[Serkevan]

Is this true? Last time I checked (I think it was about a year ago) mirrorless was about 50% of the market. The same 5 years ago. Seems to be very stable in spite of a plethora of new mirrorless bodies.

Not quite. Quick and dirty graph from CIPA data:

[biz-engineer]

Not quite. Quick and dirty graph from CIPA data:

By far, the most attention catching is the decline of both DSLR and MILC. The number of owned DSLR (from the last two decades) far outweight the total sales of DSLR and MILC combined in the last two years. Which means... "normal" photography isn't trendy anymore. Now, it all goes into smartphones, drones, a bit 360, video for online sharing. Pure traditional photography becomes marginal (from the perspective of the masses). So, for people predicting the death of DSLR, they better be very careful about what they say, because they are not realizing that they are cutting the branch they belongs to. If the trend continues, I'm expecting some youtube photography channel (sponsored gear reviews...). I bet well known camera review youtube channels predicting the death of DSLR have seen their income drop significantly over the last two years.

[Pål Jensen]

Have been interesting to see the trend from this graph plotted against the number of DSLR's and mirrorless released onto the market on a yearly basis. I wouldn't be surprised if it would show a correlation. The mirrorless systems are all immature to variable degree whereas DSLR systems are mature.
What I believe we are seeing is markets maturing to a different time-frame and further fragmentation of the digital camera marked.

[biz-engineer]

The mirrorless systems are all immature to variable degree whereas DSLR systems are mature.

DSLR can't grow like mirrorless, for the simple reason that there are a lot less new DSLR products being released (if any).
In relation to how many new mirrorless products (cameras and lenses) have been released and promoted since 2018, the lack mirrorless growth is dramatic thing, mostly equate financial losses.
It's be interesting to add on the same chart respective Profits & Losses for DSLR and MILC. For Nikon, I think MILC are the reason for heavy losses, somehow funded by DSLR sales.

At the moment, decisions aren't being made because investors can still be told that bad financial results are caused by Covid-19. We will see how things evolve after Covid-19 is over, and camera sales still don't come back, will be interesting to see.

---

Last edited by biz-engineer; 03-23-2021 at 01:32 PM.

[texandrews]

Have been interesting to see the trend from this graph plotted against the number of DSLR's and mirrorless released onto the market on a yearly basis. I wouldn't be surprised if it would show a correlation. The mirrorless systems are all immature to variable degree whereas DSLR systems are mature.
What I believe we are seeing is markets maturing to a different time-frame and further fragmentation of the digital camera marked.

Yes. And what I'm seeing along with you is that this chart goes all the way back to....2014! And, as someone whose 2014 645Z is still performing fantastically, I'll wager there are some others with similar high end FF or APSC cameras who are finding that their cameras are performing equally well. We've all said it: the need to upgrade isn't remotely what it was in the aughts up to 2010/12 (actually, if I still had it my 2010-ish Sony A850 would still be performing very well...). The beginning several years of the last decade saw remarkable gains in DSLR cameras---even Rebels were no longer pieces of (flotsam). In the MILC realm, however, there have been major gains over the first crop of MILC cameras---I had 2 of them, and NEX7 and an A7R. Both would be very good today as well, but they've been leapfrogged by their peers in ways the DSLR's have not. Yes, DSLR's are quite mature, which is not to say obsolete or decadent. So, this chart needs to be read properly...

[Serkevan]

Yes. And what I'm seeing along with you is that this chart goes all the way back to....2014! And, as someone whose 2014 645Z is still performing fantastically, I'll wager there are some others with similar high end FF or APSC cameras who are finding that their cameras are performing equally well. We've all said it: the need to upgrade isn't remotely what it was in the aughts up to 2010/12 (actually, if I still had it my 2010-ish Sony A850 would still be performing very well...). The beginning several years of the last decade saw remarkable gains in DSLR cameras---even Rebels were no longer pieces of (flotsam). In the MILC realm, however, there have been major gains over the first crop of MILC cameras---I had 2 of them, and NEX7 and an A7R. Both would be very good today as well, but they've been leapfrogged by their peers in ways the DSLR's have not. Yes, DSLR's are quite mature, which is not to say obsolete or decadent. So, this chart needs to be read properly...

