Who Will Survive?

Kirk wrote, yesterday:

My prediction? In the near future it will be Nikon, Canon and Leica selling us cameras. Sony will do the math the same way Samsung did all the way back in 2014 and exit the market along with Panasonic. The systems with the best color science, the richest histories of making great and useful products, and those occupying the most defined niches will be the survivors. Canon and Nikon because they work well, feel good, and make great files. Leica because there always needs to be an aspirational top of the market.

Thom is the one who is good at predictions. However, if I were pressed to guess.... The trendlines are that Fuji and Sony have been gaining market share, whereas Canon and Nikon, although still large, are losing it. So my wild guess would be that Sony, Canon, and Fuji would be the companies still with us in ten years. I don't have a guess about Leica, as it survived until the present thanks to the vision and very deep pockets of an "angel," as I believe they are called. Based on rudimentary searches, Fuji appears to be six times larger than Nikon, and even a little larger than Canon. It might well be very comfortable where it is. But I'm afraid that I have neither expertise nor insight into business, so I think my guesses are worth about zero. (Hey, at least I'm being honest!)

Does anyone else have an opinion along these lines?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

John Camp: "I think Sony will go, and possibly Panasonic. Sony because it has always been absolutely ruthless about cutting under-performing segments of the business, and, however many cameras they sell, that division is almost by definition under-performing by Sony standards. If you can't make 20–30% at Sony, you're toast. Panasonic because it has never felt fully committed to cameras. Cameras are just something they can do, so they do it—but they're not interested. Their Micro 4/3 cameras use elderly sensors and I no longer expect an upgrade. Canon is good, but Nikon and Pentax have their backs to the wall. They have nowhere else to go, and as long as they're profitable at all, I think they'll hold on. Same with Leica. But what do I know?"

Thom Hogan: "Think about other fields, say watches. The ubiquitous watch has ranged from Timex/Swatch to now iWatches. That hasn't kept high end watch providers from staying alive, though. They all mostly retreated into 'luxury' lines.

"Leica is already like a high-end watch maker. OMDS is headed that direction. Sigma is the funky watch.

"In terms of 'mainstream' dedicated cameras, Canon and Nikon pretty much require themselves to succeed, because otherwise their overall financials get really bad and messy. Nikon has a interesting plan on how to do that, but Canon seems to be just executing the same plan as before, believing it will still succeed.

"Panasonic—and not just the camera part—has been a bit of a mess for a long time. The yen/dollar relationship, inflation, and perhaps higher interest rates in Japan, are all going to work against them fixing that mess. I don't believe 'cameras' ever met the CEO's ROI goal, so it's easy to see Panasonic moving on. However, that could just mean something as simple as selling/moving that business to Sigma and/or Leica.

"It's curious that no one talks about Fujifilm having left the market and come back. I'm not exactly seeing this second attempt being more successful than the first, long term. But it's a hobby business at Fujifilm and one that they have a long historic interest in, so they plod along.

"Sony is the wild card. It's unclear exactly how well the cameras we write about are doing, as they're buried in a group that includes pro TV and filmmaking gear, which is buried in a bigger group, so no one outside the company can see any of the trends within the smaller camera side. The fact that they're no longer publishing some of the detailed information makes us all more curious. To me, Sony is the one company using a shotgun approach to the market, and I can't really see that working long term. That said, they're enough entrenched at the moment that it's also difficult to see them giving up. However, I'd point out that the image sensor business is so much bigger for Sony that there has to be pressure on them to become a more neutral parts supplier.

"My prediction:

• Canon loses some size and market share
• Sony maintains size and market share
• Nikon regains some size and minor market share
• Everyone else eventually either has to "niche" or downsize

"If the market stays at ~6m units/year, the above is the end game. If the market starts declining again, all bets are off and the dominoes will fall, one company at a time."

Mike adds: Thanks Thom. My only objection to what you write is in characterizing Fuji as "plod[ding] along." In less than 15 years it has gone from introducing a small boutique camera that was probably aimed at females in the home market (X100) but became an enduring international sensation that is still popular today, to having two fully fleshed-out camera types, with well rationalized lens lines, in areas (APS-C and medium format) where its larger rivals essentially don't compete, or compete only half-heartedly. That's very far from plodding along, in my opinion. If anything, the wonder is that Fuji doesn't have more market share than it has. Its popularity among young people may eventually change that.

