The last few years have seen promising camera systems (Samsung NX) and not-so-promising ones (Nikon 1) abandoned by manufacturers in the name of progress (Nikon Z) or in the name of saving face (Samsung). With the race towards more powerful mirrorless models, inevitably, more will be cast aside.
Which ones will those be? The year is still young, but I’m casting my bets early. Here are the systems that I think are on life support here in early 2019.
Canon
Well, not all of Canon is going to go, just its M series of APS-C sensor cameras. The original EOS M was a disastrous entry for the company into mirrorless, with its dimwitted autofocus and lack of control points. The company was so worried about eating into sales of its DSLRs that they didn’t even bother to release the M2 in the U.S. The M3 signaled Canon USA’s rejoining of the party, but even then, it was a half-hearted effort, using the company’s hybrid phase/contrast autofocus system when it already had the tech for faster mirrorless autofocus with the 70D’s Dual Pixel CMOS AF. Since then, cameras such as the M5 and M50 have been solid efforts, but they were launched in a time (now) when a camera has to be much more than solid (and include usable 4K video) to survive.
With the EOS M system, it’s like Canon never really took the gloves off. They certainly did (more or less) with the EOS R system, their full-frame entry into the market. But now that they have the EOS R system, it seems like they’ve all but forgotten about the EF-M mount and the M cameras, and there’s no compatibility between the two mounts.
Between recent fire sales and a large amount of layoffs from Canon’s camera division, it doesn’t seem like there’s enough firepower to keep three full lineups of cameras going from a marketing and sales standpoint. The natural first choice to go would be the M series of cameras. Now might be a good time to unload all of that EF-M glass you’ve been sitting on.
Pentax
The Pentax K-1 Mark II brings quite a few innovative features to the full-frame DSLR party, but at a time when people are eschewing DSLRs for mirrorless cameras.
Yes, in this case, I mean all of Pentax is going to die. I can count on one hand and have fingers to spare all the times I’ve seen a Pentax in the wild. It’s a shame really, because I’ve had the occasion to use a K-1, and it’s quite a decent full-frame camera, but the company itself has never seemed to be able to reach any sort of saturation in the marketplace that Canon, Nikon, and Sony have. The bigger issue the company is facing is a lack of any sort of real mirrorless camera waiting in the wings. The Q, Pentax’s previous entry into the market, with its less than 1” sensor, wasn’t a serious entry into that market and seems to have been quietly discontinued.
While Pentax does have very high-margin specialty cameras like the medium format 645Z in its portfolio, without a serious APS-C or full-frame mirrorless camera on tap, there’s nothing to entice new users or compel the relatively few existing users to stay. It’s likely only a matter of time before parent company Ricoh gives up on the DSLR endeavors entirely.
Olympus
The Olympus E-M1X brings professional features, but not quite a professional sensor, to the table.
Olympus is doubling down on its Micro Four Thirds mirrorless system with the OM-D E-M1X, a professional-grade camera built around its slightly smaller than APS-C sensor. It’s a bold move, but pricing seems to be completely out of whack with capability, and at the end of the day, the company is always going to be at a disadvantage because of the smaller sensor size. This doesn’t bode well for the system as a whole.
If Panasonic stayed the course with Olympus, I’d give them a better shot. Panasonic’s sensor tech and lenses are pretty solid offerings. However, Panasonic seems to have strayed and thrown in with Sigma and Leica to form the L-mount alliance.
Olympus may have had a more open standard in mind with Micro Four Thirds, but it seems that what Panasonic really wanted was an open relationship, and it’s one that’s now firmly tilting in the direction of the full-frame L-mount and away from Micro Four Thirds with the launch of the S1 and S1R.
With Olympus being the only strong cheerleader for the Micro Four Thirds format, they are facing a tough uphill battle for the system. It’s something that pains me to say, since I’ve been beating the Olympus drum for a while now. It’s a great system, but it’s one that I’m worried won’t survive, especially now that Olympus seems to be straying from its core strengths of small size and reasonable prices.
Who Do You Think Is Next?
These are just some of the manufacturers that seem to have a tough road ahead. Are there others that you can think of? Are there ways forward for the systems listed above?
