[Winder]

I've been hearing about that for many years now... But if you look at the numbers for the last 12 months it doesn't look to be going that way does it?

Demand for mirrorless is rising. Demand for DSLRs is falling. Look at prices. Total units shipped for mirrorless has stayed constant even as prices have risen. If demand was falling, then prices would be falling to compensate. The sales numbers for DSLRs are buoyed by falling prices, meaning that demand is falling. If you look at per-unit value, mirrorless is pulling away. Overall DSLR market share is declining from a peak of 85% to around 65% currently. The problem for DSLR manufacturers is that they can't keep lowering prices to keep market share. The Canon 6DII and Nikon D750 can be bought for $500-$600 less than the cheapest Sony FF mirrorless. Even the crop frame Fuji XH-1, XT-2, Panasonic G9, GH-5, and Olympus OMD-EM1 II all sell for more than the FF Canon 6DII, Nikon D610, Nikon D750.

Prices reflect demand. Look at prices not volume.

[clackers]

Prices reflect demand. Look at prices not volume.

My conclusion is different, Winder.

The mirrorless manufacturers like Fuji and Sony who were absolutely hammered by the death of compact cameras have now discovered the projections of market dominance for ILCs haven't happened either, and are doing exactly the same sales strategy as the DSLR manufacturers in a shrinking market.

Go premium. Charge more from the same small group of cashed up customers, forget the price-sensitive consumer masses, let phones have their way. It's a gamble in itself, because 'let's go expensive mirrorless' didn't recoup investment for Samsung, the hyped up Internet darlings of a couple of years ago, Nikon's J1 top range compacts or Pentax's K-01.

[thibs]

Even then, less dslr sold by others means more space for Ricoh-Pentax (short to medium term).

[Kunzite]

CP+ 2018 interviews: The reign of the DSLR is almost over...: Digital Photography Review

"This year, almost all the executives we spoke to seemed to agree on one thing: full-frame mirrorless will become the norm, and it will happen pretty soon. Kenji Tanaka of Sony even put a date on it, saying that in his opinion, Canon and Nikon would join Sony in the full-frame mirrorless space within a year. Executives from Sigma and Tamron were similarly confident, and even Go Tokura of Canon dropped a couple of fairly heavy hints that the move to mirrorless is imminent."

The DSLR isn't going to die anytime soon, but there is a transition taking place. In the next 3-5 years I think we see a shift to the point mirrorless is a larger market than DSLR. Canon is watching Sony eat into its wedding and video market. Nikon has been bleeding for several years now. I think the 1DX and 5D users will be the key market for Canon and Nikon DSLRs. That will be the hardest market for Sony to crack.

Nice. But let's think a bit about this... starting with The Ultimate Question About Life, Universe and Everything: what are they trying to sell to us?

Sony promoting a mirrorless-heavy future is only natural, and it's only marketing. They have to promote the idea that they are "right", and the DSLR-making competition is "wrong" (they have the fanatic online support for this... right there on DPR). They can't possibly admit that DSLRs would maintain their dominance for the foreseeable future (assuming that's true).
Same for the other MILC makers. Fujifilm in particular can't possibly admit that FF would give an advantage.

How about Sigma and Tamron? It's the same thing, they just want to sell lenses for mirrorless. So obviously they're saying that mirrorless is a great idea, and look, here's a lens... It's all marketing.

Do you know what it isn't? And I'm including DPR here, too. This is not about some genuine concern about the users. This is not about helping people properly choose.

---------- Post added 17-04-18 at 12:45 PM ----------

Demand for mirrorless is rising.

No it's not. It's just somewhat shifting towards the higher-end.

[mecrox]

My conclusion is different, Winder.

The mirrorless manufacturers like Fuji and Sony who were absolutely hammered by the death of compact cameras have now discovered the projections of market dominance for ILCs haven't happened either, and are doing exactly the same sales strategy as the DSLR manufacturers in a shrinking market.

Go premium. Charge more from the same small group of cashed up customers, forget the price-sensitive consumer masses, let phones have their way. It's a gamble in itself, because 'let's go expensive mirrorless' didn't recoup investment for Samsung, the hyped up Internet darlings of a couple of years ago, Nikon's J1 top range compacts or Pentax's K-01.