Michael: "I concur with Thom and you both. [Ed. note: I presume Michael is referring to Thom's writings at ByThom.com, as the comment appearing just above had not been posted when Michael's comment came in.] Having watched the camera world offering dwindle over the past almost 60 years (I am 929 months old), I have seen strong players in the business retire just as athletes must do when they can no longer play their best in their sport of choice. They live on in our memory, but the field of standouts continue to change. Thirty years ago, who would have thought Fuji Heavy Industries (now Subaru) and Sony with its bend toward consumer audio and video would be players in the consumer camera arena? Having lost companies from Argus to Zenit in the ever-changing market, the evolution will continue (think iPhone). A–Z, just too many to name, many of my 'favorites' through the years. Personally, Mamiya 7 and Contax RX were my choice leaders in their respective formats. Alas, the eternal shifting sands of time...!"

Chister Almqvist: "I think Sony cameras will be with us for a very long time. Sony learned its lesson when their technically more advanced Betamax flopped against VHS because of lack of software. So, when Sony developed the Disk Man, they bought CBS Music to make sure that they had enough software available to lure customers to the new hardware. It worked very well. Sony had a lot of experience with video recording but not with still cameras. Instead of doing everything from scratch, they bought a few camera manufacturers and combined their camera and lens manufacturing experience with Sony's own video recording experience. It worked very well.

"With regard to your comment about Leica and Dr. Kaufmann, I am pleased that you mentioned 'vision' ahead of 'very deep pockets.' Very deep pockets weren't enough to save Leica, as Hermes et al. had to learn."

Anton Wilhelm Stolzing: "Some Chinese brands will come. It will be stiff competition."

SUMANTA MUKHERJEE: "In ten years, photography itself may not survive in the dictatorship of AI."

Kenneth Tanaka: "I’m not sure what you mean by 'survive,' so I can’t offer an answer with confidence.

"But I can say that 'shutterbugs' (like us) view the imaging marketplace far too narrowly. Today, more than ever, companies’ investments in portfolios of imaging technologies are made with many market applications in mind (e.g., medical, scientific, industrial, surveillance, etc.). He who owns the most patented technologies tends to be king.

"So from that higher POV Sony is probably atop the mountain. They manufacture nearly all of the conventional imaging sensors that all the other brands use, having invested many billions US$ on development and manufacturing capacities. Even Apple uses Sony sensors in their iPhones and iPads. That they decided to begin making consumer cameras was almost incidental.

"Many of the other brands are rather opaque, owing mainly to differences in international financial reporting standards. But, offhand, I suspect that Nikon is among the weakest of the consumer camera brands. You used to see Nikon-branded optical products in labs and other industrial locations, but no more. I’m not sure how much of their products’ components are actually licensed but I’d guess more that they’d like.

"I think Canon is somewhere in the middle with their intellectual property inventory. Their consumer cameras have slowed in recent years, perhaps wisely to watch the market shift in the smartphone tsunami. But they still have a very strong position in broadcast and industrial imaging. So they’re not suffering. My sense is that they're still unsure of strengthening their consumer imaging lines.

"Just my take."

Comments

[Zyni]

I have seen Civil War now two times. The photographer who was not using film (can't imagine anyone would do that in that circumstance in real life!) was using Sony cameras. Think that means one or both of two things: working photojournalists do actually use them, or Sony paid for a spot. Either answer tends to indicate Sony have or want to have a future as a camera maker. Also remember that Sony could just buy most of the other makers and probably not notice.

So yes, Sony. Sony are about 95 billion company. Nikon is 3.5, Canon is about 30 (not mostly photographic I am sure). Fuji are approx same size as Canon.

Nikon will be bought, probably by Sony. Leica could be bought by any of them. Sony will probably make Nikon-branded cameras at least for a while.

[Jayanand Govindaraj]

I agree with Kirk 100% on Sony and Panasonic. As far as Leica is concerned, they are not a camera manufacturer any more, they are a first stage aspirational luxury goods marque like Rolex or Montblanc, and priced as such. Before the push back occurs, I would just say that people should have a good look at where Leica advertises today, which is the best indicator of what a brand feels is its target market. Hint: It is not much in photography magazines any more. In fact, my personal view is that they survive well because 80% of what they sell are never used to any extent, which means that they have to service only 20% of what they sell. I say, bully to them, if that is the way they think they can survive, that is the route to take - but really, they are not selling to photographers in any great quantity any more.

