Beating a dead horse -why sales of digi cameras are hosed

[mani]

I'm not surprised phones have gutted the point and shoot market. But am somewhat confused why the hobby/enthusiast market has been impacted by phone sales. Why are all digital camera sales down so much?

My understanding is that the problems are twofold: the general revenue stream that came from mass sales of point-and-shoots has dried up completely and relatively suddenly, at the same time as a general slowing-down in the hobby photographer's equipment upgrade cycle.
My personal impression is that digital cameras in the 'enthusiast' sector have become somewhat more expensive to compensate for the shortfalls, and so the downward cycle is constantly reinforced.

In my personal experience, hardly anyone I know (now I work in technology/software development) has a digital camera anymore, and around the tourist spots near my office I hardly ever see DSLRs being used: tourists hold up phones and even tablets to snap the sights.

 

[Skiff]

I'm not surprised phones have gutted the point and shoot market. But am somewhat confused why the hobby/enthusiast market has been impacted by phone sales. Why are all digital camera sales down so much?

We clearly have to differentiate. The market is not homogenous at all:

1. The collapse in digital compact cameras has two main reasons:
a) More than 1 billion (!) compact cameras have been sold worldwide since 2000. So everyone who wanted such a camera has at least one.
The market is completely saturated.
b) For most of these "snap-shooters" now the current smartphones are more than good enough. Therefore they don't buy a new compact camera, but just use their smartphone instead.

2. The amatuer / enthusiast market with DSLRs and DSLMs is different. The strong decline of the last years has the following reasons:
a) Market saturation. All enthusiast / hobby photographers have now at least one DSLR / DSLM.
b) In the first years, when the cameras were still quite "crappy", photographers upgraded regularly to the next model.
That is not the case anymore.
For many years now the enthusiast cameras are on a technical level on which most photographers say "that is more than good enough for me" and "I will never really fully exploit the capabilities of my current camera".
Therefore they have escaped from the "upgrading rat race" and are using their DSLRs and DSLMs for much much longer periods than in the past.
They don't see a reason to pay several thousands bucks for the tiny improvements of the new model.
They realize how expensive it is when they upgrade with every model cycle.
Most people with normal income and family simply cannot afford to buy a new DSLR / DSLM every 3-4 years.

It is not the case that by the smartphone now less people are using DSLR / DSLM.
The number of enthusiasts is still increasing with the global economic growth.
Lots of the new sold cameras are going to new enthusiasts.
But as the using periods of cameras are getting much much longer, and also lots of enthusiasts are buying used instead of new cameras to keep it affordable for them, the global sales numbers are decreasing.

 

[Tim Murphy]

I think you've nailed it

I think you've nailed it

We clearly have to differentiate. The market is not homogenous at all:

1. The collapse in digital compact cameras has two main reasons:
a) More than 1 billion (!) compact cameras have been sold worldwide since 2000. So everyone who wanted such a camera has at least one.
The market is completely saturated.
b) For most of these "snap-shooters" now the current smartphones are more than good enough. Therefore they don't buy a new compact camera, but just use their smartphone instead.

2. The amatuer / enthusiast market with DSLRs and DSLMs is different. The strong decline of the last years has the following reasons:
a) Market saturation. All enthusiast / hobby photographers have now at least one DSLR / DSLM.
b) In the first years, when the cameras were still quite "crappy", photographers upgraded regularly to the next model.
That is not the case anymore.
For many years now the enthusiast cameras are on a technical level on which most photographers say "that is more than good enough for me" and "I will never really fully exploit the capabilities of my current camera".
Therefore they have escaped from the "upgrading rat race" and are using their DSLRs and DSLMs for much much longer periods than in the past.
They don't see a reason to pay several thousands bucks for the tiny improvements of the new model.
They realize how expensive it is when they upgrade with every model cycle.
Most people with normal income and family simply cannot afford to buy a new DSLR / DSLM every 3-4 years.

