2016 wasn’t exactly the best year ever, and it appears it was also pretty bad for photography. LensVid has issued a report on the camera industry facts from 2009 to 2016. When you compare camera manufacturing, sales, and shipment, you will get pretty unexpected and drastic differences. 2016 seems to be the worst year for the entire camera market so far, with the total drop of whopping 81% when compared to 2010? So, what happened? What caused these enormous drops?
As you can see from the infographic, the amount of total cameras manufactured by year dropped from 121 million in 2010 to only 23 million in 2016. That’s a huge change, and the number of manufactured cameras was reduced more than five times in only 6 years.
The decline is found in other areas as well. Compared to 2015, in 2016 there was 35% drop in shipped cameras, which is pretty significant. There is also 12% decrease in shipped lenses. Between 2013 and 2016, there’s 4% decrease in mirrorless and 17% in DSLR cameras produced.
Between 2010 and 2016, a huge difference occurred between the production of DSLRs and mirrorless. The numbers dropped for both, but their ratio came to be completely different. Just compare these results:
In 2010, there were 8 times more DSLRs than mirrorless. In 2016, the numbers dropped for both, but they almost got even: 12 million DSLRs and 11 million mirrorless cameras.
Why did all this happen?
There are several theories why there was such a significant drop in the entire camera market.
1.Smartphones killed the compact camera market – you’ve got to admit there are more and more smartphone photographers. Compared to 2015, there was a 5% increase in smartphone sales in 2016. And to be fair, phone cameras do get better and better. But we’ll get to this again later.
2. Mirrorless aren’t fulfilling their promise – as I’ve followed Nikon quite devotedly over the past couple of years, I still remember the fuss when their first mirrorless camera was released. According to LensVid, mirrorless manufacturers tend to make a lot of noise about these cameras, yet they stay stagnant.
3. The DSLR market is shrinking – this is quite obvious, but contrary from the common opinion, it’s not only because of the rise of the mirrorless. It’s probably the combination of reasons. Beginners rather choose to stick with their smartphone camera than buying a DSLR, which wasn’t the case only a few years back. As I mentioned earlier, the phone cameras keep getting better, and you can get a decent photo quality. And they are certainly going to improve even further. So, many people choose to keep on shooting on their smartphone instead of investing in a new camera.
4. Cameras are for older people – this is an interesting point of view. You can’t see it in the numbers, but look around you. Aside from professionals, a younger generation isn’t generally interested in cameras. They prefer using their smartphones for taking photos. This is not the case only when taking snapshots, but even at the point when they actually get interested in photography.
What does this mean for the future?
In the last report, Lensvid were too optimistic about the camera market and predicted that the market would grow in 2016. But after getting these results, they are more cautious with the predictions. So, their predictions for 2017 are:
1. The global camera market will drop below 20 million units.
2. Camera manufacturers will continue to cut jobs (and lose money).
3. We will see less innovation.
4. The focus will switch to professional segment and prices will increase. We even had a hint of this from Nikon’s plans for future, where they stated they will focus more on high-end cameras and lenses.Can all the existing camera manufacturers survive this change in the market? So far they’re holding up, despite the fact that the level of camera market is significantly smaller than at the beginning or middle of the decade. However, the last prediction is that some of the large camera manufacturers may disappear from the market by the end of the decade.
5. Can all the existing camera manufacturers survive this change in the market? So far they’re holding up, despite the fact that the level of camera market is significantly smaller than at the beginning or middle of the decade. However, the last prediction is that some of the large camera manufacturers may disappear from the market by the end of the decade.
Numbers don’t lie, and we can see from the numbers that the camera industry didn’t give perform well in 2016. The fact is that the market changes constantly. Also, the notion of photography changes with the rise of new generations, social media, and improved smartphone cameras. If the trend goes on, there could be some significant changes in the market by the end of the decade. What I personally believe is that phone photography will continue to grow. And what are your predictions for the future of photography?
