[Rondec]

Lots of people don't even compare specs. Only a certain customers want to have the latest models, the majority of camera users keep using what they have for five years or more.

I think Olympus OM-D EM1X is an indication of where things are going. Really high frame rates. 4K video (soon to be replaced by 8K video). High prices for the camera bodies.

But honestly, that sort of camera makes me glad I shoot with Pentax. Because I don't need a million frames per second and I really don't need top end video (HD is good enough for the little clips I steal), but more importantly, I don't know that the market really wants that sort of camera either. EM1X and A9 cameras are wonders of modern technology, but most photographers don't need anything close to what they offer and more importantly aren't going to want to pay the price tag for them.

[Trickortreat]

EM1X and A9 cameras are wonders of modern technology, but most photographers don't need anything close to what they offer and more importantly aren't going to want to pay the price tag for them.

In the end - users will have to pay higher prices if they dont want to stick to smartphone photography, Pentax for example, already doesnt have an entry level body.
Look at the lenses introduced last year by all manufacturers, i dont know if you can find any sub $500 lens...

[Astro-Baby]

I think the post about using this as a spoiler is probably right. Its true enough that analysts further down the company structure might be able to interpret data but CEOs and other C Suite types do tend to be influenced unduly by this kind of thing because the investors and the banks (who know squat about the tech) tend to take it at face value.

Back in the day before before being a pro photographer for real I worked as a technology analyst and system integrator. I worked for a company that didn't invest in the USB interface - even though I kept telling them MS would make it mandatory for all PCs in order to get a Windows certified sticker the CEO and CFO were convinced it would never fly as an interface based on a tech briefing they went to by HP of all people who said USB would be a fail. Thats the idiocy of suits in Corporates I suppose.

Cameras are bound like anything else to comply with supply and demand, cost, ROI etc etc - we have a shrinking economy where people have less to spend so a multi thousand ££££ camera tends to fall down the list of priorities for people - it was no different in the 1970s - very few people owned an OM-1 or a Nikon F (or even a Nikkormat for that matter) because these things were expensive. The market for the hardware back then must have been pretty tiny (the AE-1 hit a million units worldwide but I would guess Nikons Fs and OM-1s were a bit rarer. Back then I worked in a well paid job and I knew almost no one who owned serious camera gear. We are going back to that state of play is my guess and that means market shrinkage. No market can expand forever and perhaps cameras of all types have reached the limits - theres only so many cameras the average Joe will buy.

Strangely I read somewhere recently that Kodak expect the film business to grow at 5% a year going forward - who knows maybe they will spin the market by going all retro and reintroducing film cameras to get some numbers through the door. I can almost hear the adverting now - the Pentax Classic Range

[mee]

it's pretty much back to what was the market just before digital era.

I think this is the real answer to the market shrinkage.



The consumer trendiness of owning a 'big' camera is now over. They're no longer 'cool.' Those people moved on from 500 dollar DSLRs or compacts to 500 dollar smartphones.


At the same time, ILCs have all become pretty robust to the point less upgrading is occurring.


It was a double punch to the camera market of low end buyers leaving the market entirely and mid to high end buyers buying on longer time frames.

So now we're back to pre-digital age in terms of sales when mostly people really interested in photography for the sake of photography are buying dedicated cameras.

[surfar]

I think this is the real answer to the market shrinkage.

Every market has its peaks and toughs,we dont know when the bottom is but the peak was 5/6 years ago.

The consumer trendiness of owning a 'big' camera is now over. They're no longer 'cool.' Those people moved on from 500 dollar DSLRs or compacts to 500 dollar smartphones.

I saw some figures this morning,the smartphone market is shrinking overall but the segment at the top end is on the up.

https://www.channelnews.com.au/premium-phone-growth-up-despite-market-slump/

[Digitalis]

I worked for a company that didn't invest in the USB interface

That degree of shortsightedness must have been..... frustrating. Sometimes you have to stand in awe of how shockingly ignorant some tech corporations are.

[Trickortreat]

Strangely I read somewhere recently that Kodak expect the film business to grow at 5% a year going forward - who knows maybe they will spin the market by going all retro and reintroducing film cameras to get some numbers through the door. I can almost hear the adverting now - the Pentax Classic Range

Instant film and cameras had a boom last few years

---------- Post added 01-31-19 at 09:29 AM ----------

The consumer trendiness of owning a 'big' camera is now over. They're no longer 'cool.' Those people moved on from 500 dollar DSLRs or compacts to 500 dollar smartphones.

This is why i was puzzled by K1. Does that camera relly have a place in the modern market?

I saw some figures this morning,the smartphone market is shrinking overall but the segment at the top end is on the up.

That correlates perfectly with the camera market. Low end camera users are buying high end smartphones to replace their gear.

