CIPA Global Camera Sales Numbers for March 2018 Released

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
fullstop said:
The pent-up demand notion has a certain wacky elegance. People are not buying more cameras because the cameras are not good enough or cheap enough. When cameras are good enough and cheap enough, then people will buy a lot more cameras.

But what people actually buy is the capability to make images. So it comes down to what image-making capability do people want to buy and how much do they want to pay for it. It may be true that DSLR designs are pretty much maxed out and that mirrorless manufacturers have never really gotten their act together, but that doesn't go to the question of how much image making capability people want to buy and what they are willing to pay for it. I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,592
3,934
BillB said:
I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.

That's where you're wrong. If someone builds his perfect camera tailor-made to his specific needs, sales will increase by the one camera AvTvM will buy. If you want to, you could also count the millions of people who live in his imagination that will buy one, but I wouldn't recommend it.
 
May 3, 2018
1
0
Barcelona
fullstop said:
* Sony: wrong mount parameters resulted in lenses too long, too big, too complex and way too expensive. Plus first 2 generations of A7 cameras ridden by user interface issues and other "teething problems". APS-C lineup - E-mount held back by high prices for bodies (eg Sony A6500 vs. Canon EOS M5) and lack of "decent and affordable" lenses.

That is, IMO wrong. Sony knew from the start that they would make a FF mirrorless. First of all, the first full frame sensor e mount camera is the VG900. A camcorder, released in 2012, 2 years after the release of the mount but one before the release of the A7 line. And this camcorder was planned for sure before the release of the mount. E mount size was made as a compromise to allow FF sensors but the smallest they could to not make E mount APSC cameras too much big
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems. Many people have stopped buying DSLRs. Many have not been using them for quite some time. Too big, too clunky, too cumbersome to carry along most of the time. I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer. But many of these people would still like to have better IQ than tiny sensored smartphones. As soon as Canon and Nikon - the brands they prefer - also make compelling mirrorless cameras - APS-C and FF - people will buy them and shun DSLRs. Not all of them. But most amateurs/enthusiasts. Maybe not the minority of folks who regularly use large (tele) lenses. But most others.
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,592
3,934
fullstop said:
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems.

Well, we know you personally are pent up and demanding. The rest of your post is pure assumption.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,342
544
fullstop said:
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems. Many people have stopped buying DSLRs. Many have not been using them for quite some time. Too big, too clunky, too cumbersome to carry along most of the time. I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer. But many of these people would still like to have better IQ than tiny sensored smartphones. As soon as Canon and Nikon - the brands they prefer - also make compelling mirrorless cameras - APS-C and FF - people will buy them and shun DSLRs. Not all of them. But most amateurs/enthusiasts. Maybe not the minority of folks who regularly use large (tele) lenses. But most others.

So people have their DSLRs in their drawer. These are likely Canon xxxD and xxxxD models which are not huge. Why do they not carry them? Firstly because DSLR is not pocketable so they need a small bag to carry them or they need to sling them over their shoulder and it rolls around as they walk or bend over. Second they have a phone that has a camera that suits their purposes and fits in their pocket. Now explain why a Sony mirrorless with its lens is so stupendously smaller that it overcomes both of those obstacles.
Telling them 'it is smaller' will be met with a roll of the eyes and their credit card staying in their wallet.

Your lack of logic really is amazing for someone who makes out they understand the market from either a customer POV or a manufacturers POV.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
fullstop said:
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems. Many people have stopped buying DSLRs. Many have not been using them for quite some time. Too big, too clunky, too cumbersome to carry along most of the time. I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer. But many of these people would still like to have better IQ than tiny sensored smartphones. As soon as Canon and Nikon - the brands they prefer - also make compelling mirrorless cameras - APS-C and FF - people will buy them and shun DSLRs. Not all of them. But most amateurs/enthusiasts. Maybe not the minority of folks who regularly use large (tele) lenses. But most others.

