Camera sales set to plunge, say Canon

[HoppyUK]

In gloomy interview https://www.dpreview.com/news/4115683061/canon-ceo-expects-ilc-market-to-shrink-50-by-2020-to-just-5-6m-units Canon's CEO is predicting camera sales to fall at an increasing rate, dropping from around 10m interchangeable-lens camera units now (all brands) to 5-6m in two years. Sales have declined at a steady 10%-ish per year since the digital peak in 2010, and while some commentators like the respected Thom Hogan have predicted a levelling off, Canon are bracing themselves for accelerating decline and looking to develop other imaging opportunities away from consumer photography.

This is seriously bad news for enthusiasts. It will likely mean that our cameras and lenses will be developed more slowly, and cost more.

The relentless march of the smartphone is to blame, but why the sharply increasing sales decline? I'm guessing it's the predicted impact of 'computational photography' in smartphones with multiple lenses and AI software that has the potential to move smartphonography right up to DSLR/mirrorless levels, at least for the majority of the world's billions of image makers.

 

[lindsay]

Sad prediction indeed. Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I couldn't get enthusiastic about photography as a hobby using a phone/computer, it just doesn't feel like artistic expression to me. I know there are photographers who do use advanced phones in this way, and of course it's possible, but for me it's a step too far down the image-manipulation route.
I believe that what is predicted here might well come to pass (although not sure about the timescale), but that in the same way as there is a move back towards analogue photography now, I think that will be the direction of travel even mores in the future for hobbyists and photographer artists, probably including todays D500 and 5Div cameras as the future retro kit!

 

[Ste_S]

I thought Canon et al should start focusing on software rather than hardware. From that article though it appears Canon are happy to roll over and give the future enthusiast photography market to Google and Apple

 

[sk66]

Current technology in terms of cameras/lenses has reached maturity... there just aren't many gains to be made w/o some kind of jump.

I think there is some kind of generational shift going on... the (cell) phone isn't used to make calls. Instead it is the social interface via internet, text, etc... I participate in photography education/evaluation/critique/etc groups and it is very common for there to be comments of "on my phone", "suitable for instagram", and other similar.

But like Lindsay I think this may be the rebirth of photography and print... I just have to stay alive another 20 yrs to see it...

 

[Nawty]

Sad prediction indeed. Maybe I'm a dinosaur but I couldn't get enthusiastic about photography as a hobby using a phone/computer, it just doesn't feel like artistic expression to me. I know there are photographers who do use advanced phones in this way, and of course it's possible, but for me it's a step too far down the image-manipulation route.
I believe that what is predicted here might well come to pass (although not sure about the timescale), but that in the same way as there is a move back towards analogue photography now, I think that will be the direction of travel even mores in the future for hobbyists and photographer artists, probably including todays D500 and 5Div cameras as the future retro kit!

I used to DJ trance music back in the days of vinyl and it was a proper art that was difficult to learn - beat matching fuzzy bass lines at 140+ BMP isn't easy and you need to be able to do that before any "artistry" is thrown in. Then CD and MP3 mixers started to come in and all the vinyl users said it was cheating (as elements of it are much easier - no beat matching for a start) and that it just wasn't the same. Now everyone uses digital mixing and no-one complains about the quality of the music or the artistry, as that still exists just in different (and often better) ways. And I can't use a digital mixer

To paraphrase Darwin, it isn't the fittest that survive, it's those that fail to adapt.

And then of course, 20 years later vinyl trance nights are a thing...

 

[Nawty]

Another thing I've heard recently, and it's something all the shops are feeling, is that we've reached 'peak stuff'.

I find that quite an interesting phrase as it aligns with my life too, which probably says more about my life than the whole society but I do think it is symptomatic of a world that is weary of constant drive for more more more. Even the mighty iPhone is struggling to generate sales.

