p.7 #1 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
I think that an important reason for the slowdown in the ILC market, is that people already have cameras that work well for them. We have reached a level in image quality with comtemporary cameras that an upgrade can be postponed, maybe until the camera or lens breaks down.
A 24mp Nikon D5300 or D3200 has image quality in spades for the occasional user. The same applies to a Sony Nex 5100 or A6000. A couple of generation of cameras can be skipped with little or no disadvantage for most customers. Most customers will benefit more from getting a good lens.
I also think that DSLRs and MILCs make up one ILC market, and the various offering are direct competitors. I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. This competition takes place both on features and within respective price ranges.
One example of the combined market: look at how we can mix and match lenses and camera bodies in the Alt forum. It may not be common, but it's still an example. Even Leica M lenses can be used without owning a Leica camera.
p.7 #2 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
bobbytan wrote:
I agree with this 100%. The people who buy mirrorless ... or know what a "mirrorless" camera is would have been a DSLR shooter or potential DSLR shooter i.e. someone who is looking for more than just a simple P&S camera. So for every MILC sold, it's one DSLR not sold that would have been sold if MILC never existed. Yes, I understand that many are still DSLR shooters trying out MILC - so they have gone dual-platform, but sooner or later they will be a full MILC convert and will give up their antiquated DSLR.
+1. This is exactly what I am currently seeing with a bunch of other photographers whom I know personally - as long as they are not in the sports or event shooting photography. I am one of the few who still kept the DSLR gear. Most others made the complete switch, most often to Sony followed in second by Fuji.
Mirrorless is currently an emerging technology, so the increase in margin does not happen abruptly. DSLRs on the other hand belong to the saturated market where the profits and sales will no longer increase but start to decline (for reasons mentioned above, one other big one is cellphone camera usage). Because of other competitive technology out there now - cellphone cameras - mirrorless unlikely will ever get such big of a market penetration as formerly DSLRs had. Nevertheless, mirrorless is on a steady rise but are not there yet to fully replace a DSLR in all areas of photography IMO.
p.7 #3 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
I can agree with this. Most of those who are sold on MILC or want to try one out have already done so, so the the sales of MILC has definitely slowed down. But MILC is here to stay, so we can expect to see continued growth while the DSLR will continue to slowly decline.
bjornthun wrote:
I think that an important reason for the slowdown in the ILC market, is that people already have cameras that work well for them. We have reached a level in image quality with comtemporary cameras that an upgrade can be postponed, maybe until the camera or lens breaks down.
p.7 #4 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
jctriguy wrote:
Mirrorless is gaining market share by a reduction in sales of DSLR. We shouldn't confuse increased market share with increased sales. So, there is no way of knowing what would've happened if mirrorless never came around. I think it is quite likely that the mirrorless is pulling in a group that might not have purchased a DSLR, pulling from the P&S and cell phone market. I think there is also an initial surge of people picking up mirrorless as add-ons to DSLR, like many here on FM. Mirrorless sales are flat, market share is gaining slightly, no of which suggests that mirrorless has taken anything from canon/Nikon and certainly no evidence to make a direct cause and effect statement of fact....Show more →
I used to be completely DSLR (Canon) until mirrorless came along. Then I stopped buying Canon and I started buying Olympus, Panasonic and Sony. I think that there are many like me out there who liked the idea of carrying less and had no problem accepting the EVF over the OVF. In my mind, mirrorless has taken marketshare away from the DSLR market.
Then there's the smartphone that's taken marketshare away from both of these market segments.
p.7 #5 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
bjornthun wrote:
I think that an important reason for the slowdown in the ILC market, is that people already have cameras that work well for them. We have reached a level in image quality with comtemporary cameras that an upgrade can be postponed, maybe until the camera or lens breaks down.
A 24mp Nikon D5300 or D3200 has image quality in spades for the occasional user. The same applies to a Sony Nex 5100 or A6000. A couple of generation of cameras can be skipped with little or no disadvantage for most customers. Most customers will benefit more from getting a good lens.
I also think that DSLRs and MILCs make up one ILC market, and the various offering are direct competitors. I have seen nothing to indicate otherwise. This competition takes place both on features and within respective price ranges.
