November CIPA Sales Numbers Are In, Year-Over-Year Slightly Up

[Canon Rumors Guy]

<a href="http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html">CIPA sales numbers for November 2017</a> have been released, and show another decline in shipments when compared to 2015 and 2016.</p>
<p>The marketshare for mirrorless cameras remains at about 35% of total ILC segment. This number hasn’t moved all that much over the last year or so. While Sony continues to develop and release cutting edge mirrorless cameras, they don’t seem to be taking sales away from DSLRs.</p>


<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-32823" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-728x152.jpg" alt="" width="728" height="152" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-728x152.jpg 728w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-768x160.jpg 768w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-225x47.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-610x127.jpg 610w" sizes="(max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px" /></a></p>
<p>The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space.</p>
<p>Total ILC shipments as of November 2017 show a very slight bump up of a few hundred thousand shipments over 2016, we’ll have to wait for the December 2017 numbers to see if 2017 continues to show an increase in sales over 2016.</p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>

 

[neuroanatomist]

The marketshare for mirrorless cameras remains at about 35% of total ILC segment. This number hasn’t moved all that much over the last year or so. While Sony continues to develop and release cutting edge mirrorless cameras, they don’t seem to be taking sales away from DSLRs.

But...but...mirrorless is taking over and the dSLR is dead. The Sony fanbois have made that perfectly clear. Don't you read your own forum?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are always huge sales at Christmas to clear inventory. Canon's Fiscal Year ended December 31, so they sell as much as they can to make their stock report look good. I believe that Sony's year end comes around the end of April. They had a huge discount on high end cameras last ~January - February.

Every business tries to clear out stock before the end of the FY.

 

[unfocused]

The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space...

I'm a bit skeptical. What is the ratio of APS-C to full-frame DSLRs? Is there any reason to believe that full frame mirrorless will have a significant impact on overall sales numbers? It sure feels like a niche market to me.

 

[Canon Rumors Guy]

The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space...

I'm a bit skeptical. What is the ratio of APS-C to full-frame DSLRs? Is there any reason to believe that full frame mirrorless will have a significant impact on overall sales numbers? It sure feels like a niche market to me.

I've never seen a breakdown of APS-C vs FF, but you might be right. I think Canon is likely going to be #2 in mirrorless sales and ahead of Sony when the dust settles on 2017 with some great APS-C mirrorless cameras (where is the range of primes?!).

Canon has always said that the decline in DSLR sales has hit the Rebel segment the hardest, and that prosumer and professional cameras continue to sell well. I have a hard time believing pros are going to move to a mirrorless camera if EF lenses don't work without an adaptor. I know that would be a non-starter for me (I'm not a pro).

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Nikon has reported in the past that the ratio is between 5:1 and 6:1, so Canon also likely sells ~20% FF or a bit less. Overall though, some manufacturers only produce APS-C, and there is micro 4/3 and now the G1X MK III, so overall about 10-12% FF.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/blog/2017/05/assessment-us-full-frame-camera-market-prompted-sonys-press-release/

 

[unfocused]

The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space...

I'm a bit skeptical. What is the ratio of APS-C to full-frame DSLRs? Is there any reason to believe that full frame mirrorless will have a significant impact on overall sales numbers? It sure feels like a niche market to me.

I've never seen a breakdown of APS-C vs FF, but you might be right. I think Canon is likely going to be #2 in mirrorless sales and ahead of Sony when the dust settles on 2017 with some great APS-C mirrorless cameras (where is the range of primes?!).

Canon has always said that the decline in DSLR sales has hit the Rebel segment the hardest, and that prosumer and professional cameras continue to sell well. I have a hard time believing pros are going to move to a mirrorless camera if EF lenses don't work without an adaptor. I know that would be a non-starter for me (I'm not a pro).

Agree with your assessment. It does appear that full-frame is gaining as an overall percentage of DSLR sales, just based on the Amazon rankings today vs. a few years ago when the 6D was the only full frame ever hitting the top 10.

I definitely believe that Canon will make sure their full-frame mirrorless, when and if it comes, will offer a native EF mount.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

I would have thought 2017 could have been a relatively strong year for Canon full-frame, given the 5DIV was released only a few months before the end of 2016 (so most purchases into 2017?) and the 6D II came during 2017 - so maybe an extra boost for Canon's full frame ratio over the other "interval" years?

