Canon sold almost half all cameras made in 2023

To suggest that the next 10 years will have less technological upgrades than the last 10 years (ie the history we have today) is very pessimistic. Sure, the 5Div is still a capable camera even 8 years after it was released but the R5ii is light years ahead besides battery life and optical viewfinder.
To suggest that someone with 40 years of life ahead of them would only need 1 camera is short sighted.
Most people don't pick up a hobby and hyper focus on that hobby for the rest of their life. I'm sure there will be improvements but the question is will those improvements drive the bulk of those people to upgrade? If you purchase the R5mii in your 50's will it really be worth dropping $6k+ in your 60's on an R5miv when the picture and video quality is probably going to be about the same?

It seems the process has been to sell someone something at low end with a kit lens. They upgrade to better lens. Then at some poing they upgrade to a btter cameras. If you went through that process 15 years ago there's a reason (mainly video) for you to updrade one more time. But if you go through that process today there doesn't seem to be much need to upgrade any time remotely soon.

The improvements we are getting now are faster readout speed, better video, pre burst, better AI autofocues, etc. These are things that don't really benefit most of the causual and prosumer market in a meanigful way. Which again means making speacilized products for professionals.

The Sony A9III has a global shutter so the sensor speed is 0 ms. The R1 is able to achieve a sensor speed of 2.8 ms without the drawbacks of reduced DR of a global shutter. We've hit a point of diminishing returns. Sony went after the hype of the global shutter but its irrelevant to 99% of the market.

I guess we could move to a true virual reality workd where we the mass consumer is consuming content through a headset driving us all to upgrade to capture virtial content. But that Apple vision doesn't lead me to believe were close to that.

I use my gopro for underwater video so the OM3 isn't appropriate for me
Yean the DJI Action 5 pro would be a good option for and better than the GoPro

Adding a TB of disk is possible but wouldn't be $100. You can look to Apple for what they charge for internal storage. There isn't a reason to offer it cheaper as they already have a SD card option. If Sony/Nikon/Canon thought it would be useful then they would have put in a body already.
Apple is milking their customers because they know they are a lifestyle product. Take a look at any Windows PC and adding storage is much cheaper. And again DJI has already started this process. The DJI action pro 5 is $350 and comes with 47GB of internal storage. Meanwhile the GoPro Hero13 black is not a good, has no internal storage and is $399.

Canon/Sony/Nikon are skippng these feature not because they aren't useful, its simply the Japanese culture that resist changing too rapidly.
 
Upvote 0
The improvements we are getting now are faster readout speed, better video, pre burst, better AI autofocues, etc. These are things that don't really benefit most of the causual and prosumer market in a meanigful way. Which again means making speacilized products for professionals.
As opposed to the improvements a decade ago, which were a few more MP, a few more fps, a few more AF points. Not sure how those were meaningfully different from today. A decade ago, most people kept their cameras for 5 years or more. Today, I doubt there's any difference.
 
Upvote 0
As opposed to the improvements a decade ago, which were a few more MP, a few more fps, a few more AF points. Not sure how those were meaningfully different from today. A decade ago, most people kept their cameras for 5 years or more. Today, I doubt there's any difference.

This is from DPReview's state of the market review where they attend the CP+ Expo and speak with industry executives.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1...stry-according-to-the-people-who-make-cameras

"In a nutshell, every manufacturer I spoke with said the data tells them that video is where the growth opportunities will be found, and we can expect them to act accordingly."

10 years ago you could buy budget 4K tv's for $500 so by then it was clear that 4K was the standard. Meanwhile the 5Dmiii wasn't up to 24MP, had few autofocus points and shot in 1080P and not in 120 or 60 fps. While great at the time the capabilites didn't match up to the screens they could be viewed on.

Fast forward to today and we still have 4k tv's. Cameras can now shoot 6K - 8K and 4K at 120 fps. 8K seems to only be worth it for larger 90"+ tvs that currently cost $40k. Maybe in 10 years you'll be able to get a 98" 8K tv for $5k. But are average people trying to make content for that specific case? Doubtful.

