Canon thinks the camera market will drop by another 50% over the next two years

[bokehmon22]

it depends.... as long as hardcore canon fanboys buy cameras that miss features.
i guess it is cheaper to produce cameras with the same old sensors (no BSI, not stacked) and without 4K features that would need a beefier processor.

reusing old stuff sure creates higher profits than developing like crazy in a shrinking market.... when the customers buy your stuff anyway.

but you have to be a canon fanboy or shareholder to appreciated this strategy....

I think that's why they have been dragging their feet to get into FF mirorless and making pro FF mirror less.

They don't want to invest too much in R&D for a shrinking market, and when they do enter FF mirrorless, they released a product that's not to disrupt their DSLR sales.

Their next lower tier make it more logical. It's all about the numbers to them. It's great business strategy but as consumer, it means they will lagged behind the competitors on values
This apply to Nikon as well.

I am skeptical to fully commit to one mount in FF mirrorless and will be buying whatever camera for my needs and use my EF lens. I doubt my next camera will be Canon.

 

[unfocused]

Most of the comments here would be hilarious if they weren't so pathetic.

People act as though it's the fault of Canon that the market is shrinking. Sure, they contributed a tiny bit by being too slow to recognize the revolution that was taking place in cell phones and social media sharing and failed to concentrate their resources on making it as easy to share photos using a camera as it is to share photos using a phone. But, Canon was certainly not alone in that regard. And, the social media tsunami was probably going to drown the industry no matter what they did.

I've always said that Canon and Nikon has seen the ups and downs before and have been planning for the inevitable contraction. This article just shows that to be true. They see what is coming and are adjusting to it. That's why Canon has made the heavy investments in the past few years in security and medical. That's why they've devoted so many research dollars into things like the "firefly" sensor and super-high resolution sensors -- it's never been about consumer cameras, even though some people on this forum never seem to get that. (Although consumer products will benefit from the research.)

Sony and some other manufacturers have bet all their marbles that the future is mirrorless. Canon and Nikon have hedged their bets. Canon has sufficient market share to do that, Nikon's position is a bit more precarious. We will probably see a bit of contraction in lines over time, but that's most likely to occur at the lower end. I don't claim to know, and no one else on this forum should either, what the marginal cost of each Rebel iteration is, or even the marginal cost of each line and their corresponding lenses (M, ASP-C DSLR, Full-Frame DSLR and R). If any company has the resources to sustain these lines, it would be Canon.

Please understand one thing though. Any suggestion that the decline in the market can be reversed if Canon would just make that one camera that you personally want, is just pure stupidity.

 

[eosDave]

Same procedure as elsewhere: Very low cost systems for the masses and some really expensive high end systems for the pros? Hopefully not.

Maybe some consequences of the intransparent camera market today - what's missing are some less feature laden cameras with excellent IQ. I bought 200D and M50 for their great sensors and DPAF capability but they are full of features while lacking some ergonomics. While the 200D has no safety shift (a really interesting feature for emergencies in Av and Tv) the M50 has it while they omitted the cable release in the M50 but it's existing in the 200D. Both lack the possibility to set a Image stabilizer limit e.g. 1...5EV for shutter speed - instead it cranks up the ISO.

Hopefully they will release a good FF mirrorless which is on the slow side (not AF wise!) but sports great IQ. The existing EOS R is too expensive for my application and at that price (or 300 EUR more) I would expect a FF 4k mode in a 2018 camera.

Most "features" are implemented with software so there is no reason to leave them out.

 

[Aaron D]

...to those of us who make our lives by using their equipment.

I second that. Canon gets it better than anyone else how to make tools that work. They're not going to stay on top by chasing after every consumers' fleeting whim. Professional photography is a field that's not going anywhere though it may be pruned back severely (ie: photojournalism, sorry to say), but a manufacturer that is willing to stick with it will always have customers.

 

[hazydave]

I believe them.

If you look at camera sales for serious cameras going back to the 1960s and 1970s, even then, you'll see that sales were fairly flat until some technology improvement boosted things. There was a big jump in the late 70s/early 80s, thanks mostly to Canon's AE-1 and their hard push into the consumer market, where SLRs had really not been marketed (to enthusiasts, sure, but not folks who didn't pick up a copy of "Popular Photography" on a regular basis).

Next was automation, particularly autofocus. Then things exploded with digital, but not for a good reason. Between 1975 and 1996 I bought two cameras (Olympus OM-1 and OM-4). Between 1997 and 2012, I bought five digital cameras. Initially, they were too expensive, but really, for quite awhile, every year or two you could maybe double the quality for less than you paid for your current model. So digital exploded.

But now digital is pretty mature. Plenty of companies produce new models every year, but it's not as if the image quality changes much in 4-5 years. And what's the big technical innovation to keep sales from dropping back to 1970s levels? I guess Canon and Nikon have decided it's mirrorless, mostly because their customers have been trying out Sony and maybe not coming back. Mirrorless probably gets us more computational photography and AI, but is that as compelling for real cameras as it is for phones? I have yet to see a phone use a technique I don't already know, though sure, automating it is nice, as long as I get the raw file when it's done.