Then why the article? Tired of hearing everyone's best guess of "which camera system goes next?" What is the point other than gain you clicks? Just growing weary over the panic each and every one of you creates. Causes people to pause, hold off, or not even jump in and then creates regret over what they just bought. All over your best guess... the same as Northrup's or Kelby's or Fro's or whomever needs clicks this week. I know you have a job to do driving traffic to the site, but again, I own one of thes systems mentioned and am bone weary over the gloom and doom. If they shut down, there will be another system. Hell, they will all be gone soon if you listen to some.
I have to agree, I would rather they promote the benefits of each system. They are all proud companies with a rich history in the photography industry and I'm pretty sure they will be appalled at this article.
Why plant the seeds of doubt in the first place. Irresponsible and unprofessional.
BUT if Pentax is appalled and then goes and develops an awesome mirrorless system in response, we all win. Also, I want Micro Four Thirds to survive, it's one of my favorite systems.
Wasim, THAT reaction from Pentax et al would be great, pretty powerful magic you would be wielding then!
As for m43, I had the E-M1 at one stage and love it's output but in the end the small sensor was working for me and even with the grip it was a bit fiddly for my paws.
I tend to be inline with the recent article on DP review with Nikon where they (Nikon) seem to want to continue develop both SLR and mirrorless systems, which exactly mirrors (ha, ha) my working setup.
What most of us "plebeian" fanboys don't realize is, Pentax is like an affordable Leica. It's a cult that you can join very cheaply compared to the red-dot cult, or the Hasselblad cult. In Pentax communities, they don't just revere the cameras or lenses, they even worship the optical engineers themselves who have designed legendary optics for them.
If anything, Pentax will be like film photography- it almost doesn't exist to the average photographer, yet somehow it lives on, (and sometimes, dies and is resurrected) ...on a much smaller scale.
Sony a mount. People still think it's still alive. I think it's been dead for a while.
M50 is not a dead walking camera, it is selling very good! It is only lacked of fast lens, but I am using adapter and speed booster with EF lens. Nice camera that is compact with cheap price. I prefer to M50 rather than RP....
Adapt or die. That is the age old adagio that is true to all markets.Even the biggest companies of all times (De Verenigde Oostindische companie and the East India Company) died because of changing circumstances.
Just imagine you sell film rolls 20 years ago and you thought digital photography was just a fluke.
There is one very hard truth that hits Canon.
If you are not willing to cannibalize your products, the competition will do it for you.
While Pentax is a small company, Canon is not. They have the money and the knowledge to kick the competition.
They won't deliver the best product they can make and if they don't change this. they will go down.
Canon has the size, but they clearly don't have the body side technology (sensors, AF, IBIS,...). If they had they would have avoided being overtaken by Nikon and Sony during the past 10 years. They are a great lens manufacturer though.
Seriously?? Another "blogger" looking for something to write,, writing about the possible demise of Pentax? There is nothing wrong with the DSLR. The pictures from a DSLR are just as good as any other mirror-less or full frame anything. The only advantage mirror-less has is the ability to also shoot video. Video is not a strong Pentax feature, but the cameras do shoot video. Just because Nikon and Canon have been in a decades old advertising competition to spend money, does not mean Pentax will succumb by spending its money strategically. Pentax has been rumored to die just about every year for the last 30 years because of the advertising wars.
Some other posters have complained about the K mount. What's wrong with the K mount? Just because Sigma stopped producing lenses for the K mount does not mean the K mount is failing. Pentax's own lenses are very capable and priced right. The reason why Nikon and Canon users buy Sigma, Tamron or other companies lenses are because Nikon and Canon lenses are just too damn expensive for the average user. But the K mount has more than ten times the lens offerings as what the Sony or Olympus cameras have to offer.
The real issue is all three manufacturers are facing slowing sales partially due to cell phones improving picture quality. No 4/3rds or mirror-less concepts are going to beat that, its advertising fluff as best! The big advantage the three manufacturers have over cell phones is interchangeable lenses, external flash and sync capability. They collectively need to get their heads our of the dirt and expand internal camera capabilities with external devices.