One example of the combined market: look at how we can mix and match lenses and camera bodies in the Alt forum. It may not be common, but it's still an example. Even Leica M lenses can be used without owning a Leica camera....Show more →
1++
The rapid cyclical wastage of good product, seen from ~2008-2012, as each turn brought some meaningful sensor upgrades, is perhaps behind us. The big guys set the pace that they themselves could not maintain and maybe that's a good thing. Fujifilm has arguably lingered a bit too long on the same sensor while Ricoh may have hit on a near-perfect accompaniment to its superb 28mm (equiv) lens. I will hang on to the GR for many years to come, as many will do likewise with their a7II/a7RII/a7SII--if they last that long.
p.7 #6 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
bjornthun wrote:
I think that an important reason for the slowdown in the ILC market, is that people already have cameras that work well for them. We have reached a level in image quality with comtemporary cameras that an upgrade can be postponed, maybe until the camera or lens breaks down.
Yes. If I remember correctly, with film bodies people didn't upgrade as fast as they did with digital.
p.7 #7 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
freaklikeme wrote:
Your argument might hold some weight if this were the mid-to-late twentieth century and the bulk of consumers still made purchasing decisions by walking into stores, but it's not. Nor is the whole of the photography market DSLRs and mirrorless. It's a very narrow view that suits your interpretation of some very broad data, but it's no more accurate than anyone else's guess.
I hate when people put down someone's view or opinion without presenting a counter view. Let's here your theories as to why Canokin revenues and market share in interchangeable lens cameras are dropping.
p.7 #8 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
rattymouse wrote:
You are assuming that all mirrorless camera owners do not own a DSLR. Just from reading FM one can see that your assumptions are not true.
Where did I make such an assumption. Consumers have so much money to spend on photography. Purchasing a mirrorless camera and not a DSLR or lens just moves that disposable consumer income from Canokon to the mirrorless manufactures.
p.7 #9 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
rattymouse wrote:
Canon's EOS M system, upon release, went #1 in Japan, blowing the likes of Fujifilm out of the water there.
Your feckless thinking that somehow Canon is not part of the mirrorless world is inexplicable.
Yes it is a small part...but s drop in the bucket. It missed the U.S. Market completely.
Can you back up your statement to show the M is a big part of the mirrorless sales worldwide?
p.7 #12 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
jctriguy wrote:
Hyundai doesn't likely view corvette and Porsche sales as lost revenue, they know that buyer wasn't in the market for a Hyundai.
Trouble is Canon plays in the Hyundai market as well, in fact most of their revenue comes from the Hyundai market exactly where mirrorless is also.
Canon cannot exist on sales of their 1DX and 200-400 lens.
p.7 #13 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
chez wrote:
Ratty we heard your sky is falling story at least once a month for the last year. I guess this s your September version.
What does this contribute here? Just calling out someone who states an opinion? Didn't you just cry about people not posting opinions in a post about 2 or 3 up? So I guess if people have an opinion it needs to be your opinion? I'm really confused by the double speak here...
p.7 #14 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
jctriguy wrote:
I certainly disagree with you and chez making a direct one to one cause and effect relationship. I think we should consider the larger market of 'advanced' camera buyers. I suspect that just as many mirrorless buyers would either buy nothing/get an advanced P&S as would buy a DSLR if mirrorless didn't exist. I don't think everyone going for a mirrorless is focused on interchangeable lenses, I think they are going for size and better quality compared to their current cell phone or P&S. Most are still getting smaller sensors, not FF like most on FM, so it isn't a stretch to think that many people would likely be happy with an rx100 or g7x instead of a mirrorless option.
But does it matter if they were originally looking for an advanced P&S or DSLR? The
Bottom line is that consumer walked away from Canikon because they were not offering what the mirrorless camera manufactures were. A lost sale either way of looking at it which leads to dropping revenues.
p.7 #15 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
chez wrote:
Trouble is Canon plays in the Hyundai market as well, in fact most of their revenue comes from the Hyundai market exactly where mirrorless is also.
Canon cannot exist on sales of their 1DX and 200-400 lens.