The movie "The Creator" was shot on a Sony FX3, a camera you can buy for $3900. The Canon R5C was Netflix approved which you can now buy for $3400. You have casual hobbyist and prosumers with gear in their hand that is capable of producing blockbuster movies.

So 10 years ago you had people who were limited by the hardware. Today most people's hardware is more capabale than their limits.

There is a thread on this forum where a guy waited for the R5mii and after waiting all that time realized the original R5 is more than enough for him. If you go look at comparisons/reviews between those cameras you have to zoom in to 400% to tell the difference. These are things that aren't perceptable to the vast majority of people

6K/60 and 4K/120 with internal 12bit Raw is now the standard in the $2500 range. There just really isn't any where to go from here. I mean could they figure out how to put internal ND filters on a $4k camera? Sure. But is someone going to updrade instead of just screwing an ND filter on their R5mii? Probably not.

I could image at some point Canon/Nikon/Sony moving to medium format to try to sell people on something new and a reason to rebuy all their lenses in a new mount.

Sony is trying to slice the pie into a thousand pieces and sell multiple camera for every little use case. Meanwhile Canon dropped the R5mii which is essentially the do it all camera for $4300. And if the rumors are correct the R6miii is around the corner and it will be almost just as capable for $2500.
 
Upvote 0
Most people don't pick up a hobby and hyper focus on that hobby for the rest of their life. I'm sure there will be improvements but the question is will those improvements drive the bulk of those people to upgrade? If you purchase the R5mii in your 50's will it really be worth dropping $6k+ in your 60's on an R5miv when the picture and video quality is probably going to be about the same?
Boomers are starting to retire in greater numbers and will have more time and disposable income in retirement to spend on hobbies. These are the demographic that you are referring to. I will buy a R5iii to replace my R5 if not a R5ii beforehand

Your assumption that in 10 years of improvements will be "about the same" seems unlikely given technology is probably accelerating rather than a linear improvement over time.
eg eye AF is a fundamentally game changer within the last 10 years with machine/deep learning for subject detection. Eye controlled AF is the next one. Lenslet arrays improved sensor performance and maybe Canon's SPAD will revolutionise future sensors.
Yearly phone upgrades are incremental but after 4 years the cumulative difference is signficant. Annual car improvements are the same. Upgrading after 7 years is a big difference.

It seems the process has been to sell someone something at low end with a kit lens. They upgrade to better lens. Then at some poing they upgrade to a btter cameras. If you went through that process 15 years ago there's a reason (mainly video) for you to updrade one more time. But if you go through that process today there doesn't seem to be much need to upgrade any time remotely soon.
I had a kit DLSR setup 25 years ago which I didn't use much and went to compact cameras instead of DLSR
I started with a 7D and EF24-105/4 15 years ago, went to 5Diii/5Div and now have the R5 kit in my signature.
I am not "normal" but is a singular example of an upgrader.
I rarely shoot video with my R5. The image quality difference between 7D and R5 is remarkable.

The Sony A9III has a global shutter so the sensor speed is 0 ms. The R1 is able to achieve a sensor speed of 2.8 ms without the drawbacks of reduced DR of a global shutter. We've hit a point of diminishing returns. Sony went after the hype of the global shutter but its irrelevant to 99% of the market.
The pointy end of the market are for specific use cases for those users. They are not for 99% of the market.
Professionals (who would depreciate their equipment and earn money from it as a tool) would appreciate the new features but there are far fewer of these users than in the past.
There are a significant segment of 1DX users who have been waiting to upgrade to the R1 ie within a 10 year period.

Your comments on Apple vs Windows PC and Japanese culture seem quaint :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
So 10 years ago you had people who were limited by the hardware. Today most people's hardware is more capabale than their limits.
IMO, the same was true for 'most people' 10 years ago, as well – the hardware exceeded the skill of most users. Cameras will continue to improve incrementally, just as they've done for decades. If you assume a useful life of a camera of as little as 5 years, and consider the fact that MILCs didn't start outselling DSLRs until 2020, then that means the installed base of DSLRs is larger than that of MILCs. As @David - Sydney correctly points out, improvements in the short term are minimal. Wait 2-3 camera generations (for Canon/Nikon, more for Sony) and the improvements are significant. Plus, there are users of lower-spec lines that will move up, e.g. even though an R5 user probably will not find the R5II compelling, an R6 user might.
 