My only negative comment about Pentax is in their stripping of features. My K10D has more off shoe wireless capability than my K70. Some Pentax marketing genius apparently decided the new cameras would not have off shoe wireless capability, and they were reserving it for the higher end cameras. The 645 can't use it, the K1 can't use it, and my K70 can't use it, which really pissed me off when I found that out, after I bought the camera.
I think the last time I was someone using a Pentax was 10 years ago. In the Netherlands you almost never see one.
Yes Pentax is not competing in the advertising wars with Nikon and Canon. Both spend major amounts of money in that area which Pentax can't compete. Plus both Nikon and Canon have dedicated magazines to the platforms which Pentax could produce its own magazine, but doesn't. Ricoh is holding it back I believe in that area so as to not outshine it. Why Ricoh and Pentax don't put out a magazine together, I just don't know.
I don’t think “Pentax spending its money strategically”. If they had a strategy at all, they would look for ways to make more money for the brand survival. Now they refuse to do whatever making money! Less new user coming in. more and more existing user jumping ship. How long before Pentax’s saving run out? It will run out.
I think Pentax is starving itself to death right now.
I am a Pentax user but not a fanboy. And I don’t want to see the brand go away. I view the world as it is, and I tell it as it is. I bitterly criticized them since when they didn’t see a need to make money with the full frame DSLR, and many fanboys back then approved their decision. And see how much money they made with the K1? What a waste of opportunity. Do they learn anything?
I can say what Pentax doing right now with the mirrorless is suicidal.
Pentax is in the process of going severely belly-up, as it has been since I bought my first Pentax Kx in 1976.
I shall wait a bit before passing judgement on a vague future event.
Now that people have started to understand equivalence (and that mft doesn't have a price or weight advantage when taken into account), Olympus (and mft for photography) is done for.
Eh... maybe.... maybe not. What are you referring to with regards to equivalence? The 300mm f4 has the reach of a 600mm on a full frame system with a smaller lens. Are you taking that into account?
Come on man, you're on Fstoppers, not the 43rumors self deception club. It does what a ff 300 f4 with a 2x TC will.
What the heck are you yammering on about from your anonymous account? Blobbity blah what? ;-) At least flesh out the point you are making as you act like you are trying to take me to task. Use your words.. Make it make sense. I ain't saying you are completely wrong, but I am reading your words but ya aint making a point. I will concede you may have a great one. I stil lthink the author was just trying to get clicks so he gets to write another article.
Maybe you should spend your trying to understand then, instead of writing a wall of nonsense gibberish. The oly 300 f4 is not a ff 600 f4. It's more like a 300 f4 with a 2x TC. Why is this difficult for you?
Do what? No it's not. It has the same FOV as a 600mm F4 FF lens. And it's not the same thing as using 2x TC. Moreover a 300mm F4 with 2x TC FF lens would not optical compete with the 300 f4 43 lens. Not even marginally. As more and more FF wildlife photogs figure that out, they switch. Now OLY is releasing a 100-450 f4.5 with a built in TC offering 1000mm you will likely be able to handhold. Add the soon to be released 2x TC and it's 2000mm. Good luck finding that in a FF system. I'd be more about FF eroding than 43 at this point. Incidentally, the reason 43 has a market is because it canabalized APSC, FF users.
Photography isn't just about fov though, is it? The setup with the tc will have not only the same fov, but also the same dof and low light ability. Of course you'd probably use a 400mm and an apsc crop (or 1.5x tc), or one of the cheap 500/600 zooms, and still be better off than mft. And good luck shooting anything with your 2000mm, f20 something equivalent lens. You're a joke.
"I'd be more about FF eroding than 43 at this point." Oh, is that why olympus is making so much profit? So many people switching to mft? (not happening) Hahaha..
I should spend my what? Time?Now you are just being silly and saying something you heard the Northrups clickbait everyone on erroneously. Get your blobbidy blib full lens whatchamajiggy and it will equal the same as the doodad. Dude, go spend your time shooting because you aren't making a any better point than I did. Look at you, trifling with some dummy like me! ;-)
I dont get it. Time after time someone has to predict the death of a brand, system or camera.
