Did Canon and Nikon let 31% of the pro video market slip away to mirrorless?

[Andrew Reid]

Market research from 2014 has surfaced from consulting firm FutureSource. The year-old report suggests a swing of 50% from DSLRs to mirrorless cameras in 2015 (for pro video users). The report predicts that in the coming years 4K mirrorless cameras will dominate the market for video relative to DSLRs and that sales of large sensor professional camcorders (such as the Canon C300) will continue to grow and occupy roughly a third of the pro video market with the mirrorless camera share at a respectable 20%.

Read the full article

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

I don't agree they should switch to mirrorless to succeed, I believe they should start making great SLRs that are better than mirrorless cameras at their strength points, that's the only way they'll keep taking lead, make class-leading DSLRs with higher-end features similar to mirrorless or more (minus the physical mirrorless-attributes but plus DSLR-attributes of course). The problem is not the DSLR concept it's the current models of it. 

Their problem is, they are not making great DSLRs, just normal repeatable product cycles from 2008. 7 years in technology terms is enough to elevate a tiny company and/or destroy a huge one.

Time is going fast and Canon and Nikon seem to have lost their watches & calendars, or well, sold them to Sony and Panasonic headquarters. 

[bertzie]

Did this market research also say what percentage of still camera sales accounted for video purchases? Because all this doomsaying about how not adapting stills cameras for better video production will ruin companies is getting rather tiresome.

[gelaxstudio]

All present DSLRs are using line-skipping  for video ，and this state which started from 2008 has barely changed at all（except the expensive 1DC）

As well as the lens for video，there are only Canon STM LSR lens are specially designed for video ，and not including any standard fast prime lens!

Problems about DSLRs is not just the cameras ,it is about the whole SLR system,which already seriously behind the mirrorless

No wonder why DSLRs are losing the game

 

[OliKMIA]

I'm an avid prosumer videographer and as much as I enjoy Andrew articles and his endless independent effort to trash manufacturers when they have to be trashed, I must agree with the previous comment. If I remember well, the video market on the middle to high end camera market represent accounts for 10% of the sales. Most people don't buy DSLR or prime mirrorless to shoot video and canon is not (entirely) stupid. They do market survey and have a marketing department. So far Canon photo/video division is profitable and each camera they bring on the market is successful. They pick several market segment (still DSLR and Pro Camera) and they stick to it. That's their strategy and we'll see how it goes overtime.

 

[utsira]

10% of sales is a lot of cameras.

[Glenn Thomas]

I have a suspicion as to why DSLR cameras from Canon and Nikon are still as popular as they are. Basically Youtubers who film themselves and need a mic input.

Sony's A5100 has a selfie screen, but no mic input. So it's no good to them. None of the models above it, including the A7 series have the selfie screen, so they're no good to these people either. Then the Panasonic cameras they will dismiss for only being Micro 4/3 .

So all they're left with are Canon and Nikon, whose cheaper cameras have both selfie screens and mic inputs. And being Youtubers, they're going to promote these cameras to their audience too.

 

 

 

[Jimmy]

I think while they are still selling plenty of glass, they are happy enough... But it is a dangerous game. Canon probably fair ok, as for every ex-DSLR user that goes to a small mirrorless, there are some that upgrade to a C100 or higher.

Both companies could do with a big upgrade on the video side of their DSLRs though. 4K seem inevitable in the next round.

[mercer]

I have a suspicion as to why DSLR cameras from Canon and Nikon are still as popular as they are. Basically Youtubers who film themselves and need a mic input.

Sony's A5100 has a selfie screen, but no mic input. So it's no good to them. None of the models above it, including the A7 series have the selfie screen, so they're no good to these people either. Then the Panasonic cameras they will dismiss for only being Micro 4/3 .

So all they're left with are Canon and Nikon, whose cheaper cameras have both selfie screens and mic inputs. And being Youtubers, they're going to promote these cameras to their audience too.