[What Happened to the Photography Industry in 2016? | LensVid]
“In 2010, there were 8 times more DSLRs than mirrorless. In 2016, the numbers dropped for both, but they almost got even: 12 million DSLRs and 11 million mirrorless cameras.”
This isn’t what the infographic is saying at all. A (not very) close look shows that it is “Non interchangeable lens cameras” being compared to mirrorless/DSLRs.
Perhaps you should review your analysis to reflect what is actually happening. Aside from point 1 (mobile phones killing compacts) your further points aren’t possible to justify using the data.
I agree @Ravi, “non interchangeable lens cameras” (or “camers” in the graphic :-)) is a pretty broad category, but historically predominantly compacts/point-and-shoots.
This was their breakdown of mirror less vs. DSLR https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ceb6614f72609c0db8c10479f107280b9f9b61be2c04f02870fa261e84af0f47.jpg
I predict Canon will have 55% of market share in a much smaller industry in 2020, Sony will surpass Nikon at #2 with something like 25% market share, and all the others will be fighting over the last 20%. Prices will be higher.
I predict Canon and Nikon will fall from their top status because they have no clue how to compete in the mirrorless segment. Now that the Olympus OMD E-M1 Mark II shows mirrorless can compete and beat DSLRs in terms of AF speed and frame rates, it’s only a matter of time until Sony and Fuji figure out how to compete with full frame and DX formats with mirrorless. While Nikon and Canon flounder with half-baked solutions. Because they can’t bring themselves to leave full frame cameras that have too much weight and lenses that are too big and heavy. If smaller sensors can get better through some new technologies (diamond or graphene substrates or whatever) Canon and Nikon will see their pro cameras become irrelevant as smaller form factors that can operate at greater speeds blow them away
I think you got part of it right and part of it wrong. The market is shrinking. Canon and Nikon will eventually abandon the lower end DSLR market for the high end. However, they will be competing at the high end with Sony and Fuji’s medium format. The low-end “small” sensor market will subsumed into the smartphone market.
Your statement, “If smaller sensors can get better through some new technologies … Canon and Nikon will see their pro cameras become irrelevant”, shows your bias. Your assumption is that Canon and Nikon will somehow not have access to that technology. Sensor size is not the issue here otherwise we would see growth the micro 4/3 market. The data suggest that that market is shrinking as well.
Anyone thinking that sensor size isn’t a critical element doesn’t understand physics or how it affects subject and background rendition aesthetically. For them and their selfies, art and taste are obviously irrelevant, yet Apple is again fighting this trend with “portrait mode”.
It’s conceivable that look and feel in common photography may become relevant, possibly resulting in some resurgence of real cameras.
I desperately hope Canikon and others survive so we may continue to benefit from their hundreds of years if knowledge and skill. I’m not sure that Android is the answer to any of these issues though.
Less crap filled and better designed menus would help considerably I imagine.
Except, not everyone wants a smaller camera.
Sony and Fuji already have full frame and cropped (DX is the term Nikon uses for cropped) sensors. So far the big issue is that everyone keeps talking about digital in terms of digital and not output after digital. A print from a full frame or medium format digital file will hands down look better and be better than a print from a 4/3rds sensor like Olympus has. You can’t just discuss this in terms of what the masses want (small, lightweight and easy). You have to discuss also in terms of what the artists want. A print from my Nikon D610 or Canon 5D MK III at 20×30 on a Hahnemuhle fine art paper will torch the competition. Thank you big and heavy lens and body :-)
Artists arent leaving the market, its the consumers and to some extent prosumers that are now using their phones instead. Full frame wont be replaced for artists, but as a prosumer i will never buy a FF and take it with me to vacation. Having a 400g camer+lens vs carrying around 2kg in greece when its 40 degrees and high humidity is a really big difference.
