benlees
Well-known
The irony here is that camera phones have much in common, historically, with 35mm film. Camera phone=Barnack, one century on.
Beating a dead horse -why sales of digi cameras are hosed
- Thread starter Huss
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 79
- Views 5K
xenohip
Established
The only thing deficient about phone cams is that they aren't 75mm equivalent, and aren't native true monochrome.
Honestly with the way things have been going, the latter seems more likely to appear on a cell phone than any non-Leica camera.
Honestly with the way things have been going, the latter seems more likely to appear on a cell phone than any non-Leica camera.
Huss
Veteran
I think because at one point in time, hobbyists needed the better cameras to get results they were happy with. But for most they are a drag to carry around. Now everyone carries a phone, and the cameras in them have become good enough for the avg user to be perfectly satisfied with the results.
Rob-F
Likes Leicas
The dirty window no doubt reduced the contrast, helping to keep the shot within the iPhone's dynamic range.
MIkhail
Well-known
No they are not.
They want better cameras to fiddle around with.
Let's not lie to ourselves - there is no way iPhone produces lesser technical quality picture than Canonet or some crap like that...
It's the process not the result that is attractive for enthusiasts.
peterm1
Veteran
One of the concepts of product markets is that they pass though broadly similar phases of product adoption, growth and decline.
You can see the concept here:
https://solutionmarketingblog.com/2010/05/31/products-or-solutions/
Early on it's mainly innovators in the community who take up a new product (and who pay a premium for the privilege - who remembers people paying over $1000 for a camera with less than 1 megapixel because they wanted to explore the new technology?), then the early adopters begin buying as the product gets better, followed by the early majority as more people decide the product can offer them something. This is the product's boom time when the sky is blue, everyone is buying and money is rolling in to fund yet more research and development and ever newer products and features.
Then the late majority follow (and discounting begins in a big way to squeeze every last drop out of the market) but after this it is all down hill. The market has reached maturity and must inevitably decline. The big dilemma in high tech is how to stave off the decline by more innovation and new technology throughout its life cycle but as the market and money dries up this becomes tougher. We have seen that in the camera industry as one wave of innovation has preceded the next. But the time inevitably comes when the gravy train ends. Especially when the market is disrupted by new technologies like mobile phones which in this case has also helped take the wind out of the sails of the big camera companies.
Cameras will still be around no doubt but they will be commodity items and we will be unlikely to see the yearly announcements of new products with new features and smarter technologies.
I must admit I am not one who rushes out to buy new camera gear at every announcement. I have almost never bought a new car in my life and almost the same for cameras - why spend double when you can wait a year or two and get a still excellent product then for far less money? This still helps overall because it means I am buying (more often than not) from someone who wants to spend on a new camera or lens and I free them up to do so. But it still does help in the long run, especially given that I can't see the benefit in changing my equipment over every year or two like some people. And this latter behaviour is the real problem for the camera market given it takes reoccurring revenue out of the system which means there is less money available for R and D on which their innovation relies. In any event eventually everyone who needs or wants one has a camera so the market more or less dries up. That's life.
You can see the concept here:
https://solutionmarketingblog.com/2010/05/31/products-or-solutions/
Early on it's mainly innovators in the community who take up a new product (and who pay a premium for the privilege - who remembers people paying over $1000 for a camera with less than 1 megapixel because they wanted to explore the new technology?), then the early adopters begin buying as the product gets better, followed by the early majority as more people decide the product can offer them something. This is the product's boom time when the sky is blue, everyone is buying and money is rolling in to fund yet more research and development and ever newer products and features.
Then the late majority follow (and discounting begins in a big way to squeeze every last drop out of the market) but after this it is all down hill. The market has reached maturity and must inevitably decline. The big dilemma in high tech is how to stave off the decline by more innovation and new technology throughout its life cycle but as the market and money dries up this becomes tougher. We have seen that in the camera industry as one wave of innovation has preceded the next. But the time inevitably comes when the gravy train ends. Especially when the market is disrupted by new technologies like mobile phones which in this case has also helped take the wind out of the sails of the big camera companies.
Cameras will still be around no doubt but they will be commodity items and we will be unlikely to see the yearly announcements of new products with new features and smarter technologies.
I must admit I am not one who rushes out to buy new camera gear at every announcement. I have almost never bought a new car in my life and almost the same for cameras - why spend double when you can wait a year or two and get a still excellent product then for far less money? This still helps overall because it means I am buying (more often than not) from someone who wants to spend on a new camera or lens and I free them up to do so. But it still does help in the long run, especially given that I can't see the benefit in changing my equipment over every year or two like some people. And this latter behaviour is the real problem for the camera market given it takes reoccurring revenue out of the system which means there is less money available for R and D on which their innovation relies. In any event eventually everyone who needs or wants one has a camera so the market more or less dries up. That's life.