I, for one, would be perfectly happy with longer product cycles, and maybe the industry would have been more sustainable if the manufacturers didn't spend a decade releasing new models every 5 minutes. I guess it's really a wider problem of capitalism...

 

[Deleted member 49428]

I think we will find ourselves in a situaition mixed from the early days where photography was a niche with very expensive equipment and the later analog era with the pocket P&S cameras in the sense the smartphone camera is the modern P&S suitable and adequate for most and the interchangeable lens cameras are for the entusiasts with the neccesary disposable income. I see no reason to panic yet.furthermore photography as craft and artform can also revert to analog, Ive no problems with that

 

[woof woof]

I don't know if I'd "blame" phones. I think I'd rather say that traditional camera companies aren't making the right products with the right features that would make people want to buy them and aren't marketing them effectively enough.

And on the positive side, who'd have thought that there'd be an explosion of people using 28mm (equivalent) primes and taking unheard of record numbers of photographs?

On to the future, maybe some disruptive new technologies could revolutionise smartphone type devices. We're already seeing impressive things in the software and processing and this is only going to continue. These things together with flat lenses, new sensor technologies and gosh knows what else could move the game on for devices we'll always have with us which may not be traditional DSLR's but so what?

Life will go on. IMHO.

 

[Ed Sutton]

This is seriously bad news for enthusiasts. It will likely mean that our cameras and lenses will be developed more slowly, and cost more.

It's not bad news, it's a return to the old days when camera models lasted a decade and I couldn't afford new ones anyway.

In fact, in photographic terms, it could be a good thing as it might weed out the pixel peeping measurebators and leave the photographers to get on with what really matters.

I reached 'peak camera' some time ago. Time to stock up on D700s.

 

[gad-westy]

To paraphrase Darwin, it isn't the fittest that survive, it's those that fail to adapt.

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that

 

[nandbytes]

We see this already. Camera companies are jumping in with £2k+ bodies. Previously they started at the lower end and worked their way up or Z6, A7III, EOS R or S1 are new low end models!

 

[Craigus]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but is this not to do with the sensor tech maturing. There is no need to upgrade cameras most of the time just because a new one comes out, you won't see a difference in the type of photos people take in 95% of cases. A forum like this which is more skewed towards the gear side of things is full of enthusiasts which skews our perception on this. Yes one is mirrorless, the other a dslr, you can't tell what a photo was taken with. It really doesn't matter.

If the camera companies aren't as good as Apple are at making people think they need the latest version no matter how small the upgrades are then they are going to struggle if a new model is released every year.

 

[jakeblu]

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that

I'm guessing you missed the paraphrase bit?

 

[drounding]

I thought Canon et al should start focusing on software rather than hardware.......

On your phone you can take a tiny little sensor with a tiny little lens and get pictures plenty good enough to post on the web which is what most people want to do. Compare that with many small, even 1 inch sensor, cameras and the demise is obvious. Compacts and many bridge cameras just can't compete. Why is this? It must be advanced software.

I would love to be able to buy a small compact camera that has all the usability and format of it's big brothers which can compete with the latest phone cameras. I have a quite a few Canon cameras and I recently added a compact ISUX285 to the collection to chuck in my pocket. Wasted my money, there is absolutely no comparison to the little camera in my phone. The leading camera names just don't seem to be able to compete in this market.

 

[davholla]

Current technology in terms of cameras/lenses has reached maturity... there just aren't many gains to be made w/o some kind of jump.

I think there is some kind of generational shift going on... the (cell) phone isn't used to make calls. Instead it is the social interface via internet, text, etc... I participate in photography education/evaluation/critique/etc groups and it is very common for there to be comments of "on my phone", "suitable for instagram", and other similar.

But like Lindsay I think this may be the rebirth of photography and print... I just have to stay alive another 20 yrs to see it...

I think Canon could make a gain by making focus stacking automatic but maybe as a macro photographer I would say that.

 

[sirch]

Current technology in terms of cameras/lenses has reached maturity... there just aren't many gains to be made w/o some kind of jump.

