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

[tugela]

​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.

​I don't think cell phones had anything to do with that, they don't and never have competed with ILCs, which is what that figure is about.

Around 2009 or so was when IQ from digital cameras became good enough that the need to upgrade was not strong anymore. There was a lag period as the market caught up replacing older cameras with newer ones. Nowdays there is no imperative to get a new camera unless your old one breaks or the new one has some must have feature, such as advanced video functions. When I got my NX1, that was the driving force for me. My old T3i was good enough for stills (but horrible for video), so if it were only stills I was taking I would not have upgraded. Sales of DSLRs are going down because that replacement with "good enough" is largely done now. The sales which are going up still are mirrorless, and that is probably being driven by people interested in hybrid cameras rather than stills or video only. In the medium term that is where the growth potential in the industry lies.

[Oliver Daniel]

Canon are doing just fine. They don't need to make big, innovative waves year on year as they sell more than anyone else and have a more recognised brand. They are able to wait for the market to move first. 

I still know a lot of people who film on their Canon DSLRs. They rent C300's, to go with the lenses. It's not as if Canon are going downhill, is it? 

Canon are differently innovative. Instead of relying on fabulous specs, they rely on reliability, ease of use and cameras that "just work" and work very well. No dodgy slow menus, poor battery life and unstable firmware. Canon make high quality stuff. 

I don't have any Canon gear. I'd love a C300 MK II but I couldn't justify it. I'd get by just fine with an RX10 II and Sony FS7 rentals. I'd only buy a Canon for stills or to mess with Magic Lantern. Such the quality at lower prices these days, I couldn't care less what Canon are doing, as long as there are options I can afford from other brands. I'm more concerned about my own creativity than curling up in bed having nightmares about Canons so-called lack of innovation. 

 

[Damphousse]

​This "research" such that it is doesn't have a single absolute number!  It's all percentages!  They don't even say percent of what... a million... 100 million?

Also there is no discussion of margins.  Looking at the knife fight going on in the sub $2,000 hybrid videography world I doubt many of those players are as profitable as Canon.  GH4 was praised as the second coming and then months later it was kicked to the curb.  A7S was all the rage then the dark horse Samsung NX1 came out of nowhere.  LX100 warmed everyone's heart then Sony came roaring back with the RX10 II.  G7 is probably going to make a splash.  And let's not forget the $500 BMPCC I and many others picked up.

With three big hybrid players going after a third of a market that was at one point almost exclusively Canon you really wonder about the viability of the model.  I'm enjoying the cameras but I still have my doubts Panasonic is guaranteed to be in the consumer camera business 5 years from now.  Panasonic has shifted away from consumer products and concentrated on industrial products and their stock has been rewarded.

Panasonic earned 80.3 billion yen in operating profit from its automotive and industrial systems segment in the nine months to December. That made it the single biggest contributor to profit. The company’s eco-solutions business, which includes lighting and housing-related materials, contributed 75.7 billion yen in profit, more than three-and-half times the audio visual business.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/panasonic-sees-tesla-cells-housing-fueling-8-year-high-profit

[Andrew Reid]

​This "research" such that it is doesn't have a single absolute number!  It's all percentages!  They don't even say percent of what... a million... 100 million?

Also there is no discussion of margins.  Looking at the knife fight going on in the sub $2,000 hybrid videography world I doubt many of those players are as profitable as Canon.  GH4 was praised as the second coming and then months later it was kicked to the curb.  A7S was all the rage then the dark horse Samsung NX1 came out of nowhere.  LX100 warmed everyone's heart then Sony came roaring back with the RX10 II.  G7 is probably going to make a splash.  And let's not forget the $500 BMPCC I and many others picked up.

With three big hybrid players going after a third of a market that was at one point almost exclusively Canon you really wonder about the viability of the model.  I'm enjoying the cameras but I still have my doubts Panasonic is guaranteed to be in the consumer camera business 5 years from now.  Panasonic has shifted away from consumer products and concentrated on industrial products and their stock has been rewarded.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/panasonic-sees-tesla-cells-housing-fueling-8-year-high-profit

​You sound like you're arguing against your OWN interests here!

Whose side are you on? Canon's shareholders or the filmmakers!?

[Andrew Reid]

Profit from the "Audio visual" business at Panasonic does not = profit from cameras.

It has a whole host of crap dragging the profit down... cameras were not one of them.

The reason Panasonic made 3 times more profit from eco-solutions is because of a strong demand for that but more significantly a fall in demand for certain audio visual products like their TVs where are unappealing both on specs AND price compared to Samsung & LG.

[AaronChicago]

I love all of the choices today. I'm willing to bet there will be another company come out of the blue in the next year with "Blackmagic" like offerings.