And the reason is output – you don’t print your stuff big – but as an owner of a fine-art print shop I can assure you that there are plenty in the prosumer market shooting FF because they want the output. Canon and Nikon need to figure out how to get their FF to compete with Sony in size and convenience but people shoot with FF not because of AF speed and frame rates and the other bells and whistles but because they want large output. Your 2kg vs my 400g doesn’t come close at 20″x30″ – it’s not all about convenience – sometimes it’s just about output.
The prosumers shooting for output don’t use phones because phone output cant compete with mirrorless and dslr. The Consumers don’t print pictures and use mainly phones to take picture. And its them the article is about and they who stopped buying cameras. Their output is mostly social media and cloud storage. Its viewd on a screen that has max 6 inch i diameter. So the question is what the camera manufacturers can do to get them back. And no matter what, the FF lenses will always be heavier (in general) than aps-c and they will be heavier than micro 4/3. So no, FF will always be a pro, posumers choice. But nobody is questioning that. But it will never be consumers choice. It’s because its inconvenient size. And its them camera companies want back.
Printing is coming back – but the size of print that most people print is easily supported by phone photography so the compact camera market is dead forever. I don’t think the camera companies want the consumers back – they don’t have anything to offer them – they would be wise to just focus on the prosumer and professional market because they are the only ones that will find value in their product.
That’s because everyone with an iPhone is a photographer.
Not just iPhones, but got to any event and phone capture out numbers cameras of any kind by at least 70%. I’ve seen it time and time again. The more tech they stuff into phones, the more people will use them in place of their cameras even. Everyone is a photographer these days.
The more tech they stuff into phones the bigger the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I believe the casual market is being satiated by their smart phones, as this article suggests. It also seems to me that most new comers to more serious forms of photography are being seduced by film and consequently buying more used equipment. The younger generation seems to be propelled by an attraction to all things analog and shun digital technologies even in cases where it is demonstratively superior. Furthermore, for quite some time digital camera manufactures were regularly making drastic improvements in specifications and features to their camera bodies. In recent times, that progress has slowed and those sticking with digital are probably not as frequently seeing enough benefit in upgrading their older models to justify the costs.
The bubble has bursted.
There’s a whole lot of ways to look at this graphic, and my personal view certainly is not definitive or accurate/right, but what I also see in the whole thing is that years ago, dSLR sales overinflated.
We basically had people buying dSLRs without even knowing the basics of photography. Remember all those pieces published in the past with people buying something like a Canon 5D Mark II using it only in full auto because they had no clue about basic concepts like shutter speed and aperture?
That bubble has bursted. Smartphones are behind this because they nowadays can capture very good photos at cheap prices without asking technical knowledge from who’s using it.
People were basically buying dSLRs because they wanted better results than what they could get with their point ‘n shoot cameras or smartphones back then. Smartphones evolved enough to cover those bases.
It’s all a matter of perspective I guess… I’m sure someone else could draw opposite conclusions to mine depending on how they looked into those numbers.
Another problem I see straight away with the dSLR/mirrorless market these days is consumer confusion. Back years ago when I got my Canon XSi and then my T2i it was relatively easy to choose a brand and a model based on prices and features.
Nowadays? It’s pretty much a nightmare. Not only you have multiple brands in the market with advantages and disadvantages distributed in a miriad of characteristics that often overlaps each other, you have companies like Canon that have so many different models of cameras that not even Canon representatives will be able to indicate you a model without first having to do a complete questionaire that most buyers won’t even know how to answer to. It’s choice paralysis.
The camera market won’t recover to 2010 numbers because, again, that bubble has bursted. As smartphone cameras continue to evolve, their market will continue to shrink. It’ll basically shrink down to a market of professional photographers and aspirers. And perhaps that’s a good thing because camera companies will have to start listening to them again to make cameras.
But there are definitely strategies that they could adopt to make things better, they just have been too stubborn to do so. Companies like Canon and Nikon should start over with a reset in branding and focus on 2 or 3 lines instead, without pulling punches because one model might cannibalize another.
