On a rainy night in the suburbs, when my Z7 and Fujis are snug in their bags because there's nothing to shoot...
Rather than a war for market share, the present state of the camera market seems to me to be roughly five fragmented markets... Canon and Nikon play in all or most of them, Sony is in several, mostly at the higher end, Fuji picks and chooses where to compete, and everyone else is in odd segments here and there
1.) Low-end - $500 to $1000 for body and lens - (losing sales rapidly - mostly to Apple and Android). Everybody's scrambling around trying to find
something compelling to get people off their phones. Nobody's making much of a profit, while bad kit lenses make phones more competitive in image quality than they should be ,especially as phones get better at computational trickery. The sensors are excellent - even the lowest-end sensor in a $500 camera is capable of far more image quality than most 35mm film. It is very difficult to build a decent lens to this type of budget, and just about every sensor is let down by the kit lens (the one exception I know of is that you'll often see a Fuji with their excellent 18-55mm f2.8-4 right at $1000). A good lens can get a great deal more image quality out of any inexpensive camera.
The only way to get some market back, if it's possible at all, is to make a very instagram-friendly camera (something like Snapbridge that actually works, if not a SIM card in the camera itself) - ideally with a better lens that makes the IQ difference from a phone more obvious. Sony could abandon the low end (when did they last release a camera under $1000)? APS-C rumors from them focus on a high-end body, probably above the A6500. Olympus and Panasonic may also abandon the lower end of their line (although Oly will almost certainly keep their E-M5 and E-M10 lines going at the upper end of this bracket). Canon has most of the volume, while Nikon may be closer to the Instagram-friendly camera than anybody else (Snapbridge doesn't yet "really work", but it's closer to the idea than other apps). Fuji is effectively out of the low end in the West, although they're quite successful in Asia and they find no harm in putting a few bodies on a boat... Pentax is more or less gone - do they or don't they keep the KP (and the K1 series one category up) going for people with old lenses?
2.) ~24 MP midrange ($1000 - ~$2500). These are incredibly capable cameras, and there's money for decent lenses at this level. APS-C and full-frame coexist, although everyone except Fuji has better lens lineups in full-frame. This is where any "war" between the manufacturers is taking place. There are a lot of cameras with similar capabilities in this range, and all of them are capable of excellent images. Fuji's not going anywhere... Neither are Sony, Canon or Nikon (the latter two will find a balance between DSLR and mirrorless, and may shift more to mirrorless over time). This market is relatively healthy, except that it's where everybody's running for shelter from the collapse below it. There's enough money to turn a profit, and to make lenses out of something other than the bottom of Coke bottles
Is there enough volume for four players, all counting on this segment for much of their profit? The others will probably push Pentax, a distant fifth player, out and slam the door, although the existing models may continue at low volume, especially if the K1 line continues to undercut other high-res options by $1000 or so. Panasonic is going to have a hard time getting the S1 into the crowd.
3.) High-end Micro 4/3 (and, arguably, the Nikon D500, which is in between the unusual Micro 4/3 cameras and the more standard 24 MP group) - below 24 MP, lower dynamic range, but very high speeds or exceptional video. While they are in the same price range as the 24 MP midrange, they have more unusual combinations of features. Can they stay viable? I really hope so, because the odd cameras from both Olympus and Panasonic offer something that the 24 MP army does not. They're much more different from the mainstream 24 MP choices than the 24 MP choices are from each other. There are action shots that only an Olympus will get until you spend thousands more, and there's an indie film niche for Panasonic. I don't think Olympus is going to succeed in pushing the top of the Micro 4/3 market out to $3000, but I really hope they stay strong in the $1500 range... The other place there's room for Olympus and maybe Panasonic is in rugged, highly functional cameras that undercut the midrange (priced like a low-end camera, but have IBIS, weather sealing, etc.).
4.) The Pixel Monsters. Nikon, Sony and Fuji have what are probably highly profitable businesses here, and I can't imagine any of them dropping out easily. Canon may or may not get into this game - the EOS-R lenses look suspiciously like they're meant for a different body - they'd make sense on a pixel monster, but they might also make sense on a mirrorless sports body or a high-end general purpose camera. The present fourth competitor may be Hasselblad, rather than Canon? The E0S 5Ds sensor isn't competitive against what's out there now, and it won't be if it shows up in a mirrorless body - they'd need something that is at the limits of current technology. The resolution is plenty, but the dynamic range and noise performance is merely good, while it takes great to play this game. Does Panasonic have any chance in the pixel monster market? They're up against competitors with superb sensors and full lens lines. Fuji reaching 100 MP medium format at a non-Phase price could restore this to being two different markets, instead of one that contains the best image quality in full-frame plus most of the volume in medium format (the >$10,000 or so portion of medium format is a separate market, but the volume is tiny).