^^^ This
It's actually the same with mobile phones, Apple are seeing a reduction in sales, in part because the new models aren't ground breaking and so people keep their current phone longer.

Only a very few people are going to spend several thousand pounds on a small improvement in AF speed or dynamic range.

 

[sirch]

I think Canon could make a gain by making focus stacking automatic but maybe as a macro photographer I would say that.

But would you pay thounds of pounds for that feature when it wouldn't be as good as a few hundreds of pounds worth of PP focus stacking software?

 

[davholla]

But would you pay thounds of pounds for that feature when it wouldn't be as good as a few hundreds of pounds worth of PP focus stacking software?

I meant taking the photos automatically as opposed to software to process it. If that makes sense.

 

[jerry12953]

This doesn't make sense to me. Are you sure you've got this right......even if you were paraphrasing?

it isn't the fittest that survive, it's those that fail to adapt.

There must be specialist fields where a phone will NEVER take the photographs that a DSLR will do?

 

[RichardC27]

There must be specialist fields where a phone will NEVER take the photographs that a DSLR will do?

Sports photography sticks out here. There isn't really an substitute for big lenses, wide apertures and big sensors in an arena like that. Fine art photography too. As amazing as current smartphone cameras are, you can't beat physics no matter how good your processing is.

I think as others have said, the lower end of the market will be where manufacturers cut their models, leaving just the enthusiast and professional bodies (whether DSLR or mirrorless) to sell to people who really care about their photography.

 

[woof woof]

On your phone you can take a tiny little sensor with a tiny little lens and get pictures plenty good enough to post on the web which is what most people want to do. Compare that with many small, even 1 inch sensor, cameras and the demise is obvious. Compacts and many bridge cameras just can't compete. Why is this? It must be advanced software.

I would love to be able to buy a small compact camera that has all the usability and format of it's big brothers which can compete with the latest phone cameras. I have a quite a few Canon cameras and I recently added a compact ISUX285 to the collection to chuck in my pocket. Wasted my money, there is absolutely no comparison to the little camera in my phone. The leading camera names just don't seem to be able to compete in this market.

I don't think that compacts and bridge cameras can't compete as such, not if we're talking about image quality or as photographic devices for photography enthusiasts or even usability. I think it's more to do with smartphones being good enough and massively convenient.

I'm not into phones but I know people who are and my Mrs receives pictures every day that can look lovely on the phone and tablet screen as whole pictures but when I look closely on my pc I still haven't seen anything from a tablet or phone that can compete with my "compact" Panasonic TZ100 raws processed for best effect. If I look closely. If I look closely those lovely smartphone pictures are usually less so and often much less so. The problem for the traditional camera manufacturers and dealers is that most people aren't pixel peeping camera geeks who spot every issue with a picture. If that's what most people did cameras sales would possibly hold up better.

 

[Dave Pickett]

Peak stuff and sensor maturity seem to be the answers here and really just common sense. 12mp is absolutely plenty, but I have upgraded to 24mp, one crop and one full frame. I dont see changing again in my lifetime (15 years or so) and I wont be adding to my lenses either, many of which are already more than 10 years old.

 

[woof woof]

Peak stuff and sensor maturity seem to be the answers here and really just common sense. 12mp is absolutely plenty, but I have upgraded to 24mp, one crop and one full frame. I dont see changing again in my lifetime (15 years or so) and I wont be adding to my lenses either, many of which are already more than 10 years old.

One worry could be aging electronics and degrading connections and cables/ribbons.

I have electronic devices that are still working 40 years after I bought them but I've had to fix them, more than once. And there's the material change over when RoHS and WEEE came in to potentially worry about. At the time I was working in manufacturing and there were real problems back then that could potentially affect the longevity of products. That's my suspicion based on what I saw anyway. Doubtless other things/changes could affect the kit too but thankfully long after the makers have stopped making stuff there'll be a used market to keep us going even if supply of good quality working stuff could slowly dry up.

