If Mirrorless Is the Future of the Camera, then the Smartphone Is the Future of Photography

If Mirrorless Is the Future of the Camera, then the Smartphone Is the Future of Photography

Mirrorless hasn't only won the battle, it's won the war. Last year — 2020 — was a landmark as more mirrorless cameras were shipped than DSLRs. It is the primary design choice for manufacturers and is therefore the future of the camera. However, the future of photography undoubtedly lies with the smartphone.

It appears so obvious looking back over the last ten years, that it seems inconceivable that mirrorless wasn't considered the future of camera design when it first appeared. However, the vested interests of CaNikon kept the DSLR dream alive — along with their income streams — which let other manufacturers dabble to see what the market was interested in. And dabble they did after Olympus and Panasonic debuted Micro Four Thirds, with Sony, Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Fuji, and Leica all introducing new systems. This has to be viewed within the context of global camera shipments which peaked at 121 million units (¥1643 million) in 2010. OK, of these some 109 million were integrated cameras — high quantity, low value — but it did generate significant income and profit for manufacturers which in part funded the system development. But as soon as that spike in income had arrived, it rapidly began to disappear with 2020 marking a new low point of 9 million units shipped (¥420 million).

The following year, 2011, also saw mirrorless make their first appearance in CIPA data (below) which showed 4 million units shipping, meaning that uptake was rapid by consumers and principally focused around Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony. While DSLR shipments imploded, mirrorless has remained flat in a falling market meaning that they made up an increasingly larger share. 2020 was a landmark year in that more mirrorless cameras were shipped than DSLR; 33%, as opposed to 27%, of total shipments.

This is important enough in itself, however, it is the financials that are more impressive. Mirrorless was close to DSLR shipment values by 2018 and exceeded them in 2019. By 2020 they made up 54% of all camera shipments, compared to DSLR's 25%. Of course, by this point, both Canon and Nikon had released their own mirrorless systems and essentially stopped further DSLR development while reducing production. While it's true that consumers wanted to buy mirrorless systems, manufacturers also stopped making them in volume.

Will manufacturers stop making DSLRs? Of course not. As long as there are a minimum viable number of customers, then someone will plug that gap. Apparently, that's Pentax at the moment. Not only that, but there will continue to be a large number of active DSLR shooters who will want to buy lenses and accessories. You wouldn't necessarily say that mirrorless won a decisive battle in one-up-manship, but rather slowly chipped away at that seemingly impenetrable DSLR exterior. The biggest slug came with Sony's a7 in 2013 showing that a mirrorless full frame model was viable; in fact not one model, but three. The battle was won by 2016 at the latest as Canon and Nikon pivoted into developing their own systems. Was it that cameras were smaller and lighter? Or those significant improvements in on-chip focusing brought significant advantages? Or that shorter flange distances allowed a range of interesting lens designs and the adaptation of existing lenses? Or maybe high burst rates? Or perhaps it was just because it was a new system. Either way, the traction is now there and DSLRs have become niche.

Mirrorless is the future of camera design.

Long Live the Smartphone

Mirrorless cameras are only half of the photography equation. That dramatic drop in CIPA camera shipments from 121 million in 2010 doesn't mean there are fewer cameras shipping. Far from it, as in 2019 some 1,500 million smartphones shipped, depending upon whose figures you believe. Every single one of those had a camera in it. It's perhaps self-evident that the smartphone has all but killed the camera industry, but the scale and enormity of putting a camera in the hands of 7.5 billion people or about 96% of the global population is truly astonishing. We are genuinely at a point where virtually everybody takes a photo; no wonder Google stopped unlimited free photo storage!

Now obviously smartphones do far more than take photos, but this remains an important component of any phone design to the point that there has been a continual arms race since the original iPhone which shows no sign of abating. Talking of Apple, they held a 14.5% market share in 2019, lagging behind Huawei (17.6%), and Samsung (21.8%). Does that sound familiar? Yes, three companies control some 54% of the smartphone market so what they do with their cameras is critical not just to other smartphone manufacturers but also to camera manufacturers. In fact, while we see some inroads in partnerships between smartphone and camera manufacturers, it's surprising this isn't more widespread and, indeed, that the partnerships don't work in both directions. Hasselblad recently partnered with OnePlus, but we have seen Leica and Huawei, Zeiss with Sony (and a number of others), and possibly Samsung with Olympus.

What's interesting is that the developments we are seeing at the moment in some ways mirror the introduction of the Kodak Brownie in 1900. Up to this point, technological development had been rapid but largely focused on gradual improvements to the large format camera. Photography was an expensive undertaking and the Brownie democratized it to the extent that, while not trivial in cost, anyone could afford it (it was $1 at release, equivalent to $31 today). For example, it was targeted at soldiers and even children. The Brownie grew out of the development of roll film and the realization that everything for photo taking could be included in the (cardboard) box and then sent back to the manufacturer for processing. This then led to making a loss on the sale of the camera but a profit on the film and processing. Two strands of photography were subsequently developed based around large format cameras and low-cost roll film cameras. In some ways, those strands were at least partly re-unified with the release of the Leica 1 in 1924 when 35mm roll film was partnered with technologically innovative development.