I have had Pentax for ages, and is used to the brands death sentence for some 10 years now, and have stoped bothering about all these theories from all kinds of brand and camera preachers.
What is it good for. The only reason must be to scare people off from bying these brand or cameras. To influence peoples choice.
These opinions is often related to what they themselves address as good qualities, and are often misleading.
Why not talk about what different cameras, brands and system can offer photographers. Let people choose from facts, and not from prophesies of doomsday and playing on peoples fear off choosing wrong.
I think it is important with a healthy competition and development of cameras and system, and I belive this is best done with many brands with slightly difference approach and solutions.
I've been listening to people calling or the death of EF-M since the first M launched. I bought that first M, its small enough to stay in my bag as a second backup too. I now have the M5 and adapt EF glass on it.
Anyways, EF-M isn't going anywhere, Canon has said this at every opportunity and even launched an enthusiast-level 32mm f/1.4 prime for this mount just a few months ago. At this point, people keep prophesying the death of EF-M so that if it happens, they can say "I told you so".
Meanwhile... Canon sells more EOS M50 units than all of Fuji combined in some markets.
My prediction is that anything that pros don't use will stop production in the next 3-5 years - phones will completely replace even enthusiasts cameras in that timeframe. What Nokia has managed with their 1000+ depth layers on the 9Pureview and what Huawei has achieved with their 'periscope' lens are just the beginning of the end for enthusiast cameras.
So that leaves only whatever the pros buy - everything else will be gone. Most camera co's will shrink their offering to match their pro market base.
There's also the possibility of a 3rd market opening up where computational photography is applied to large-sensor cameras, which I think and hope is where that new Zeiss ZX1 is going towards. There's no real reason why any of the existing computational algorithms can't be applied to larger sensors - camera phones are producing 24 to 40ish MP images already, so data isn't a problem. That would/could breathe some much-needed life into the mid-tier camera market, since you could in theory come up with bodies that work like a phone, with updates on a regular basis, etc, that take the expensive lenses all these camera companies like to sell.
As a long time and current Pentax user, my money is on Pentax too. My K3 has been so good that I didn't see a need to update for a long time and now I am switching to Mirrorless completely and Pentax doesn't over offer any real options there and don't think I am not alone.
In the video world, I'm always amazed on how the big brands like Sony, Canon, etc, keep coming out with cheap new camcorders. You'd think that segment would be dead by now, but apparently not. And the same probably goes for the cameras listed here. Just because vloggers and bloggers don't talk about them anymore, doesn't mean they're dead or dying.
A bit morbid all this, but we do indeed like to worry if we have invested (or are investing) into a "dead-end" system. Clearly, uncertainty cultivated in forums and blogs breeds more doubts, and accelerates the demise of those who are branded as the "weak". Self fulfilling predictions to an extent.
Anyway, watching an iconic brand such as Pentax slowly going to waste is very sad.
But I disagree with this article about the future of m4/3, and Olympus in particular. That format provides a number of unique selling points that cannot be matched by larger sensors unless you have a mule with you to carry your lenses, and a matching bank account. The m4/3 ecosystem is pretty mature as well, with very few gaps left, and the Olympus "Pro" offering is really tempting, including their "large and expensive" E-M1X body.
It is a pity that many bloggers and forum pundits maintain a constant carpet bombing of criticism on the format itself and keep on predicting its death. We are talking, really, of nothing more than a 2 stop noise disadvantage in the usage of higher sensor sensitivity boost, largely alleviated, for quite a few applications, including formal portraiture, by an industry-leading 7 stop or more IBIS. Talking about portraiture, the only thing m4/3 does not easily provide is the razor thin DoF one gets on FF from a 85/105mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/1.8 at standard portrait shooting distances, but, frankly, that repetitive "melted nose, ears and background" rendition has become such an easy gimmick these days. Nobody is wowed by that anymore.....
I have seen so many wonderful brands and makers bite the dust since I got involved in photography: Contax, Yashica, Rollei, Konica, Mamyia, Praktica, Kodak, to name just a few. While some heritage is preserved under other brands (Minolta now Sony for example), it is always sad to see familiar names vanish into the horizon. Let's not proactively push more over the cliff....