One way to avoid this to an extent is with manual lenses as all they may need is a clean and lubrication every 10 or 20 years but sadly there aren't any mechanical digital cameras.

 

[gad-westy]

I'm guessing you missed the paraphrase bit?

No. It’s the complete opposite of what Darwin believed, not a paraphrase.

Though I was just teasing nawty. I’m pretty sure it was just a keyboard slip.

 

[jerry12953]

Sports photography sticks out here. There isn't really an substitute for big lenses, wide apertures and big sensors in an arena like that. Fine art photography too. As amazing as current smartphone cameras are, you can't beat physics no matter how good your processing is.

And wildlife photography. Can't imagine the wildlife photographer going out with a phone any time soon.........

 

[Craigus]

I don't think that compacts and bridge cameras can't compete as such, not if we're talking about image quality or as photographic devices for photography enthusiasts or even usability. I think it's more to do with smartphones being good enough and massively convenient.

I'm not into phones but I know people who are and my Mrs receives pictures every day that can look lovely on the phone and tablet screen as whole pictures but when I look closely on my pc I still haven't seen anything from a tablet or phone that can compete with my "compact" Panasonic TZ100 raws processed for best effect. If I look closely. If I look closely those lovely smartphone pictures are usually less so and often much less so. The problem for the traditional camera manufacturers and dealers is that most people aren't pixel peeping camera geeks who spot every issue with a picture. If that's what most people did cameras sales would possibly hold up better.

Unless you are printing large or need to do 'serious' editing or processing then a phone is often good enough.

I went on a trip to the lakes in autumn last year and in the rush to pack forgot to take my camera, so was stuck using my iPhone for 4 days. There are a few shots that I missed or just couldn't get because of focal length limitations, but when looking back at the pics on my phone I have half a dozen photos that nicely sum up the holiday for me that I took time over composing and then tweaked on the LR mobile app.

I think that is the point. I'm only ever going to look at these photos on a screen, if they are printed it would only be at 6x4 or similar size in a photo book, if at all. It was perfectly adequate to just use my phone as I wasn't doing any 'serious' photography.

Why would anyone bother with a point and shoot?

More 'serious' or high end cameras will always exist, but if there is no demand for entry level stuff then they won't be made, as we are already seeing.

 

[chris malcolm]

I used to be an SLR film photographer. Around 2001 I started checking out these new digital cameras, started reading reviews, looking at all the photography magazines in the supermarket shelves when I did the shopping, etc.. By 2008 I had been thoroughly converted and bought my first DSLR.

I still look at all the photography magazines in the the supermarket shelves when I go shopping. The big difference is that now there's very rarely rarely more than one. There used to be half a dozen. The same is true of the bigger selection of magazines I can find in the railway station and some very big bookshops. Far fewer photography magazines than there used to be.

Back in 2008 there were also around half a dozen photography shops worth visiting, where I could try out new cameras, try out a new lens on my camera, etc.. Now they've nearly all gone.

Seems to me that over the last decade the general public have been steadily losing interest in big camera photography.

 

[chris malcolm]

And wildlife photography. Can't imagine the wildlife photographer going out with a phone any time soon.........

The other day I was standing with about eight other photographers taking photographs of a kingfisher. I was using a camera with a big white lens. As was one other photographer. The rest were all using phones. The question is, if you're taking a photograph with a phone are you a photographer? If you're taking a photograph of a kingfisher with a phone are you a bird photographer?

Now I come to think of it I know one bird photographer who's extremely knowledgeable and often visits bird hides with a pair of binoculars. But she takes bird photographs with her phone. Because she wants good photographs of birds she's got a very expensive phone with what phone people call an excellent camera in it.

 

[woof woof]

Why would anyone bother with a point and shoot?

More 'serious' or high end cameras will always exist, but if there is no demand for entry level stuff then they won't be made, as we are already seeing.