[maxotics]

I never had the cameras I wanted as a young person.  Now I have all the cameras I want.  EVERY time I go out I tell myself, "shoot some video".  I almost never do.  Why, I ask myself?  The best I can figure is that shooting video WITHOUT a narrative results in boring footage.  I'm only interested in Andrew's footage because of my technical interest, and those vestigial dreams of being a filmmaker.  Otherwise, I can't sit through video of random scenes.  I've asked Andrew to shoot people in his tests because then he'd see how important narrative is over image quality.  Shooting a music video doesn't count because it has a built-in narrative--the song.  Most of my videos are of similar narrative-included events. 

Yes, if you're looking at the Canon 70D say, and the Sony A6000 for video functionality, the latter wins hands down.  Yet, you can still record decent video on the 70D, and it is STILL a much better still camera than ANY MFT camera.  I've tried to get into MFT cameras for stills.  I read Visual Science Lab every day.  Can't do it.  The main thing is that 90% of most camera buyers do NOT shoot video for the very same reasons I don't.  Video DEMANDS a narrative or it becomes the digital equivalent of "watching a vacation slide show" in the 70s.  That was the joke when I was young.  If I take a photo, I can post it, and someone can enjoy it immediately, or not.  If I shoot a video, even 1 minutes worth, it will take ten-times that amount of time to edit it.  The work required for video grows exponentially.  Most people DO NOT want to spend their leisure time editing anything. And unlike a photo, you viewer can't decide how long they want to look at it.  VIDEO FORCES YOUR NARRATIVE on someone, just like a slide show.  In a sense, a video is active and a photo passive.  A video, in short, is not for the insecure.

I doubt it matters how far Sony and Panasonic distance themselves from Canon/Nikon in video.  Video, on any camera, is not what most people want or use.  

Finally, the difference between 4K and 1080 doesn't do much for me.  RAW, vs any resolution DOES make a difference to me.  So if I DID SHOOT video, I wouldn't use a 70D or a Sony or a Panasonic.  I'd shoot with a Blackmagic, or if I was going to shoot compressed, a C100.  

[Damphousse]

​You sound like you're arguing against your OWN interests here!

Whose side are you on? Canon's shareholders or the filmmakers!?

​Telling the truth is not picking a side.  Regardless of what I want I will only present reality.  There are a lot of financials we are not privy to.  What I am openly wondering about is can all these companies stay viable if every six months there is a new hot flavor?  Canon didn't become the most profitable and viable company of the past three decades by engaging in 6 month tit for tat fights in it's $1,000+ camera bodies with three or four players.  People keep saying they are perplexed by Canon's behavior but then you see how the market has unfolded in the last year and a half... actually less than that.  The GH4 was announced in Feb 2014!  So GH4 -> Sony a7s -> $500 BMPCC -> NX1 ->LX100, NX500, RX10II, etc.  Literally after years of R&D you have a few months to get your camera sold before the next flavor of the month pops up from your competitor.  I just have to wonder aloud how long that state of affairs happens before the consumer is left with less choice.  Is this a viable long term trend?

I'm just amazed how quickly a camera (GH4) and company can go from savior to reviled.  This is just a new business model for the prosumer camera business.  I don't necessarily think all the people who are dancing on Canon's supposed grave have stopped to consider that Canon may not be the first death in the family.

[Andrew Reid]

​Telling the truth is not picking a side.  Regardless of what I want I will only present reality.  There are a lot of financials we are not privy to.  What I am openly wondering about is can all these companies stay viable if every six months there is a new hot flavor?  Canon didn't become the most profitable and viable company of the past three decades by engaging in 6 month tit for tat fights in it's $1,000+ camera bodies with three or four players.  People keep saying they are perplexed by Canon's behavior but then you see how the market has unfolded in the last year and a half... actually less than that.  The GH4 was announced in Feb 2014!  So GH4 -> Sony a7s -> $500 BMPCC -> NX1 ->LX100, NX500, RX10II, etc.  Literally after years of R&D you have a few months to get your camera sold before the next flavor of the month pops up from your competitor.  I just have to wonder aloud how long that state of affairs happens before the consumer is left with less choice.  Is this a viable long term trend?

I'm just amazed how quickly a camera (GH4) and company can go from savior to reviled.  This is just a new business model for the prosumer camera business.  I don't necessarily think all the people who are dancing on Canon's supposed grave have stopped to consider that Canon may not be the first death in the family.

You are free to call it tit for tat. I will call it technological progress.

Sony are set to own the imaging sensor market and define image quality for CMOS for years to come.

That means they will be able to dictate their own destiny and the image quality of their competitors like Canon and Nikon because these companies will soon have to buy Sony sensors just to compete.

Tit for tat is one thing...how about Canon just try competing? Do they have an answer to the A7S for low light or an A7R II for high end mirrorless photography? No!

This is not tit for tat, it is how enormous markets are won or lost in the long run.

By the way the GH4 has sold just fine. It did not just fall off a cliff the moment the A7S came out.

The LX100 is a completely different prospect on the market, not a GH4 competitor. It's a fixed lens compact for starters!

And I am confused as to how you think an NX500 replaces the NX1 just because it is newer!