[derekkite]

Instant film and cameras had a boom last few years

---------- Post added 01-31-19 at 09:29 AM ----------



This is why i was puzzled by K1. Does that camera relly have a place in the modern market?

Is the market shrinking from the bottom up or across the board? The commercial market is still there. It would ebb and flow with the economy, with bumps with technological improvements. People don't replace commercial tools until they need to. The K1 sits there at a very good price capability point.

Serious professional or amateur photographers will buy serious equipment, and have an excellent selection to choose from. I think the high end equipment market is saturated, as all manufacturers moved upmarket as the bottom of the market disappeared.

A phone and even mirrorless cannot do what I need my camera to do. That is the case for many serious amateurs and even more professionals. But there aren't very many of people like me.

I'm seeing quite a bit of commentary on mirrorless where people are finding that they have to spend quite a bit of money to replace what they have in their DSLR and end up with not really any advantage. The viewfinder technology that was defined by the SLR mechanism ends up being a very difficult and very expensive thing to replace.

I suspect the forecast downturn is a factor of the worldwide economy and the complete disappearance of the low end camera market.

And frankly, right now, the rational thing to do is sit on what you have. The equipment people are using is unbelievably capable, very reliable, tough. People can not buy for two years and it would make no change in the photos that they produce.

The idea that a $2-5k device needs replacement every year is ridiculous.

I suspect there are lots of manufacturers looking at what Ricoh did with the K1 -> Mark II to see if it would make any sense at all. I hope it was profitable for them.

A poorly implemented mirrorless is the answer to a question no one has asked. I think Canon and Nikon are going to find this out.

A Q with a microphone plug, wide zoom and sensor stabilization in video would sell as a vlogging camera.

[Trickortreat]

Is the market shrinking from the bottom up or across the board? The commercial market is still there. It would ebb and flow with the economy, with bumps with technological improvements. People don't replace commercial tools until they need to. The K1 sits there at a very good price capability point.

Serious professional or amateur photographers will buy serious equipment, and have an excellent selection to choose from. I think the high end equipment market is saturated, as all manufacturers moved upmarket as the bottom of the market disappeared.

A phone and even mirrorless cannot do what I need my camera to do. That is the case for many serious amateurs and even more professionals. But there aren't very many of people like me.

I'm seeing quite a bit of commentary on mirrorless where people are finding that they have to spend quite a bit of money to replace what they have in their DSLR and end up with not really any advantage. The viewfinder technology that was defined by the SLR mechanism ends up being a very difficult and very expensive thing to replace.

I suspect the forecast downturn is a factor of the worldwide economy and the complete disappearance of the low end camera market.

And frankly, right now, the rational thing to do is sit on what you have. The equipment people are using is unbelievably capable, very reliable, tough. People can not buy for two years and it would make no change in the photos that they produce.

The idea that a $2-5k device needs replacement every year is ridiculous.

I suspect there are lots of manufacturers looking at what Ricoh did with the K1 -> Mark II to see if it would make any sense at all. I hope it was profitable for them.

A poorly implemented mirrorless is the answer to a question no one has asked. I think Canon and Nikon are going to find this out.

A Q with a microphone plug, wide zoom and sensor stabilization in video would sell as a vlogging camera.

Thing is - K1 makes sense only to existing Pentax users and that is a market that is shrinking quite steadily by itself. And not even all Pentax users want a K1. Or those huge lenses, that is not what Pentax was known for.

[derekkite]

Thing is - K1 makes sense only to existing Pentax users and that is a market that is shrinking quite steadily by itself. And not even all Pentax users want a K1. Or those huge lenses, that is not what Pentax was known for.

What does that even mean? The D850 make sense only to nikon users?

The K1 is serving a different market. It is a$2k body +-. I wanted a D810 and got it for about $1k less. That is a limited market.

I, and it seems almost all manufacturers, don't see a value proposition in apsc. Ricoh can't see a way to make a D500 equivalent for less than $1k. They produced a very capable apsc, the KP, low cost, and it hasn't sold. (Btw, the K5 has only one slot).

They announced something last week that I'll buy. The 35mm is very attractive. About as wide as i want, full frame.

They sold me a body two years ago that will probably last me 3 more, i got my usual 2*yr cla and it came back with some new goodies inside. The K1 value proposition is still there.

[Trickortreat]

What does that even mean? The D850 make sense only to nikon users?

The K1 is serving a different market. It is a$2k body +-. I wanted a D810 and got it for about $1k less. That is a limited market.

I, and it seems almost all manufacturers, don't see a value proposition in apsc. Ricoh can't see a way to make a D500 equivalent for less than $1k. They produced a very capable apsc, the KP, low cost, and it hasn't sold. (Btw, the K5 has only one slot).