Better image quality, a zoom lens, a VF and an overall more traditional camera using experience spring to mind but it's a while since I used an entry level point and shoot. My Medion compact gives picture that are worse than a phone gives and the same is probably true of my Canon Ixus 85. I don't use those cameras any more but everything I've had since is IMO a step up from anything I've seen from a phone. Maybe what we consider to be entry level will move up a bit. Maybe entry level will be a 1" sensor camera like the Panasonic TZ100 I have. I can't see any phone matching that for a while if only because it has a 25-250mm lens.

I do understand that phone pictures can very often be good enough but many of us here want something beyond both the experience and the result you get with a smartphone. I think that one big problem is that "we" are a tiny minority these days.

 

[sirch]

I used to be an SLR film photographer. Around 2001 I started checking out these new digital cameras, started reading reviews, looking at all the photography magazines in the supermarket shelves when I did the shopping, etc.. By 2008 I had been thoroughly converted and bought my first DSLR.

I still look at all the photography magazines in the the supermarket shelves when I go shopping. The big difference is that now there's very rarely rarely more than one. There used to be half a dozen. The same is true of the bigger selection of magazines I can find in the railway station and some very big bookshops. Far fewer photography magazines than there used to be.

Back in 2008 there were also around half a dozen photography shops worth visiting, where I could try out new cameras, try out a new lens on my camera, etc.. Now they've nearly all gone.

Seems to me that over the last decade the general public have been steadily losing interest in big camera photography.

I don't think you can judge interest in photography based on magazines and bricks''n'mortar shops. All magazine sales and all types of shop are in decline as things move online.

I see a lot more people with bridge and interchangeable lens cameras in places like the lake district than I ever used to. In the highlands last year driving round a lock I went past 5 photographers (tripods, filters, etc) in the space of a couple of miles. In general I think there are more people attempting photography-with-intent than there ever were.

The issue for manufacturers though is that cameras have hit technological maturity so there is no need to upgrade, people keep them for longer, meaning they sell less.

The question is, if you're taking a photograph with a phone are you a photographer?

Yes you are, if you are "painting with light" - i.e. capturing the light from a scene as a record then you are a photographer. Most modern "mobile phones" are a camera that can make phone calls rather than a phone with a camera. What makes someone a "serious photographer" is intent, not the device they use. If they consider subject, light, composition, etc. and have a purpose in taking the shot they are a "serious photographer". Having a big fat DSLR and bag full of lenses does not make you a "serious photographer".

 

[jerry12953]

The other day I was standing with about eight other photographers taking photographs of a kingfisher. I was using a camera with a big white lens. As was one other photographer. The rest were all using phones. The question is, if you're taking a photograph with a phone are you a photographer? If you're taking a photograph of a kingfisher with a phone are you a bird photographer?

Now I come to think of it I know one bird photographer who's extremely knowledgeable and often visits bird hides with a pair of binoculars. But she takes bird photographs with her phone. Because she wants good photographs of birds she's got a very expensive phone with what phone people call an excellent camera in it.

Well I'm surprised to hear that. You do see people with phones in bird hides but they aren't generally what one might call "bird photographers". Or "photographers", come to that. I just tend to assume that their results would be +/- useless, but perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

[jerry12953]

The issue for manufacturers though is that cameras have hit technological maturity so there is no need to upgrade, people keep them for longer, meaning they sell less.

And that would probably be a good thing, I suggest.

 

[Craigus]

Better image quality, a zoom lens, a VF and an overall more traditional camera using experience spring to mind

You don't really get better image quality though and if you do most people wouldn't know about it because it's not printed large enough to see.

I think that one big problem is that "we" are a tiny minority these days.

This. That is really the whole point I was trying to make, it seems like a big deal because we are all enthusiasts, but it isn't really. There will always be high end cameras around that interest us.