 

[hazydave]

Most "features" are implemented with software so there is no reason to leave them out.

There actually are a few reasons to leave them out. Part of it's the practical need for computation on-camera. Smartphones are already adding AI processors to deal with these things, additional cost, additional battery power. Sure, I guess we can turn them off, but the set of AI things that make sense on a consumer smartphone, to deliver better photos for a person who refuses or at least is uninterested in learning photography is very different than the AI things I want on my camera. I have a line: if the feature helps me better capture the image/capture a better image, I'm all for that. Some of the new things mirrorless cameras can offer, like visualizations in the viewfinder alone (see the world in Tri-X or Fujichrome, see a long exposure result in realtime, etc) are worthwhile. Making a better JPEG or posting directly to Instagram? Not really for me.

 

[BeenThere]

The transition to mirrorless is slowing some current sales as customers wait for the new bodies with the features they want to appear in the market. This could take several years to shake out and it’s not clear who the winners will be.

 

[Architect1776]

Same procedure as elsewhere: Very low cost systems for the masses and some really expensive high end systems for the pros? Hopefully not.

Maybe some consequences of the intransparent camera market today - what's missing are some less feature laden cameras with excellent IQ. I bought 200D and M50 for their great sensors and DPAF capability but they are full of features while lacking some ergonomics. While the 200D has no safety shift (a really interesting feature for emergencies in Av and Tv) the M50 has it while they omitted the cable release in the M50 but it's existing in the 200D. Both lack the possibility to set a Image stabilizer limit e.g. 1...5EV for shutter speed - instead it cranks up the ISO.

Hopefully they will release a good FF mirrorless which is on the slow side (not AF wise!) but sports great IQ. The existing EOS R is too expensive for my application and at that price (or 300 EUR more) I would expect a FF 4k mode in a 2018 camera.

I agree on the models.

 

[Architect1776]

Continue reading...

At one time there was the F-1, EF, FTb and TLb/TX cameras.
With the same lens you had identical IQ. IQ was film dependent and they all used the same film (Sensor).
So what was different?
Shutter speeds F-1 1/2000, EF & FTb 1/1000 and TLb/TX 1/500.
F-1 had motor drives and all kinds of attachable accessories
EF was manual and automatic in one camera.
FTb had an accessory booster for low light less sophisticated than the F-1 but was still built like a tank like the F-1.
TLb/TX lacked all these features. Some like no self timer, meter on/off switch etc.

I would like to see the IQ identical on the new digital cameras.
Less ISO range, wind speed can be different and other similar features to keep the camera less expensive.
Problem is if they would use the same sensor etc. it would be more firm ware than hardware changes which would make the construction cheaper.

 

[KrisK]

Does it still make sense, for Panasonic, to enter a declining market? Less cake, more slices...

Panasonic's timing does seem questionable. Their rumored system is appealing, but given what's happening in the industry, I'd have a hard time climbing on board. (That's one of the reasons I somewhat hesitatingly bought the R, as "likely to be around in 10 years" was high on my list of priorities.)

Should Canon try to increase their market share with additional and competitive models instead of slamming the brakes on? Anyway, apart from Canon, nobody knows what their real strategy will be. Unlike most youtubers, they are market -experienced. We can only wait and see...and remain confident!

Canon has, I think, repeatedly said they're going for oh-so-boring volume, so I'd expect a full-frame RF Rebel kit to start appearing in Costco, Kohl's and elsewhere. Not that I'd buy one, but if it's what keep Canon's wheels spinning, so be it.

 

[wockawocka]

I gues that explains the super high prices of the RF lenses. Same profit in a shrinking market.

 

[Ozarker]

Innovation at Canon stopped in 2008.

 

[Ozarker]

Most of the comments here would be hilarious if they weren't so pathetic.

People act as though it's the fault of Canon that the market is shrinking. Sure, they contributed a tiny bit by being too slow to recognize the revolution that was taking place in cell phones and social media sharing and failed to concentrate their resources on making it as easy to share photos using a camera as it is to share photos using a phone. But, Canon was certainly not alone in that regard. And, the social media tsunami was probably going to drown the industry no matter what they did.

I've always said that Canon and Nikon has seen the ups and downs before and have been planning for the inevitable contraction. This article just shows that to be true. They see what is coming and are adjusting to it. That's why Canon has made the heavy investments in the past few years in security and medical. That's why they've devoted so many research dollars into things like the "firefly" sensor and super-high resolution sensors -- it's never been about consumer cameras, even though some people on this forum never seem to get that. (Although consumer products will benefit from the research.)

