[northcoastgreg]

With few exceptions (Sony being the most notable), most companies seem to be marking time. The transition to mirrorless apparently caught the market leaders, Nikon and Canon, a bit by surprise.

What "transition to mirrorless"? Mirrorless sales are sluming even more than DSLR sales. Moreover, the whole mirrorless thing has been exaggerated. Until very recently, most of the mirrorless cameras didn't even have viewfinders. Many of these VF-less cameras sold at firesale prices, which means that sales numbers for mirrorless can be deceptive. There really is no meaningful "transition" to mirrorless. Canon and Nikon, despite recent problems, are still the two most profitable camera companies. Sony may be doing better in recent months, but before that they were amassing huge amounts of red ink. Because Sony has no real long heritage in photography, their products, although strong on technology, are often weak when it comes to photographic values. Even with their new full frame compact mirrorless, issues remain. Sony still inexplicably doesn't seem to understand the need balance between camera and lens. They're still making lenses way too large for their tiny compact ILCs. And while they innovate like crazy when it comes to electronic technology, they're slow to come up with innovative ways to work around the limitations of compact cameras. Consequently, their mirrorless ILCs, if viewed as a system camera, are not only way behind Canon and Nikon, they trail Pentax, m43, and even Fuji as well. Historically, it's the best system cameras that tend to become dominant, not the "best" technology.

The fact of the matter is, not everyone wants a compact camera system. Some people actually prefer larger cameras and lenses; some are indifferent (but have already invested in a DSLR system); and some are clueless about the benefits of smaller systems and will stay, by default, with their DSLR.

[TaoMaas]

I've re-thought this and have decided that maybe they're right about DSLRs going away. I flip-flopped because, when I think of a mirrorless camera, I automatically think of the Q or K-01...cameras where you use the back LCD for focusing and framing. And I was thinking that this discussion was about that style of camera replacing those which have a viewfinder. I still don't think that'll happen. But if we're just talking about the prism/mirror mechanism going away and being replaced by an electronic viewfinder that offers through the lens viewing...yeah, I could see that happening fairly quickly. It's not really all that different than shooting a video camera, is it?

[mrNewt]

I believe it to be true... and the biggest reasons of them all will be smartphones.

To this list there is one more thing that I would of added:

- Smartphones
- Satisfaction with current DSLRs
- Lack of innovate products
- Global economic downturn
- PRICE

If my future smartphone, 5 years from now, will be able to deliver IQs that is at least close to my current K-01, K5, at that time I will have no point in spending $1000 - $2000 on a new camera body. Lower the price to a more realistically $400 - $600 and I will probably/maybe buy it.
I find it very difficult trying to find a reason to upgrade my cameras today... except the FF that I want because I just want (no other reason)... I'm sure 5 years from now will be even harder.

[stevebrot]

Why wait 5 years?


Steve

[stevebrot]

What "transition to mirrorless"? Mirrorless sales are sluming even more than DSLR sales.

Exactly. Sales of semi-serious cameras across all segments are flat or falling.

Two causes:

1. Phone cameras...so convenient and decent photos.
2. Market saturation...Once you sell a couple million EOS Rebel xxxx, you have to wait until the things break before they will be replaced and since the people who bought them are all using their phone cameras (see #1 above), that will never happen. The lithium batteries will die first.

Steve

[tele_pathic]

This summer, I upgraded from a K200D to the K-5ii for several reasons.
1. High ISO performance
2. I wanted this upgrade to be to a pro-sumer platform, which is why I didn't consider the K50 or K500 route.

Actually, those may be the only two reasons. In five years, I'll upgrade again if ISO performance allows images such as this analogy: K200D @ ISO 1600=Unusable! K-5ii @ISO 6400=Usable and good. K-5ii @ 25,600=Unusable. In five years, if ISO performance makes 25,600 look like 6400, then I will upgrade provided the body also allows for wireless/wifi connectivity. One poster discounted that reason. For me, connectivity is THE reason I would love to upgrade from the K-5ii to the K-3. I'm not gonna, but I would like to. Those will be the only 2 reasons why I'll upgrade in five years. If those conditions are not met, I will not upgrade, nor can I ever see myself upgrading, so in that sense, yes, Pentax will get very few of my dollars in DSLR bodies. Lenses, though, well, let's not get into that....For my wife and most of my friends, their iphones are "good enough" and the Canonikon kits at Target are "good enough."

[mrNewt]

Most of cellphones nowadays are already WiFi capable... smart phones are ALL... so, in that regard, they are literally years ahead cameras already...

[Lowell Goudge]

Consumer DSLRs "dead in 5 years" » EOSHD.com
“With few exceptions (Sony being the most notable), most companies seem to be marking time. The transition to mirrorless apparently caught the market leaders, Nikon and Canon, a bit by surprise. The Canon M and Nikon 1 didn’t quite set the pace for everyone else, and indeed these lackluster offerings have left a gap which Sony is now driving a truck through. Indeed, a truck loaded with some quite innovative new cameras. Fujifilm and Olympus are pushing hard to fill the gap as well, and Panasonic follows.

“Over-all dealers whom I spoke with report that sales are down, and have been for a few years now. Replacement and upgrade sales are in the doldrums. Buyers aren’t terribly motivated, and lack of true innovation by most players seems to be at the heart of the problem. The still slow economy and economic uncertainty doesn’t help much either.”

Some food for thought...