And how many people who have stopped buying/using DSLR's are going to be convinced to put down serious money for a mirrorless camera system rather than make do with their phone? Interest in photography--marginal. Advantages of mirrorless over DSLR--marginal. Cost of buying new mirrorless system--considerable.
 

canonnews

EOS R
CR Pro
Dec 27, 2017
852
1,401
Canada
www.canonnews.com
fullstop said:
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems.

there is zero evidence of this. if this was the case m43's would sell far better than it has. It's been basically flat-lining for the last 4+ years now.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,098
385
Vancouver, BC
@fullstop - you're confusing Supply with the perfect camera. Just because the perfect mirrorless camera doesn't exist doesn't mean that there aren't mirrorless cameras. In the same way the perfect DSLR is also don't exist but you don't say that there is an insufficient supply of those.

If you want to use this context and conflate the two issues I'll add a new one for you... if only there were a supply of $200 full frame mirrorless cameras they would fly off the shelf!

What insufficient Supply actually means, is that there are more people who want to buy the products that are manufactured then there is capacity to manufacture them which is not the case today. If you want to buy a full frame mirrorless camera, you can. More broadly if you want to buy a mirrorless camera there are many many options.

The facts are that today, people, given a choice between mirrorless and DSLR, do more often than not choose DSLR.
 

unfocused

EOS-1D X Mark III
Jul 20, 2010
6,235
3,662
67
Springfield, IL
www.mgordoncommunications.com
fullstop said:
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems...

Very funny. This is what is wrong with Geek forums. There is pent up demand, but it isn't for slightly smaller cameras, which will never compete with the smaller and light and excellent cell phone. And yes, the quality these days is really excellent.

The pent up demand is for connectivity. Something that no manufacturer can get through their thick skulls, even after they squandered the point and shoot market.

Point in case -- my wife has turned into an excellent photographer. Even to the point of forcing me to buy a second 100-400 because she appropriated mine. She's also developed quite a following among her fellow birders on twitter.

What would make her really want to trade in her 80D? If the 90D had a user interface that allowed her to select a picture while in the field, do some quick editing and cropping and post it to Twitter from her camera so she could ask her fellow birders, "Hey, is this a Greater or a Lesser Yellowleg?"

I've got a student intern that produces incredible videos with nothing but her iPhone, including editing, titles, effects, etc., all with the app on her phone. The quality is great and frankly, I'm not sure why anyone posting videos to social media would trade that experience for the laborious process that confronts users of mirrorless and mirrored cameras.

Yes, size matters somewhat, but what people really want are the same photo editing and video editing and photo and video posting apps on their phones to be seamlessly integrated into their cameras. But, the manufactures are such dinosaurs in this regard that it's only been in the most recent generation that they've brought touch screens to the higher end bodies.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
canonnews said:
fullstop said:
there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems.

there is zero evidence of this. if this was the case m43's would sell far better than it has. It's been basically flat-lining for the last 4+ years now.

not surprisingly. Because there were only MILC offerings for limited market niches up to now - all limited and only "partly attractive".

* Sony: lenses first not good, then too big and way too expensive. Plus "teething problems", UI, battery charge etc. = market share nowhere near were it could be, neither for APS-C (E-mount) nor for FF (FE)

* Olympus: cheap Pens sell well in Japan. Higher end gear is too big for the small sensor and too expensive given the severe crop = market share low single digit

* Panasonic: mFT sensor only. mainly good for some video stuff = market share low single digits

* Fuji: APS-C at FF prices. market share = single digit

* Nikon: Nikon 1 / CX = dwarf sensor, market share non existent

* Canon: only APS-C, original pricing way too high for limited capability crop gear, recent models selling very well, thanks to brand name and COMPACT SIZE cameras and decent COMPACT lenses for APS-C, now with acceptable performance and at affordable prices. M50 will likely do very well, especially once pricing comes down into "lower Rebel territory".

Of course it is all anecdotal but i know enough folks who already switched from (more often Nikon than Canon) DSLRs to Sony (FF) or Fuji (accepting crop for smaller sized gear). And I know many more people who are loathe to switch and chose to sit tight and wait until "really good" MILC systems are offered by the respective maker they have used for many years, the UI they are familiar with - be it Canon or Nikon. All of them would like to have more compact gear, but don't necessarily want to be relegated to crop sensor only. Especially since Sony has demonstrated how compact FF MILCs can be built - e.g. A7 first gen.