 

 

 

I think it's even simpler than that... When you go to a store, Canon has more camera models displayed and on the shelves than other brands do.

Also, the Canon and Nikon names are synonymous with photography.

Panasonic and Sony and Samsung have products in so many different electronic arenas that it confuses your average consumer. If your average, everyday consumer decides to buy a camera, they go to the store and look at all of the cameras. They see Sony and think... I have a Sony TV and headphones. Then they see a Panasonic and think... I have a Panasonic electric razor or I have a Panasonic microwave... Then they move down the aisle and see a Canon or a Nikon and they think... My Dad had a Canon or... my Grandpa had a Nikon...

[k-robert]

I think also that Canon and Nikon has lost important market shares, and I believe, they will suffer even more. I have said earlier, if Nikon doesn’t change their strategy, in a few years (6-7 years) they could be out of the market. Like Pentax, the Nikon brand will probably survive, owned by a large Chinese electronic/mobile phone/optical company.

And I won’t feel sorry for them. They have highly paid people, who just don’t see the “point”. Probably most of the managers are from the optical-camera business, and therefore they have difficulties to make strategy in the computer-camera business. If you take the lens away, a modern camera is nothing else than a computer. And in computer business you must not forget Moore’s law.
It states that processor speeds, or overall processing power for computers will double every two years.
http://www.mooreslaw.org/

From this, my interpretation for the camera business is, that the sensor-processor-storage part will probably in every 3-5 years “double up”, i.e. give significant benefits. So the new model will either be:
Half so pricy
Double so fast
Twice “better” image quality
The same quality from half the sensor-size!!!

This last statement makes the MFT the best future system, and makes dinosaurs of the DSLRs. The present MFT sensors give us better pictures than the first full-frame Canon 5D, and video-wise the mirrorless cameras are superior. Even the 1” sensors are excellent today and in 5 years…. Who is going to carry around a 2kg. packet when 0,5 is perfect. Of course, a larger sensor will always have a better image quality. The question is if we can see that difference and if we need that quality and if we are willing to pay for it. For me, when I travel, size and weight are certainly cost factors. No wonder, medium format has almost disappeared.

Some other things about the camera market shouldn’t be forgotten either.
In the future, I don’t think anybody would buy a camera without a good video function.
In the future, I think mobile phones will have so good picture/video quality that most families would not even consider to buy a separate camera.
And I don’t just think, I believe, that the camera market is going to fall a lot more. We have read here and there that the global camera market is declining. But this is not falling, it is normalizing! The only reason, why camera sales were up during the last 7-8 years is, that everybody replaced their old, film camera with new digital ones.

No, it is done. New sales are minimal, replacement sales only if admirable new functionality is there. And exactly this in NOT present with DSLRs….

Look at this graph from Germany, which is one of the largest markets. In 2012, more than 1 mill. DSLRs were sold, since less and less. But the most important number is the 2001 sales, stating 200.000 cameras sold, the fourth of the last year’s sale, and probably this is the normal market size.

 

Canon and Nikon have to find their market share under these conditions, and it is not going to be easy. Especially not for Nikon.

Of course, these numbers are for the total camera market and not for the professional video segment. There are for sure differences, though mainly similarities. And a better car is a better car, nevertheless if you use it for taxi driving or family trips….

[johnnymossville]

Mirrorless is just a better design for hybrid cameras.    The future is mostly in hybrid photography/video work.    I could never go back to a camera with an optical view finder.   I'm surprised DSLR's have lasted this long quite frankly.  

[eleison]

Canon and Nikon are already toast.  The last shoe to drop will be when the low end, uninformed consumer who buys only because of brand, stops buying.  Canon's brand is hurting... really bad...  This situation is the same as the film to digital movement.  In the beginning, the average consumer kept on buying film because they didn't know better.  The "hard core" professionals kept on using film because "film will always be better than digital"... We all know what happened afterwards.  Innovate or die..  Canon/Nikon.. .who cares?  I sold a lot of my canon equipment off already.  This situation will be another case study in MBA programs all over the world... just like Eastman Kodak.