I would actually be shocked for Sony to take full advantage of this. Maybe I am a pessimist but Sony has rarely taken real commercial advantage of anything, because they are into too many things which end up competing. Just look what they did to personal media players (a.k.a. The Walkman) their music group killed the move to digital, otherwise their stock would be where apple's is.

[normhead]

I sure hope my K-3 lasts until I die.

[Rondec]

This summer, I upgraded from a K200D to the K-5ii for several reasons.
1. High ISO performance
2. I wanted this upgrade to be to a pro-sumer platform, which is why I didn't consider the K50 or K500 route.

Actually, those may be the only two reasons. In five years, I'll upgrade again if ISO performance allows images such as this analogy: K200D @ ISO 1600=Unusable! K-5ii @ISO 6400=Usable and good. K-5ii @ 25,600=Unusable. In five years, if ISO performance makes 25,600 look like 6400, then I will upgrade provided the body also allows for wireless/wifi connectivity. One poster discounted that reason. For me, connectivity is THE reason I would love to upgrade from the K-5ii to the K-3. I'm not gonna, but I would like to. Those will be the only 2 reasons why I'll upgrade in five years. If those conditions are not met, I will not upgrade, nor can I ever see myself upgrading, so in that sense, yes, Pentax will get very few of my dollars in DSLR bodies. Lenses, though, well, let's not get into that....For my wife and most of my friends, their iphones are "good enough" and the Canonikon kits at Target are "good enough."

The issue I have with connectivity is that I hate (a) judging photos based on the back screen of my camera or (b) posting out of camera jpegs. Once you do these things, you might just as well post from the camera in your smart phone (which I do at times). Any photo that I take that is worth keeping, is worth spending some time post processing. Throw away snaps are a different story...

[fretlessdavis]

Actually, those may be the only two reasons. In five years, I'll upgrade again if ISO performance allows images such as this analogy: K200D @ ISO 1600=Unusable! K-5ii @ISO 6400=Usable and good. K-5ii @ 25,600=Unusable. In five years, if ISO performance makes 25,600 look like 6400

At some point it won't really be much benefit, though. 3200 is more than enough for me. 99% of the time I'm not above 800. I see no point to upgrade because of lower noise at higher ISO beyond a certain point. At some point, there really won't be any advantages for most users anymore...

[boriscleto]

I would actually be shocked for Sony to take full advantage of this. Maybe I am a pessimist but Sony has rarely taken real commercial advantage of anything, because they are into too many things which end up competing. Just look what they did to personal media players (a.k.a. The Walkman) their music group killed the move to digital, otherwise their stock would be where apple's is.

Proprietary storage and proprietary media formats killed the digital walkman. Even so, Sony stuck with MiniDisc for more than 20 years...

[Lowell Goudge]

Proprietary storage and proprietary media formats killed the digital walkman

led by Sony music division

. Even so, Sony stuck with MiniDisc for more than 20 years...

And they bleed money every year in the process

[monochrome]

The issue I have with connectivity is that I hate (a) judging photos based on the back screen of my camera or (b) posting out of camera jpegs. Once you do these things, you might just as well post from the camera in your smart phone (which I do at times). Any photo that I take that is worth keeping, is worth spending some time post processing. Throw away snaps are a different story...

In analog days that would be the difference between the yellow envelopes full of InstyPrints of children building sandcastles on the beach (which even today are worth scanning on the $125 All-in-One printer for retrospective blog posts) taken with a Canon Sure Shot thrown in the beach bag and that one 8x10 enlargement of the lighthouse at sunset taken with a KX and K135/2.5. Same people, same trip, same film - different purpose, different tools. These "Death-of-dSLR" arguments assume one technology totally supplants another when in fact there is a purpose for both and room for both.

I submit the vast majority of "consumers" using a phone camera today would never have consumed a dSLR anyway. All that has happened is, the trendy hipster wannabees who had to wear the latest Canon or Nikon as neck art (not the real Leica hipsters) have moved on to a hulking Samsung electronic DayTimer/Teletype/File Box/Library/Topo Map/Instamatic/Walkie-Talkie adult-toy.

[Nesster]

So, let's see the four reasons:
(1) Hard to imagine anyone both satisfied with using a smartphone's camera and having the slightest interest in a dslr. Why would anyone even consider buying a dslr if his smartphone was good enough for him?
(2) This seems to be the only substantial reason in the set. Yes, there is an innovation plateau, but PC's have reached a similar plateau, and I don't think they're going away. One can't do serious work on a tablet. Plus, entry level DSLR's can still be made smaller and cheaper. And, after all, innovation is called innovation because it is about bringing into existence something new. Who knows what kind of new technology will be integrated into dslr's 5 years from now?
(3) This is just a restatement of reason #2.
(4) This reason is circumstantial and general; not specific to the dslr market.

I do see a difference between 2 and 3.
2 means I upgrade from my K100D to a K-30 because of real photographic gains and to a D600 for the same reason... but at that point:
3 means I don't feel the need to upgrade from a K-30 to K-50/K5II/K-3 because the K-30 is plenty good enough for me; I don't see the need to buy another Nikon in several years. A Pentax specific innovation of full frame may tempt me to sell the Nikon and come back home.
Innovation - the Fuji compacts seem different enough for me that if I weren't a vintage lens/camera nerd, I would be tempted to go for them. The latest Olympi are innovative-ish... But both of these mean I either add yet another system, or sell the old.
I'm really scratching my head about what else Nikon can do to make me open my wallet to them?