"Pro" market segment possible different. But that's not "where the numbers are", as people here are pointing out all the time. :)
 

CanonFanBoy

Purple
CR Pro
Jan 28, 2015
5,639
4,064
Irving, Texas
fullstop said:
I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer.

Firstly, I won't even ask how you know what so many people have in their drawers. Take that in any sense you like. :p

I raise my grandson, living in my daughter's house. I have no earthly idea what is in her dresser drawers. No idea.

fullstop said:
Of course it is all anecdotal but i know enough folks who already switched from (more often Nikon than Canon) DSLRs to Sony (FF) or Fuji (accepting crop for smaller sized gear). And I know many more people who are loathe to switch and chose to sit tight and wait until "really good" MILC systems are offered by the respective maker they have used for many years, the UI they are familiar with - be it Canon or Nikon. All of them would like to have more compact gear, but don't necessarily want to be relegated to crop sensor only.

This whole line sounds just like the guys who say they know dozens of disgruntled Canon users that say they'll switch to Sony if Canon doesn't get its act together soon. ::)

Please. You folks have just got to stop making crap up and stick to facts. Every last one of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Make your arguments. Quit making up stories to support your arguments. It is embarrassing.
 

Talys

Canon R5
CR Pro
Feb 16, 2017
2,098
385
Vancouver, BC
fullstop said:
not surprisingly. Because there were only MILC offerings for limited market niches up to now - all limited and only "partly attractive".

You're such a glass half empty sort of fella. Why not look at it as -- "There are many great camera options for various market niches where each offering has some very attractive strengths."

Instead of seeing it as Canon having a vast lens offering, some with great value, you jump on Sony for their price (among other things).

Instead of seeing the Panasonic as being an enthusiast videographer favourite, you pan them for being limited to that segment.

Instead of recognizing that Oly makes great cameras that produce fine images that are perfect for many photographers in a package that is quite a bit smaller, you attack them for not producing a larger sensor camera.

Instead of recognizing that Nikon having a great DSLR in the D850 and D500, you attack them for their weaker offerings.

Instead of seeing that Canon has a great APSC MILC, you attack them for "only" having APSC in mirrorless.

What you want is for a company to come in and launch a do-it-all camera that has with all the best aspects of every brand shrunk to a tiny size and sold for such a great price, supported by cheap, awesome, tiny lenses -- in which case a discussion on what camera would best suit a potential buyer becomes irrelevant, and all competitors should pack up and go home.

Dream on.
 

rrcphoto

EOS R6
Jun 20, 2013
2,505
147
fullstop said:
* Olympus: cheap Pens sell well in Japan. Higher end gear is too big for the small sensor and too expensive given the severe crop = market share low single digit

* Panasonic: mFT sensor only. mainly good for some video stuff = market share low single digits

if you want small and light these are perfectly acceptable options. m43's is less than a stop different from APS-C.
for the majority of photographic conditions, people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in the real world.

the fact remains, is that there is options if you wants small and light, there's no pent up demand, you're creating something out of thin air and seeing if it sticks.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface. that's my main issue with mft. same goes for aps-c vs. ff in many maker's offerings (eg fuji). canon eos m and ef-m lens size, weight and price bei g a notable exception. that's why it is selling reasonably well. if prices of eos m bodies come down to "rebel" dslr levels, sales will be even better. and rebel dslrs gone in no time. for ff similar. 6d / d610 type ff dslrs will be gone in an instant once compact, decent and similarly priced milcs are available.
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,342
544
fullstop said:
mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface. that's my main issue with mft. same goes for aps-c vs. ff in many maker's offerings (eg fuji). canon eos m and ef-m lens size, weight and price bei g a notable exception. that's why it is selling reasonably well. if prices of eos m bodies come down to "rebel" dslr levels, sales will be even better. and rebel dslrs gone in no time. for ff similar. 6d / d610 type ff dslrs will be gone in an instant once compact, decent and similarly priced milcs are available.

Assuming you are not AvTvM re-incarnate and you have never ventured your underlying ideas before please explain why mirrorless offers so much of a benefit to everyone. And by that I mean when you are packing and holding a camera with it lens(es). Mirrorless has its advantages but not in the way that DSLR will be 'gone in an instant'.


