ILC Camera Sales Slightly Down from Last Year

[Hillsilly]

I'm surprised film cameras aren't listed. Fuji must be selling a lot of instax cameras. And if you look at Amazon's best sellers in cameras (http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo#1), you have: -

1. Instax Film
3. Instax Film
7. Instax Mini 8 (Pink)
9. Instax Mini 8 (Blue)
16 Impossible Polaroid Film
17 Instax Mini 8 (White)
21 Instax Film
22 Impossible Polaroid Film
24 Instax Mini 8 (Yellow)
25 Instax Film
27 Instax Film
28 Instant Film
30 Instax 210

The only DSLR in the top 30 is the Canon T5 (which comes in at number 23).

I think the whole decline in DSLR sales is interesting. But not as interesting as the resurgence in Polaroid and Instax photography (and film photography as a whole).

 

[Eldar]

In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.

It's been argued that Sony is doing that – Exmor sensors, FF mirrorless. They're likely spending significant R&D resources to do so. Is it helping the market? Is it helping Sony?

I'm not sure Exmor sensors actually helped. It did help Sony to build a position they didn't have and it probably helped Nikon to sell cameras they wouldn't have sold, if it wasn't for the sensor and it sold quite a few Zeiss lenses. But it probably stalled sales for Canon. A lot of people are sitting on the fence, waiting for Canon's response. I hoped the 5DS would be a proper response, but it is not, so I am still on the fence, buying nothing.

If Canon had provided the Exmor sensor I believe the situation could have been different. If the market was offered a 5DIV, 36MP, 14-15 stop DR etc. a year ago, Canon would have sold a lot to their existing customer base and they would have stopped the leakage to Sony and Nikon and in the high resolution/low ISO end of the market. Add to that new L-primes (24, 35, 50, 85, 135) to counter the new offerings from Sigma and Zeiss. Add to that 4k video, interchangable focusing screens, wifi, remote control for flash, GPS and a few more, which are all available and proven, they would have sold more cameras.

I do not know what the business case looks like, if they had done this. But a lot of this is just to include something they already have, with very limited industrialization work. Others are more fundamental, but should be doable. But I do know that the conclusions in a business case for a continously declining market is either milk what is left to be milked and then get out or invest to create growth.

If the A7/A7R had been Canon products, with Canon ergonomics and EF lens compatibility, I believe they would have been more successful and sold better. Innovation from the market leader has a lot more value than when it comes from the more peripheral suppliers.

But most importantly, I believe the problems are all the high volume offerings they don't have, which could fund the new state of the art technologies. I will not pretend to know what they are, but camera bodies that are more or less unchanged since the T90 is obviously not it. I would guess improved interaction with social media, faster and easier sharing, modular systems adaptable to different uses, remote control, both of and from the camera, wireless interaction with computers, cell phones and pads, cameras with 3G/4G connectivity, broadcast funcitons, user friendly and compelling hardware/software combinations ... What would it take for a GoPro kid to switch to Canon? What would it take to motivate an iPhone-6 selfie photographer to put a Canon camera solution on their wish list?

But my business is air traffic management, so I'll leave the answers to Canon & Co.

 

[Hillsilly]

FWIW, it seems Fuji sell more instax cameras than the total of all Mirrorless cameras combined.

From an announcement dated 10/09/14 (http://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/news/article/news/fujifilm-announces-exciting-new-instax-wide-300-camera/)

"Fujifilm has sold more than 2.3 million units of instax mini cameras in the past year and worldwide demand continues to rise."

I think it's fair to say that the digital fad is being replaced by the instax fad.

 

[Tugela]

Most people buy a camera for the label above the lens housing, not because of what sort of viewfinder it has. The vast majority of people who buy DSLRs are probably not even aware that there is a mirror in there, nor do they care even if they do know. They buy the label.

If Canon got serious about mirrorless the DSLR market would take a nose dive and be limited primarily to pros and people who want to look like they are pros. That might actually be the real reason they resist MILCs, because the sales they do to the masses subsidizes the development costs of the underlying technology in the mirror box.

 

[dolina]

I was in Japan from during April for the National Cherry Blossom Festival and I took the effort to look at what Japanese were carrying with them to take photos with.

90% of the Japanese were using an ILC when doing photography. Even saw one fella use a Hassleblad at the Imperial Palace.

Of the Japanese nationals with a camera 90% of them was using a camera model marketed in the last 3 years.

Gaijin tourists like myself are most likely to use a smartphone for photos there.

While I avoided the place my friend visited BIC CAMERA. I am unsure if the prices is with or without sales tax.

 

[Bennymiata]

People who buy DSLR's will buy them regardless of how good milc's are.
If Canon and Nikon brought out some really good milcs, I doubt it would affect their DSLR sales by any great percentage as most of those sales would come from other brands of milcs + sales to existing Canikon DSLR users as a useful novelty and addition to their gear which is compatible with their existing accessories.