Upvote 0
The pointy end of the market are for specific use cases for those users. They are not for 99% of the market.
Professionals (who would depreciate their equipment and earn money from it as a tool) would appreciate the new features but there are far fewer of these users than in the past.
There are a significant segment of 1DX users who have been waiting to upgrade to the R1 ie within a 10 year period.

We agree here, so I may not be articulating my suggestion clearly. I believe the market is moving to a more boutique product that is primarily for professionals. See the chart below showing the sale of cameras vs their price.

1727805359876.png

It appears as though the industry is moving from an environment where they sold a ton of cameras at a moderate price to one where they are selling fewer cameras at an increasingly high price.

The Canon R5 released for $3900 and the R5mii release for $4300. This rise in individual model prices doesn't reflect the rise in the value of MILC's sold. That is because every year that goes by, of the cameras that are sold you have more people buuing expensive cameras and less people buying cheaper ones. Which supports my theory that the market is becoming focused on professionals and not hobbyist.

I'd also guess that a portion of the lower end sales are still there but are going the DJI/Insta360/GoPro route. But were discssing the Japanese market here.

Boomers are starting to retire in greater numbers and will have more time and disposable income in retirement to spend on hobbies. These are the demographic that you are referring to. I will buy a R5iii to replace my R5 if not a R5ii beforehand
That's great that your in the position to do that since its what you enjoy. I think the issue is how many of those people are going to need a new camera. If we were talking about healthcare then sure, but buying a $4000 camera isn't something that becomes a higher priority in retirement. Were already at a point where Millenials out number Boomers. Will they buy cameras as much as the generation before them.

Your assumption that in 10 years of improvements will be "about the same" seems unlikely given technology is probably accelerating rather than a linear improvement over time.
eg eye AF is a fundamentally game changer within the last 10 years with machine/deep learning for subject detection. Eye controlled AF is the next one. Lenslet arrays improved sensor performance and maybe Canon's SPAD will revolutionise future sensors.

I think you are making the assumption that the increase in technology is pushing things in the way you want it to. I have access to thousands more songs/movies then I did when I had a tape/CD/DVD player but I no loger spend any money any hardware to play phisical media.

The biggest technological advancement I see on the horizon is AI. It's mostly software and not hardware based. I can now buy a cheaper f2.8 lens, stop it down to F4 so it's sharper then go in lightroom and blur the background to look like I took the pic with a higher end f1.8 lens.


Yearly phone upgrades are incremental but after 4 years the cumulative difference is signficant. Annual car improvements are the same. Upgrading after 7 years is a big difference.

I have a mix of iphones between 10 and 15 in my houshold. There isn't much difference betweent them. If people had to actually pay out of pocket for phones most people would have 10 old phones. If people could trade in their old R5 for a new R5mii and only pay $80 a month to finance the remaining amount at 0% interest then we'd have a lot more camrea cameras sales.

And I don't see that big improvemtns in cars either. If peoples cars functioned just as good as they did when they bought the car outside of a few cosmetic blemishes, then most people would keep thier cars for a lot longer.

I had a kit DLSR setup 25 years ago which I didn't use much and went to compact cameras instead of DLSR
I started with a 7D and EF24-105/4 15 years ago, went to 5Diii/5Div and now have the R5 kit in my signature.
I am not "normal" but is a singular example of an upgrader.
I rarely shoot video with my R5. The image quality difference between 7D and R5 is remarkable.

And look at the difference in camera sales between then and now. World population is up 20% and camera sales are down.