[Bear.]

I can't see Canon gong anywhere in the near future.

With Leica, Nikon, Fujifilm, OM Systems, Pentax/Ricoh, Hasselblad and the other smaller manufacturers (forthcoming Konica/Minolta), it's not about volume, it's about profit. I'm pretty confident that the first three are doing very well per unit sold and will be with us for a while yet. Their purpose is to make money selling cameras and related equipment, and if they do so at a profit, they will stay in business; if they don't, they won't. Leica does very well due to the eye watering prices - it simply doesn't compete or sell on price but is a luxury good. I understand that Nikon does particularly well on its high end mirrorless range - D9 and D8 especially - per unit sold. (Dan Wells on Luminous Landscape wrote a very interesting analysis on that a while back.) And there is a good reason that Nikon still makes and sells D850/D780 SLRs - no development costs - as long as the sale numbers and the price sold create a sufficient margin, they will continue to exist in some form. The harder end of the market for Nikon is APSC - lower prices, not enough volume = not enough profit. Fujifilm has managed the demand side very well - it keeps its costs down and its sales margins up by managing its production numbers and cutting products as soon as they cease to sell in volume. Look at the waiting lists for the X100vi or the GF ranges, and ask what happened to the X-Pro series... I don't know enough about the other smaller manufacturers to comment - Pentax seems pretty confident that it can keep selling DSLRs.

For the larger manufacturers for whom camera production is just a minority division (why, Hello Sony!), profit itself is not necessarily the key consideration as a division may be seen as unnecessary if the profit is insufficient compared to other divisions to warrant the internal investment. Moreover, large manufacturers can calculate their internal rates of return in strange ways. E.g., Sony is the leader in sensor production and enjoys market status in all sorts of areas outside photography because of its leadership - and who knows whether it could sensibly maintain a sensor manufacturing division of that standard without a retail camera division? Moreover, being a Japanese conglomerate (or at least its upper management) to whom these things are often important , corporate pride may well keep particular divisions in business well past profitability. Olympus is a good example of that, it held on to its image division all the way until it just couldn't be financially justified.

Having said all that, unless there is a boom in camera sales due to a shift from mobile phones in mass numbers, there will no doubt be casualties... And if there is such a shift, we'll no doubt find that the cameras produced don't exactly match the desires of traditional photographers but of mobile phone users looking for higher image quality (AI images, here we come). So even though it ain't cheap out there, enjoy the market diversity while you may - for it is an absolute certain bet that if consumers don't consume, there won't be a market at all.

[Andreas]

Would Sony leaving the photography business have wider ramifications given that they design/manufacture sensors for many other companies (inc for smartphone cameras)?

[Kye Wood]

So... ?

What does Thom predict? Or is it 'bad form' to mention it here?

The only thing I know in my bones is that it just feels like the time is at hand, for some camera companies to leave.

Surely Ricoh/Pentax must be having trouble making money on their albeit gorgeous products. Presumably Kodak and the other rebadged and in-name-only makers will also ride off into the sunset at long last as well.

[Thingo]

Here's my wild guess:
When the holding company gains prestige, & is much larger than the photographic division, the photographic division will continue: e.g. Pentax within Ricoh.

Leica, for the reasons outlined in the article.

Nikon & Canon since both are financially healthy (as I understand it), & photography is a core aspect of their business.

I'm not sure about Sony, since they have cut divisions in the past.

[Christopher Perez]

"...systems with the best color science..."

Ugh. Where to begin? OK. How about this?

What I feel is happening for people is that some "influencers" and writers want what looks good to them straight out of the jpg box. As a consumer that's their right, no doubt about it. Yet, it feels as if people haven't taken the time to understand the in-camera jpg tools they are criticizing. Laziness? Fan-boy-ness? Reliance on "if was all say it's true, then it must be true"? I don't understand the motivations.

For instance, Fuji has many supportive voices for their in-camera jpg processing "film simulations." Yet many people might not understand Sony in-camera jpgs can be made to look the same and the tools offer in some important ways more flexibility.