My bet is on Yashica.........
The EOS M is still exceptionally popular in the Asia's. Not sure why you put Canon on this list... they have #1 market share.
Pentax I think...
Olympus is #2, above Sony, in camera sales in Japan. I say Pentax is gone next.
I remember people declaring Sony as dead as... - i don't like this kind of articles. Just let the market decide.
ok, the writer of this fine little article here is surely in love with mirrorless cameras and probably hates SLR systems and ... ;-)
of course some systems don't survive and the photography market (just like other industries) has been full of dead models or brand names that went extinct and 'failed' high sales due to less popular demand ...
but many of such "failures" aren't always just really, are they?
just because some people (prosumers mostly) prefer a 'new' format over the 'old' one doesn't mean the new one's truly better and the old one sucks, does it?
yes, mirrorless digital cameras are slightly lighter in weight and a little smaller in size as well ... but that also calls for totally new sets of lenses and other goodies to be manufactured to fit the new system, right?
again, surely daddy's-rich prosumers and some professionals can afford to buy the new toy but the end results aren't much different from the older systems in the end as what a photographer or videographer wants more than anything else, is 'image quality', which practically NONE of these systems truly offer, do they?
and please correct me if i'm wrong: it is still the bulkier size / heavier weight cameras with larger sensors and more powerful CPUs etc, both in still photography as well as video that offer higher image quality for truly professional (as well as advanced amateur) image making needs ...
The writer of this article also wrote this about SLR systems: https://fstoppers.com/originals/why-i-can-never-quit-full-frame-dslrs-34...
ok, fine ... glad to see that "the writer" of both articles is still in a good impartial mindset .... :-)
My money is on Polaroid
your money on Polaroid to win or lose?
Wasim Ahmad, articles like this really are not helpful at all. Huge amounts of money are being invested in building quality equipment at these manufacturers, peoples jobs are tied to the success of these products. Sensationalist headlines based upon opinion pieces can actually play their role in negatively impacting these products by pushing potential buyers away. I work with one of the brands mentioned and the gear is absolutely stunning in terms of features, ergonomics and IQ. I have been mocked by people over the years for using it but then have gone on to win several international awards using it, that tends to shut those people up. I tend not to talk down about any of the manufactures as they all produce incredible products with differing strengths and weaknesses. Articles should focus on the good work being done across the board and not seemingly pushing an agenda.
It's an opinion piece, and I'm entitled to that opinion as you are yours as a Pentax Ambassador. I like the Pentax K1 from my limited time using it, but I also like manual transmission cars, and neither have much traction in the market.
More competition in the market is good, but for that to be the case, Pentax really needs to have an answer to the Z, R and A7 cameras of this world. Unless they are really good at keeping their secret mirrorless weapon under wraps until launch, they're not going to convert a lot of new users, which is a big problem from a sales standpoint. I'm definitely not knocking the quality of their existing equipment - Pentax stuff is built solid and the weather resistance in their lineup is amazing at the price points they offer.
If you read down to the Olympus section, I'm a huge fan of Olympus with a lot of investment in Olympus gear and I still called it as I see it with them. Again though, it's just an opinion.
Sure but there are people reading articles like this that may be on the verge of buying into a system and now won't after being swayed by an opinion piece and that's not good. I have no idea what the future holds but for now Pentax and many other manufacturers are producing amazing equipment and are NOT actually on the verge of giving up, from what I have seen at least. The headline quite clearly is sensationalist and is designed to promote activity in the comments, which it has done but there is often a greater cost beyond some activity on a blog post. Responsible journalism please over some cheap stirring of the pot.
Again, it's an opinion piece, and I'm not a Pentax ambassador charged with promoting the brand (or any brand). I would tell anyone asking me about buying their first camera today that Pentax is a risky bet, and I stand by what I wrote.
To me, Pentax’s executive has no market direction. Keep investing in things and throw them away when it can make money is killing the brand. And the fanboys defending these diabolic decisions are agreeing with the murdering of the brand.