Right now, there is not a huge price difference between ~$4000 for top full-frame IQ (depending on lens choice) and ~$5000 for a GFX with a lens ($6000 with the zoom). Image quality is also very close between the very top of full-frame and 50 MP medium format. I loaded the D810, A7r mkIII, D850 and GFX 50s into DPReview's image comparison (I didn't have real-world images from all four in the same place, which would have been better). The result was D810<A7r mkIII<D850<GFX 50s, all with roughly even steps, all of the differences noticeable - none huge. The D850 is clearly closer to the Fuji than the D810 is to the D850.
There is a vast price gulf between 50 MP medium format and anything significantly higher than 50 MP. Quotes on new ultra-high end systems are hard to find, but
used 100 MP CMOS systems are over $20,000. Even an 80 MP CCD back with a maximum usable ISO of 200 or 400 is $13,000 or more used without a camera or a lens. Fuji coming in with something that is significantly different from the best of full-frame, at a price that isn't Phase pricing could change the game.
5.) The sports/photojournalism market. This
is a war, but the two main combatants have been at it since the 1970s! Canon and Nikon have been trading blows since Canon entered the pro market in 1971 with the original F1... Nobody else has ever snuck in on them - Pentax and Minolta tried in film days, neither getting any significant market share. Will either or both of the main players try a mirrorless body in this market? Or, perhaps a hybrid with optical
and electronic viewfinder options through removable finders? That's actually not that hard to engineer - it does, of course, need the full-depth mount to accommodate the mirror - it simply runs in live view full time if it has an EVF mounted... Sony has tried to break into the high-end sports market with the A9 (after several earlier halfhearted attempts with DSLRs) - but neither the A9 being rarely seen in the wild nor the $1000 slashed off the price last week looks good for them. I wonder if the third player in this market is actually Olympus, rather than Sony? While the E-M1 mk II is a $1500 camera competing on an uneven field with $5000+ cameras, it's specialized for the same market. While I'm not sure how it's calculated and over what time period, B&H's best-selling list has the Olympus significantly ahead of the A9 (although behind a bunch of normal-speed Sonys). Olympus is certainly aiming to push further into this world if rumors of a $3000 EM1X are true...
If I were (in rough order of overall market share - everyone through Fuji is certainly going to make it, not so sure below):
Canon - I would be concerned about collapsing low-end volume, having more exposure down there than anybody else. Above the low end, does lagging sensor quality begin to weigh against a huge lineup of excellent lenses? If they buy or develop some new sensors, Canon's bodies are in great shape above the low end. Popular DSLRs buy time to get mirrorless right, and the low-end to midrange EOS-M line gives a presence in lower-cost mirrorless - probably not worth trying to dislodge Fuji from higher-end APS-C mirrorless. Leading in the sports/PJ market, and may or may not be concerned about the high-resolution market.
Nikon - I would be rethinking my APS-C strategy... APS-C versions of the Z line? Mirrorless using the F-mount (unlike in FF, the mount diameter isn't a problem)? Keep pushing DSLRs - if so, how do you improve them at the low end? Image quality's fine, how do they become compelling against phones? Unlike Canon, Nikon's line from the D610 on up is in great shape - every sensor is excellent, the cameras handle really well and the FF lens line is the equal of Canon's in most areas. F and Z both have their place in full-frame. Like Canon, there's some time to get the mirrorless lineup fleshed out because of DSLRs and a long history of great lenses. Nikon may be in decent shape to release a camera that works well with phones, but they wish the D3500 were mirrorless to do it - is their best APS-C mirrorless strategy to keep the F-mount and essentially replace low-end DSLRs? Again, high-end APS-C mirrorless is a Fuji minefield - not worth it unless they can do something Fuji can't (and come up with the lenses).