I also agree that the full-frame mirrorless, when it comes will offer native EF-mount - why would you risk giving away potentially your greatest customer tie-in? I also reckon it should be pretty good when it comes, given the time Canon have had to develop it (as opposed to having rushed it to market!).

 

[goldenhusky]

I am guessing December shipments may be high because of Canon 6D2 and 5D4 were selling at historically lower prices with extras after MIR + a7r3 pre-order shipments + D850 pre-order shipments. That is just a wild guess. Anyone know if the Canon refurbished sales are counted in these figures? If so they might boost numbers as well

 

[dolina]

Go out and shoot guys. ;D

Looking forward to Lensvid's take on this year's sales.

 

[Mikehit]

Nikon has reported in the past that the ratio is between 5:1 and 6:1, so Canon also likely sells ~20% FF or a bit less. Overall though, some manufacturers only produce APS-C, and there is micro 4/3 and now the G1X MK III, so overall about 10-12% FF.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/blog/2017/05/assessment-us-full-frame-camera-market-prompted-sonys-press-release/

I found that a fascinating article - thank you for posting.

It certainly shows the complications in drawing any hard conclusions and was interested to read their comment that "there’s not a real clear appreciation for just how small the camera market is. " and how small shifts can change ranking in market share.

 

[old-pr-pix]

We need to remind ourselves CIPA reports either production or shipments, not sales. Units targeted for US holiday/end of year sales were likely shipped in Oct. or Nov. The Americas still lag all other markets in shift to ML. In Japan 45% of ILC shipments are ML, in Americas it is only 22%. BCN rankings for Japan show Olympus as #1 in ML with Canon #2 and Sony #3. BCN has Canon as #1 overall and #1 in dSLR with a 63% share (double that of #2 Nikon (32%) while Ricoh/Pentax hangs on as #3 with 5% share). The dollar value (actually Yen value) of ML shipments continues to rise faster than the unit value indicating ML units being shipped are moving to higher end units.

 

[ahsanford]

I definitely believe that Canon will make sure their full-frame mirrorless, when and if it comes, will offer a native EF mount.

I agree it's possible, but what makes you so sure? To my knowledge, the only folks who have pitched the mirror but retained the full mirrorbox-depth were Sigma's SD Quattro offerings and Swiss company Alpa kitting together some components in the Medium Format space. Everyone else to date (CX, m43, APS-C, FF, etc.) has chosen 'thin' + adaptor.

I'm fully aware of the rationale of why you'd go full mount, but what read of the market data, its customers, etc. does Canon have that the rest of the market doesn't? Are they all off-target on this, or is this just something only Canon can do because of its market share?

(^^^ Not meant as I an attack / 'I don't believe you' nearly so much as a curiosity. ^^^ I don't think anyone knows what it will be, so I'm curious where your conviction on this is coming from.)

- A

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Ahsanford,

In the spirit of conversation (also not looking to attack):

I can't answer for unfocussed, but from my point of view, while not "certain" it would be EF-mount, my thoughts would stem from Canon wanting to retain that huge customer base of existing lens holders - how many have they sold so far...120M and counting? Might others have chosen a thin+adaptor because they have fewer existing lens owners to lose?

And I can't think of a better way to ensure your mirrorless FF gets off to a huge start, than by encouraging existing customers that they don't need to invest in another range of lenses, but can take the mew camera and launch straight into old their lovely glass. [Of course profit-wise, Canon might like the idea of a new range of lenses to be purchased...]

Having said that, I'm an interested observer/customer, not anyone with any special insight.

Cheers

 

[ahsanford]

I can't answer for unfocussed, but from my point of view, while not "certain" it would be EF-mount, my thoughts would stem from Canon wanting to retain that huge customer base of existing lens holders - how many have they sold so far...120M and counting? Might others have chosen a thin+adaptor because they have fewer existing lens owners to lose?

Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too'), or do they just want 1 in 10 of their current Canon users to buy one as an additional body? If it's the latter, going big / full EF mount makes perfect sense.

I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others, i.e. Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount, and enthusiasts will likely yawn and move on to something svelter/sexier/smaller that Sony (or eventually Nikon) ends up offering.

The thin mount FF scratches other market itches -- the need to be small, the coveted 1%-er with bags of discretionary money market, the desire to tinker with older / competitive lenses on adaptors, the 'perception of newness / slickness' (more about the mirrorless tech in truth, but in perception the size identifies the advance of technology to some), etc.