1727809643227.png
 
Upvote 0
Which supports my theory that the market is becoming focused on professionals and not hobbyist.
Per the US BLS, there were 151,000 professional photographers in 2023, with expected growth of 4% over the next 10 years. The median income for a professional photographer in 2023 was $19.60/hr, with a median income in the highest-paying sub-category (arts and entertainment) of $35.91/hr. Assuming employment is full-time (for many, it isn’t), that translates to annual incomes of $41K and $75K. Granted, in many/most cases, cameras aren’t bought out of personal income, but the point is that photography is not generally a lucrative profession. Compare that to hobbyists who are dentists ($192K/yr), lawyers ($176K/yr) or doctors ($249K/yr).

The first number is the more important one. 151K photographers, business purchases so depreciated over a 5 year period, say they average two cameras each and that means professional photographers in the US account for around 60K cameras per year. There were 1.57M ILCs shipped to the Americas in 2023, so call it 1.35M to the US...that means professional photographers accounted for <5% of cameras sold.

So your theory is that camera manufacturers are going to start focusing primarily on a segment sized at 5% of their current market, with an expected growth rate of <0.5%/year. I suspect camera manufacturers are smarter than that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
IMO, the same was true for 'most people' 10 years ago, as well – the hardware exceeded the skill of most users.

The first 4K camera was the EOS-1D C and in 2012 you would have had to pay $15k, $20k in todays dollars. Today you can shoot 4K with your smartphone but in the Canon lineup you can get a 4K R100 for $400.

Cameras will continue to improve incrementally, just as they've done for decades.

I don't think cameras improved incrementally over the past 15 years. Going from DSLR in SD to Mirrorless in 4K was a huge leap in image/video quality. We are not likely to see the same leap over the next 15 years.

We got 720p in 1998. Then 1080p 7 years later in 2005. 4K came 8 years after that in 2013 and has been here for over a decade. So the 15 year leap from SD in 1998 to 4K in 2013 was massive and we've been flat ever since and probably will be for the forseeable future. The improvements have been in making tv's larger. But unless people are going to start sitting 4 feet away from 100" tvs there isn't going to be a big push in resolution anytime soon.

If you assume a useful life of a camera of as little as 5 years, and consider the fact that MILCs didn't start outselling DSLRs until 2020, then that means the installed base of DSLRs is larger than that of MILCs. As David - Sydney correctly points out, improvements in the short term are minimal. Wait 2-3 camera generations (for Canon/Nikon, more for Sony) and the improvements are significant.
I think the useful life of cameras is growing. This is tied in with the fact that I think the technological advancements are slowing. Let's say its 2016 and you have a Sony A7II. It doesn't shoot in 4K and yet 4K is already the standard. 4K tv's have been around several years at this point. So you have around $2k and he best camera you can afford can't shoot 4K. Then in 2018 they release the A7III which does support 4K. So the people who bought an A7III in 2018 for around the same price now have a camera capable of 4K. So over the lifespace of the A7II that usuer had much more of a reason to upgrade.

Now fast forward to 2024. Six years after the A7III came out people are still viewing content in at most.....4K. So while some may need to upgrade for some specific reason here or there the most don't. Now look in the future over the 10 years after the A7III came out in 2018. In 2028 most people will still be watching tv in.....4K.

So let's say in 10 years the R6mV does 10K60 and 8k/960 at 16 bit. What does it matter if no one has a screen to utilize it and even if they did 99.9% of people can't actually tell the difference. Again you have blockbuster movies and profession Netflix tv series being shot on $4k cameras. This simply wasn't the case 15 years ago.

Plus, there are users of lower-spec lines that will move up, e.g. even though an R5 user probably will not find the R5II compelling, an R6 user might.

This is the challenge I see all of the manufacturers facing. In the past the difference were so stark that there was a clear upgrade path. Those lines have blurred. In order to compete with the Nikon Z6III I'm assuming the R6miii wil shoot 6K/60 and 4K/120 and have a sub 10 ms sensor readout speed for $2500. But at that point it really leaves a small amount of people who would need to pay $1800 more to get the 8K/60 with a 6.3 ms sensor readout speed.