Sony - I would be very concerned about APS-C, happy with where full-frame is going. Why bother with APS-C bodies above the $500 level unless you're going to make great lenses to go with them? This is even more true for Sony than others, because they so often have a $1000 last-generation FF body - why use an FF lens on an APS-C body if the right body is accessible? The cheap APS-C bodies don't provide a gateway to the A7/A9 line, but the $1000 older A7 bodies
do... Is it even worth replacing APS-C bodies at all, when the FF line is so much more successful? It's not like they have a lot of great old APS-C lenses people care about... Sony has leading models in two segments of the FF market (standard 24 MP and pixel monsters), and is finally backing them up with lenses.
Do they care about the sports market or anything in APS-C? They've jumped into the sports market repeatedly, most recently with the A9, but never really put the support into staying? If Sony cared to, they might be in a good position to build a phone-friendly low-end camera, because they have consumer electronics experience - but they have the worst APS-C glass around (except, possibly for Pentax's limited line). High-end APS-C is even more of a Fuji minefield for them than for Canon or Nikon, because they're up against Fuji more directly (mirrorless to mirrorless), and their APS-C lens range doesn't even have the depth of Canon's or Nikon's. They're probably better off throwing full-frame bodies against the top of Fuji's range while ignoring the X-E series.
Fuji - I'd be really happy, if my sensor supply were assured. The odd-size sensor strategy with high-end APS-C and relatively inexpensive medium format seems to be working, and both body and lens lines are class-leading. They compete in the 24 MP midrange, and among the pixel monsters. They show more interest in keeping good positions in those markets than in seriously competing at the low end (at least in North America or Europe - the X-A line sells very well in Asia) or in the sports or photojournalism market. Interestingly, they are almost always competing directly against Sony, although never with the same sensor size - they use really good APS-C to compete with 24 MP full-frame, and medium format in the pixel monster range. Fuji is essentially not involved in collapsing market segments, they grow market share each year, and they are in a good position with both of their lens lines. Their one concern should be if everyone else starts pushing full-frame only in the midrange (as may be happening), APS-C sensor development might stall. If few non-Fuji APS-C bodies sell for over $700 in a couple of years (the D500 and EOS D80 range gets abandoned), and Fuji has an APS-C line reaching up to $1800 or so, will they create enough volume by themselves to keep work going on continuously improving sensors?
Olympus - Can a lineup that has different pluses and minuses than essentially anything else survive? From a photographer's viewpoint, Olympus being in the market provides a lot of different choices - notably a true sports/PJ camera at a much lower price (and weight) than anyone else, and some very light, rugged options. I'm dubious about a $3000 Olympus body, but I think the OM-D lineup is as interesting as anything out there, especially if they can get the E-M1 line down to around $1300 and ruggedize the E-M10 successor so it becomes the ultralight of choice for adventure.
Panasonic - Their real strength is video... I have high hopes for the S1 and S1r line if if their video features are exceptional - very little otherwise. The S1 will be pushing right into the most crowded part of the market (the higher end of 24 MP) with a limited lens line. There are four strong contenders already there (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Fuji), all with full lineups, and with Canon and Nikon offering both mirrorless and DSLR options. They have to differentiate themselves, and their known video expertise seems like the way to go. The S1r will be hitting three strong contenders among the pixel monsters, with Nikon offering both mirrorless and DSLR options, and again, all with full lens lineups. The more video-oriented their Micro 4/3 bodies are, the better they sell...
Hasselblad - They may actually be more relevant/likely to survive than Pentax, because they only care about one segment. They need to worry about Fuji, and to a lesser extent about the highest resolution bodies from Nikon and Sony, but nothing else competes with the X-series (the H-series competes poorly against Phase One, but their volume is probably in the mirrorless X-series).
Pentax - is the small volume of bodies for people with existing Pentax lenses worth it for parent company Ricoh? They once had a niche as the only people doing serious weather sealing on affordable cameras and lenses - everyone else reserved it for a few top models over $3000. First Olympus, then Fuji and Nikon caught up... There are now highly sealed options starting around $1000 from multiple players, and all the others are more mainstream than Pentax.
At PhotoPlus this year, Canon, Nikon, Sony and Fuji had huge booths - the first three have done so for years, while Fuji keeps expanding their presence. Panasonic and Olympus had small booths, much smaller than in years past, while Pentax had a tiny booth hidden away (the size usually reserved for labs, small software companies and Chinese tripod makers). Hasselblad didn't show up at all.