Further, Canon and Hasselblad are often praised for their in-camera jpg "colors." Yet many people might not realize that Panasonic and (again) Sony colors can be shifted to match them, if that's what is wanted.

Notice until now that I've said nothing about shooting RAW. Unless photographers use a manufacturer's image processing software (and other than niche Hasselblad, I've not read of many people doing this), the RentWare used sets the base colors and tones and has _nothing_ to do with a camera manufacturer's "color science."

[mani]

I'm sure a lot of people will have opinions.

Here's an interesting thing: as digital camera companies continue to go out of business, and the digital camera market continues to shrink, there are more and more film camera makers.

Not only the renaissance of Leica film cameras with the MP, MA and now also the re-released M6, but also Pentax and (even more enticing, in my view) the forthcoming lovely little Rollei 35AF https://rollei35af.com.

Aside from these, there are companies like Intrepid, Gibellini, Arca Swiss and Chamonix still making large-format cameras.

Even though I'm using both film and digital, I can't help feeling some amount of schadenfreude about all the times digital camera users predicted the death of film over the last 20 years.

[Keith]

Google and the Amazon algorithm and the Apple database are going to meet up behind the barn (if they haven't done so already) and create a box for "photographers" to talk to and it will produce a "photo", without the trouble of actually going to the place and waiting for the light, and going to all the bother of camera settings, and Lightroom editing. Wait, didn't that just happen with AI?

[Albert Smith]

"...my wild guess would be that...and Fuji would be the companies still with us in ten years."

That's good. It will take them that long to fulfill the back orders on cameras they can't produce to meet demand. If they could sell the cameras that people want, they'd be higher up on the pyramid.

[William Cook]

I agree with your assessment Mike, but then I thought Contax would weather the digital storm with an updated version of their beautiful G cameras and we all know how that turned out. I guess my opinion is worth zero as well! The only prediction of mine that ever panned out was the mirrorless phenomenon, which I saw coming years before Panasonic brought out the Lumix G-1. Of course, I probably read about it somewhere and adopted it as my own original idea.

[Speed]

I believe that Sony and Canon will be around for many years because both have spent big money developing and marketing products aimed at professional video while incorporating high quality professional video capabilities into what we recognize as still cameras.

Think about their professional markets ranging from wedding photography/videography through advertising, news, TV and movies.

It seems that our friends at Lens Rental should have some insite into these markets.

[AN]

Nikon is a much smaller company than the others, but a much larger percentage of Nikon is photo, so I would say that Nikon has the fewest options and greatest motivation to stick it out as long as possible. I’d be kind of surprised if Sony or Fuji left the market anytime soon, since they’ve been pretty aggressive in recent years, and have grown in market share (Samsung was briefly aggressive, but it didn’t amount to much market share or sales). Canon is not going anywhere. I think Sigma will stick around making quirky niche cameras and tons of lenses for years to come. Pentax seems determined to kinda, sorta exist, while rarely releasing new products (mostly variations on existing products). OM seems a little Pentax-y lately. Leica has its place. Panasonic has looked decently lively of late, but could certainly follow Samsung’s path.

[William Lewis]

In alpha order, my feelings that are worth what you paid for them.

Canon: High probability of survival, hurt by Z vs R.
Fuji: High probability of survival, best APS-C.
Leica: Veblen good, they'll be around, lenses still have the "mystique"
Nikon: Medium to high, boosted by the Z vs R and excellent lenses.
Sony: Least likely, _everyone_ else does something better and does anyone lust for their native lenses?

In my "money where my mouth is" move, I expect to buy a Nikon Z body (Z5, perhaps Z6) by late summer and adapters for all my various lenses as the backup to my Leica M 240.

[Robert Roaldi]

Why are ending up with less choice? I get the concept of economies of scale but we have also reduced the costs of design and production, haven't we?

Pentax seems to get by with much lower market share but with fewer products and presumably less product development, but any of their cameras would be perfectly fine photo-taking tools. Is it really important that they don't compete in the action/sports market.

Is the need to conform under-estimated? Why would I care what kind of the camera the guy next door uses. Is this all just manufactured angst.