Make it clear that there is one entry level dSLR and one pro grade with less confusing names. And make each of the models the best they can be, according to photographers demand. No more spray and pray.
Mirrorless, the way it is, I think those numbers are proof that it’s a success. I wasn’t expecting some miraculous growth because that’s both unrealistic and because mirrorless wasn’t there when we had an explosive growth in dSLR sales…
It’s here to replace a beloved standard that photographers have used for so many years, so it’s pretty much fighting against the currents. The fact that it’s numbers are far more stable than dSLR sales, at least for me, proves that it has been plenty successful.
If you consider that what mirrorless cameras are demanding is that you drop your dSLR and lenses in favor of a new format that not only has less lens choices but also several drawbacks specially when the concept came out (with micro 4/3rds), the fact that it’s still alive and selling in relatively steady numbers is proof enough that it’s here to stay, at least for me.
People were basically buying dSLRs because they wanted better results than what they could get with their point ‘n shoot cameras or smartphones back then. Smartphones evolved enough to cover those bases.
Agreed. One approach for the manufacturers is to start offering more point and shoot models that can outperform cell phones – bigger sensors and better glass. Something like the Lumix LX100, but at a price a little below that of a top of the line cell phone.
Good post. The DSLR is a wonderful tool, but to take advantage of its capabilities takes effort and practice, which means taking it off of point and shoot. The smart phone cameras are a much better solution for most consumers.
I also agree with you on the way the major camera manufacturers need to revamp their lines and stop worrying about creating these narrow camera niches. Drives me crazy that they allow a camera to excel in some areas but almost de-tune it in some critical way so it won’t encroach on sales of a higher priced camera. One wonders if they are really trying to sell cameras or just tick of their customers.
Another reason why DSLR numbers are dropping could be that many of us are happy with our existing bodies. My D5200 still takes great pictures and decent video. Perhaps 4-8K capability may persuade me to buy another DSLR when mine eventually fails.
In 1999 I started my photo journey with Nikon F60. Running cost was high (darkroom) so I’ve tried film scanner. That was my first step into digital photography. In 2005 I went utterly into digital with Nikon D70.This camera served my needs well untill in 2016 I spot Nikon D7200. Conclusion: We don’t need 5 not-so-new cameras every year. Look at Nikon’s upgrades – insted of listening customers their ambition is to release “new” model every year. Now tell me how innovative it is? There’s no significant difference between models so selling the “new” ones is difficult.
Conclusion: YOU don’t need to regularly update but others may well to address issues that come up and their particular needs.
But yes, I agree that we don’t need a ‘new’ model every year.
I was asked which camera was the ‘best’ between a Nikon D3200 and a later D3300. I was hard pushed to see any major differences because basically there weren’t any! At least none that really counted. I actually thought for video use the D3200 was better because it had a microphone port that the D3300 lacked. The D3300 may just pip the D3200 for sport and wildlife with it’s 5fps over 4fps, but then it’s all down to buffer speed and capacity, which wasn’t given in the reviews I read. The 32 had a higher dynamic range than the 33 and it also had an external flash connection for older (Sunpak?) flashguns. The 3200 also supports high speed memory cards, which might negate the higher FPS of the 3300? The D3300 is also higher priced so for my money I would save some and buy a D3200. Just looked at the differences between the D3200, D3300 and D3400 and again, there’s nothing in it, so the question is why did Nikon bother! The difference between the D3100 and the D3200 was a big jump in MP (from 14 to 24) but again, unless you’re printing bigger than A3, why bother. IMO, Nikon could have just jumped from the D3200 to whatever the next BIG changes are in that series (the D3500 say) and saved R & D and manufacturing costs of the 33 and 34. Incidentally, the ONLY difference I can see between the 33 and the 34 is a 35 g reduction in weight!
The first camera manufacturer to embrace Android OS will win the market. It amazes me that none of them have done this yet. Today’s world demands speed. If I could shoot with my DSLR and immediately post to Instagram or edit with Lightroom Android in camera it would be a game changer.