So when it drops most people are going to go "OMG this camera is amazing" and it will be. But I beleive most of the hobbyists/prosumesr that buys that camera will be set for more than a decade.
 
Upvote 0
We agree here, so I may not be articulating my suggestion clearly. I believe the market is moving to a more boutique product that is primarily for professionals. See the chart below showing the sale of cameras vs their price.
It appears as though the industry is moving from an environment where they sold a ton of cameras at a moderate price to one where they are selling fewer cameras at an increasingly high price
...Which supports my theory that the market is becoming focused on professionals and not hobbyist
..Were already at a point where Millenials out number Boomers. Will they buy cameras as much as the generation before them..
Over your timeframes, the cheaper DLSR/compact camera market has been decimated by mobile phones. That has accounted for the change in unit sales vs average selling price. Canon has managed to navigate this disruptive change and still have ~50% of the unit sales. That is remarkable and demonstrative of a Japanese company to innovate.

No one in their right mind would have expected the technology in phones (and associated cameras) to improve so much so that multiple fixed lens cameras and computational photography would be available. Everyone is a photographer now even if the price of a phone is way beyond what a compact camera sold for in the past.
A ILC (and higher end phone) can also be seen as status/luxury items showing a level of wealth even if they are far beyond the needs and ability of those "hobbyists".

Many "professionals" now make money by taking wealthy prosumers on travel workshops A lot of them are retirees with significant kit. The ability to make money from selling photos (and music!) is not by selling postcards but offering services to others to share their knowledge by training and locations and youtube views.

Sony/Canon/Nikon are moving to higher margin products where they can differentiate from phones and remain profitable. They have all stated this in their financial documents.

As @neuroanatomist clearly articulates in the US (generally true globally) that the number of "professionals" are decreasing.

The number of prosumers with disposable income are increasing (middle class expansion - however you want to define it) hence your demographic assumption isn't correct.
In most "western" countries and China/Japan, there are fewer young people supporting a greater % of older people. The median age/life expectancy is increasing almost everywhere. The population "pyramid" is moving to a "coffin" shaped age demographic in higher income countries which are the ones buying ILCs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Millenials (as is everyone) are buying heaps of cameras but they are phones. The number of photos taken daily has exploded over time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
I think you are making the assumption that the increase in technology is pushing things in the way you want it to. I have access to thousands more songs/movies then I did when I had a tape/CD/DVD player but I no loger spend any money any hardware to play phisical media.
Correct so the money to be made is by live concerts and cinema. Spotify/apple etc control the consumption of music and pay peanuts to creators. The money paid for hardware never went to the creators... it was always an additional cost to them (or rather the distributors) rather than a profit item for performers.

The biggest technological advancement I see on the horizon is AI. It's mostly software and not hardware based. I can now buy a cheaper f2.8 lens, stop it down to F4 so it's sharper then go in lightroom and blur the background to look like I took the pic with a higher end f1.8 lens.
GenAI's ability to disruptively create additional profits is yet to be proven but companies don't want to be left behind.
Machine/deep learning AI has been implemented for years for better AF in camera bodies.
I don't believe that artificial bokeh in post processing has impacted the sales of wide aperture lenses which is the important issue for Canon/Sony/Nikon.
On a side note... the demand/profit for NVidia / data centre providers has definitely genAI hardware.

