Interchangeable Lens Camera sales are declining

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Mobile phones are really the photo gear of today....one device that does everything and fits into your pocket: HCB would have loved them.</p>

<p>The most used photo devices today are mobile phones that simple....and they are getting better and better in everyway.</p>

<p>Me, I use them but prefer the real deal a camera. Im a dying breed.</p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Its always about the photo... </p><div></div>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I once saw someone use a screwdriver instead of a chisel to install door hinges. It did work after a fashion. Based on subject choices, hacked images, etc. it would appear that Smart Phones have intellectually out paced some users. No use for or interest in Phoneography, or for that matter, cell phones, even if there was service here! A blessing, as visitors can deprogram.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>One could easily interpret the one year of growth as the aberration.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> <br /> I accept that you probably produced your graph accurately, but it shows two years, and not one, of no diminishing of sales. An aberration?</p>

<p>What I believe to be important is that in the recent three years (your graph) the average overall loss of sales per year is but roughly 6% (+6 + 0.x -12). This is a very small average annual loss in recent years, and nothing at all when compared to the great loss in the DSLR sales.</p>

<p>So why the difference, if both DSLR and mirrorless are possibly both affected by smartphone photography or possibly some saturation of the market for their products?</p>

<p>One should expect both to be hit equally and they are not. One explanation might be that while new photographic means are one apparent reason for causing diminished sales of the larger system cameras, the mirrorless appears to be doing a lot better and may well capture more of the traditional DSLR buyers (excepting some professional photographers or advanced amateurs who need tried and true DSLR to go with their current arsenal of expensive objectives).</p>

<p>Whether or not that happens is anybody's guess. Having used both DSLR and RF systems, I found some recent mirrorless systems to cause me to advantageously revise the type of equipment I use and I now use FF mirrorless for 80% of my work. Others may have different needs.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

Mirrorless ILCs are a newer product line than DSLRs and ordinarily it would be expected for their sales to peak later,

however because of the overall decline in camera sales, it too peaked in 2012. Smaller cameras are appealing to casual

users because they require less effort to carry but they are a disadvantage to those who shoot a lot, since many controls

are hard to access, battery life is very short and viewfinders are poor if they exist at all (yes, this is my opinion). Each

product type has its place as there are many different users with different requirements. DSLRs were sold to many people

who do not really have an interest in photography as a serious pursuit so it is understandable that this would not continue.

Consumer interest seems to come and go in waves. It is time to return to normality after the first wave to digital cameras subsided.

[rodeo_joe1]

It would be interesting to compare sales of DSLRs

and mirrorless combined, with sales of SLR and

rangefinder cameras over a similar period during

the heyday of film use.

 

I suspect that after the introduction of advances

like TTL metering and AF, sales rose and then

fell as the market became saturated. After all, since 35mm film was the limiting factor to IQ, there was very little point in swapping make or model of camera.

 

Perhaps lens sales might be a better indicator of enthusiasm for high quality images?

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>I suspect that after the introduction of advances like TTL metering and AF, sales rose and then fell as the market became saturated.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> The numbers are available and they don't show that. They vary a bit with the economy and tank when digital was introduced:</p>

<p>http://petapixel.com/2014/12/15/chart-shows-badly-digital-camera-sales-getting-hammered-smartphones/</p>

<p> </p>

[jordan2240]

<p>While smartphones put a decent camera in the user's hands, I wonder how much they have actually contributed to the decline of the interchangeable lens camera. Do people who are 'into' photography (i.e. those who would typically purchase an SLR in the past) find the phone to be good enough for their needs? I don't even own a smart phone, but have tried to use my wife's to take pictures, and I hate it. Can't hold the damn thing still for one thing, and do not like the absence of a viewfinder.</p>

<p>However, for me, I stopped using my DSLRs when I purchased the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. It was a considerably lighter package, especially when you consider the lenses I would have to carry for the equivalent range, and the photos it produces are more than satisfactory for my amateur needs. So, I think the all-in-ones have had a significant impact on interchangeable-lens cameras, perhaps even more than other equipment.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I'm afraid a lot of people who weren't "into" photography bought a DSLR in the crazy years of the transition to digital photography.Their friends had one and they got excited about what it could do. After a while many of them realized they didn't want to put the time into it to develop further as photographers and so the cameras mostly sit idle now. People who are truly "into" photography continue as before but the camera companies will have fewer customers. What is good about it is that many who stay, are more serious about photography and are in it for the long term. Another thing contributing to the decline in sales is that the cameras are so good now that people are happy with what they have and don't feel the need to upgrade as often as before. I think the camera companies must have known that the boom would not last forever, and were more or less prepared that there would eventually be a return to normality.</p>

<p>However, the smartphone's rapidly evolving camera and some user's love of instant sharing of images seems to have taken the camera companies by surprise. They are now trying to make sharing more convenient for users of dedicated cameras, but the first iterations of this technology were not especially fluid.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>I am with Ilkka on it. It is not only camera sales in decline, it is overall interest to photography with camera, after years of digital boom, it is not bust, but kind of stabilisation. For those who not really in photography smartphone is good enough.<br>