They announced something last week that I'll buy. The 35mm is very attractive. About as wide as i want, full frame.

They sold me a body two years ago that will probably last me 3 more, i got my usual 2*yr cla and it came back with some new goodies inside. The K1 value proposition is still there.

Sorry if you dont know what that means. It is how it is...

[Fenwoodian]

.
Rather than predict the entire ILC market will shrink 50% in the next 2 years, I suggest that it might be better to look at each of the major segments of the ILC market (M 4/3, APS-C, Full Frame) individually.

While I have no statistics to offer, here's my person predictions -

1. I shoot lots of 4K videos with Panasonic M4/3rds and Fuji X APS-C cameras. Frankly, I can't tell a difference in the 4K videos produced by these two formats. So, for 4K videos, why carry the extra weight of a heavier APS-C rig when a much lighter weight M4/3rds rig (and often cheaper too) will make 4K videos that are just as good?

2. For stills, my full frame Pentax K-1 produces better stills than I can get out of either my Fuji X APS-C and Panasonic M 4/3rds cameras. Full frame is what I want for my serious stills. For my casual stills needs I pull out my iPhone.

3. If one can afford it, buy M4/3rds for video, AND full frame for stills. But if one can't afford two different camera systems, buy just a full frame camera with 4K capability.


Prediction - both full frame and M 4/3rds will probably see growth in the future (especially full frame); APS-C will likely decline in sales. Some of the camera manufacturers believe this too and are investing less of their R&D budgets into APS-C.


P.S. I used to think 1080P videos were good enough. Then I started making 4K videos. There's no going back from 4K video once you've seen it. 1080P looks absolutely mushy/blurry compared to 4K video. Also, if the platform you are uploading your videos to only takes 1080P format, I've found that if you shoot/edit in 4K, and then export it in 1080P that the end product will look better than if you'd shot it in 1080P to begin with.

[guinnessman]

Thing is - K1 makes sense only to existing Pentax users and that is a market that is shrinking quite steadily by itself. And not even all Pentax users want a K1. Or those huge lenses, that is not what Pentax was known for.

This. For me, I have no interest in the K1, mostly since I don't have a lot of FF AF lenses. The rest are mostly m42 lenses, which can be adapted on anything under the sun.


I am fairly content with my K3, save AF performance at times, but it's relative crickets from Ricoh on what's going on with real upgrade. If they want to grow their market, they have to deliver a comparable AF system, and it's not just compared to C&N, but Sony, Panasonic, etc. Ricoh's weakness isn't a virtue. And other companies are adding pixel shift, WR, and SR to their bodies. And those faster AF systems can do static shots just as easily. Sigma and Tamron lenses are virtually non-existent now, save for Pentax rebranding some Tamrons. There are some Sigma and Tamron lens that I would really like, but they're never see the light of day in K mount.


I'm not thinking upgrading every year, the K3 is close to 6 years old now, but if Ricoh did something on the level of the D500, that would be amazing, and I would upgrade. Otherwise me going Pentax FF is essentially the same as going with another company's FF system, gonna need new glass regardless.


Or going mirrorless is going to have to be a break for everybody, just make a Pentax mirrorless to K adapter and move on, make a fresh start with a new mount.

[Rondec]

This. For me, I have no interest in the K1, mostly since I don't have a lot of FF AF lenses. The rest are mostly m42 lenses, which can be adapted on anything under the sun.


I am fairly content with my K3, save AF performance at times, but it's relative crickets from Ricoh on what's going on with real upgrade. If they want to grow their market, they have to deliver a comparable AF system, and it's not just compared to C&N, but Sony, Panasonic, etc. Ricoh's weakness isn't a virtue. And other companies are adding pixel shift, WR, and SR to their bodies. And those faster AF systems can do static shots just as easily. Sigma and Tamron lenses are virtually non-existent now, save for Pentax rebranding some Tamrons. There are some Sigma and Tamron lens that I would really like, but they're never see the light of day in K mount.


I'm not thinking upgrading every year, the K3 is close to 6 years old now, but if Ricoh did something on the level of the D500, that would be amazing, and I would upgrade. Otherwise me going Pentax FF is essentially the same as going with another company's FF system, gonna need new glass regardless.


Or going mirrorless is going to have to be a break for everybody, just make a Pentax mirrorless to K adapter and move on, make a fresh start with a new mount.

Ricoh has said they are coming out with a K3 II sequel and that the KP isn't that. Probably the strongest indication of their intentions is the release of the DA * 11-18 f2.8, a lens they wouldn't release if they were planning to ditch high end APS-C.

At the same time, they are always tight lipped about their plans and that isn't anything new from their standpoint, but I would expect new APS-C to have dual slots and faster auto focus -- at least with DC motor driven lenses.