And if supply is a problem, then can you show me a report of how Sony are 'out of stock' due to production shortages.
Show me the camera newbies buying Sony in the numbers you are talking about.


mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface.

So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right? You clearly have never really understood ergonomics. But personally I need to attach a lens to my camera to be able to take a picture - take a DSLR and pack a 24-70, 70-200, 28mm prime, 40mm prime and see how much that weighs. Now pack the equivalents for MFT.
 

fullstop

EOS R
Apr 23, 2018
1,088
153
Mikehit said:
So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right?

nope. don't worry, I understand equivalence. we all know size of gear will not be proportional to sensor surface. That's exactly why most smart buyers [stills, not video-centric] will not even consider buying mFT. Size, weight and cost savings simply not attractive enough. People buying grossly oversized quarter-sensored mFT camera bodies [like Oly OMD EM1 / II] at prices almost equal to FF cameras or expensive f/1.2 lenses just to get equivalence to much more economical f/2.0 lenses on FF image circle do NOT qualify as *smart buyers* in my book. Your mileage and opinion may differ. No problem with that.

Many smart buyers are however willing to buy APS-C gear as the "smallest acceptable" sensor size. IF this crop gear offers decent IQ, functionality, performance, UI *and* is significantly smaller and less expensive than FF gear. System that currently meets these requirements best is EOS + EF-M lenses. If Nikon and Sony had equally good APS-C systems they would sell a lot them too. And if Canon had come out with more compelling EOS M models right from the start, they would have sold a lot more cameras and EF-M lenses as well. And Fuji might have sold a lot less of theirs. Yes, IF. And yes, "speculation in retrospect". But not unfounded. :)

Ever since its inception FF (135) sensor/image circle has offered optimal relation between imaging area, IQ, creative possibilities and size/weight of gear - relative to size of (average) human hands. Smaller image circle does not translate into much smaller gear. But any larger image circle drives up gear size (lenses!) significantly.

That's why 135 format (FF) has established itself as "holy grail format" for universal, generalist, *hand-held, portable* use. Yes, there are some specific niches where larger or smaller sensors are better suited, but those are rather small niches. That's why smart buyers don't want to be relegated to crop sensors only but want FF sensored gear if they are asked to shell out significant cash for cameras and lenses ("significant" for regular income earners and/or non-super star pro's].

At the same time a significant and growing portion of stills imaging gear buyers with sufficient disposable income is aging and many are less and less willing to tote around large, heavy, expensive and "suspiciously conspicuous" gear. That's why many want capable FF gear that is as compact and light and silent and least conspicuous. That's why many (of us?) have smaller MILCs [e.g. Canon EOS M + EF-M lenses] in addition to our larger DSLR setups.

In short: there is no reason to assume a compact, fully functional Canon FF MILC at reasonable prices [eg similar to 6D II pricing] along with a lineup of decent, compact, affordable native lenses [similar to how EF-M lenses are positioned, of course somewhat larger and somewhat more costly, but by as little as possible] and full backwards compatibility to all EF glass by means of a simple adapter and full compatibility with Canon EOS flash system and other system accessories - would NOT SELL WELL.

How quickly such an offering would bring DSLR sales to their end is speculation of course. My guess is: rather quickly. Your opinion may differ. No problem. :)
 

neuroanatomist

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jul 21, 2010
25,592
3,934
fullstop said:
...a compact, fully functional Canon FF MILC at reasonable prices [eg similar to 6D II pricing] along with a lineup of decent, compact, affordable native lenses...

How quickly such an offering would bring DSLR sales to their end is speculation of course. My guess is: rather quickly. Your opinion may differ. No problem. :)

A $2000 FF MILC is going to quickly end sales of dSLRs, where the majority of sales are entry-level models that costing far less than one of your 'compact, affordable EF-X lenses'?!?

More asinine and idiotic statements have been made on these boards...but not many (and of those, quite a few were by that mode dial guy, you remember him, don't you?).
 