I have a mix of iphones between 10 and 15 in my houshold. There isn't much difference betweent them. If people had to actually pay out of pocket for phones most people would have 10 old phones. If people could trade in their old R5 for a new R5mii and only pay $80 a month to finance the remaining amount at 0% interest then we'd have a lot more camrea cameras sales.
And I don't see that big improvemtns in cars either. If peoples cars functioned just as good as they did when they bought the car outside of a few cosmetic blemishes, then most people would keep thier cars for a lot longer.
I have no problem with people owning old gear and don't feel the need to upgrade. My 4 year old phone is down to 78% battery health and I can't imagine that a 7 year old phone would be better.
Things do wear out but to assume that people won't upgrade phones or cars (for whatever reason) is ignoring reality.
Electric cars will last longer due to fewer moving parts and hence less maintenance but the reality is that the average age of a country's car fleet is about 12 years (USA + Europe). That still means a lot of new car and phone sales.
Canon etc are still having supply issues delivering bodies and some lenses. They would be happier selling more if they could deliver
And look at the difference in camera sales between then and now. World population is up 20% and camera sales are down.
The population growth is not related to camera sales (besides phones). It correlates with disposable income - whether buying for personal use or people paying for professional photography services.
Most of the population growth is in developing countries which have lower incomes and can't afford expensive/discretionary cameras that we are talking about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Over your timeframes, the cheaper DLSR/compact camera market has been decimated by mobile phones. That has accounted for the change in unit sales vs average selling price.

This has been one of my main arguments on this forum, Smartphones wiped out low end cameras thereby pushing the mirrorless makers to make high end models to differentiate. I guess we differ on who we think will buy those higher end models.

Canon has managed to navigate this disruptive change and still have ~50% of the unit sales. That is remarkable and demonstrative of a Japanese company to innovate.

As mentioned before Canon's approximately 50% share is now down to 46.5% share. But to be clear that share is JUST among Japanese manufactures. For example the BCN has DJI as the number 1 manufacturer in the "Digital Video Camera Category" with 45% of the market in Japan. Keep in mind that the "Action Camera Category" is seperate where the number 1 manufacturer is GoPro. This was my point earlier. The CIPA numbers allow the Japanese to pretend its business as usual but the reality is landscape is changing. Imagine if we had worldwide numbers for DJI.

https://digicame-info.com/2024/07/bcn-award-2025no1.html

Canon's market share strategy is also coming at the expense losing ground in relation to revenue. Below is the Camera revenue from the top 4 Japanese manufactuers. Canon accounted for 36% of that revenue in 2022 and is down to 31% through the first half of 2024. They may gain some ground back through the end of the year with the release of the R5mii but will likely end 2024 lower than 2023.


2022​
% share​
2023​
% share​
2024 H1​
% share​
Canon
¥509,800​
36%​
¥544,600​
34%​
¥257,400​
31%​
Sony
¥534,376​
38%​
¥615,993​
39%​
¥326,196​
40%​
Nikon
¥226,600​
16%​
¥264,900​
17%​
¥141,500​
17%​
Fuji
¥137,500​
10%​
¥163,700​
10%​
¥97,600​
12%​
Millions of Yen
¥1,408,276​
¥1,589,193​
¥822,696​

So in 2022 Canon was 46.5% of unit sales but was 36% of the revenue and then in 2023 Canon was again 46.5% of unit sales and 34% of revenue. The strategy is clear, discount to maintain market share. As a consumer I'm in agreement. The R6mii competes directly with the A7IV and even though the R6mii is newer they put it on sale at $500 off at $2000 vs the A7IV at $2500.


No one in their right mind would have expected the technology in phones (and associated cameras) to improve so much so that multiple fixed lens cameras and computational photography would be available. Everyone is a photographer now even if the price of a phone is way beyond what a compact camera sold for in the past.

Completely agree here.

A ILC (and higher end phone) can also be seen as status/luxury items showing a level of wealth even if they are far beyond the needs and ability of those "hobbyists".

Many "professionals" now make money by taking wealthy prosumers on travel workshops A lot of them are retirees with significant kit. The ability to make money from selling photos (and music!) is not by selling postcards but offering services to others to share their knowledge by training and locations and youtube views.

Most the people I'm associate with are in this group. The vast majority of the people I know buying high end gear are "Content Creators" Most these people have 2-3 camera bodies and are changing those bodies out ever couple of years.

Sony/Canon/Nikon are moving to higher margin products where they can differentiate from phones and remain profitable. They have all stated this in their financial documents.
Again this is the point I have been making. Volume is never going to get back to where it was so they are going to focus on making higher margin off of a lower volume of cameras.
As @neuroanatomist clearly articulates in the US (generally true globally) that the number of "professionals" are decreasing.

