Camera market has collapsed 84% since 2010 (Page 3): Figures lie and liar's figure. Any writer looks for stats that will bolster their argument no matter how misleading. Nikon, Sony...

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

ggab wrote:

I just finished reading an article in "Digital Camera World".

https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/news/camera-market-has-collapsed-84-since-2010?utm_source=Selligent&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=1208&utm_content=12+February+2019+DCW+Newsletter+&utm_term=

The gist of the article is the decline of camera sales worldwide. While they distinguish between DSLR's and mirrorless (I presume, although they don't say it, they mean removable lens mirrorless cameras). They do not dig down into the different types of cameras and their decline. The message is that cell phones have taken market share away from digital cameras.

I would be interested in knowing which segment of "digital cameras" has been hit the hardest. ie, point and shoot, bridge, removable lens mirrorless, dslr? There is a hint that it is the "point and shoot" and "bridge cameras". They indicate "The website's yearly report contains more sobering statistics. There was a 24% decrease in cameras shipped from 2017 to 2018, with a 7% drop in shipped lenses". They went on to state that there was a 12% drop in DSLR sales with only a 2% increase in mirrorless. I read that to be 14% drop in cameras with attached lenses vs 10% drop in removable lens cameras. Again, assuming that they mean removable lense mirrorless cameras and 2% moved from DSLR to removable lens Mirrorless.

I also believe they misdiagnosed the future of digital. They indicate " In short, don't expect new gear to get any cheaper – and true innovation, if it can still be afforded, may be in short supply". I believe just the opposite. Companies like Nikon, Canon etc. are not going to let their core products wither away. I believe you find more innovation in the cameras. The ability to do things that Cell Phones can't. They need to differentiate themselves from the cell phones. I believe we are seeing the end of the point and shoot.

I just found the link to the chart shown in the article that defines the different segments:

https://lensvid.com/gear/technology/what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2018/

My $0.02 worth.
What do you think?

I just finished reading an article in "Digita... (show quote)

Figures lie and liar's figure. Any writer looks for stats that will bolster their argument no matter how misleading.
Nikon, Sony, and Canon are all doing better than ever. Go FIGURE.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

rmorrison1116 wrote:

Cell phone cameras are real cameras. They are not dedicated cameras and may not posses features that dedicated cameras may, but they are indeed, real cameras, with a built in wireless telephone.

JDG3

As you stated statistics can be misquoted and lie. However, Nikon, Canon and Sony are all huge businesses in which photography and photo equipment are just a part. All three design, manufacture and sell a wide range of items from copiers to printers to microscopes, audio equipment and more. They could be doing great as a company but any one of the different divisions, such as cameras, not so well.

Low Budget Dave

If you look at all the pictures on the internet, the two most common camera brands are "Apple" and "Sumsung".

For any picture where there is good light, a slow-moving subject, and no need to control depth of field, cell phones absolutely dominate all categories of camera.

JDG3

I think what will happen is that the definition of "serious photographer" will change. If you judge these photos on their content, artistic style and composition rather than the weight, cost, or maker of the equipment used to take them - then they are serious photography.

As many pro photographers are fond of saying "It's not the camera , it's the photographer that makes the photograph". If they really think that then an iphone in the hands of someone that knows how to take a photo is many times better than a snapshot taker with a $4000 kit of Nikon or Canon gear!

I own several DSLRs and have taken quite a few photography classes in the local university. They are now beginning to offer photo classes using cell phones. Some of the photos taken are stunning. Someone who has had a little training in composition and basic photo principles can really turn out some great photos with their cell phones. And one of the advantages is; they almost always have it with them.

ggab Loc: ?

The biggest reason Cell Phones are taking over the low end camera market and there are so many pictures on the web taken with them.:

JDG3 wrote:

they almost always have it with them.

jaymatt Loc: Alexandria, Indiana

I’ve been reading similar articles from various sources. If I owned stock in a camera company that isn’t or hasn’t diversified into other products, assuming there is one, I'd be dumping it asap.

Bill_de Loc: US

jaymatt wrote:

I’ve been reading similar articles from various sources. If I owned stock in a camera company that isn’t or hasn’t diversified into other products, assuming there is one, I'd be dumping it asap.

Invest in sketch pads, #2 pencils, and a good easel.

--

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

ggab wrote:

The biggest reason Cell Phones are taking over the low end camera market and there are so many pictures on the web taken with them.:

Why are so many pictures “taken with them”?

berchman Loc: South Central PA

[quote=paulrph1]

ggab wrote:

The ideas of automobiles have changed of the past few years now also. We recently purchased a new car and is so doing found out that many manufacturers are closing out the sedans. While I prefer a sedan the new trend is to get a crossover. I personally hate crossovers. I do not like the looks of them. And the performances is not there as compared to a sports car. The reason they are taking over the market is because they are easy to get in and out of.

I assume that by a "crossover" you mean an SUV? I, too, hate SUV's except for the old Land Rover and that is only fitting for someone who drives in wilderness. I have a minivan to haul cargo like two trikes and a manual shift sports car for performance.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Let's face it. Everyone has a cell phone, and every cell phone is a camera. Why would someone spend hundreds more and have to carry two things around all the time? Cameras are for "photographers," and you can apply any definition you want to that word.

ggab Loc: ?

Kmgw9v wrote:

Why are so many pictures “taken with them”?

People always have their cell phones with them. How many people do you see walking around the street with DSLR's?

The cell phone form factor make them very easy to carry and very convenient to have.

ggab Loc: ?

berchman wrote:

I assume that by a "crossover" you mean an SUV? I, too, hate SUV's except for the old Land Rover and that is only fitting for someone who drives in wilderness. I have a minivan to haul cargo like two trikes and a manual shift sports car for performance.

Personally I do not like crossovers, SUV's or Mini Vans. I drive a BMW.
I have an old, 2003, SUV (the wife likes trucks) that I use for hauling stuff.

jwn Loc: SOUTHEAST GEORGIA USA

it's about the image and its availability. There was a time you took the picture or purchased a post card on your travels. now with internet I can purchase a professional picture or created an album for next to nothing. no need for a high end camera, cell phone and computer does it all for the travel market.

Bill_de Loc: US

ggab wrote:

Personally I do not like crossovers, SUV's or Mini Vans. I drive a BMW.
I have an old, 2003, SUV (the wife likes trucks) that I use for hauling stuff.

BMW and Crossovers are not mutually exclusive. What BMW do you drive?

--