You're hyperbole and black and white view seems to be the main challenge for you to overcome in opening your mind. Please understand that there is no way that every mirrorless sale is a lost sale for canon and Nikon, which you have directly stated numerous times. It simply isn't true and you have absolutely no data, or even access to the data to show it could be true. I believe rattymousw was saying that people can still build both systems at the same time, it doesn't mean they would spend double on DSLR if they didn't buy mirrorless. Lots of people have no real budget constraints.
Point is that canon doesn't have to sell a camera to every person that is interested in photography. Sony doesn't need to do that either. The current facts are that canon and Nikon share 75% of the market and Sony and others share 25% (roughly speaking since both canon/Nikon are also in the 25% and others have some minor part of the 75%).
p.7 #16 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
rattymouse wrote:
And your reading of the continuous double digit drop in camera sales is positive. OK, point noted for future reference.
Where did I say this. Positive versus negative versus the sky is falling are totally different.
Personally I think camera sales are going back to the level they were at during the 80's and 90's film era. They exploded during the digital revolution era, manufactures made tons of money, now we are just adjusting back to the norm.
I noticed this morning the sky was still up there just like it was yesterday and just like it will be tomorrow.
p.7 #17 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
jctriguy wrote:
You're hyperbole and black and white view seems to be the main challenge for you to overcome in opening your mind. Please understand that there is no way that every mirrorless sale is a lost sale for canon and Nikon, which you have directly stated numerous times. It simply isn't true and you have absolutely no data, or even access to the data to show it could be true. I believe rattymousw was saying that people can still build both systems at the same time, it doesn't mean they would spend double on DSLR if they didn't buy mirrorless. Lots of people have no real budget constraints.
Point is that canon doesn't have to sell a camera to every person that is interested in photography. Sony doesn't need to do that either. The current facts are that canon and Nikon share 75% of the market and Sony and others share 25% (roughly speaking since both canon/Nikon are also in the 25% and others have some minor part of the 75%)....Show more →
The current fact is Canon's revenue has been dropping for 3 years and is on a path to make it 4. All mirrorless sales might not directly impact Canon revenue, but as a whole, it is impacting their sales...just like every cellphone sale does not impact Canin...but as a whole, cellphones greatly impacted Canon sales.
p.7 #18 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
chez wrote:
The current fact is Canon's revenue has been dropping for 3 years and is on a path to make it 4. All mirrorless sales might not directly impact Canon revenue, but as a whole, it is impacting their sales...just like every cellphone sale does not impact Canin...but as a whole, cellphones greatly impacted Canon sales.
I think we are getting closer now. You now agree that 25% being taken directly out of canon/Nikon is not really the case. Good, we agree. If both canon and Nikon were big players in mirrorless, I'd guess they would have about 5% of that market, so 10% in total. Big difference from 25% to 10%, wouldn't you agree?
I still think mirrorless have attracted different consumers, ie they are not in the same category as DSLR. So I don't think mirrorless have taken all that market share at the expense of DSLR, so yes, it does matter what someone would've bought instead of a mirrorless. Obviously if canon had a top offering in every single category, they would sell more. But, is it possible to have a top offering in every category from one company? I haven't seen many companies that can dominate all aspects of an entire product category.
p.7 #19 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
chez wrote:
Where did I say this. Positive versus negative versus the sky is falling are totally different.
Personally I think camera sales are going back to the level they were at during the 80's and 90's film era.
This is abject nonsense. There were no smart phones during the film era and clearly anyone with the ability to observe life around them sees that smart phones are the *dominate* form of photography now.
If I have a "sky is falling" view, your is certainly a head in the sand viewpoint.
p.7 #20 · CaNikon will have to enter the mirrorless market.....
chez wrote:
The current fact is Canon's revenue has been dropping for 3 years and is on a path to make it 4. All mirrorless sales might not directly impact Canon revenue, but as a whole, it is impacting their sales...just like every cellphone sale does not impact Canin...but as a whole, cellphones greatly impacted Canon sales.
*Every* camera maker's revenue is dropping. Mirrorless makers are dropping revenue with the added "benefit" of producing zero profits while doing so.
