Financial Times - "Digital cameras: out of focus"

[c.d.embrey]

Hi,
IMHO, yes, smartphone will kill the low end compact camera market, but also might increase high end compact and DSLR sales. Those user using smartphone camera most probably are not interested in photography in the first place, but once they shoot more with smartphone, they might be interested in photography and once they are interested in photography, they might buy a DSLR. Camera manufacturer should actually target those smartphone shooter by showing the different in quality and speed between a smartphone and a high end compact and DSLR.

Have a nice day.

Smart Phone Photos have won World Press Awards iPhone photos have been published on the front page of the New York Times iPhone photos have been published in Sports Illustrated The Stock Photo Agencies are seeing a demand for photos shot with Smart Phones (because of their Authentic look)

Check-out this article in the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/technology/personaltech/smartphone-photography-evolves-with-camera-apps-and-related-tools.html

Eventually Smart Phone will kill DSLRs for many (not all) uses. BIF photographers and Professional Sports shooters will still need DSLRs and Long Lenses.

 

[tolusina]

I, for one, welcome the smart phone camera underlords.
The more poor photos from smartphones proliferate, the better DSLR output looks in comparison.

My Galaxy S4's camera is pretty good as phone cams go and of course it's always along. Very rarely do I ever get results I can proudly share though, sharing is always done with reservation, disclaimer.

My 6D amazes almost every time I click.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

Hi,
IMHO, yes, smartphone will kill the low end compact camera market, but also might increase high end compact and DSLR sales. Those user using smartphone camera most probably are not interested in photography in the first place, but once they shoot more with smartphone, they might be interested in photography and once they are interested in photography, they might buy a DSLR. Camera manufacturer should actually target those smartphone shooter by showing the different in quality and speed between a smartphone and a high end compact and DSLR.

Have a nice day.

Smart Phone Photos have won World Press Awards iPhone photos have been published on the front page of the New York Times iPhone photos have been published in Sports Illustrated The Stock Photo Agencies are seeing a demand for photos shot with Smart Phones (because of their Authentic look)

Check-out this article in the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/technology/personaltech/smartphone-photography-evolves-with-camera-apps-and-related-tools.html

Eventually Smart Phone will kill DSLRs for many (not all) uses. BIF photographers and Professional Sports shooters will still need DSLRs and Long Lenses.

no lets see uwa with very little distortion low light capability's , boka hosts of outer capability's you just cant cram in a smart phone. the list can go on

 

[wtlloyd]

Kirk Tuck:

"But what we're seeing in photography right now is not really the adoption of a new standard or product. People are not just moving from one type of camera to another they are moving to a new mental space about personal imaging and they have just done it en masse."

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2014/09/after-gold-rush-where-is-photography.html

Go ahead and click the link. Pretty girls! I promise!

 

[Sella174]

Kirk Tuck:

"But what we're seeing in photography right now is not really the adoption of a new standard or product. People are not just moving from one type of camera to another they are moving to a new mental space about personal imaging and they have just done it en masse."

And does Canon's line-up of DSLR cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? No.

And does Olympus's/FUJIFILM's/Samsung's line-up of mirrorless cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? Yes.

 

[unfocused]

Kirk Tuck:

"But what we're seeing in photography right now is not really the adoption of a new standard or product. People are not just moving from one type of camera to another they are moving to a new mental space about personal imaging and they have just done it en masse."

And does Canon's line-up of DSLR cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? No.

And does Olympus's/FUJIFILM's/Samsung's line-up of mirrorless cameras cater for this move to a new mental space? Yes.

You might want to actually read Tuck's article.

The vast majority of the public are now using camera phones not mirrorless cameras. And, they are using them to document their lives – moment by moment. And, as he said, share those moments on 5-inch screens.

Eliminating a mirror is more reactionary than revolutionary. Nobody is going to swap their phone for a big old mirrorless camera, especially for one that they can't make a phone call on, access the local weather, look up nearby restaurants, monitor their baby, or do any of the hundreds of other things that people do with smart phones.