I use to browse through photo magazines in Walmart and grocery shops, while wife actually shopping, but recently no photo magazines there anymore. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>For those who not really in photography smartphone is good enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /> Plenty of people who are not "in photography" (I assume this mean "into") think a smartphone is good enough. And some of them take outstanding photos with them. <a href="http://citysnaps.net/showkase/recent/">Here's</a> the work of someone on photo.net who switched from a full-frame DSLR to a smartphone.</p>

[AzDavid]

<p>Just ran across this tidbit that seems appropriate for this thread: On Eyeem.com, an online photo marketplace, their top 30 photos from 2016 include 13 images taken with iPhones. So, as Jeff just pointed out, some people are taking "outstanding photos with them."</p>

[James G. Dainis]

What ticks me off is in low light situations my wife gets better photos with her smartphone than I do with my DSLR. I swear her phone has at least three or four more stops of dynamic range than my DSLR does.

[john_tran14]

<p>What James said is so true. Try out an LG phone, (some G4,G5 as I remember). The phone also gives you nicer colors, especially face skin. The women would look prettier with smoother skin, the clothes look cleaner, the faces look nicer. "More" dynamic range in the sense that the photos is clear and sharp even at very bright and very dark areas; i.e the very bright parts are less bright, the very dark areas are less dark. In general, everybody in the photos like it. In other words, the smartphones are really smart, they are trying to make the photos look better in anyway possible by software. That's what I get with an LG phone of my friend. </p>

[Nick D.]

<p>@Jeff, "And some of them take outstanding photos with them. ", - I am not saying you can't take outstanding photo with smartphone, I am saying lot's of people were buying DSLR or mirrorless for that matter, only to take family or vacation snapshots, so smartphone is all they need now. </p>

[Leslie Reid]

<p>A few back-of-the-envelope calculations suggest that DSLR production remains higher than the level one would expect it to be, given the 1972-1998 trend in total CIPA production from the graph Jeff linked to, and making the assumption (on the basis of the graph’s post-1998 distinction between DSLRs and non-DSLRs in the pre-smartphone era) that SLRs accounted for about 5% of CIPA-reported production before 1998.</p>

<p>At that rate, there would have been about 30 million SLRs that a majority of owners would have started replacing with DSLRs, and that replacement “bubble” would have been superimposed on the expected trend in sales projected from the pre-1998 numbers. Actual production of DSLRs (eyeballed from the graph) accounted for about 90 million units above the expected production based on the pre-1998 numbers, suggesting that either (1) those who initially bought DSLRs to replace SLRs ended up having purchased an average of 3 DSLRs; (2) that the market for DSLRs is more robust than it was for SLRs; or (3)—most likely—some combination of the two. [Fess up—how many DSLRs have you purchased?]</p>

<p>The primary reason that DSLR production is declining is that we’re on the tail-end of the replacement boom, but production is still about 50% higher than would have been expected from the pre-digital trend. [Note that the y-axis in the graph Jeff linked to is in 1000s of units, so 20000 actually represents 20,000,000].</p>

<p>In contrast, production of compact digitals has declined to lower than expected levels since the smart-phone boom—smartphones have taken over the role that Instamatics once held, but that’s an entirely different market niche than SLRs/DSLRs held/hold. We should be celebrating the smartphone as the photographic version of a gateway drug—a role that Instamatics once played.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Following the last post, I think it is interesting that despite the great reduction in compact camera sales, the CIPA review is cited by the link as showing "Total sales (of DSLR and mirrorless) are roughly at levels they were a decade ago."<br /> <br /> Another factor is somehow forgotten in all of this. The world population has increased in that period, and in particular, the commensurate higher proportion of middle class in the third world, that has access to such goods, might have been expected to increase sales markedly rather than decrease them. Demographics could well be factored in to this data. </p>

[rossb]

<p>I went from film to DSLR to Mirror less and back to film. Currently I just have a couple of Nikon 35mm camera's and I use my cell phone for video of the Grand kids. I have some of the new B/W film on the way to try out. Street Pan 400 JCH. It's a resurrected cine film I believe. I gave my digital gear to the kids and the Nikon stuff was sold and my other son is taking Christmas pictures with my old mirror less kit. He has figured out how to use the flash in remote so I figure it found a good home. </p>

<p> </p>

[rossb]

<p> I guess I might add that my DSLR that was sold does get a new life with somebody and possibly the beginning of new gear for them. My son used the money to buy a Contac G1 and 3 lens kit. He shoots that and it's fun when he comes over as we talk about film and camera's and such. I asked him yesterday whey he did not go with the DSLR thing and he said digital photography has no joy in it. That's all he said. My other son is happy with the MirrorLess camera and is learning how to use it effectively. </p>

<p>I guess my point is the dimenishing sales of big digital camera's is based on a variety of things going on out there. However I think that cell phones are the big thing. Outside of the enthusiast photographer and working Professional's people are very happy with the cell phone.</p>

<p>We went on the Christmas train ride in Santa Cruz again this year. Hundreds of people there and they all wanted a photo of Santa Claus with their family. All cell phone camera's on the train or at least in the car we were riding in. I guess my point is I did not see a DSLR at all. Not even one. </p>

<p>I have 6 grown kids. My youngest daughter said she is not going to have a Professional Photographer at her wedding. She said the photos her friends have received from them suck.</p>