[Ed_David]

Dear Andrew Reid,

On behalf of Canon's marketing division, we would like to thank you for pointing out the diminishing sales factor of the DSLR business.  We would like you to know that the DSLR stills  business still primarily cares about stills photography.  Video is not our priority in this department.  That goes more to the C100 and C300 and C500 set of professional product line we launched to great success.

We cannot speak for other manufacturers, but it is noted your concern with our video offerings.  We still think the Canon C100 gives more value to most film productions that a GH4, NX1, or A7R II - because of its audio capabilities.  

Let's say we release the Canon Mirrorless camera that can do 4k and up to 100 FPS - well that might hurt the sales of the C100 and C300, right?  So maybe our strategy is actually a pretty smart one.

And for now, why not celebrate the value of the c100 and c300 - which has shot countless and beautiful features including Blue is the Warmest Color which won Cannes in 2014/  Do you see a camera such as the GH4, or NX1, or A7S being used on a film of that level?  Would any DP pick one of these little cameras as their A camera over something with timecode? That's a good question/

Sincerely,

Mitsao Kitzou

Canon Product Rep

[The Chris]

Pro video obviously makes up a small percentage of the overall market as CaNikon still dominate with cheap DSLR's. Most people buying cameras are not pros and the dominance of small APS-c bodies - the bottom of the CaNikon DSLR lineup - clearly demonstrates that. By most accounts of market share - Canon or Nikon still sells more than everyone else combined. If the 5d4 busts out with 4k and a host of other video-centric features or the next D800 does the same, pros will buy them in droves. Mirror or no mirror - it really doesn't matter. 

[David Bowgett]

Mirrorless is just a better design for hybrid cameras.    The future is mostly in hybrid photography/video work.    I could never go back to a camera with an optical view finder.   I'm surprised DSLR's have lasted this long quite frankly.  

​Mirrorless might be the future... but we don't live in the future, we live in the present. And the present situation is still that DSLRs are better in some areas, and mirrorless better in others.

In fact, that's probably a big part of why the D750 was so well-received. In photography terms it's better than the D610 and A7, but not overwhelmingly so. In video terms, it's clearly weaker than the A7S and GH4 in just about all aspects other than colour rendition (and low light performance versus the latter). But it still does both things so well that it makes a very good package for people who need one camera for both purposes.

[Andrew Reid]

Dear Andrew Reid,

On behalf of Canon's marketing division, we would like to thank you for pointing out the diminishing sales factor of the DSLR business.  We would like you to know that the DSLR stills  business still primarily cares about stills photography.  Video is not our priority in this department.  That goes more to the C100 and C300 and C500 set of professional product line we launched to great success.

We cannot speak for other manufacturers, but it is noted your concern with our video offerings.  We still think the Canon C100 gives more value to most film productions that a GH4, NX1, or A7R II - because of its audio capabilities.  

Let's say we release the Canon Mirrorless camera that can do 4k and up to 100 FPS - well that might hurt the sales of the C100 and C300, right?  So maybe our strategy is actually a pretty smart one.

And for now, why not celebrate the value of the c100 and c300 - which has shot countless and beautiful features including Blue is the Warmest Color which won Cannes in 2014/  Do you see a camera such as the GH4, or NX1, or A7S being used on a film of that level?  Would any DP pick one of these little cameras as their A camera over something with timecode? That's a good question/

Sincerely,

Mitsao Kitzou

Canon Product Rep

Yes, well, film sets are one thing... but I at EOSHD always had an eye on the enthusiasts and consumers more than with the established film industry.

The GH2 was for a long time the only camera we cared about! Cheap! Great image!

Sure the C100/C300 strategy could be seen as "smart". But it is a totally separate strategy to what we're really in need of, which is for Canon to start playing the game again in that very significantly sized DSLR/mirrorless video market. If only idiots would stop buying over priced and under specced Rebels and get a clue, Canon would react and improve the breed I am sure.