I hate shooting photos with my phone, but it remains so much more convenient that I do it, even whilst swearing at how shitty it is.
Exactly! How hard can it possibly be to add Android to a DSLR or mirrorless (and a phone too while they’re at it – cameras already have mics & speakers). I was just on vacation shooting with my DSLR – then pulling out my phone to take a few snapshots to post online. I occasionally even take phone pictures of the preview on the back of my camera to share with friends. Ridiculous!
My dslr will convert a raw file to a 2 mp jpeg to send wirelessly to my smartphone or tablet for posting however I choose. It only takes a few seconds, too. Best of both worlds: dslr photography & smartphone networking.
When I shot the Nitro World Games, I sent images from my camera to my phone, as they were shot. Then I would take a break, and upload them to Instagram or Facebook. I also do that on vacation. I don’t want the added expense of that convenience in my camera. WiFi is good enough.
Hassellblad already has with Motorola add on camera.
Give consumers Log, no crop, 4K, histogram, peaking for video. Get people accostomed to Canon products so when they want to move to the cinema line, they stay with the canon. Kinda like what Sony does with the a7s and FS5. Right now many people are always thinking of moving away from canon completely.
Canon is asleep at the wheel. It might have to do with the profits they make off of their printers. They offer an honest product but lost their innovative lead after the 5D II. They know Pros will stay because of their investment in Canon glass and their color science. iPhone and Android phones are the big winners.
I fall into the demographic of older people. I bought my first DSLR, Canon 5D III, in 2013. I don’t know what the life span of DSLRs are, but I also continue to use the Canon A-1 that I bought new in 1980, adding a used Canon F-1N in 2013.
I frequently forget that my smartphone takes photos, but one of my gripes is the autofocus hunt and seek. The autofocus on the 5D works great, but sometimes I have to change the lens from AF to MF when it thinks the foreground (backs of peoples’ heads) is more important than the background (the speaker or presenter) or in very low light situations..
rip
What to do with my Nikon F2 and bag full of lenses? I took the batteries out years ago.
Sell it. There’s a film revival going on, and somebody would be delighted to get an F2 + lenses.
Clean it up and put it on the shelf as a nice display of a beautifully engineered precision instrument and memory of the happy times using it :)
The DSLR/Mirrorless category seems to holding on fairly well which is good for Nikon, Canon, and a few others. Its the point & shoots that have died because of the smartphone. Even in the film days, serious photography was done by hobbyists and pros. Back then the only reason for point & shoot cameras was there was either that or no photos.
The death of point & shoots means companies that relied on them are in deep trouble if not out of the camera business already. The ones who were more geared to the hobbyists and pros are in better shape because the hardware side has not changed that much between film and digital – mechanical/optical devices eventually wear out and need replacing.
I have a Nikon D3200 that produces excellent images but which I dislike because it has the ergonomics of a potato, too many unneeded functions to list, and a miserable viewscreen. What I’d like would be a digital back to fit all my old Minolta SRTs; things like focusing and exposure I can do myself, and everything else the D3200 does in the way of still photography I can do in Photoshop.
I can’t help but think I’m not alone in this.
It’s not impossible and t’s been done in the medium format market but the expense of doing so (compared to just producing a DSLR) and the low demand in the 35mm market makes it an uneconomical proposition for most companies. What you are requesting is truly a niche within a niche market.
I take your point so far as an adapter for a specific 35mm camera goes, and I should have thought through what I was saying better. What I’m really hoping for is a minimalist DSLR more or less like a Minolta SRT, that would take Minolta Manual lenses and accessories. Maybe with interchangeable sensors for black&white and color.
I think that might have considerable market appeal for those who feel a bit annoyed at all the useless (to us) features of the current crop of digital cameras; but we’ll probably never know.
Just because you think it has unneeded functions doesn’t mean they are useless to everyone.