Another thought: if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless and a full mount mirrorless offering.

- A

 

[Mikehit]

I definitely believe that Canon will make sure their full-frame mirrorless, when and if it comes, will offer a native EF mount.

I agree it's possible, but what makes you so sure? To my knowledge, the only folks who have pitched the mirror but retained the full mirrorbox-depth were Sigma's SD Quattro offerings and Swiss company Alpa kitting together some components in the Medium Format space. Everyone else to date (CX, m43, APS-C, FF, etc.) has chosen 'thin' + adaptor.

I'm fully aware of the rationale of why you'd go full mount, but what read of the market data, its customers, etc. does Canon have that the rest of the market doesn't? Are they all off-target on this, or is this just something only Canon can do because of its market share?

(^^^ Not meant as I an attack / 'I don't believe you' nearly so much as a curiosity. ^^^ I don't think anyone knows what it will be, so I'm curious where your conviction on this is coming from.)

- A

As I see it, Sony (like Olympus) has a design ethos of 'it is mirrorless so we have to make it smaller' - it has become a USP for them. However in both MFT and Sony, the premium cameras are getting slightly larger (and many say the A9 would have been just as successful even larger, but the design ethos overrode that).

However, Canon has the increasingly specced M series to take care of the 'small is wonderful' end of things so they can afford to come from the opposite direction in making cameras with the ergonomic advantages of size (real estate, button size and switches), coupled with the advantages of mirrorless (focussing, focus peaking for manual focussing, maybe no-blackout tracking AF etc). They then have the advantage of gradually shrinking their premium cameras to develop the best balance of size and functionality, something that Sony won't address.

Maybe while Sony drives Canon to develop the mirrorless functionality, Canon will erode Sony's technological advantages to the point Sony says 'the only thing left to do is improve ergonomics'. Then we will have a really interesting race.

 

[StoicalEtcher]

Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too'), or do they just want 1 in 10 of their current Canon users to buy one as an additional body? If it's the latter, going big / full EF mount makes perfect sense.

I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others, i.e. Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount, and enthusiasts will likely yawn and move on to something svelter/sexier/smaller that Sony (or eventually Nikon) ends up offering.

The thin mount FF scratches other market itches -- the need to be small, the coveted 1%-er with bags of discretionary money market, the desire to tinker with older / competitive lenses on adaptors, the 'perception of newness / slickness' (more about the mirrorless tech in truth, but in perception the size identifies the advance of technology to some), etc.

Another thought: if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless and a full mount mirrorless offering.

- A

Yep: can't disagree with your train of thought and logic - all valid points.

Would certainly be happy to see one of each

 

[neuroanatomist]

Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too'), or do they just want 1 in 10 of their current Canon users to buy one as an additional body? If it's the latter, going big / full EF mount makes perfect sense.

I suspect it's more than 1 in 10. Mirrorless is ~35% of the ILC market, and perhaps an even larger segment of the FF ILC market...and that's without a Canon FF MILC offering.

I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others, i.e. Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount, and enthusiasts will likely yawn and move on to something svelter/sexier/smaller that Sony (or eventually Nikon) ends up offering.

A 'vapor slice'? I wonder how many people have bought a FF MILC from Sony and use adapted Canon lenses? Consider that there are far more EF lenses out there than any other class/brand. Other makers likely had a market-driven need to offer compatibility with Canon (and Nikon) lenses. Canon has no real need to offer compatibility with anyone but Canon. OTOH, if they go thin mount, that connotes a line of native FF MILC lenses, and current Canon FF shooters will likely perceive that as a barrier to adoption.

The thin mount FF scratches other market itches -- the need to be small, the coveted 1%-er with bags of discretionary money market, the desire to tinker with older / competitive lenses on adaptors, the 'perception of newness / slickness' (more about the mirrorless tech in truth, but in perception the size identifies the advance of technology to some), etc.

Consider smarthones. For a while, they got smaller and smaller. But after a while, that trend reversed and bigger is now the trend. Consider the Sony a7R series – in two generations, it's gotten 27 mm thicker (a 57% increase in volume) and 192 g heavier (a 41% increase in weight). Canon has stated that sales of the EOS M5 are strong, and it's substiantially larger than the earlier M models.

Another thought: if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless and a full mount mirrorless offering.