[Andrew Reid]

I think also that Canon and Nikon has lost important market shares, and I believe, they will suffer even more. I have said earlier, if Nikon doesn’t change their strategy, in a few years (6-7 years) they could be out of the market. Like Pentax, the Nikon brand will probably survive, owned by a large Chinese electronic/mobile phone/optical company.

And I won’t feel sorry for them. They have highly paid people, who just don’t see the “point”. Probably most of the managers are from the optical-camera business, and therefore they have difficulties to make strategy in the computer-camera business. If you take the lens away, a modern camera is nothing else than a computer. And in computer business you must not forget Moore’s law.
It states that processor speeds, or overall processing power for computers will double every two years.
http://www.mooreslaw.org/

From this, my interpretation for the camera business is, that the sensor-processor-storage part will probably in every 3-5 years “double up”, i.e. give significant benefits. So the new model will either be:
Half so pricy
Double so fast
Twice “better” image quality
The same quality from half the sensor-size!!!

This last statement makes the MFT the best future system, and makes dinosaurs of the DSLRs. The present MFT sensors give us better pictures than the first full-frame Canon 5D, and video-wise the mirrorless cameras are superior. Even the 1” sensors are excellent today and in 5 years…. Who is going to carry around a 2kg. packet when 0,5 is perfect. Of course, a larger sensor will always have a better image quality. The question is if we can see that difference and if we need that quality and if we are willing to pay for it. For me, when I travel, size and weight are certainly cost factors. No wonder, medium format has almost disappeared.

Some other things about the camera market shouldn’t be forgotten either.
In the future, I don’t think anybody would buy a camera without a good video function.
In the future, I think mobile phones will have so good picture/video quality that most families would not even consider to buy a separate camera.
And I don’t just think, I believe, that the camera market is going to fall a lot more. We have read here and there that the global camera market is declining. But this is not falling, it is normalizing! The only reason, why camera sales were up during the last 7-8 years is, that everybody replaced their old, film camera with new digital ones.

No, it is done. New sales are minimal, replacement sales only if admirable new functionality is there. And exactly this in NOT present with DSLRs….

Look at this graph from Germany, which is one of the largest markets. In 2012, more than 1 mill. DSLRs were sold, since less and less. But the most important number is the 2001 sales, stating 200.000 cameras sold, the fourth of the last year’s sale, and probably this is the normal market size.

 

Canon and Nikon have to find their market share under these conditions, and it is not going to be easy. Especially not for Nikon.

Of course, these numbers are for the total camera market and not for the professional video segment. There are for sure differences, though mainly similarities. And a better car is a better car, nevertheless if you use it for taxi driving or family trips….

​Interesting post that one!

The year 2001 was really a pre-digital era as far as the mass market was concerned, as affordable DSLRs didn't really exist until 2005 with the Canon 300D.

2012 was something of a peak because it was just before the mass market decided their phone was 'good enough'

Good enough aside from the zoom which is why crap like the G3 X exists!!

The DSLR is heading back to base. At the base are waiting a lot of enthusiasts pissed off at Canon for ignoring them. Most of them are moving to Sony. When Canon and Nikon lose their footing in the consumer market, we won't be there to patch things up.

[dahlfors]

Nikon is rumoured to having a full frame sensor mirrorless camera in development. Nikon representatives have also mentioned that they're looking into 4k, but that there were design hurdles to overcome to design a camera with 4k, and they didn't believe their customers had a demand for 4k yet (this was mentioned in an interview earlier this year or if it was maybe last year).

Panasonic, Samsung and Sony all have synergy effects to account for when they push for 4k in their cameras due to their TV divisions, so it makes sense for them to be the first manufacturers with a proper lineup of cameras featuring 4k.

If Nikon or any other camera manufacturer invests in R&D for 4k capable cameras, they won't have any bonus effect from TV sales - because they don't make TVs. Hence from a business perspective it makes sense for them to see what the competition offers and what specifications they need to live up to.