Mikehit

EOS R6
Jul 28, 2015
3,342
544
fullstop said:
Mikehit said:
So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right?

nope. don't worry, I understand equivalence. we all know size of gear will not be proportional to sensor surface. That's exactly why most smart buyers [stills, not video-centric] will not even consider buying mFT. Size, weight and cost savings simply not attractive enough. People buying grossly oversized quarter-sensored mFT camera bodies [like Oly OMD EM1 / II] at prices almost equal to FF cameras or expensive f/1.2 lenses just to get equivalence to much more economical f/2.0 lenses on FF image circle do NOT qualify as *smart buyers* in my book. Your mileage and opinion may differ. No problem with that.

Many smart buyers are however willing to buy APS-C gear as the "smallest acceptable" sensor size. IF this crop gear offers decent IQ, functionality, performance, UI *and* is significantly smaller and less expensive than FF gear. System that currently meets these requirements best is EOS + EF-M lenses. If Nikon and Sony had equally good APS-C systems they would sell a lot them too. And if Canon had come out with more compelling EOS M models right from the start, they would have sold a lot more cameras and EF-M lenses as well. And Fuji might have sold a lot less of theirs. Yes, IF. And yes, "speculation in retrospect". But not unfounded. :)

Ever since its inception FF (135) sensor/image circle has offered optimal relation between imaging area, IQ, creative possibilities and size/weight of gear - relative to size of (average) human hands. Smaller image circle does not translate into much smaller gear. But any larger image circle drives up gear size (lenses!) significantly.

That's why 135 format (FF) has established itself as "holy grail format" for universal, generalist, *hand-held, portable* use. Yes, there are some specific niches where larger or smaller sensors are better suited, but those are rather small niches. That's why smart buyers don't want to be relegated to crop sensors only but want FF sensored gear if they are asked to shell out significant cash for cameras and lenses ("significant" for regular income earners and/or non-super star pro's].

At the same time a significant and growing portion of stills imaging gear buyers with sufficient disposable income is aging and many are less and less willing to tote around large, heavy, expensive and "suspiciously conspicuous" gear. That's why many want capable FF gear that is as compact and light and silent and least conspicuous. That's why many (of us?) have smaller MILCs [e.g. Canon EOS M + EF-M lenses] in addition to our larger DSLR setups.

In short: there is no reason to assume a compact, fully functional Canon FF MILC at reasonable prices [eg similar to 6D II pricing] along with a lineup of decent, compact, affordable native lenses [similar to how EF-M lenses are positioned, of course somewhat larger and somewhat more costly, but by as little as possible] and full backwards compatibility to all EF glass by means of a simple adapter and full compatibility with Canon EOS flash system and other system accessories - would NOT SELL WELL.

How quickly such an offering would bring DSLR sales to their end is speculation of course. My guess is: rather quickly. Your opinion may differ. No problem. :)

First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.
MFT is not good enough.......right. Which I suppose is why an increasing number of landscape shooters and street photographers are changing to MFT because its combination of high quality images and smaller package (camera + lenses) are ideal for their purposes. Your ignorance of the wider market is showing through in your obsession that the only thing that matters is what you want. Maybe the real problem is not the gear but peoples' prejudices about what constitutes good gear. Yourself included.
 

BillB

EOS R
May 11, 2017
1,393
659
fullstop said:
mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface. that's my main issue with mft. same goes for aps-c vs. ff in many maker's offerings (eg fuji). canon eos m and ef-m lens size, weight and price bei g a notable exception. that's why it is selling reasonably well. if prices of eos m bodies come down to "rebel" dslr levels, sales will be even better. and rebel dslrs gone in no time. for ff similar. 6d / d610 type ff dslrs will be gone in an instant once compact, decent and similarly priced milcs are available.

With mft one of the questions is how much IQ is enough, in terms of practical print size, DR, and high ISO. This is true to a somewhat lesser extent for aps-c as well. To at least some extent, the sensor size drives the tradeoffs between IQ, size and cost. Lens design is another tradeoff driver. The EF-M lenses have good IQ and relatively low cost, but the zooms (where the real action is) are quite slow.

The quality of the native lens suite is going to be an important factor in how fast mirrorless designs gain market traction. There is also a big question about how new mirrorless designs are going to be priced relative to DSLR models. With very competitive pricing, and extremely rapid introduction of very attractive native lenses, then the new mirrorless designs may do quite well. On the other hand, price premiums, or slow introduction of attractive native lenses will slow things down.