Canon certainly could do that. I suspect they're going to pick one to start. My guess would be a FF MILC with a full EF mount will be the priority. Down the line, they're release a smaller FF MILC with a thin mount that's aimed at the 'smaller is better' crowd, and the native lenses will mirror (pun intended) the EF-M lineup – narrow, variable apertures that will minimize the size of the lenses, and STM motors (partly just to piss you off ).

 

[unfocused]

I can't answer for unfocussed, but from my point of view, while not "certain" it would be EF-mount, my thoughts would stem from Canon wanting to retain that huge customer base of existing lens holders - how many have they sold so far...120M and counting? Might others have chosen a thin+adaptor because they have fewer existing lens owners to lose?

Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too')...

...I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others...

...The thin mount FF scratches other market itches -- the need to be small, the coveted 1%-er with bags of discretionary money market, the desire to tinker with older / competitive lenses on adaptors, the 'perception of newness / slickness' (more about the mirrorless tech in truth, but in perception the size identifies the advance of technology to some), etc...

My perspective is similar to that of StoicalEtcher. In addtion, Neuro raises several good points which I also agree with.

Note that I said Canon would offer a native EF mount version. It's possible they could offer two versions, but I'm willing to bet that native EF will definitely be the first option.

Not offering a native EF mount version suddenly cuts loose all those loyal Canon users with EF lenses. The value of the existing customer base is far greater than the value of any new customers that might be attracted to a full-frame Canon product and who are not already Canon users and owners.

Are there a lot of new customers for Canon to "gobble up?" I question if there are new customers out there just waiting to be lured into the market with an expensive full frame mirrorless model. I don't see the mirrorless market as holding a lot of potential for major new customers. Instead, growth is likely to come from the existing DSLR base and since Canon already owns much of that base, their main objective should be to hold on to their customers.

Are "brand-agnostic enthusiasts" sufficiently high value to expend a lot of resources on. These customers are fickle and expensive to retain. Many of these customers are technology chasers -- always needing to own the newest electronic precious.They may spend a lot initially, but they aren't loyal, so retaining them after their initial purchase can be costly and often futile.

So, to summarize and meld some of my thoughts with Neuro's points: I think people on this forum greatly overestimate the potential demand for full frame mirrorless and certainly overestimate the potential for new customers. I believe the customer base if fairly flat and unlikely to grow much over the coming years, so it's more a matter of selling new bodies to existing users. If you buy my argument, then the most logical approach is to hold on to the existing base with new bodies that use existing lenses.

Yes, a new native mount might be offered at some point. But, I expect EF mount to come first and remain the dominant focus for Canon.

 

[ahsanford]

I suspect it's more than 1 in 10. Mirrorless is ~35% of the ILC market, and perhaps an even larger segment of the FF ILC market...and that's without a Canon FF MILC offering.

Sure, but if the potential mirrorless market is (just for the sake of argument) 50-50 on thin vs. full mount, whatever Canon chooses might alienate the half that didn't get what they want, so... 17.5% maybe?

Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount

A 'vapor slice'? I wonder how many people have bought a FF MILC from Sony and use adapted Canon lenses? Consider that there are far more EF lenses out there than any other class/brand. Other makers likely had a market-driven need to offer compatibility with Canon (and Nikon) lenses. Canon has no real need to offer compatibility with anyone but Canon. OTOH, if they go thin mount, that connotes a line of native FF MILC lenses, and current Canon FF shooters will likely perceive that as a barrier to adoption.

The barriers of entry can be read a few different ways. Do you buy a thin-mount system that can adapt nearly every mount's glass or just buy a full mount Canon offering that only takes one type of lens? Canon is the #1 brand, but you don't really care about that if all your Nikkor / Sony / whatever glass won't work on this new mirrorless rig.

My guess would be a FF MILC with a full EF mount will be the priority. Down the line, they're release a smaller FF MILC with a thin mount that's aimed at the 'smaller is better' crowd, and the native lenses will mirror (pun intended) the EF-M lineup – narrow, variable apertures that will minimize the size of the lenses, and STM motors (partly just to piss you off ).

You're right, they surely won't do both right out of the gate.

I'm just surprised the 'mirrorless is ALL about being smaller' and 'what's wrong with a new thin mount plus adaptor?' crowd haven't piped up yet. (It's a nontrivial chunk of the forum on this topic.)

- A