[Sandy]

Fuji will be around in 10 years... and so will Ricoh (Pentax). Companies that make products that are continually out of stock (due to demand) are making money. Ricoh does well with copy equipment in Japan alone, and there's too much of a cult around the cameras. Kirk doesn't get the GR camera, so I understand why he omitted Ricoh from his opinion. And what of Pentax, the only DSLR, non-mirrorless, left to itself?
I believe Panasonic will not be part of the scene, mostly due to poor consumer relations, but I think Sony will stick around if only for their strong name recognition.
Leica? Like a fine watch... there will always be opulence.
Nikon & Canon....... who knows?

[Stan B.]

#3 on the list after deciphering women and politics...

[robert e]

What market are we talking about? Stills? Hybrid? Pro? Amateur? I think I have to respectfully disagree with Kirk on one point: Sony is a giant in the video, cine and sci-tech optics worlds, so its "math" is very different than Samsung's was (I'm not sure how the latter's ancient camera adventure is even relevant today). Panasonic is not as established in Hollywood, but is a venerable leader in video, perhaps not as dominant today but still coming up with great gear.

Neither company seems in a hurry to abandon the still-camera form factor, so I do see them hanging around the neighborhood for a while, even if such cameras are already not their primary focus (and I question whether they ever were).

Canon and Nikon will certainly stick around, perhaps still dominating the "pro photography" market, but they're the ones I see "doing the math" and pivoting more toward video and filmmaking, and also continuing to go after downmarket vloggers and budget videographers.

Fuji has a tough sell being taken seriously in video, no matter how good they get at it, though I believe their cine lenses are highly regarded. I'm not sure what their way forward is.

So I see Ricoh and Fuji being the ones to sincerely cater to the hobby still photography niche, but how long can they keep that up? Leica is improbable, so I won't be surprised if it continues on, improbably, perhaps under successive "angels".

[Paul]

Where is the technology going? AI? No thank you. Any camera from an image making standpoint was good enough ten years ago. I do not make a living with a camera so a very different market for me and perhaps a great majority. Making images from film still appeals to me and the simplicity of use is unmatched. I do not use a phone camera but I would guess if that technology continues to advance and appeal, the market share for a dedicated camera will be left to high end professionals.

[SteveW]

I'm no expert to say the least, but as smartphone cameras continue to get better (and they are already really good now), then camera sales would seem likely to decline and the market doesn't see like it can hold all the existing camera companies. I have no clue which will survive. But I agree with Mike's take on Fuji surviving due to their niche in APS-C and Medium format. As to the rest, it's how much will the companies subsidize the camera divisions? In that regard, I agree that Sony looks the strongest. Otherwise, it seems cameras are going the way of the watch and will be niche and specialist items because I think the smart watch and the smart phone are in the "good enough" range for most people, and also they are super simple and fun to use and integrated with the internet and other devices that people own. Being part of an Apple ecosystem is very appealing to a large majority, and the camera in the phone comes along for the ride, especially now that the camera is so good with computational photography and the processor in the phone. If a company (Nikon/Sony/Canon/Fuji/etc) ever put a phone level processor in the camera with phone level computational power, I could see that maybe being popular, but then again why would people buy that if they are already happy with their phone? So I guess I see the "real cameras" continue to be top end devices for hobbyists and professionals who need such cameras as a tool to make the photos they wish and need to make. For the other billions of people it's the smartphone for the win and the comfort zone of their ecosystem.

[Steve Deutsch]

Of course Panasonic is on its way out - I just picked up an S5II.

[Doug Vaughn]

My opinion probably isn't worth more than a cheap cup of coffee either, but I hope Canon survives because of what I have invested in their system. Nikon gear also has a great professional and quality feel to it. Fuji X is fun to use, and their GF systems produce beautiful files. I don't see OM and Panasonic hanging around, and I personally gave up on Sony because their cameras just didn't feel right. I've enjoyed Leica cameras when I tried them but couldn't justify keeping so much invested there.

As for Pentax, I'd like to see them succeed because they're willing to forge their own path. I just bought their monochrome camera and love the quality and tones in the images, and it brings new life to my old lenses from the K1000 days.

[Andrew L]

Did Kirk just straight up forget about Fuji? Because I'd say that, while they need to consolidate models a bit more (and they have, somewhat), they're a pretty dominant mirrorless manufacturer.

