Some interviews done at CP+ by DPreview might help to understand where the digital camera market is going with questions like how mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (ILCs) compete with large-sensor fixed-lens compacts on one side and digital SLRs on the other. One key is some information rom Sigma and FujiFILM about "attachment rates", the average ratio of lens to bodies sold in various categories of ILC.
From Sigma at
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2466682090/cp-sigma-interview-we-have-survived-because-we-make-unique-products:
According to industry data, camera to lens ratio [attachment rate] is still something like 1:1.3 in the case of mirrorless cameras, and 1:1.7 for DSLRs. So conventional DSLR users buy more lenses. Mirrorless camera users are more likely to purchase the camera with a kit lens and not many people purchase any additional lenses. Some high-end mirrorless users with Sony NEX-7 or Olympus OM-D buy more but the majority of mirrorless users are the entry-class users. Our main target is a bit higher.
From Fujifilm at
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/5988185050/fujfilm-interview-the-only-way-is-to-keep-innovating:
Our research shows that the attachment rate for a high-end camera like the X-Pro 1 is around 3.8, whereas cameras like the X-A1 it’s more like 1.2. With low-end cameras people often just stick with the kit lens.
Already with SLRs, the ratio of 1.7 lenses per body might be surprisingly low to some readers here, but it fits with what I have seen elsewhere: the majority of lower priced SLRs (either film or digital) are only ever equipped with either one lens (a standard zoom or wide-ranging super-zoom) or two (typically a standard zoom and a telephoto zoom). In fact it seems that a great many buyers of low-end SLRs never go beyond the kit lens it comes with, and so in hind-sight could have been better of with an integrated body, which can offer a better trade-off between lens capability and size/cost.
For the entry-level mirrorless cameras, even lower attachment rates like 1.3 and 1.2 show that even more, a majority of customers could be better off with a large sensor zoom compact that integrates a sensor of similar size with a zoom lens. So the recent rise of such cameras (Sony RX10 and RX100, Canon G1 X) is likely to push the makers of mirrorless system cameras away from the smallest, cheapest entry-level models, towards pursuing customers who are likely to buy at least two lenses. This could be particularly problematic for the Pentax Q system, with its sensor size matched by many "high-end" or enthusiast fixed-lens compacts, and for the Nikon One "J" and "S" models, which lack EVF's.
Actually, with the capabilities of on-sensor AF reducing or eliminating the disadvantage compared to comparably priced SLR's, the "cheap SLR" category should rationally fade away too. But those cheap SLRs have the marketing advantage of perceptions, getting excessive credit for the performance of professional SLRs mostly just because they look similar and are of the same brand. Maybe this partially explains the more SLR-like appearance of recent mirrorless system cameras like the Sony A3000 and Olympus E-M10.
(By the way, I do not see the "enthusiast" large sensor compacts with a single focal length lens as competing much with the entry-level ILC market, because the vast majority of people buying an entry-level ILC want the flexibility of a zoom lens.)