It is not the case that by the smartphone now less people are using DSLR / DSLM.
The number of enthusiasts is still increasing with the global economic growth.
Lots of the new sold cameras are going to new enthusiasts.
But as the using periods of cameras are getting much much longer, and also lots of enthusiasts are buying used instead of new cameras to keep it affordable for them, the global sales numbers are decreasing.

Dear Skiff,

What you say applies to virtually all consumer goods. I am an avid fisherman and I own enough fishing gear to outfit a large army.

In the last ten years and maybe even longer any product improvements made to fishing rods ands reels have been marginal at best. Nothing has happened in the product mix that makes me say, "I need that because I know it will improve my odds and make me a more successful fisherman."

By improving my techniques I will always yield a greater gain in results than can be gained by new equipment. I've bought dozens of rods and reels in the past years but all of them have been fully functional and used.

If I fished for a living I might think otherwise, and I think the same thought process applies to the vast majority of photographers despite protestations of devote photo enthusiasts.

I'm a much better fisherman than a photographer, but like my fishing gear all of my cameras except for two have come to me via the used market. I simply don't see the gains that can be made by upgrading to the latest and greatest as being worth the costs.

Regards,

Tim Murphy
Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[Cab-Helmet]

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.

That's the point.

Most of us are hobyists. We want emotion and fun during leisure time. We love to fiddle around with technical stuff and/or we are interested in taking pictures.

Most of the camera users (cell phone cameras included) are normal people who are absolutely not affected of cameras. Think of your parents when they are visiting a foreign country. Most of them simply want to catch some moments to keep the memory alive. They used point-and-shot cameras, now they use phones. Like your boss.

Some more are professionels and have to earn money by taking pictures. They have totally different requirements concerning their working tool which is a camera.

Coming back to hobbyists: Why do people buy vinyl? Digital is technically better. Why do people buy classic cars? Newer ones are technically better. Why do people buy antique furniture? Newer one is cheaper. Why do people buy old cameras? They are outdated, expensive to use and newer ones give you technically better results.

They buy and use all this, because they are hobbyists and driven by emotion and fun.
Normal users buy normal stuff, means:

-camera phones
-modern cars, which suit their needs
-modern stereo equipment

So we hobbyists keep buying cameras, normal users not. They already have a camera which suits their needs --> their camera phone.

It's all about your approach to these consumer items and has always been.

But why do we still have to explain this in 2017?


Regarding the picture above: It doesn't have any exif data attached. So one cannot say a lot about the question whether the condition are at the border of the specification of cell phone cameras or not. For me, it doesn't seem so.

 

[dmr]

My boss just emailed me this pic. He knows nothing about photography, just pointed his iphone through the window and took the snap (i.e. shot through dirty glass)

At least this one is relatively well-composed and is genuinely pleasing to view! It "tells the story" as my late father would say when critiquing photos. It shows that he was visually aware and did the capture.

I daresay this one is in the top quartile of the top 1% of cell phone happy snaps. Definite exception to the rule.

 

[Out to Lunch]

You can make a decent picture with a phone but its not much fun doing it... Samsung Note 4.

 

[Skiff]

Tim, thanks for your kind words and the good example / comparison.

By improving my techniques I will always yield a greater gain in results than can be gained by new equipment.

Exactly, and that is also valid for photography.
And more and more advanced / hobbyist / enthusiast photographers are realizing that and are escaping from the extremely expensive "upgrading rat race".
Instead they try to improve their photography skills.

 

[goamules]

Just curious, what would you consider unoptimal conditions for a cell phone?

Regards.

Marcelo

Nobody really addressed this, but instead talked about societal issues. Can a cell phone change lenses? What if you want a long lens, for optical zoom? What if you want a soft focus lens? What about a fast lens? How can you get a shallow depth of field? Every answer is "via software" and every result is a fake looking, high dynamic range or fake blurred background swirl that look as real as the surface of Mars.

Cell phones are good for snapshots - having a method with you to capture the moment about as your eye sees it. Nothing else really. The guy looked out his skyscraper window and thought "that's neat, I'll document it." The lady does the same with her meal at a cafe, the kids do it with their friends skateboarding, the family at the beach. It's snapshots...documenting life. Not really art photography, unless being in the right place at the right time with a cell phone makes you an artist.