Too many people think the massive popularity of digital cameras during the past decade was "normal" when it most certainly wasn't. As Tuck points out, there was a similar bubble in the 60s and 70s. It burst. Canon and Nikon survived because they carved out strong, loyal niche markets for themselves and cultivated those markets. Fuji may survive because they know better than almost anyone else about the risks of disruptive change (Fujifilm anyone?) But, many of these players are ill-equipped to survive as the market returns to its traditional levels.

Mirrorless, DSLRs, whatever...they are niche products and one is not likely to supplant the other and neither will ever see the kind of adoption rates that occurred during the bubble of earlier this century.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I am one of those that remember the switch from rangefinder cameras to single lens reflex after twin lens reflex fell short.

Photographers wanted to see the actual composition and focus that would be in the final image. Canon tried to remove the flapping mirror by using a pellicle mirror in the Pellix, and then they tried again many years later with the RT. Light loss and a dark viewfinder made them unpopular.

Once we had P&S digital cameras with LCD's on the rear, that took care of the issue for most consumers, who were happy with the quality. Now that smart phones can accomplish that, and are with the users almost all the time, its a given that only those who do not have a smart phone or are looking for higher quality images will buy a camera.

By putting a replaceable lens on a P&S and calling it mirrorless, camera makers found that they sell well in Asia, and the profits are huge. This is funding vast improvements in AF and in EVF technology. That new segment is the only one that is growing.

Look for even more expensive "Mirrorless Cameras as they have evolved from glorified P&S cameras to compete with DSLR's.

The technology is there now, it only takes the willingness of Canon and Nikon to spend the $$$ to make a serious Mirrorless. Canon and Nikon, along with Sony have the manufacturing capability and the product distribution channels to flood the market with them, its just a question of when.

 

[wtlloyd]

Man, you almost had it!

I think the whole point of Tucks article is that mirrorless is "too little, too late".

The vast hordes of photo takers are not interested in how to take pictures, it's what they can do with them that matters. And it's almost entirely for ephemeral use.

You know, the opposite of us "real" photographers

 

[tushit]

Are these US numbers or worldwide shipments :-\?

"The article lists the 2013 world market shares (%) of all cameras by global brand owner:"

I meant the shipment numbers. They seem too less to support the 10 stores within 1 mile radius of my home selling cameras and photo accessories exclusively.

 

[Antono Refa]

I think people miss the article's point. It was written for investors who are interested in those companies' financial performance in the near future, so their main interest is sales of new equipment.

[I'd expect to see lens sales etc in a proper analysis, but investors are more interested in sales data than user base per se.]

 

[Maui5150]

How many people who buy a used 5MK II for their first DSLR buy lenses?

Ah, but the article is about CAMERA sales, not lens sales.

... what is hidden in the numbers is for every upgrade like I plan to do, there are more people who will then enter with used gear and wind up getting more lenses, flashes, etc.

Of which many will be bought secondhand from "upgraders" - as you also stated.

There appears (at least to me) to be a solid core of DSLR shooters who will likely remain DSLR shooters.

True. However, there are also a lot of people who bought middle-range DSLR's and have now found that their iPhone is just so much more convenient ... and takes alright'ish enough pictures semi-equivalent to the kit lens. So they sell the practically brand-new 60D to finance the next-generation iPhone. Canon makes zippola, because the DSLR is not "upgraded" with a new DSLR.

Hell, especially for long teles, I still see FD versions sell well probably because of Ed Mika adapters alone.

For which Canon doesn't get a dime, penny or cent.

But in the next 12 month we should have the 7D MK II, the 5D MK IV, the 1DX II and perhaps a high MP if that is not one of the two later.

You wish. ;D

Do you think Canon's 23% might rise greatly with 3 - 4 top end Pro/Prosumer bodies in 12 months?

Canon already has too many DSLR models on the market, IMO. This causes buyer confusion.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, but for companies like Canon, Nikon and others Lenses are just as important as bodies. As a whole I would agree the P&S market will probably evaporate because of capabilities of phones

I am not disagreeing that their are too many cameras out there as well. I think Canon would be better served with a little more consolidation in its entry level lines

 

[Loswr]

Are these US numbers or worldwide shipments :-\?