I stopped at 2014 because I got tired of putting stuff in the chart

I'm not sure it's possible to read much into the chart beyond that companies are pushing MILCs (for a variety of reasons), and the market is shifting towards them.
Whether the manufacturers are pushing mirrorless or they are reacting to the market is a completely different story, of course. Chicken and egg there, I think - with a good chance of MILC being pushed because it's more sustainable financially for the companies.

We also have to take into account that the bulk of sales is entry level cameras - the sector that's being obliterated by smartphones. I doubt the entirety of medium format would even make a dent in the graph, when even mid-high level (say, $3k+) FF is less than 10% of the total market.

[Rondec]

DSLR can't grow like mirrorless, for the simple reason that there are a lot less new DSLR products being released (if any).
In relation to how many new mirrorless products (cameras and lenses) have been released and promoted since 2018, the lack mirrorless growth is dramatic thing, mostly equate financial losses.
It's be interesting to add on the same chart respective Profits & Losses for DSLR and MILC. For Nikon, I think MILC are the reason for heavy losses, somehow funded by DSLR sales.

At the moment, decisions aren't being made because investors can still be told that bad financial results are caused by Covid-19. We will see how things evolve after Covid-19 is over, and camera sales still don't come back, will be interesting to see.

I think the concern is that while the absolute number of SLRs sold is similar to the number of MILCs, the value of the MILCs is quite a bit more -- camera companies are still selling entry level SLRs, but not many upper end ones, while there don't seem to be many "cheap" MILCs from the major brands -- most seem to be trying to get their users into full frame MILCs, the cheapest of which is over a thousand dollars.

[Serkevan]

I think the concern is that while the absolute number of SLRs sold is similar to the number of MILCs, the value of the MILCs is quite a bit more -- camera companies are still selling entry level SLRs, but not many upper end ones, while there don't seem to be many "cheap" MILCs from the major brands -- most seem to be trying to get their users into full frame MILCs, the cheapest of which is over a thousand dollars.

Yes - I made this other graph (also quick and dirty) during lunch break . I hope it's readable enough.



Trends:
-DSLR price per unit was mostly stable, dropping in the last couple years.
-MILC price per unit, however, has shot up more than 100% in the same time period
-Total revenue is nosediving
-MILC % of revenue increased from 17% in 2013 to 74% (!!!!) of total ILC revenue in 2020.

Interesting data points:
-2013 and 2014 show that the price per DSLR was higher than for MILCs - because the only well-selling MILC system was M4/3. We've seen how well that has turned out for Oly.
-2016/2017 saw the release of what people would consider high-impact DSLR models: Canon brought out the 5D4 and the 6D2, Nikon released the D500 and D850, Pentax released the K-1. These expensive models had the effect of very slightly increasing the price per unit of DSLRs while doing absolutely nothing to stem the assault of MILCs (which shot up from 26% revenue in 2015 to 38% in 2017)
-2018 into 2019 marks the shift due to the release of the Z and RF systems: MILCs are now comfortably in the lead revenue-wise - Mistral pointed out that, in talks with Canon reps some time ago, the M6ii was selling much better than its DSLR counterpart, the 90D, despite the 90D having substantially more tech inside (since it's the same innards but with OVF Face-detect AF). This might be an anecdote by itself, but coupled to the data* it leads me to believe that people who buy an entry level camera are now looking for a MILC entry level camera, because they all have Eye-AF. In particular, 2019 sees MILC revenue increase -very- slightly while DSLR revenue nosedives from 2310 M€ to 1360 (ouch).
-2020 continues the trauma conga line for DSLRs (since the only non-entry level model released is the Nikon D780, which is ridiculously expensive for what's basically a 6 year old camera with better Live View) but somehow MILC revenue barely drops.
-DSLR revenue is now 17% of what it was in 2013.

Conclusions:
-Canikon saw that users were clearly more willing to drop fat stacks on cash on cheaper-to-make MILCs while bringing out the best DSLRs the world had ever seen was doing nothing to stop the revenue decreases. Obviously, they took the bait - hook, line and sinker.
-The camera market will probably be fine: MILCs are cheaper to make which means the manufacturers can survive on lower numbers and the user base seems to be willing to pay for the bodies. Total revenue has dropped a fair bit but leaner production models will help.

*More data: added separate revenue columns for DSLRs and MILCs to another graph (it would have been too much on the same one). I think it's telling how it's less about model number and more about marketing some features of EVFs very aggressively.