D810 and D750 are great still cameras and match very well what the still photographers request. The video features are probably enough for journalists and similar still photographers who also need to provide video material.

Since Nikon doesn't have any pro video line to protect, they will certainly jump the 4k train.

Considering the rumours for a mirrorless full frame Nikon, it isn't likely that they have missed the attention the mirrorless cameras have been getting among photographers in the later years, especially the attention the large sensor mirrorless Sony cameras - from both still photographers as well as videographers.

I don't think we'll see a full frame Nikon mirrorless until 2016 at least. However, Nikon D5 has been rumoured to feature 4k, and I think it is plausible. Because, a new top of the line camera from Nikon usually means a newly designed image processor that will get implemented throughout their whole product segment of interchangeable lens cameras. If they want 4k in the upcoming cameras in 2016-2017, the new image processor for the D5 better be up to it.

The likely timeline for Nikon D5 is either late 2015 or beginning of 2016. After that I expect all upcoming Nikon cameras to feature 4k.

 

Canon are protecting their C100, C300 series of cameras for certain. But I think as soon as they know that Nikon starts offering 4k, Canon will also be ready to follow and add 4k capability to at least parts of their DSLR lineup.

[tugela]

I'm an avid prosumer videographer and as much as I enjoy Andrew articles and his endless independent effort to trash manufacturers when they have to be trashed, I must agree with the previous comment. If I remember well, the video market on the middle to high end camera market represent accounts for 10% of the sales. Most people don't buy DSLR or prime mirrorless to shoot video and canon is not (entirely) stupid. They do market survey and have a marketing department. So far Canon photo/video division is profitable and each camera they bring on the market is successful. They pick several market segment (still DSLR and Pro Camera) and they stick to it. That's their strategy and we'll see how it goes overtime.

 

​That is not really the point. "Real" professionals use full professional equipment, but there is an army of lesser lower end pros who can't afford that stuff and make do with prosumer equipment. Typically those guys are shooting both stills and video. That is the market Canon and Nikon are losing. Those folk are not moving over to buy C300, because that is simply too expensive. DSLRs can't cut it in video any more, not because of something inherent in the mirror (although obviously it is inconvenient having it there) but because the companies that make DSLRs do not take video seriously. It is tacked on as an afterthought. Mirrorless centric manufacturers however DO take video seriously, and that is the reason the market share is shifting to them.

Maybe Canon and Nikon sell DSLRs mostly to pure stills photographers, but they are still giving up a big chunk the market that wants to do both. Since the development costs of a camera are absorbed by the first X customers, this segment of the market they are losing represents pure profit they are giving up. In addition, by giving the mirrorless companies a solid following only they can satisfy, they allow those companies to cover THEIR development costs, something otherwise known as "getting your foot in the door". Canon and Nikon should be very concerned, and probably are. The fact that they are laggard in implementing video in their products means either (a) their management is incompetent and short sighted, or (b) There are IP issues and limitations imposed by cross licensing agreements that prevent them from progressing as fast as the mirrorless crowd.

[tugela]

Canon and Nikon are already toast.  The last shoe to drop will be when the low end, uninformed consumer who buys only because of brand, stops buying.  Canon's brand is hurting... really bad...  This situation is the same as the film to digital movement.  In the beginning, the average consumer kept on buying film because they didn't know better.  The "hard core" professionals kept on using film because "film will always be better than digital"... We all know what happened afterwards.  Innovate or die..  Canon/Nikon.. .who cares?  I sold a lot of my canon equipment off already.  This situation will be another case study in MBA programs all over the world... just like Eastman Kodak.

​No, digital was allways the cheaper option for actually taking photographs. The problem in the early days is that digital cameras were very expensive for the most part, and the image quality in that price range did not compete with film. Once it did, film died overnight.

The same thing is going to happen to DSLRs. Mirrorless have inherent advantages, and once they become equivalent to OVF cameras in certain areas, DSLRs will become extinct very quickly. I think that day is not too far off, and then Canon with become the next Kodak.