"The article lists the 2013 world market shares (%) of all cameras by global brand owner:"

I meant the shipment numbers. They seem too less to support the 10 stores within 1 mile radius of my home selling cameras and photo accessories exclusively.

So those stores will sell more than 26.5 million fixed lens cameras and 12.5 million ILCs this year? Somehow, I doubt that.

 

[LDS]

Smart Phone Photos have won World Press Awards iPhone photos have been published on the front page of the New York Times iPhone photos have been published in Sports Illustrated The Stock Photo Agencies are seeing a demand for photos shot with Smart Phones (because of their Authentic look)

Remember that behind phones there are a couple of companies with immense marketing budgets. Samsung alone spends billions in promoting its phones (I guess with that budget Canon could deliver easily a 100Mpx sensor with 20 stop range...) . The press is not insensible to those money spent in advertising and the like, and most journalists are very sensitive to proper PR tactics. I'd be very cautious, and try to understand what is real and what is plain marketing...

 

[Hannes]

Last weekend I went to Bruges in Belgium. It is a tourist destination for the reasonably well off. Of the cameras maybe half were proper cameras, the rest smartphones. From my estimations 2/3rds of the proper cameras were DSLRs, the remaining third an even split between mirrorless, bridge and compact cameras. Of the DSLRs 80-90% were entry level canon or nikons with the rest being other brands or the middle of the road cameras. A single pro body camera was spotted apart from my own 1D.

Now you may wonder where I'm going with this. The people who buy entry level DSLRs rarely know what ISO is and I can almost guarantee they have never even heard of the concept of dynamic range. Yet these are the people who are making canon and nikon float as companies. This is why I think canon are coming out top. They have been offering incremental upgrades along the way for the entry level bodies. At first it was ever rising pixel counts until they hit the ubiquitous 18mpix sensor. From there on they then introduced things like the flippy screen, basically things people have wanted in cameras. Nikon doesn't seem to end their splurging of new cameras with all the features yet they can't seem to grasp the simple thing of getting the ergonomics right which is far more important to the target group than some small gains in image quality.

People have also started seeing the appeal of a better camera when they come home. Also let's face it that it is more convenient to plug the camera in to the computer than it is to download the photos from the phone. What cameras need are wifi and instant facebook sharing and when we get that I think another batch of people will buy DSLRs. Mirrorless are struggling because they aren't small enough or are too small. Did you ever see that samsung commercial where they had dressed up their own camera as a pro bodied camera and asked people to say which picture was better technically? People's expectation is that a bigger camera will produce better photos. Combine this with the fact that a mirrorless won't fit in your pocket with anything other than a prime pancake lens which in itself is often undesirable since it doesn't zoom.

Combine this and I think canon are doing really well considering the situation of the market. Nikon are in a scary situation given their reliance on Sony and the state of Sony's finances. I think we realistically need to expect progress to slow down somewhat compared to what has happened over the last ten years where the rate of development has been astronomical.

 

[Tugela]

Tuesday's U.S. edition of the Financial Times newspaper has an article entitled "Digital cameras: out of focus". It describes, from a business perspective, the status of digital cameras vis-a-vis smartphones with digital imaging ability. The FT reports analysis by Nomura Securities that the number of digital cameras sold by makers such as Canon and Nikon have fallen by 60 per cent. in the past two years. Shipments of digital cameras with built-in lenses were (in thousands) 108,577 in 2010; 77,981 in 2012; and estimated 26,480 in 2014. Shipments of interchangeable lens digital cameras were (in thousands) 12,887 in 2010; 20,157 in 2012; and estimated 12,543 in 2014.

Apparently this is worse news for Nikon than for Canon. Reportedly, digital cameras represent two-thirds of Nikon's group sales and all of its operating profits. For Canon, cameras are one-quarter of revenue, and Canon's office division provides cash flow.

