DSLR shipments down 10.9% in Second Quarter 2013

[robbins.photo]

Overall digital camera shipments down 36% in the same period: DSLR sales down for first time in a decade - AfterDawn

Andrew Reid at eoshd.com thinks consumer DSLRs will be dead in 5 years: Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years" » EOSHD.com

It may take 10 years, and not 5, but the handwriting seems to be on the wall. As for me, I'm starting a camera phone blog

Bill

I'll believe it when I see it. Personally I don't believe it one bit, I think it's a lot of nonsense from people who don't understand the market or market forces at all. Also the fact that DSLR sales are down doesn't surprise me at all - but considering how bad the economy is right now that should be expected, not a surprise.

Will they eventually perfect mirrorless to the point where the reflex mirror system won't have any advantages over it? That is a possibility. Will the make it affordable enough that they can compete and produce cameras with the same capabilities at the same price points.. again, a possibility. Will they do all that in 10 years.. a big, big maybe. But you know what? Even if they do they'll still end up producing cameras that look and act pretty much the same as DSLR's do now, because there is a big market for them and there always will be for a variety of reasons, ergonomics being at the top of that list.

 

[minicoop1985]

I stole the 'wants pictures/wants cameras' terminology from Xerox. In the early days of photocopiers, Xerox decided (correctly, for the time, I think) that people didn't want photocopiers. They wanted copies.

So they started leasing the machines, essentially selling photocopies. Then things changed and their clients wanted the machine itself as it became more central to the business, and so on, and Xerox damn near lost it all failing to switch, but that's another story. This is now a parable in Marketing 101. Figure out what the customer actually WANTS and then SELL THEM THAT.

Don't forget the other lesson in that: ADAPT to CHANGES in what the customer wants, or get left in the dust.

 

[Biev]

While we wait for the DSLR to be killed off, I'll be listening to some recently bought CDs which were killed off by mp3 and online services. CDs which of course I play on my desktop PC which was killed off by smartphones, tablets, and internet access on my TV set. CDs which, by the way, are on display in my local music store right next to these strange large black things they call vinyl. Some of these CDs are stored in my paperless office right next to all the books I still buy, together with my kindle.

 

[cgw]

Problem for Nikon is that DX is guesstimated to be 80%+ of their DSLR sales, many of them "consumer" grade cameras. Soft sales there could cause real pain.

The market for d-slr cameras is now mature. After having undergone 10+ years of explosive growth in unit sales...the market is now mature, and the number of d-slr cameras in the world is higher than it has ever been. All that low-hanging fruit that the "original Digital Rebel" and the "original Nikon D70" represented is gone...picked clean. Both those two camera models represented the FIRST sub-$1,000 d-slr models, and both were big sellers. Fast forward a few years, and according to Nikon itself, their D40 was their BEST-selling camera model of all-time. That period, the period of explosive growth in d-slr sales, the period of more and more and more and more buyers--now the market has provided those millions of buyers with a d-slr. And, compared to that period of explosive growth--well, sales have slowed down.

It's amusing that so many people who blog don't provide any context whatsoever for sales figures, or overall market penetration, or, well ANYTHING. YES, d-slr sales have slowed....and yet--d-slr sales are, oh, let me guess, 10,000 times higher than the sales of 35mm film cameras. And 40,000 times the annual sales of medium format rollfilm cameras.

There are loads of idiot bloggers out there, predicting the demise of all sorts of things. For example, following the logic of some of these bloggers, I would report that, "BMW and Mercedes-Benz are headed for bankruptcy, since they each control less than 1.3 percent of the new car business world-wide." Uhhhhh...yeah....they do...neither has any major market share...look at the numbers.

Soft sales in d-slr CAMERAS represent only part of the business; there are also lenses, flashes, and accessories. Canon and Nikon also sell millions of lenses annually. Ask BMW and Mercedes-Benz how they're doing with those soft sales numbers...

OK, so where's your data? CIPA stats are the source for most informed observers. This article(did you track it back from the OP's comments?)sheds some light and provides some context:

Point, shoot, collapse: Why big camera companies are the next BlackBerry | Financial Post

Global recession and a slow N. American economy aren't exactly lifting sales of new DSLRs, either. You might glance at the Hogan article I linked upthread.

 

[amolitor]

Forecasting with a straightedge is the best thing to do when you have't any other information, but if you're writing some prognostication piece about the industry, you should probably go get some more information.

The straightedge is manifestly wrong here. The sales will drop until the market of people who want pictures is gone, and then it will flatten out. The interesting question is how large the remaining market it. How many enthusiasts and professionals are there? How often do those buyers purchase equipment? How large will the new, smaller, market for DSLRs (or whatever, film cameras, 4x5 cameras, Leicas, etc) be, and what kind of businesses can it support?

Can anyone be buggered to go work that out? Heavens no, that would be actual reporting, and would require labor. Tut tut, no way.

 

[Derrel]

OK, so where's your data? CIPA stats are the source for most informed observers. This article(did you track it back from the OP's comments?)sheds some light and provides some context:

Point, shoot, collapse: Why big camera companies are the next BlackBerry | Financial Post

Global recession and a slow N. American economy aren't exactly lifting sales of new DSLRs, either. You might glance at the Hogan article I linked upthread.