You say that after years of R&D you have a few months to get units shifted before the next flavour of the month comes along (often from the same manufacturer)... that just isn't true. Consumer product cycles are often 1-2 years and they share the market with a host of competitors in that time, that's the way it has always been since the first affordable digital cameras. This is not something that has only just happened with mirrorless models.

[hmcindie]

 

Tit for tat is one thing...how about Canon just try competing? Do they have an answer to the A7S for low light or an A7R II for high end mirrorless photography? No!

​Well does Sony have an answer to even the three year old 5d mark III?

Actually no, they don't. Their current line up has no still cameras that are (in my mind) better than the 5d mark III (except in technical sensor specs). Would I use my A7s for photography instead of the 5dmarkIII? Hell no. Will I use the a7s instead of the 5dmarkIII for my newest short film? Nope, it doesn't even shoot RAW (that's credit to magic lantern)

Maybe Sony should try competing instead of spec hunting? I mean the 5d mark III is pretty old.

Would you use the a7s instead of the 1Dc for anything? I doubt it.

[jagnje]

We just shot a video with a 550d, a7s and an rx3...we all agre that 550d image looks best. I did the grading and I just love the 550d footage as long as I don`t have to push it and because it was most properly exposed it looks the best. I would buy a canon camera in a second if it was mirrorless and with a6000 specs....sadly there is none and I`ll have to go with sony.

[tugela]

​This "research" such that it is doesn't have a single absolute number!  It's all percentages!  They don't even say percent of what... a million... 100 million?

Also there is no discussion of margins.  Looking at the knife fight going on in the sub $2,000 hybrid videography world I doubt many of those players are as profitable as Canon.  GH4 was praised as the second coming and then months later it was kicked to the curb.  A7S was all the rage then the dark horse Samsung NX1 came out of nowhere.  LX100 warmed everyone's heart then Sony came roaring back with the RX10 II.  G7 is probably going to make a splash.  And let's not forget the $500 BMPCC I and many others picked up.

With three big hybrid players going after a third of a market that was at one point almost exclusively Canon you really wonder about the viability of the model.  I'm enjoying the cameras but I still have my doubts Panasonic is guaranteed to be in the consumer camera business 5 years from now.  Panasonic has shifted away from consumer products and concentrated on industrial products and their stock has been rewarded.

 http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-26/panasonic-sees-tesla-cells-housing-fueling-8-year-high-profit

​It is market share as a percentage of units shipped. What would absolute numbers do to change the result?

If you want absolute numbers, there are some in the figure that was presented in an earlier post.

[Andrew Reid]

​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.

​My first stills camera was a Casio compact in 2000. An Olympus one after that. Then my first DSLR in 2005.

From 2008 onwards though, the choice was between optical viewfinder and live-view.

Because I am of the digital generation, not the 1970's single lens reflex era I gravitate towards live-view.

Mirrorless cameras have always done that better. Less black out, quicker shot to shot times, more responsive and more nimble.

The Lumix G1 was a game changer for me in terms of stills. I found myself taking better shots because of it. Before that everything was at eye level and with AF. With live-view I could accurately manual focus and shoot from more angles. You can't really manual focus at F1.4 through most mid-range DSLR optical viewfinders... You really need a Leica M for that. I used the original G1 like a poor man's Leica. It improved my photography no end.

An optical viewfinder with AF is only better for sports and very fast reaction stuff, maybe some street photography situations, although Bresson didn't do to badly with his Leica

So here we are in 2015 and DSLR shipments have fallen dramatically, as the old-hands are satisfied and new hands keen to hold a screen out in front of them, regardless of AF or MF.

Canon have made an effort to improve live view with cameras like the 70D and dual-pixel CMOS AF... unfortunately the blank out and general shot to shot sluggishness of the 70D shows they did not succeed very well.

Also notice the huge uprising of people using vintage lenses from eBay... these are all better on mirrorless cameras... again it comes down to being able to accurately manually focus through an EVF in live-view, rather than through an OVF or sluggish live-view with mirror temporarily flipped up.

[BrorSvensson]

If Canon made a AE-1 like camera with the same size and look to it and had the 18mp ff sensor with internal 4k they would sell a million of them

[bertzie]

If Canon made a AE-1 like camera with the same size and look to it and had the 18mp ff sensor with internal 4k they would sell a million of them

If Canon sold their cameras for $1 they'd sell hundreds of millions. I can make up arbitrary scenarios with arbitrary sales numbers too.

Remember when the Blackmagic Cinema Camera came out and everyone switched to it? And then the Gh4 came out and everyone got that one instead? And then they jumped to the A7s when it was released? Of course you don't, because that never happened. There is no magical list of specs that will appeal to everyone, because people are different and have different needs. If there were some magical singular camera that was perfect for everything, one company would make it and no other companies would ever need to make a camera again. Each company has their own product strategy. Canons has worked for them thus far and until it stops working, they're going to continue using it. If it were easy to be successful, everyone would do it.