 

[Nostromo]

I think as others have said, the lower end of the market will be where manufacturers cut their models, leaving just the enthusiast and professional bodies (whether DSLR or mirrorless) to sell to people who really care about their photography.

I think the same.
I also think that nearly all of the major manufacturers bring out too many new cameras, without much improvement over a different model.
To me there seems to be only a few major improvements that can currently (i use that term loosely) be had, sensors and there noise handling capabilities, global shutters and software.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Yes you are, if you are "painting with light" - i.e. capturing the light from a scene as a record then you are a photographer. Most modern "mobile phones" are a camera that can make phone calls rather than a phone with a camera. What makes someone a "serious photographer" is intent, not the device they use. If they consider subject, light, composition, etc. and have a purpose in taking the shot they are a "serious photographer". Having a big fat DSLR and bag full of lenses does not make you a "serious photographer".

Chris - you surprise me; we all know REAL photographers use film (that is sarcasm before anyone gets offended!)

 

[jerry12953]

If Canon are worried about falling camera sales it could explain why their new models are always a little bit underwhelming.

They must bank on the fact that many people will upgrade every time, for example from a 6d to a 6d2. If they inlcuded all the new tech that they possibly could each time, they would sell fewer new cameras.

 

[HoppyUK]

Better image quality, a zoom lens, a VF and an overall more traditional camera using experience spring to mind but it's a while since I used an entry level point and shoot. My Medion compact gives picture that are worse than a phone gives and the same is probably true of my Canon Ixus 85. I don't use those cameras any more but everything I've had since is IMO a step up from anything I've seen from a phone. Maybe what we consider to be entry level will move up a bit. Maybe entry level will be a 1" sensor camera like the Panasonic TZ100 I have. I can't see any phone matching that for a while if only because it has a 25-250mm lens.

I do understand that phone pictures can very often be good enough but many of us here want something beyond both the experience and the result you get with a smartphone. I think that one big problem is that "we" are a tiny minority these days.

Pretty good summary

I would only add that we've always been a small minority - those of us who enjoy using knowledge and skill with quality equipment to create exceptional results. We're not going away, and neither are the (really amazing) cameras that we currently use

Edit: in the past, we've benefited from the technology and scale economies of the mass market, but that's now shifted to smartphones. A potential way forward is for a truly 'smart-camera' with interchangeable lenses that blends the new with the old but I'm not sure that would work for me. I don't want video or social media connectivity (at least, no more than we have already) and I don't want to be locked out of direct manual control, but I'm no analogue purist either and do like some of the computational AI software features coming through in smartphones. I can think of a few other things that would likely keep me buying new cameras for a fair few years yet.

 

[sirch]

If they inlcuded all the new tech that they possibly could each time, they would sell fewer new cameras.

The universe, or at least the progression of human knowledge, just doesn't work like that. Why didn't Fox-Talbert just invent the DSLR with 10 FPS and almost instant AF? Think back a few years to those "wall-wart" power supplies; they used to be big, heavy and get hot, now they are small, light and don't get hot. That is because silicon chip fabrication has got better and that process of getting better is iterative. One improvement feeds into the next, then into the next and ultimately allows more pixels on the sensor, for example. But when you have designed a camera and it's firmware around the state-of-the-art silicon fabrication for the sensor then you have to commit to a production run of that model. Whilst that is paying for itself the manufacturer gets on and designs the next iteration.

 

[sirch]

Chris - you surprise me; we all know REAL photographers use film (that is sarcasm before anyone gets offended!)

Over the weekend I was shooting with a 5x4 and a home made pinhole camera

but wait ... I also shot with a mobile phone so I clearly blew-away all my photographer kudos in that one rash act

 

[petersmart]

I meant taking the photos automatically as opposed to software to process it. If that makes sense.

With the advent of small portable drones fitted with cameras and the march of AI I look forward to the time when I can simply tell my photo-drone to get me some prize winning shots and send it on its way while I sit at home and watch re-runs of Terminator!