I bought my wife a professional grade digital camera in 2008. The only thing we’ve looked at since is better/different lenses.
I’m a happy user of the Nikon 1 J5, a 1″ sensor (20MP) interchangeable lens camera. I love the size of both the camera itself, and of its lenses. For instance, my zoom tele is the size of a full-frame 200mm, but gives me the equivalent of 810mm – wonderful for birds, moon, etc. I wish Nikon would offer a fancier version – I’d cheerfully pop for an electronic viewfinder and/or even higher resolution. But there are rumors Nikon may be done with this series. If so, I’ll eventually likely switch back to Sony, which I’ve had and liked before, likely to a full frame high resolution mirrorless model like the A7R II or the RX1 RII.
I think Pentax and Nikon will be the first victims of this change. They didn’t take mirrorless seriously unlike Canon, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, and Panasonic who all invested wisely in this market. They are the natural replacement for our rangefinders.
It’s amazing how SLR manufactures forgot about the entire compact ILC market rangefinders owned in the film era until mirrorless cameras like the XPro and NEX 5 arrived.
How often do you go to a historic site, and see endless amount of people standing in front of it, trying to get selfies. We are looking at generation of narcissists. They dont even take a picture of the historical subject, they are more interested in social media than anything else. Cameras assume that a subject wants a quality picture. Smart phones & selfies that is the tail wagging the dog
Spot on.
Sorry, but taking selfies in front of historic sites is not narcissist/narcissism. Its called memories. There are thousand of pictures of a historic sites, its just to google it. If im there with my family or friends I want the memory of my family and me being there. One shouldn´t mix photography as an art and photography as a way to remember events in ones life.
I’m sorry, but your blanket statement is no different than the one you’re disputing. Of course many of such instances are simply documenting said memories, but all one needs to do is see how ridiculously common it is to see photos, often of young people, standing in front of a mirror taking photos of themselves to see the other gentleman’s post was quite reasonable as a whole.
Take picture in front of the hotel, take a picture of the airport, or sign with the city’s name on it. Proof you are there. Example, selfie after selfie in the Louvre beside each famous statue is narcissism. Taking pictures of Notre Dame only to use it as a backdrop for the selfie stick is garrish. Ignoring the work of art and cultural just to make a silly face and snapchat you bff is down right ugly to see.
Forgot to mention that some young people are starting to get plastic surgery, just so there face looks better on their phone camera. No joke, its happening. It just goes to show that they exist in the eye of their phone camera, and those wide angle lenses are a bitch on portraiture.
All of this may be because I am going to buy a DSLR or mirror-less?
“My smartphone takes better pictures!”
Right. Love those telephoto closeups of wildlife, surfers and other subjects at distances up to several hundred yards. And the terrific slo-mo video with 4K and 6K frame grab options..
Oh…not with a smartphone? Didn’t think so.
No youth will cry about it, they are so busy with their own life, it will be another world when I die ! Has this world ever change since year 2000 ! Photography killed itself as sure as selphies proliferates. I think Canon is the next victim because they have just too much to sell… Apple is the thing. Its coming with a 4K resolution on their phone and a 18 core processor on the Mac. What the hell, I was going to buy a Sony. Want to take pictures, use your phone. Want to listen to radio, put your tv on ! Everything is changing.
It seems that photographic cameras are being purchased just by professionals or advanced amateurs. On the other hand, smartphones are, now, the new way families and amateurs make their photos and videos. This fact indicates a popularization and democratization of the production of images, at least, a good thing.
This is a result of the digital convergence, and the smartphone is the best representative of that tendency. The industry is really facing a dramatic turning point and must take decisions about it.
The trend is to think you are a professional without any of the knowledge of a true professional. Its not just Photography but Music and other arts. The quality of Cell phones can’t match Pro gear but if you are only going to look at it on a cell screen it is good enough for most people. Since people don’t usually make large prints where the difference is obvious, DSLR cameras will continue to drop in sales. I love Photography and will always have at least one pro body.