I don't think Ricoh/Pentax necessarily needs to go the way of the dodo if they continue to focus on upmarketing their cameras; sort of a Leica-esque model of fewer releases, but high-end DSLR and compacts. If their lower volume pencils out (or the reputational gains from the camera line are good enough), they might keep going for a long time.

Sony sure has a lot of pro, former DSLR shooters. They might exit, but they're also the best of all these brands at subsidizing the cost of the cameras and lenses with other business lines, in my (admittedly limited) view.

[Eric Rose]

My predictions are Sony goes, Leica and Panasonic (Leica-Lite) consolidate, Nikon gains ground at Canon's expense.

[Omer]

I'm with SUMANTA MUKHERJEE. A.I. may well do to photography what digital did to film. The thing that is unnerving is that A.I. may supplant human imagination to the point where we forget how to be creative.

[David Seelig]

If you watch kids doing hybrid work video and stills the over whelming majority use Sony

[robert e]

Grammatical correction: I wrote that Canon and Nikon will pivot toward video-centrism, but obviously Canon began their pivot many years ago and Nikon is catching up quickly. I'm not suggesting that Canon foresaw the sea change that their own 5DII kicked off back in 2008, but they heeded the market--it took them just a few years to release the astonishing c300.

[jh]

Random thoughts about the future of cameras... business...people ...and BS

Predicting what businesses will do is a thankless task. More than a half-century in tech businesses has shown me that management is governed by the "Peter Principle" - most managers are at their level of incompetence. Few are looking at or caring about what their customers say because customers do not speak in unison, only the loudest are heard and those opinions are generally not mainstream. Look at the comments here; the 14 (now 15) commenters have their own spin on the issue but are personal - none of us know what the mass market needed for success wants - and furthermore - the companies probably don't either! Right now we have a market that loves nostalgia products (Fuji X100, Nikon ZF/ZFC - Leica too) - who would have predicted that?

Do not discredit the "halo product" syndrome. Who would have suspected the beancounters running GM would have kept the Corvette going for 70 years? Or ever greenlighted the current mid-engine version that Zora Arkus Duntov wanted to build 60 years ago?

Don't discount the benefits from synergism - that what SONY learns from the camera business feeds back into the sensor business.

And every business I have ever been in is rampant with hype and speculation. I can remember my confusion at the first job I ever had in tech, seeing how much time people spent speculating about the competition and always predicting their demise. When I became an entrepreneur, I swore to be a leader, not a follower. That attitude served me well!

[James]

Fuji seems to be doing OK. They are making 15,000 X100VI's a month and that's not enough of them. A friend of mine has been waiting over 2 months to get an X-T5 because it's backordered. She was going to get a Zf but she said it was too big. I sold my X100V for $100 less than I paid for it originally when I got a VI. It was 4 years old. It took all of 5 minutes from when it was listed on Ebay to be sold. If I had been more patient I probably could have sold it for a profit. Ditto on the X-T4. I lost less than $200 on it when I upgraded to the X-T5. It sold in less than 30 minutes on Ebay. If anything my Fuji gear has been the best photographic investment I've ever made. They also make a lot of money on Instax. They have their luxury line with GFX which seems to be doing very well. I work at a University and all the kids in the photo program want a Fuji camera. Unfortunately for them, they are sold out everywhere. So I'm having a hard time seeing that as plodding along.

[Arg]

If the brand I am primarily shooting today walks away from photo gear tomorrow, the camera I have today will, shock horror, still take gorgeous photos tomorrow, and for many years to come. People like Richard Butler say sensor technology is mature, and hitting physics limits, so it won’t be shockingly archaic any time soon (and hey, look at the ongoing interest in shockingly archaic emulsion-based cameras). I will still be able to get any lens I want, probably for ever, and the current lens catalogue is extensive to the point where only gear-oriented photography hobbyists would wish for more. Repairs will still be possible, and replacements widely available, for as long as I like. If in ten years I really do need to upgrade for genuine photography-result-related reasons, then so what, I’ll buy a brand that is still in the market at that time… and I won’t obsess about their future prospects either. Because, why? Because it’s irrelevant to pictures-come-first photography.