I can't see milcs taking a huge piece of the ILC market regardless of how good they are.

 

[dolina]

I see SLRs becoming as relevant as RangeFinders given enough time and innovation in the MILC space.

Give it a decade or two.

 

[sanj]

In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.

It's been argued that Sony is doing that – Exmor sensors, FF mirrorless. They're likely spending significant R&D resources to do so. Is it helping the market? Is it helping Sony?

Not getting it. If it is not helping Sony (Your implication, I am clueless), Canon should not do something to pick up sales? Or you saying they should look elsewhere, and not at FF mirrors, other sensors?

 

[Loswr]

In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.

It's been argued that Sony is doing that – Exmor sensors, FF mirrorless. They're likely spending significant R&D resources to do so. Is it helping the market? Is it helping Sony?

Not getting it. If it is not helping Sony (Your implication, I am clueless), Canon should not do something to pick up sales? Or you saying they should look elsewhere, and not at FF mirrors, other sensors?

I'm saying they are looking elsewhere. Cinema, network and industrial cameras, the (rumored) drone camera, etc. The office division generates more sales revenue than the imaging division, they could also divert some resources that way. Sure, ILCs will remain a core of their business. But the whole market is shrinking, not just Canon's (although they're predicting a tiny increase in ILC unit sales for FY15) - the conservative approach is to prioritize investment in a growing/stable market over a shrinking market.

 

[jeffa4444]

Whilst a tiny snapshot comparing the first two months of 2014 to 2015 the falls if anything are small not in the region of the falls since 2011. DSLR sales went up in Europe and various dealers I know in the UK said sales were fairly brisk in March and above March 2014. The Photography Show was very well attended and the three retailers sold out of many items something they have not done over the previous two years. Canon have a number of lenses on back-order, had pre-sold 3500 EF 11-24mm f4L lenses and all this is before the 750D (T6i), 760D (T6), 5Ds and 5Ds R hit the streets. Its difficult times, the recession has coincided with the slump in camera sales and they are discretionary spend, in Europe the recession has still not abaited so the road will be bumpy for some time.

Glass half empty, glass half full dont write the industry off too soon.

 

[sanj]

In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.

It's been argued that Sony is doing that – Exmor sensors, FF mirrorless. They're likely spending significant R&D resources to do so. Is it helping the market? Is it helping Sony?

Not getting it. If it is not helping Sony (Your implication, I am clueless), Canon should not do something to pick up sales? Or you saying they should look elsewhere, and not at FF mirrors, other sensors?

I'm saying they are looking elsewhere. Cinema, network and industrial cameras, the (rumored) drone camera, etc. The office division generates more sales revenue than the imaging division, they could also divert some resources that way. Sure, ILCs will remain a core of their business. But the whole market is shrinking, not just Canon's (although they're predicting a tiny increase in ILC unit sales for FY15) - the conservative approach is to prioritize investment in a growing/stable market over a shrinking market.

Sounds smart to me. If they did come up with a photography product which would take the fancy of the masses they could make a lot of money. I am sure they are trying.

 

[privatebydesign]

What I do know is that I'm going on vacation soon and I'm shopping for a walk around camera to take with me when I'm out and about in the city. I'm done carrying around a great big DSLR plus bag of lenses. I suppose I could liken the DSLR to a MF camera: something that you packed in the car, not something that you walked around with.

And you know what?

Canon has nothing interesting in that segment when you look at the combination of $ plus what you get for your money. There are some really cool m4/3 cameras that are perfect for this and Canon is nowhere to be seen. Sure Canon have some "large sensor" small cameras but they're all fixed lens and more expensive.

So says any Canon owner that hasn't actually use an EOS-M/2/3.................

 

[privatebydesign]

What I do know is that I'm going on vacation soon and I'm shopping for a walk around camera to take with me when I'm out and about in the city. I'm done carrying around a great big DSLR plus bag of lenses. I suppose I could liken the DSLR to a MF camera: something that you packed in the car, not something that you walked around with.

And you know what?

Canon has nothing interesting in that segment when you look at the combination of $ plus what you get for your money. There are some really cool m4/3 cameras that are perfect for this and Canon is nowhere to be seen. Sure Canon have some "large sensor" small cameras but they're all fixed lens and more expensive.

So says any Canon owner that hasn't actually use an EOS-M/2/3.................

For me, the EOS-M series was more expensive and APS-C? For bigger zooms, you're back to huge telephotos. Not good for walking around cities with.