So sales of premium DSLR's are holding up better than sales of digital cameras with built-in lenses, but the article notes that as smartphones incorporate higher quality lenses [and sensors] the camera makers risk losing the camera enthusiasts, too.

The article lists the 2013 world market shares (%) of all cameras by global brand owner:

Canon 23.1
Nikon 16.8
Fuji Photo Film 11.4
Sony 10.6
Samsung 7.6
Panasonic 7.2
Olympus 6.1
Kodak Alaris 4.2
Casio Computer 1.7
Ricoh Imaging 0.6

Financial Times, Tuesday 30 September 2014, p. 14.

Keep in mind that the journalists who wrote that probably have never owned a camera other than their cell phone and are completely clueless about why people actually buy things like DSLRs.

 

[dgatwood]

Hi,
IMHO, yes, smartphone will kill the low end compact camera market, but also might increase high end compact and DSLR sales. Those user using smartphone camera most probably are not interested in photography in the first place, but once they shoot more with smartphone, they might be interested in photography and once they are interested in photography, they might buy a DSLR. Camera manufacturer should actually target those smartphone shooter by showing the different in quality and speed between a smartphone and a high end compact and DSLR.

Have a nice day.

Smart Phone Photos have won World Press Awards iPhone photos have been published on the front page of the New York Times iPhone photos have been published in Sports Illustrated The Stock Photo Agencies are seeing a demand for photos shot with Smart Phones (because of their Authentic look)

Check-out this article in the NYTimes http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/02/technology/personaltech/smartphone-photography-evolves-with-camera-apps-and-related-tools.html

Eventually Smart Phone will kill DSLRs for many (not all) uses. BIF photographers and Professional Sports shooters will still need DSLRs and Long Lenses.

No, they really won't. There's a real feasibility problem with building zoom lenses in such a small package, so cell phones are generally limited to digital zooms. As long as that is the case, they'll never compete with DSLRs. A cell phone is like shooting with a fairly wide-angle prime all the time. Can you imagine gluing a 30mm prime lens to the front of your DSLR? 50mm, maybe, assuming you don't care about landscapes, but not 30mm.

Besides the painful lack of flexibility in composition inherent in a fixed-focal-length camera, you'll never have any real depth of field with a lens that wide and a sensor that small (excepting possible simulation thereof), and more importantly, you'll never be able to get usable shots of anything more than a few feet in front of you unless your subjects are very large (e.g. landscapes).

Cell phones are not particularly practical even in the portrait world. Outside that world, they're a disaster and a half. It's not just long zooms; you can't get a decent shot of much of anything with a cell phone unless you're right there. This mostly precludes any serious use of cell phones for capturing concerts, plays, weddings, sports, birds in flight, locations with even moderately bad light—basically any of the sorts of things people commonly use high-end cameras for, with the possible exception of landscapes shot in the daytime.

And that's why I carry a 6D with 16–35L II, 24–105L, and 70–300L lenses when I go on vacation, travel with groups, etc. Sure, with a cell phone, I'd be able to capture a few of the shots that I want to capture (along with a lot of badly smudged shots), but with a DSLR, I can get all the shots I want, without the need to rent a crane or a helicopter to get me close enough, along with a Lowel lighting kit or a nuclear warhead (depending on distance) to provide enough illumination. A cell phone simply cannot match the "keeper" rate of even a low-end DSLR from ten years ago, much less the DSLRs on the market today, and without changing the laws of physics or covering the back of the camera with a giant lens array and doing some really bizarre image processing, it never will.

 

[tat3406]

Pleasantly surprised to see FUJIFILM in third place with 11.4% - especially since they are exclusively in the mirrorless segment.

Anyway, this situation (of falling camera sales) is quite obvious and inevitable, as camera-type cameras are pushed out by camera-enabled devices. The reason is quite simple and two-fold: for most people a camera-enabled devices produces sufficient image quality that is mostly on par with nearly all P&S and entry-level DSLR's with kit lens; and the camera-enabled device nearly always offers functionality and ease of use that is not provided by basically all DSLR cameras still on the market.

Fujifilm also have point and shoot line and they sell a lot of instant Camera.