[Pål Jensen]

But these trends can be explained by mature vs. immature systems. DSLR is mature. Those with mature systems (camera + lenses) do not necessarily update their systems a few years after they bought it. The marked is saturated. Not so for mirorrless yet; Nikon and Canon in particular.
When the dust settles things may look different.

[Serkevan]

But these trends can be explained by mature vs. immature systems. DSLR is mature. Those with mature systems (camera + lenses) do not necessarily update their systems a few years after they bought it. The marked is saturated. Not so for mirorrless yet; Nikon and Canon in particular.
When the dust settles things may look different.

Sure - but that's the thing: manufacturers that have spent more than a decade fueling a bubble cannot survive on mature systems alone. Not to mention that spec-sheet monster MILCs have bigger numbers than any DSLR has ever had.*

When the dust settles Pentax will be hopefully making DSLRs.
The only thing Canikon will be making is repairs to their equipment, and that's being optimistic - why waste money on R&D when everything they can make is either a refresh of a workhorse that people buy every 10-15 years or so niche that it won't pay for the costs?

*Which makes me chuckle since the K-1, with a 2013/2014 sensor, is still more or less uncontested in IQ.

[Erictator]

DSLR can't grow like mirrorless, for the simple reason that there are a lot less new DSLR products being released (if any).
In relation to how many new mirrorless products (cameras and lenses) have been released and promoted since 2018, the lack mirrorless growth is dramatic thing, mostly equate financial losses.
It's be interesting to add on the same chart respective Profits & Losses for DSLR and MILC. For Nikon, I think MILC are the reason for heavy losses, somehow funded by DSLR sales.

At the moment, decisions aren't being made because investors can still be told that bad financial results are caused by Covid-19. We will see how things evolve after Covid-19 is over, and camera sales still don't come back, will be interesting to see.

I think on top of that, people will need economic recovery time after covid19 is over. There will be other higher priority expenditures for regular people, (not pros who need cameras to make a living but also are a smaller part of the market) like replacing that car that they kept driving and put off replacing during covid, replacing that roof, getting that crown put on their tooth, replacing that leaky faucet, buying the kids new cloths bikes etc, replacing that aging cell phone with the cracked screen, etc etc etc. Somehow I think a new camera will be way down that list for a lot of people until they get back up to financial speed. I'm guessing a realistic market analysis wont be worth looking at for a couple years. That's just my take for what it's worth.
Eric

[Class A]

...with a good chance of MILC being pushed because it's more sustainable financially for the companies.

Definitely.

Not only can companies sell new cameras, they can sell whole lens systems all over again.

Unconsciously or not, certain "reviewers", influencers, and gear selling outlets have been conspirators in the move to declare DSRLs as "outdated" and hyping up MILCs while downplaying the latters' downsides. I don't assume ulterior motives for everyone who has done it, quite a bit was probably just personal conviction (paired with the failure to recognise that there other user types), but there is no denying that reporting on DSRLs vs MILCs has very rarely been fair.

[Serkevan]

Definitely.

Not only can companies sell new cameras, they can sell whole lens systems all over again.

Unconsciously or not, certain "reviewers", influencers, and gear selling outlets have been conspirators in the move to declare DSRLs as "outdated" and hyping up MILCs while downplaying the latters' downsides. I don't assume ulterior motives for everyone who has done it, quite a bit was probably just personal conviction (paired with the failure to recognise that there other user types), but there is no denying that reporting on DSRLs vs MILCs has very rarely been fair.

Absolutely. From Canikon's side, the only reasonable option was mirrorless - Canon has seen reduced revenue in the Imaging department almost every year for a good while and Nikon's revenue plummeted lately. It doesn't matter that you have tens of millions of happy users if they won't keep spending endlessly; at least, not if your business models isn't sustainable with "just" their replacement of worn gear, plus the sporadic upgrade.

Now a new system, with all-new lenses? That might be just what one needs to maintain enough cash flow to lighten the corporation's mass-market-dependent structure*. I think Canon understood the idea better than Nikon - most of their initial RF lenses simply aren't available in EF mount.

*Ricoh is way ahead of them there, I feel.

[mee]

there is no denying that reporting on DSRLs vs MILCs has very rarely been fair.

It probably does look that way if you're DSLR biased.


What could have helped Pentax was if they had offered more than updated lens coatings on their 2013 lens refresh. Simply updating the designs to include weather sealing and in lens focusing motors would have gone a long way, imo, to bringing the system up to modern times. That and addressing AF-C tracking a lot earlier.