Nice try, but Thom Hogan already wrote an article detailing some of the holes in the Financial Times article...the Financial Times' writer, obviously largely ignorant of the camera industry and of CIPA reporting procedures, has created some so-called "data" that is riddled with errors and is basically, click-bait... his article is lame, and is factually...dubious. The Financial Times article you link to is a bunch of crap. But, it got a lot of clicks...

I don't need to glance at just a single Thom Hogan article...I have been following his ongoing series of CIPA results articles for two years now...mirrorless is NOT selling worth a damn anywhere, except in JAPAN. Mirrorless shipments swung wildly upwards some 18 months ago, as manufacturers made and shipped loads of them to dealers who HOPED the cameras would sell. Unfortunately, shipments of mirrorless cameras have largely tanked, as customers have voted with their dollars and pesos and pounds and Euro...they'd rather have a d-slr than an equally-priced mirrorless camera.

The Nikon 1 for example...premiering in the USA at $899...and sitting and sitting,and sitting on the shelves, until Target and Best Buy closed them out at ridiculous fire-sale prices of like $349 with lens...OUCH! Same with Canon's new toy...another sales DISASTER. Why? Because the products from Canon and Nikon, and to a large extent Sony, are brand-new, in the early stages of development, and have a lot of rough edges, and lack legacy ties, legacy equipment, and are basically new and unproven products with NO track record, and are prices too close to lower-end d-slrs.

 

[cgw]

OK, so where's your data? CIPA stats are the source for most informed observers. This article(did you track it back from the OP's comments?)sheds some light and provides some context:

Point, shoot, collapse: Why big camera companies are the next BlackBerry | Financial Post

Global recession and a slow N. American economy aren't exactly lifting sales of new DSLRs, either. You might glance at the Hogan article I linked upthread.

Nice try, but Thom Hogan already wrote an article detailing some of the holes in the Financial Times article...the Financial Times' writer, obviously largely ignorant of the camera industry and of CIPA reporting procedures, has created some so-called "data" that is riddled with errors and is basically, click-bait... his article is lame, and is factually...dubious. The Financial Times article you link to is a bunch of crap. But, it got a lot of clicks...

I don't need to glance at just a single Thom Hogan article...I have been following his ongoing series of CIPA results articles for two years now...mirrorless is NOT selling worth a damn anywhere, except in JAPAN. Mirrorless shipments swung wildly upwards some 18 months ago, as manufacturers made and shipped loads of them to dealers who HOPED the cameras would sell. Unfortunately, shipments of mirrorless cameras have largely tanked, as customers have voted with their dollars and pesos and pounds and Euro...they'd rather have a d-slr than an equally-priced mirrorless camera.

The Nikon 1 for example...premiering in the USA at $899...and sitting and sitting,and sitting on the shelves, until Target and Best Buy closed them out at ridiculous fire-sale prices of like $349 with lens...OUCH! Same with Canon's new toy...another sales DISASTER. Why? Because the products from Canon and Nikon, and to a large extent Sony, are brand-new, in the early stages of development, and have a lot of rough edges, and lack legacy ties, legacy equipment, and are basically new and unproven products with NO track record, and are prices too close to lower-end d-slrs.

OK, so what's your analysis of the CIPA data that explains your rejection of the DSLR trend reported by the OP? Nikon's stock price movements aren't subject to much interpretation. Seems you're just outgassing in the same way those effete bloggers you lambast supposedly do. FYI we're talking about DSLRs--not MILCs. Judging from your posts here, your views appear informed more by resentment than reason.

 

[JacaRanda]

 

[amolitor]

It's obvious to any thinking human being that DSLR sales had to go from growth to shrinkage eventually. After all, it's an object that is sold for money, and that's how sales of objects which are sold for money work.

However, to reason from the fact that we have passed over the top of the hill to "GONE COMPLETELY IN FIVE YEARS!!!!" is simply ridiculous. The right-hand side of the curve is almost always longer than the left side, for one thing, and they're been selling DSLRs for rather more than five years. There is no particular reason to suppose that the right side touches zero at any time in the foreseeable future. Pointing out that certain large segments of the former customer base have moved on is relevant industry analysis but, again, utterly fails to support a "GONE COMPLETELY IN GIVE YEARS!!!!!" conclusion.

There are other segments inside that customer base, who will still be in the market for DSLRs five years from now. Will there be enough to support a manufacturer at some level? I dunno, but the point is these pundits don't know either.

Will there be massive upheavals in the DSLR manufacturer business? That seems likely.

The only, literally THE ONLY, photographic technology I can think of that has passed on completely is dry plate. You can still buy everything else. Well, maybe not film on the flammable bases. But you can buy "safety" film which is arguably the same thing, just less, you know, explosive.

History of photography, history of "selling objects for money", and all the facts we have at our disposal seem to point firmly to a "DSLR sales will be smaller than they are today, in five years, but most likely not zero"