Are we seeing the same with the smartphone? Two drivers are at play here: firstly the need for eye-popping images that look great on social media and secondly tight design requirements. The latter involves low-cost, small, devices that have fixed lenses. Smartphone manufacturers are aware that to get better images they can — to a certain extent — compute their way out of the problem, a charge that has been led by Google. However, they are inevitably restricted by the hardware they have at their disposal. Involving camera manufacturers is, therefore, a sensible decision.

The different design criteria have led to a divergent focus for camera development, one that is arguably now the direction that photography is taking. Smartphone manufacturers are incorporating new and creative hardware designs to work alongside their software implementations. What we are not seeing is camera manufacturers developing innovative standalone cameras. Computational photography has been a core aspect of photography in smartphones for a decade, yet we have seen limited implementations by camera manufacturers and certainly nothing that rivals the likes of Apple or Google. This is now becoming a yawning gap that has the potential to make camera manufacturers irrelevant or even allow a new manufacturer to enter the marketplace.

We will always need high-end cameras for high-end photography commissions, but the gap between the smartphone and camera has shrunk considerably to the point where it is indistinguishable for many applications, something that Ben Von Wong pushed with his commission for the Huawei P8.

Lead image courtesy Pexels via Pixabay, used under Creative Commons.

If you're passionate about taking your photography to the next level but aren't sure where to dive in, check out the Well-Rounded Photographer tutorial where you can learn eight different genres of photography in one place. If you purchase it now, or any of our other tutorials, you can save a 15% by using "ARTICLE" at checkout. 

Mike Smith's picture

Mike Smith is a professional wedding and portrait photographer and writer based in London, UK.

Log in or register to post comments
122 Comments
Previous comments

One thing that everyone seems to have overlooked is software. Cell phones are pretty damn good and I know because of the glass that for example, full frame lenses are better. But when the software via AI gets here, you will be able to manipulate/sharpen cellphone image so no one will be able to tell the difference. I don't know when it will happen but it will... sooner than later.

I'm not talking about 10 years ago and I'm not even talking about today. Phones and software will be much better in a couple of years, then check back in 5 to 10 years.

Exactly what I wrote. Can't agree more with you Charles. Inovation in cameras ( digital) took 20 years now when we consider that in year 2000 there wasnt many shooting digital. Technology is at it peak point today and will be inovated even faster in the future. First Sony a7 came in q4 2013 and it was terrible, everyone was laughing what a joke it was back then. 7 years later sony is above Nikon and even canon went mirrorless in pro range cameras. Sony back in the days idea was to work on system similar to android and Samsung even back then came with compact camera and phone in one body. We are living in amazing time for technological innovation in photo/video especially.

Hey, I have an A7! It's a good camera! It's certainly, technically takes much better photos than the Nikon D3300 APSC that I had. I do see John's overly relentless point that today's cameras are not as good as the better cameras on the market but there are videos out there showing that it's very hard to tell the difference between a good smartphone camera and a good camera on an uncropped 16x20 photo. The differences will get smaller and more quickly every year.

I mean, the average smartphone has tens of thousands of times more computing power than the computer on the first moon landing!

I get it. A smartphone was and is not better than a good camera. I'm not denying that at all. What I am saying is that the smartphone shot will soon get better than it's present state and then after that AI software will be able to take that information and change that information into an image in which you won't be able to tell the difference, in our lifetimes - IN THE FUTURE.

Here's a simple example. There's a fuzzy line without enough pixels. So extrapolating the entire line's edge, the software will fill in the image with enough pixels to make a very clear and sharp line. Or it fills in shades of a color between the extreme shades from one part to another, filling in the image with enough pixels to make the image appear sharp.

Mirrorless cameras first appeared a couple of decades ago, in the form of camcorders (and other video cameras). And now, today, with video so popular, of course the old mirrorless technology is what most people want. Basically, video is the future of photography. And people are going to want other cameras than just a phone for that. Things like GoPros on the end of a surfboard.

Pls double check the figures. 420M yen are 4M USD…

“Won the war”? While both viewfinder systems are heading down at a rapid pace? Talk about hubris. This constant stream of ill-considered opinion about whether or not a camera has an optical or electronic viewfinder reminds me of Noam Chomsky’s description of news being that which fills the space between the advertisements.

Yes, MILCs are already beaten by Smartphones by a huge margin. Now the phone cameras have great DR, wide angle, telephoto lenses and so forth. I'm also thinking of retiring my wide angle lenses in favor of the smartphone. My mid-level phone is capable of creating varieties of images with its multiple options.

Camera manufacturers take note, your businesses are bound to shrink enormously. So, better play according to the situation on the field.

No, smartphones haven’t ‘beaten’ MILC’s and certainly not by ‘a huge margin’. Yes they are more popular because anyone with a phone has a camera. They have pretty much taken over from point and shoot cameras but it’s a long way off, possibly even will never happen that professional photographers will use one in place of dedicated camera gear. From an amateur consumer level, a smartphone is probably now the best option.

I dont believe that smartphones will completly replace dslr or mirrorless cameras. Yes, smartphones came along ways with photo capabilities and there's some improvements these smartphone companies are working on. But, there will still be a need for a mirrorless/dslr type cameras.

Cellphones of today are better than the average laptop of 25 years ago. Yet, no one is screaming or talking about how smartphones are going to replace the laptops

No but they are.

They aren't and its foolish to think otherwise.

I was agreeing with you. Phones are taking over from laptops.

I would feel like there ws a target on my back if a carried around a camera in public!