- Local time
- 11:29 PM
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 6,291
Mr. Ed is dead and the folks from TacoBell have taken him away.......
kevin m
Veteran
I'm fairly certain they did. Just like we look down on selfie-obsessed cellphone camera users, the large-format professionals of Barnack's age mocked his puny camera, too.
What worries you? I was a wedding photographer, and I put my 5d's and my Pentax 645n kit away for two years and shot with nothing by my iPhone. It was liberating, and I actually got better at closing the gap between the instinct that my brain had sensed a "picture" and acting on that instinct. Nothing deadens that instinct more than having to go back to the car to retrieve your kit.
Maybe people are just sick of trying to keep up with technology? As I said above, I put away my pro gear for 2 years, and I'm shocked at how fast things have moved in the interim.
Maybe that's a good thing. I'm to the point now where a camera either "literally" fits in my pocket or it doesn't, and that excludes every classic Leica ever made, as well as "compact" cameras like the Fuji X100T, Sony A6000 series, etc.. If I'm going to commit to carrying a camera, then a "compact" has no real advantage over a DSLR, or maybe even a small medium format rig.
Good topic, btw, thanks!
Huss
Veteran
Kevin, I can tell you are a man of good moral fiber and exceedingly good taste.
Moto-Uno
Moto-Uno
^^ Long live medium format ! Besides no one can ask to see the (mediocre) picture I just took !!! Peter
kevin m
Veteran
michaelwj
----------------
The thing is, as your boss shows, that low light, high ISO, and slow shutter speed in no longer suboptimal for a phone camera. In fact, low light, high ISO and slow shutter speed are all problems that phone makers have moved to software.
Effectively if you quickly take, stack, and merge a lot of images in software then you overcome all of those issues. You can also extend the dynamic range while you're at it. If you think about it, there aren't that many advantages that a real camera has over a phone that can't be shifted to a software solution (for general use*). Tactile manual controls are all I can think of.
*Things like sports and motor racing are not general use, they are a niche that will continue to be filled by a true camera.
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Nothing really has changed. The mass market has never had much interest in "real" cameras. They bought box cameras, instamatics, autoloading point and shoots etc. Full featured cameras have always been niche products, and will always be niche products.
Now those cameras are just built into a phone. For somebody who just wants to point a thing at a thing and get a thing, this is great. Anybody who still desires complete control over exposure, depth of field, shutter speed, etc. still looks for a full featured camera. Same as it ever was.
Now those cameras are just built into a phone. For somebody who just wants to point a thing at a thing and get a thing, this is great. Anybody who still desires complete control over exposure, depth of field, shutter speed, etc. still looks for a full featured camera. Same as it ever was.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Yes, they let you speak with friends, family, co-workers, clients, from almost anywhere.
Oh? That's not what you meant?
kevin m
Veteran
michaelwj
----------------
There are Apps for almost all of that already. And more of the "advanced" features can be increasingly simulated in software. DoF for example; sure the current version isn't quite perfect, but I bet in 5 years it will be.
The only sure thing is that technology will march on.
michaelwj
----------------
How about this:
If you want to share your photo with family and friends, the cellphone in your hand is better than the pro kit in your hand.
Until camera makers can solve that they will continue to lose ground.
nikonhswebmaster
Retired NHS Webmaster
I don't believe I have talked on my iPhone more than 10 minutes total in the two years I have owned the current one. I use Skype at home and biz, and have a Skype local telephone number.
I don't think my friends would know what to make of a phone call, they would think I was living in the dark ages. I text (in various forms), or Facetime.
I have no older relatives to talk to (because they can't use a computer), I am the older relative.
It is a tough act to follow, I can take a photo, crop it, change the exposure, convert it to B&W, and post it to mail, message it, put it on Facebook or Twitter. And geo locate it with a landmark, with time, and a description. And if you are on a current iPhone the image can be 3 seconds long as a film with sound
Using an app like Hydra, a landscape image can be 4k.
Deckerx
Nerd
Phones have had great little sensors and glass for a while now (especially iPhone)
The digital point and shoot market is near extinction, this is obvious. Nikon just abandoned their announced DL series. Sony is seeing low sales of their high end RX100 line.
The digital point and shoot market is near extinction, this is obvious. Nikon just abandoned their announced DL series. Sony is seeing low sales of their high end RX100 line.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
What worries me is that the Barnack killed MF and LF or rather knocked out 80 or 90% of it and I can see the common P&S going that way and that will have a knock on effect on the serious P&S's that so many of us have.
I agree a smart phone is useful as a pocket camera but we don't all want wide angle shots at f/4 all the time. I do a lot of macro work using a 100mm, so I'm biased...
Regards, David
Similar threads
- Article
- Article