[Bryan Geyer]

Mike—Re. your response to Thom Hogan's comments, did Fuji actually release a line of cameras with APS-C size sensors? I haven't watched closely, but I was of the impression that most of those Fuji cameras used the smaller "micro four/thirds" sensors, a size that's only ~ 65% as big as the APS-C ("DX") size sensor.
Note that…
APS-C (aka "DX") sensors ~ 376 square mm
Micro 4/3 sensors ~ 243 square mm
…so there's an appreciable difference!

[

No, Fuji's X System cameras are 23.5 x 15.7mm APS-C. --Mike

]

[Keith B.]

Note to readers: Subaru (the former Fuji Heavy Industries) is not now and apparently has never been related to Fujifilm Holdings Corporation. (the former Fuji Photo Film. Co. Ltd).

[Ken]

Well, considering that Nikon just bought RED and probably solidified its future in the video business, coupled with the success of its newer cameras, I am guessing the prognostications of its impending demise are a bit premature.

Sony still has the sensor-making business and other related business lines that will keep them involved with the photography industry in one form or another. But for Sony (as well as for Panasonic, and possibly for Fuji), making cameras is but a rounding error in the corporate financial statement, so whether they decide to continue or not will depend on non-financial factors, and those are impossible for outsiders to guess.

Finally, 10 years is a very long time. Any number of societal and geopolitical factors, supply chain issues, and technological breakthroughs could upend the entire industry between now and 2034. So, all predictions - mine and everyone else's - should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

[ChrisC]

Given the lack of new low end models in the Fuji line up, there have been comments made that perhaps Fuji is trying to move into the Leica niche.

[Bob G.]

This is has been a great read, especially with your power commentators putting their three cents into the discussion. Knowing a little about their backgrounds, we’re able to see how their views shape the future…

Being an outsider, it’s going to be a wild ride any way you look at it. Being a collector, I’ve enough on hand to keep me busy, shooting, fixing or just plain enjoying their past and present…

[Robert Roaldi]

Judging by the comments so far, Olympus/OMD seems to be out of the picture entirely. How odd.

[

I don't think it's odd. Olympus no longer makes cameras. There's a new, separate company called OM Digital Solutions that markets a brand called OM System, which so far almost entirely consists of Olympus legacy products. (Except for a few lenses? But you yourself could commission a lens to be OEM'd, if you had enough money.) How long is it going to be viable to continue to market Olympus legacy products as they existed in 2021? It looks to me like what we're witnessing there is simply a long tail. Olympus as we knew it is already gone.

If I'm wrong I'd be happy to be corrected. --Mike

]

[s.wolters]

I just bumped into an interview at DPReview with Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki. He seems a sympathetic and realistic guy who says a few things about the current developments in photography that are spot on. Here are two of his quotes to chew on:

“I’m afraid that not so many customers can afford such high-priced cameras and lenses”

"We've seen some cameras with very technically impressive specifications, but I worry that they're not always capabilities that many photographers really need”

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/7758614604/sigma-ceo-talks-market-trends-the-challenge-of-innovation-and-the-future-for-aps-c

[James]

I think a lot of people have misconceptions about cinematography gear. For example Stanley Kubrick had a Canon 35mm still lens modified to use on an Arriflex 35mm camera. It was used on quite a few of his later films. Then there is this from the Avatar II DP:

AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER director of photography Russell Carpenter talks with Go Creative Show host Ben Consoli about the making of the film and using the custom-made 3D Sony Venice [also used with Sony Rialto Camera Extension System] – video below.

Everything was done to get it as light as we could.

We didn’t need to work with a Full Frame sensor, that would require very big lenses. We wanted to work with zooms so we didn’t have to change lenses all the time.

We did a lot of testing and research, and we ended up with these prosumer Fujinon lenses made by Fujifilm [the Fujinon MK 18-55mm T2.9 and the Fujinon MK 50-135mm T2.9]. Each one is about 2.2 pounds and about 8 inches long, which is ideal for being on a rig.

The amazing thing about these lenses when we tested them, was that even though they were not as fast, at their wide open aperture of f/2.9 they were super super sharp. We thought we did something wrong with our test as they were as sharp as lenses that cost 10 times more.

We shot 90% of the movie on the MK18-55mm T2.9. In the world of 3D you get much more sense of depth if you shoot wider.