The number of prosumers with disposable income are increasing (middle class expansion - however you want to define it) hence your demographic assumption isn't correct.
In most "western" countries and China/Japan, there are fewer young people supporting a greater % of older people. The median age/life expectancy is increasing almost everywhere. The population "pyramid" is moving to a "coffin" shaped age demographic in higher income countries which are the ones buying ILCs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_pyramid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_transition
Millenials (as is everyone) are buying heaps of cameras but they are phones. The number of photos taken daily has exploded over time.

Again both of you are missing that Youtubers are the new "professionals". I can point you to countless people shooting social media content on Canon C70's and Sony FX3's.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/1...stry-according-to-the-people-who-make-cameras

Everyone is looking to 'creators' for growth​

Camera companies see video use growing across all categories of users, but there's one segment they're all laser-focused on: creators. I couldn't get through five minutes of conversation without hearing the word 'creator.'

But what, exactly, is a 'creator?' At a basic level, it's someone who uses a camera to create content for public sharing. But let's be clear about what the camera companies mean when they talk about targeting 'creators': Gen Z and teenagers. I'm not just speculating; they straight up told me that in multiple conversations. Camera companies see this demographic as a critical market for the future, and there's a land grab going on to attract these users in their formative years to create brand loyalists.

Take a look at this guys instagram.

https://www.instagram.com/landonbtw/?hl=en

He's only 27 and has been a "content creator" since he was 21. So in the last 6 years this kid has owned Panasonic Lumix, Sony FX3, Sony A7SIII, Black Magic 6K, Canon 1Dxmii and Canon C70. Not to mention the lenses, lights, gimals, monitors, etc. Were talking about a hundreds of thousands of dollars in gear.

And he makes his money selling courses teaching people how to make "films" with their iphones.

Does the occasional Dentist buy a $8k Leica or Hasselblad to flex on the shelf in his home office? Sure. But that isn't what is driving the market in my opinion.

Why are all the camera manufacturers so focused on video? The R5mii isn't much different from the R5 from a photography perspective they just made it a better video camera. Hobbyist don't need 8k/60 10 bit Clog 2 footage that they need color grade, Youtubers do.
 
Upvote 0
The first 4K camera was the EOS-1D C and in 2012 you would have had to pay $15k, $20k in todays dollars. Today you can shoot 4K with your smartphone but in the Canon lineup you can get a 4K R100 for $400. I don't think cameras improved incrementally over the past 15 years. Going from DSLR in SD to Mirrorless in 4K was a huge leap in image/video quality. We are not likely to see the same leap over the next 15 years.
...
I think the useful life of cameras is growing. This is tied in with the fact that I think the technological advancements are slowing. So let's say in 10 years the R6mV does 10K60 and 8k/960 at 16 bit. What does it matter if no one has a screen to utilize it and even if they did 99.9% of people can't actually tell the difference. Again you have blockbuster movies and profession Netflix tv series being shot on $4k cameras. This simply wasn't the case 15 years ago.
...
This is the challenge I see all of the manufacturers facing. In the past the difference were so stark that there was a clear upgrade path. Those lines have blurred.
...
So when it drops most people are going to go "OMG this camera is amazing" and it will be. But I beleive most of the hobbyists/prosumesr that buys that camera will be set for more than a decade.
It is strange that you think that the only reason to upgrade over a 10 year period is for video and that it is capped out at 4k. It is correct that 4K TVs are now mainstream and 8K TVs are unlikely to be mainstream for a long time but that doesn't mean that there aren't advantages to content creation at higher resolution, fps and reduced rolling shutter.

Zoom, pan, downsampled quality, slow motion, log/bit depth for dynamic range and colour grading etc in post gives greater flexibiliy if the original footage is better (resolution etc). The only downside is storage.

The flexibility it provides is for content creators and editors and not for consumption except that the final result should be better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
It is strange that you think that the only reason to upgrade over a 10 year period is for video and that it is capped out at 4k. It is correct that 4K TVs are now mainstream and 8K TVs are unlikely to be mainstream for a long time but that doesn't mean that there aren't advantages to content creation at higher resolution, fps and reduced rolling shutter.