You could get EOS-m 1's shipped anywhere for very cheap. With APS-C you don't need a large zoom over an M 4/3, just use the 22mm and crop. You say you want want a small walk around camera, then you say you are back to huge telephotos! Why? What does a long tele offer for a small walk around in a city?

 

[sanj]

When I want a small vacation camera (which would match my demands of IQ), I find better options outside of Canon. Unfortunately.

 

[privatebydesign]

When I want a small vacation camera (which would match my demands of IQ), I find better options outside of Canon. Unfortunately.

I am a bit of an iq snob and would be interested in what you consider so much better than the EOS-M? I looked around and certainly could find anything visibly better in normal reproduction, indeed it is far and away the best small camera iq I have ever owned.

Sure there are more interesting cameras out there, but from an iq point of view it is up there with the best for the size and beats anything easily for the price, throw in the Canon integration and for many, me included, it is an impossible combination to beat. If I get any kind of windfall this year I'd take a close look at the EOS-M3 and the EVF kits out of Japan, with the new control dials, the removable EVF and that amazing 22mm f2 it makes for a very interesting camera with very high iq.

 

[sanj]

I prefer built in EVF (my personal shooting style, nothing to do with IQ) and built in flash (a must for me for family dinner photos). So I like the amazing Fuji x100 (t/s) and the tiny tiny Sony RX 100 III.

Who wants to deal with detachable VF, flash etc when not going on a work gig.

 

[privatebydesign]

I prefer built in EVF (my personal shooting style, nothing to do with IQ) and built in flash (a must for me for family dinner photos). So I like the amazing Fuji x100 (t/s) and the tiny tiny Sony RX 100 III.

Who wants to deal with detachable VF, flash etc when not going on a work gig.

I understand both of those features, but as you yourself say, neither has anything to do with iq. The EOS-M3 not only has a built in flash but it is bounce-able and an optical controller so if, at your family functions, you felt like placing a remote flash or two around the room on chairs or shelves you have vastly superior light control. The EOS-M 22mm f2 is every bit as good as the Fuji 23mm f2 as well. Indeed when I was looking for a new compact camera my choice came down to a Fuji X100S with fixed 23mm f2 at $1,200, or the EOS-M with an interchangeable 22mm f2 and 90EX flash for $299, 25% of the price!

Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.

 

[sanj]

I prefer built in EVF (my personal shooting style, nothing to do with IQ) and built in flash (a must for me for family dinner photos). So I like the amazing Fuji x100 (t/s) and the tiny tiny Sony RX 100 III.

Who wants to deal with detachable VF, flash etc when not going on a work gig.

I understand both of those features, but as you yourself say, neither has anything to do with iq. The EOS-M3 not only has a built in flash but it is bounce-able and an optical controller so if, at your family functions, you felt like placing a remote flash or two around the room on chairs or shelves you have vastly superior light control. The EOS-M 22mm f2 is every bit as good as the Fuji 23mm f2 as well. Indeed when I was looking for a new compact camera my choice came down to a Fuji X100S with fixed 23mm f2 at $1,200, or the EOS-M with an interchangeable 22mm f2 and 90EX flash for $299, 25% of the price!

Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.

Good points. I must check on internet but how does it compare with Sony 100 iii on size and does it have IS? But it does not have EVF so my choice would be The Sony. Trust me, I would buy cheaper and stay with Canon if I got IS, pocketable (with comparable sensor size), built in EVF and flash, easy access to control, fast auto focus and not much noise at 3200 ISO.

 

[privatebydesign]

Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.

That is because you haven't seen how small the m4/3 equivalent of a 70-300 is?

Does anybody make one? I can see the Olympus 40mm-150mm f4-f5.6 which is a ff 80-300 f8-f11, which isn't a lens I'd be interested in using at any size. Or the Olympus 40-150 f2.8, a ff equivalent of 80-300 f5.6 for $1,499.

It might be small, but it is slow and very expensive as far as I am concerned, stick that on your $1,100 Olympus, or the $1,497.99 GH4 and we are hardly looking at the same thing, besides, my original comment was questioning the honesty of the idea that Canon don't make anything in the size with the IQ, which is false, they do.

Sure other cameras offer different specs and might be more suitable for any individual and their uses, but saying Canon don't do something when they do is wrong.

 

[Loswr]

Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.

That is because you haven't seen how small the m4/3 equivalent of a 70-300 is?

Gee, dilbert, you're so right. It's not like there's an EF-M 55-200mm (88-320mm FFeqFL compared to the m4/3 40-150mm which is 80-300 FFeqFL), right? The EF-M 55-200mm lens is a whole 3mm longer than the 40-150. Or...do you think something 3.3" long is huge?? :-X

Oh, and if you meant an actual m4/3 70-300mm, the Canon IS non-L is close enough (0.5" longer, and I'd certainly prefer in-lens IS over IBIS at 300mm).