close forever. There are still several manufacturers of VHS machines, for example. A company like Canon, Nikon, and Fuji can do fine by just selling fewer cameras, but raising their prices slightly to compensate.

 

[Skiff]

Just because sales are down, doesn't mean companies close forever.

Well, no one has said that in this thread in such a generalization.
But the reduction in sales is so big, the trend is so strong (meaning it will continue for some further years), and the competition is so strong (lots of companies in a shrinking market, declining margins and profits, degrading cost structures) that not all companies will be able to survive.
In some years the market will be too small for all the manufacturers we have today (lots of Asian OEM compact cam manufacturers already quit the market).
The stronger ones will survive, the weaker ones will fail.

And as we have much more competitors 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.

 

[Aristophanes]

Just back to the original topic:

1. The current offcial CIPA sales data:
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html

2. Had recently a talk to photo market analyst, and he had lots of talks to the manufacturers recently. He said they are making "pokerfaces" to the public, saying "keep cool". But between the lines in the talks their panic has been obvious.
Looks like others have exactly the same assessment:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html

http://photoscala.de/Artikel/Die-Fotoindustrie-hat-keine-Ideen

(well, the analysis of the reasons for the sales crash from the analyst I talked to is different to Thom Hogan's and Heino Hilbig's opinions, but that is a different topic).

That is not a short development, that will be a longer running trend. The manufacturers are realizing that now.
Consequence:
The market will be too small in 2 - 4 years for keeping all manufacturers.
Especially the market for mirrorless cameras, because this market is smaller than the DSLR market, but has much more intensive competition:
Only 4 companies in the DSLR market, but 9 in the mirrorless market. Some manufacturers probably will have to leave the market.
And the 1 mio $ question is:
Which will quit, and which will stay?

Cheers, Jan

Almost all these manufacturers are now small scale suppliers. None are really in any financial danger. Olympus and Fuji and Pentax are all part of much, much larger conglomerates who have the most expensive part of any operation covered: distribution and marketing.

None of these companies is actually all that large, even Canon and Nikon, in their camera wings. Body development costs are not much, nor is assembly. Lenses have always been smaller scale production lines and are very versatile when the market demands.

There group of Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Ricoh are likely going nowhere at all. Smaller players like Casio, Kodak, Sanyo, etc. have all already bought the farm.

The market in 2-4 years for the dedicated optical manufacturers will probably be flat, but overall digital photography will continue to grow.

 

[DaveO]

I have three film cameras from years past. A Nikon FM2n, an F6 and a Rolleiflex 3.5F TLR. I don't use them as much as I used to, but I do use them. The last DSLR that I bought was a Nikon D 300s, but it was used. I didn't want Nikon to get any money from me when they aren't coming out with the camera I want. The film cameras will long outlive the digital cameras that I have had. In fact, the Rollei is from the 1960's.

 

[Daniel Teoli Jr.]

OP, they make too many models. They need to go back to basics with fewer few models. I'd like to see a m43 with manual shutter dial come from Fuji. Also a Leica knockoff that is affordable from the Japanese.

Growth can't keep going on forever. The cell phone cam ate up a big part of the market.

 

[Skiff]

Almost all these manufacturers are now small scale suppliers.

No, they are not. The collapse of the market hit them completely unexpectd, and now they have to scale down their production capacities. Lots of re-structuring costs.

None are really in any financial danger.

Wake up, stop your dreaming, look at the reality and the numbers. Olympus is making losses for years with their camera department. Last year again a loss of about 7 billion Yen.
Sony has never really been profitable with their DSLR line. Their A-mount lens line is still a fraction compared to CaNikon even after 10 years in the market.
The Sony CEO some months ago in an interview clearly sad that they are uncertain about the future of their camera production and cannot guarantee its existence five years ahaed.
Nikon's income is also under very great pressure.
Take the time and look at the financial reports of the companies.

Olympus and Fuji and Pentax are all part of much, much larger conglomerates

That is also true for Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Casio.
All these companies are not dependent on camera production.
So if their camera production is making losses for longer periods, and other markets are more attractive for these companies, then they will not have any problems to just close the camera production.

The market continues to decline very strongly.
In 3, 4, 5 years it will just be too small to feed all manufacturers.
Some will have to exit the market.

 

[Aristophanes]

No, they are not. The collapse of the market hit them completely unexpectd, and now they have to scale down their production capacities. Lots of re-structuring costs.



Wake up, stop your dreaming, look at the reality and the numbers. Olympus is making losses for years with their camera department. Last year again a loss of about 7 billion Yen.
Sony has never really been profitable with their DSLR line. Their A-mount lens line is still a fraction compared to CaNikon even after 10 years in the market.
The Sony CEO some months ago in an interview clearly sad that they are uncertain about the future of their camera production and cannot guarantee its existence five years ahaed.
Nikon's income is also under very great pressure.
Take the time and look at the financial reports of the companies.



That is also true for Sony, Panasonic, Samsung, Casio.
All these companies are not dependent on camera production.
So if their camera production is making losses for longer periods, and other markets are more attractive for these companies, then they will not have any problems to just close the camera production.

The market continues to decline very strongly.
In 3, 4, 5 years it will just be too small to feed all manufacturers.
Some will have to exit the market.

Total nonsense.

2014 sales of DSLRs were still above 65 million units.

This is almost 3x what production in SLR film cameras was worldwide just 12 years ago when there were even more suppliers.

Mirrorless adds another 18 million.

The market is still vast and ubiquitous. It is definitely maturing saleswise because the tech has also matured, so rapid adoption has cooled off.

The P&S market has been wiped out by smartphones by about 80% so there is a definite retrenching, but there is still no substitute for a dedicated optically engineered camera system, DSLR, RF, sans mirrors, or high-end compact.

Tech has matured so turnover is dropping off, but people are still buying and using higher-end cameras.

The Japanese optical companies have been awkwardly slow to embrace mobile OS dominance and wi-fi transfer which limits sales to markets wearisome darkroom PCs are not readily available or necessary.

The financial reports of a LOT of Japanese companies are hurting for many reasons, including an overzealous focus on the home market with a shrinking deflationary demographic. Nevertheless, aside from Samsung and a tiny bit of Leica, they "own" this market outright.

Panasonic might exit. They are certainly the weakest of the majors. Samsung has a hold on the very large and nationalist South Korea market. Sony has been in turmoil for almost 20 years. Their big $$ right now is n their semiconductor fabs where they dominate.

it is still a multi-billion $$ industry with room for at least 5-7 players.

There is absolutely no rejection of digital photography in the overall consumer market.

 

[Dante_Stella]

Everyone... Let's chill a little bit... Imagine a crisp autumn day, walking by a brook, listening to the streaming of unbelievably crystal-clear mountain-spring water, watching the beautiful reflection of the golden leafed tree, right there, side-by-side with the cool blue pebbles of the shallows... (Shot on Fuji Pro 800Z, very expired) Ok, back to the discussion...

And you're still looking into that crystal-clear water. It's so clear that you can make out the face of the person whose head you are holding underwater.

(I didn't make this one up, but I have seen it as the alternative ending to your meditation exercise).

Dante