Zoom, pan, downsampled quality, slow motion, log/bit depth for dynamic range and colour grading etc in post gives greater flexibiliy if the original footage is better (resolution etc). The only downside is storage.

The flexibility it provides is for content creators and editors and not for consumption except that the final result should be better.

I mentioned that earlier:

The R5 has just as good image quality as the R5mii. So you're paying for 8K which allows you to reframe on a 4K timeline and you've got 4k120. We're not selling 8k screens as the juice isn't worth the squeeze for the size screens we use. So you have a $4300 camera and 5 - 10 years later the new cameras can do a few things slightly better but will it be worth another $4300? Most "prosumers" are just going to spend their money on something more impactful. My wife hates it but I've moved on to collecting bourbon :)

Over the past couple of years the main thing (on the video side) that people have wanted has been 4k/60/120 and maybe better sensor readout speed so you wound't have rolling shutter. Most people didn't care about 8K and if you threw in 6K for the reason discussed they were fine. You could get a 4K/30 camera at a pretty good price and these were the things you had to pay more for. On the Sony side that would be something like an A7SIII or FX3 which was around $4k.

Now we can get all those things and more in the $2500 Nikon Z6III and I'm assuming the R6III and A7V will follow. So the issue is that we are hitting a point of diminishing returns. People don't really care about 4K/480 or 4K/960. Why would you eat up storage space with a 10K file when you have no reasonable way to view that content and you already have the flexibility and increased quality with a 6K downsampled sensor.

So the upgrades that are coming (and have been coming) are usefulness and not related to image quality. Precapture, AI autofocus that tracks a volleyball, Putting in internal ND filters and higher resolution screens are all things that are convienent but doesn't affect image/video quality.

So from what I see coming down the road, the improvements that they are making are going to be things that while making the camera more capable are going to be specific to profesionals. Going from 1080p to 4K makes everyones footage look better whether your are a professional or not. Putting in internal ND filters isn't going to matter to the crowd that doesn't even buy ND filters to begin with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
So from what I see coming down the road, the improvements that they are making are going to be things that while making the camera more capable are going to be specific to profesionals. Going from 1080p to 4K makes everyones footage look better whether your are a professional or not. Putting in internal ND filters isn't going to matter to the crowd that doesn't even buy ND filters to begin with.

I don't have any high quality ND filters or one for each lens, but I think having an internal ND filter in the camera would be very useful to me.
 
Upvote 0
I don't have any high quality ND filters or one for each lens, but I think having an internal ND filter in the camera would be very useful to me.

I think it would be useful to a lot of people. The questions is if you bought a camera for $4k and 3 - 4 years later they came out with a newer version where the picture/video quality is about the same and the main things upgraded where internal ND fillters, AI autofocus updates for specific sports, and other quality of life items would you pay $4k again?
 
Upvote 0
I think it would be useful to a lot of people. The questions is if you bought a camera for $4k and 3 - 4 years later they came out with a newer version where the picture/video quality is about the same and the main things upgraded where internal ND fillters, AI autofocus updates for specific sports, and other quality of life items would you pay $4k again?
I personally wouldn't upgrade each generation, but someone who has the original R or a DSLR might upgrade for those reasons.
 
Upvote 0
I personally wouldn't upgrade each generation, but someone who has the original R or a DSLR might upgrade for those reasons.
As I've stated many times, I suspect manufacturers are well aware that few users upgrade every generation. Cameras are durable goods, and for most buyers they are either significant expenses (amateurs) or purchases subject to a depreciation schedule (professionals). As you say, the R5II is primarily targeted at owners of 5-series DSLRs, and to a lesser extent owners of 6-series bodies (DSLR and mirrorless) and other, lower lines. Canon has ample market data to understand upgrade patterns, even if some members of this forum think they know better or believe that the small microcosm in which they live represents the broader market.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0