Now they're at a time when camera sales have really shrunk with a system that looks even more dated. They missed that opportunity then.

Then they had the opportunity in 2016 with the launch of the K-1 and new D-FA system. But chose to not launch many lenses either. 50 f/1.4 dragged out slowly. 85 f/1.4 dragged out slowly. UWA currently dragging out slowly. On a FF digital system that launched 5 years ago that's a very long time. If you're looking at a system, why wait indefinitely over many years for a 50 or 85 when a competitor already has quality versions of the same? That's why they haven't gained much ground.

Right at the time Mirrorless systems were gaining interest for their positive qualities and manufacturers were introducing new systems with improved lens lineups, comprising several dozen lenses in only a few years time. Like them or leave them, MILCs aren't going away and they aren't a flash in the pan.

Canon and Nikon both have more up to date DSLR lens lineups. Canon seems to be out of the DSLR business for now. Nikon is still in for the time being. Yet both Canon and Nikon systems are a tier up from what Pentax offers as a whole total modern system. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, and the Panasonic/Sigma collective all released new Mirrorless systems and lens lineups.

Yet Pentax is slowly trudging along with a hodgepodge of very old screwdriven lens designs mixed with modern and a small, dated lineup of camera bodies.

There is a disparity there.

Sorry, that's not bashing, but just how I feel Pentax got to where they are now. Ricoh never seemed to want to gamble the big money into refreshing the system as Pentax deserved. Ricoh stayed very conservative even early on at a time when the market was still in growth mode. I applaud them for keeping the system going as long as they have though and for bringing out the K-1. But they've never (yet) put both feet all in on it, to me it seems. It's always felt like a side item to them.

I do hope they decide to stay in and find a partner to weather the challenges of the market. I've always enjoyed how a top tier digital K body has felt in hand. And DSLRs still and probably will always have life in them for a certain band of photographers.

[MMVIII]

It probably does look that way if you're DSLR biased.


What could have helped Pentax was if they had offered more than updated lens coatings on their 2013 lens refresh. Simply updating the designs to include weather sealing and in lens focusing motors would have gone a long way, imo, to bringing the system up to modern times. That and addressing AF-C tracking a lot earlier.

Now they're at a time when camera sales have really shrunk with a system that looks even more dated. They missed that opportunity then.

Then they had the opportunity in 2016 with the launch of the K-1 and new D-FA system. But chose to not launch many lenses either. 50 f/1.4 dragged out slowly. 85 f/1.4 dragged out slowly. UWA currently dragging out slowly. On a FF digital system that launched 5 years ago that's a very long time. If you're looking at a system, why wait indefinitely over many years for a 50 or 85 when a competitor already has quality versions of the same? That's why they haven't gained much ground.

Right at the time Mirrorless systems were gaining interest for their positive qualities and manufacturers were introducing new systems with improved lens lineups, comprising several dozen lenses in only a few years time. Like them or leave them, MILCs aren't going away and they aren't a flash in the pan.

Canon and Nikon both have more up to date DSLR lens lineups. Canon seems to be out of the DSLR business for now. Nikon is still in for the time being. Yet both Canon and Nikon systems are a tier up from what Pentax offers as a whole total modern system. Sony, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Fuji, and the Panasonic/Sigma collective all released new Mirrorless systems and lens lineups.

Yet Pentax is slowly trudging along with a hodgepodge of very old screwdriven lens designs mixed with modern and a small, dated lineup of camera bodies.

There is a disparity there.

Sorry, that's not bashing, but just how I feel Pentax got to where they are now. Ricoh never seemed to want to gamble the big money into refreshing the system as Pentax deserved. Ricoh stayed very conservative even early on at a time when the market was still in growth mode. I applaud them for keeping the system going as long as they have though and for bringing out the K-1. But they've never (yet) put both feet all in on it, to me it seems. It's always felt like a side item to them.

I do hope they decide to stay in and find a partner to weather the challenges of the market. I've always enjoyed how a top tier digital K body has felt in hand. And DSLRs still and probably will always have life in them for a certain band of photographers.

funny, but the use of the term biased makes you biased. How about: ...if DSLRs fulfill your requirements, if you prefer DSLRs, if DSLRs suit your needs, if DSLRs do what you want... and you don't want them to vanish from the market.