Winder has a point. If mirrorless cameras can command a price premium then that might translate into better margins. I mean, if mirrorless cameras are so utterly dreadful, why are Canon and Nikon getting involved (so far as we know - and Canon already are). You'd think they'd keep a mile away. Mirrorless cameras are very obviously no magic wand in an industry in trouble, but my guess is that looking at revenue and prices doesn't tell the same story as looking at unit sales. In Asia, which is where it really matters, mirrortless cameras have told a kind of growth story in recent years. It's not hard to see why all the outfits bar one are moving in. It might not work of course, but they've probably decided the alternative is worse. On the tech front, not moving in just means leaving the field wide open to Sony and all their new technology. I wouldn't want an A9 but the potential of the tech inside it served notice that nothing about Canon and Nikon is invulnerable. They've surely always known the moment would arrive.

[Kunzite]

I mean, if mirrorless cameras are so utterly dreadful

Uhh... who's saying this?

[surfar]

and Canon already are

Mid May is a big announcement from Canon....Many reviewers who have NEVER been invited to a Canon event have received invites.

Canon are trying to catch up to $$$ony,so interesting times.

[Kunzite]

Probably Ricoh Imaging is scrambling to increase their DSLR production capacity, for an expected hugely increase in demand.
Unless the reality is not as tabloid-style as presented, and neither Canon nor Nikon are switching to MILCs

[Mistral75]

They are definitely not switching, merely opening a new front.

[RonHendriks1966]

They are definitely not switching, merely opening a new front.

Q is still alive, so Ricoh-Imaging has also something in the race.

[monochrome]

For CaNikon, it’s Capital driving Product, not the other way round. Always happens after a loss cycle.

[Rondec]

Winder has a point. If mirrorless cameras can command a price premium then that might translate into better margins. I mean, if mirrorless cameras are so utterly dreadful, why are Canon and Nikon getting involved (so far as we know - and Canon already are). You'd think they'd keep a mile away. Mirrorless cameras are very obviously no magic wand in an industry in trouble, but my guess is that looking at revenue and prices doesn't tell the same story as looking at unit sales. In Asia, which is where it really matters, mirrortless cameras have told a kind of growth story in recent years. It's not hard to see why all the outfits bar one are moving in. It might not work of course, but they've probably decided the alternative is worse. On the tech front, not moving in just means leaving the field wide open to Sony and all their new technology. I wouldn't want an A9 but the potential of the tech inside it served notice that nothing about Canon and Nikon is invulnerable. They've surely always known the moment would arrive.

I don't see that mirrorless cameras command a "price premium," unless you can demonstrate that the cost to manufacture a mirrorless camera is significantly less than that of an SLR. Otherwise, you get what you pay for and at a particular price point, SLRs and mirrorless cameras will be pretty comparable with regard to bodies (the glass is a different story -- particularly in Sony's case).

I think the point of this thread is that we all have anecdotal evidence of shifts, but the reality seems to be a bit different -- the market is down as a whole, mirrorless camera sales are stable (but not growing), and SLRs sales have dropped significantly over time, but still significantly out number mirrorless ILC sales.

[Winder]

No it's not. It's just somewhat shifting towards the higher-end.

Yes it is. Demand is rising which is why you see 3rd party companies like Sigma and Tamron developing new lenses for mirrorless. You wouldn't see Canon or Nikon entering the market if they didn't see rising demand. You seem to be ignoring everything that is going on in the market or you just don't understand economics. Prices don't rise if demand is falling or is flat.

Pentax users are benefiting and so are Nikon users. The K-1II and D850 are absolutely loaded with features for the money. They are excellent values. They have to pack the features into new DSLR cameras to compete in the market. DSLR manufacturers are adding every feature they can on to cameras and not raising prices in order to compete. DSLRs are becoming the value option and mirrorless is moving to the premium market. The Canon and Nikon mirrorless bodies will be premium products.

[Kunzite]

Are you sure Sigma and Tamron are not making new lenses for mirrorless, because the decline in DSLRs sales means also a decline in DSLR lens sales, and they have unused capacity?
Prices didn't exactly rise; you should say this when you're buying similar products for higher prices. The MILC market is just somewhat shifting towards the higher-end.

[clackers]

Prices don't rise if demand is falling or is flat.

(Laughs).

Of course they do.

In marketing it's what happens either if you think the marketshare-taking honeymoon pricing stage is over or if you change your product mix to the high end because you're not making money at the low.

Where are all the Sony low end products? They've really lost interest. That company will never sell the number of cameras it did in 2011 or make the same profits, no one will.

Their own board acknowledged that in their company restructure a couple of years ago, downgrading their income prospects, not sure why you're saying otherwise.