Sony and some other manufacturers have bet all their marbles that the future is mirrorless. Canon and Nikon have hedged their bets. Canon has sufficient market share to do that, Nikon's position is a bit more precarious. We will probably see a bit of contraction in lines over time, but that's most likely to occur at the lower end. I don't claim to know, and no one else on this forum should either, what the marginal cost of each Rebel iteration is, or even the marginal cost of each line and their corresponding lenses (M, ASP-C DSLR, Full-Frame DSLR and R). If any company has the resources to sustain these lines, it would be Canon.

Please understand one thing though. Any suggestion that the decline in the market can be reversed if Canon would just make that one camera that you personally want, is just pure stupidity.

Agree with you except that sharing images from a camera will never be as easy as sharing from a phone, unless and until, a DSLR or equivalent has an assigned phone number and data plan.

 

[hkenneth]

Agree with you except that sharing images from a camera will never be as easy as sharing from a phone, unless and until, a DSLR or equivalent has an assigned phone number and data plan.

For wireless connection interface on Canon's DSLR is terrible to say the least. It's working half the time and it's painful to work with when it's working.

 

[Ozarker]

For wireless connection interface on Canon's DSLR is terrible to say the least. It's working half the time and it's painful to work with when it's working.

I wouldn't know. I have a 5D mark III and it was obsolete and quit working when the next latest and greatest model came to market. I don't send photos from my phone anywhere either. Nobody really wants to see photos of what I'm eating or my arm holding the camera out and a toilet in the background. My Olympus has a selfie mode, but even I don't want to see photos of me. I don't want to torture anyone else.

My point is that sending photos from camera, to phone, to social media is cumbersome. So until a DSLR or mirrorless has an assigned # and data plan....

 

[dtaylor]

Innovation at Canon stopped in 2008. From 2000-2008 they were running rings around every other camera brand.

OH MY GOD! I opened my camera bag expecting to find my 5Ds, 24-70 II, 100-400 II, 16-35 f/4L...and they weren't there! Even my old Canon 7D was gone! All I had was my first DSLR, the 10D, and old lenses I thought I had sold on eBay.

It...it's like Canon stopped innovating in 2008.

 

[tmroper]

Meanwhile, film sales are growing, and Kodak plans to expand production of the new Ektachrome to medium and large format. It's a tiny market that's nowhere close to what it was in the past (or to digital), but it's still an interesting contrast.

 

[dickgrafixstop]

I have been scanning the internet lately focusing on the "what's in the bag" features of various professional photographers. I'm interested in how many of them include a smart phone and how many mention using them in their photo excursions. There's a growing recognition among pros that the phones do play a role, particularly in video, in thier offerings. The Canon exec may be right - other than early adopters, there doesn't seem to be a rush to mirrorless systems. Whether it's the lack of lenses, the expense, or just the hassle of changing systems for a few ounces of weight, there's nothing in any of the new mirrorless offerings that would tempt me yet.

 

[LDS]

My point is that sending photos from camera, to phone, to social media is cumbersome. So until a DSLR or mirrorless has an assigned # and data plan....

With 5G aiming to connect more and more devices at high speed, it would be quite possible, and you don't really need a phone number - evidently you need data access.

The big question is "are socials going to stay, or they would fade out too, eventually? Would people understand that sharing too much is a risk, and stop (or at least, share far less)? Or would the amount of data create simply a tiredness and the need of something new and different? And if "social" stays, which will be the dominant one in five years?"

I think we should look to "smartphones as imaging devices" and "social media" as two different sets that clearly now has an intersection quite big, but tomorrow? Smartphones too are showing "fatigue", as their prices increased a lot, and the performance/features added are diminishing greatly. What should be the device to sell in five-ten years? The answer may not be the one chosen looking at the past.

 

[Ozarker]

With 5G aiming to connect more and more devices at high speed, it would be quite possible, and you don't really need a phone number - evidently you need data access.

The big question is "are socials going to stay, or they would fade out too, eventually? Would people understand that sharing too much is a risk, and stop (or at least, share far less)? Or would the amount of data create simply a tiredness and the need of something new and different? And if "social" stays, which will be the dominant one in five years?"

I think we should look to "smartphones as imaging devices" and "social media" as two different sets that clearly now has an intersection quite big, but tomorrow? Smartphones too are showing "fatigue", as their prices increased a lot, and the performance/features added are diminishing greatly. What should be the device to sell in five-ten years? The answer may not be the one chosen looking at the past.

Back when I was driving I had one of those Verizon wifi (mifi?) plans for internet accessibility. Believe it or not, those had an assigned phone number.. They were just a little credit card sized box with an on/off button. It worked fantastically. I streamed movies and browsed the web without a hitch from just about everywhere. That is what I am imagining a camera to need inside (but smaller) to make things easier for people to share directly from their cameras. I wouldn't use it, but I imagine there are some who would. Transferring from camera, to phone, to internet just seems unnecessarily complicated and slow. My phone is 10 years old, so one can tell a smartphone isn't high on my priority list. But I know I am probably not average in that respect. Only carry the phone outside the house for long trips in case of emergency. Yeah, I'm getting too old.