 

[mpaniagua]

Nobody really addressed this, but instead talked about societal issues. Can a cell phone change lenses? What if you want a long lens, for optical zoom? What if you want a soft focus lens? What about a fast lens? How can you get a shallow depth of field? Every answer is "via software" and every result is a fake looking, high dynamic range or fake blurred background swirl that look as real as the surface of Mars.

Cell phones are good for snapshots - having a method with you to capture the moment about as your eye sees it. Nothing else really. The guy looked out his skyscraper window and thought "that's neat, I'll document it." The lady does the same with her meal at a cafe, the kids do it with their friends skateboarding, the family at the beach. It's snapshots...documenting life. Not really art photography, unless being in the right place at the right time with a cell phone makes you an artist.

Thanks.

I suppose I get the point. A cell phone is practical, easy to use and fix your mistakes. A dedicated camera (being digital or film) lets you express yourself better and let you make "mistakes", so to speak, in order to express something or record the view before you in a certain way, in a way that better express your vision or understanding of the view. It boils down to cell phones not being as versatile and has less adaptability to situation than cameras.

Regards

Marcelo

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

It's snapshots...documenting life. Not really art photography, unless being in the right place at the right time with a cell phone makes you an artist.

Members on the RFF keep expressing the above in different ways, but frankly I just don't understand.

And it's not for want of trying. BFA, MFA, professor of visual arts, and yet I have no idea where this idea fits into the art world I inhabit.

 

[traveler_101]

I despise "smart" phones for any of a number of reasons, though not necessarily because they have become the Brownie or Instamatic camera of our day (not the Barnack, which requires enough know how to adjust settings and focus).

Film (assuming one develops and prints or scans oneself) is an artisanal project - the very opposite of a "smart" phone camera - so no effect there. The prominence of smart phones is making me rethink my digital photography, however. What can't a smart phone do?: telephoto.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

I despise the word "artisanal" for any of a number of reasons. 😀

Especially as it relates to pizza or ice cream.

 

[traveler_101]

I despise the word "artisanal" for any of a number of reasons. 😀

Especially as it relates to pizza or ice cream.

That's because you are a technophile 😀

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

That's because you are a technophile 😀

Probably. I am drawn to industrial not artisanal.

 

[Pioneer]

Digital imaging is simply morphing into a new form factor. At the moment the cell phone camera is the everyday camera.

The first useful digital imaging products required rockets to get them into space.

Then Kodak managed to shovel a sensor and the accompanying electronics into a large, professional sized camera.

Over several years that initial monster DSLR downsized into a very small, compact camera.

Now it fits into a cellphone and provides more digital resolution than the early, rocket-based versions.

Where will it fit next? With new cloud tech it may require only a small sensor, a transmitter to get it into the cloud, and online processing software. It will probably fit into your sunglasses in a year or two. If it doesn't already.

Once photography moved to digital it was limited only by the capability of the sensor to capture the analogue information and the software to manipulate and regurgitate it in a format our analogue eyes recognize.

The only reason pros use the big cameras is because of perception and because the downsized technology isn't quite at the level it needs to be.

But it will definitely get there quickly. I know this because this is where the research money is really being spent.

 

[benlees]

I despise "smart" phones for any of a number of reasons, though not necessarily because they have become the Brownie or Instamatic camera of our day (not the Barnack, which requires enough know how to adjust settings and focus).

Film (assuming one develops and prints or scans oneself) is an artisanal project - the very opposite of a "smart" phone camera - so no effect there. The prominence of smart phones is making me rethink my digital photography, however. What can't a smart phone do?: telephoto.

Iphone 7+ does telephoto. One more reason to hate smart phones, I guess.😛

 

[Huss]

Not really art photography, unless being in the right place at the right time with a cell phone makes you an artist.

Define art photography...

It's like saying a painter's work is not art because he did not use the correct brush...

An artist's work is not defined by what tools he uses, but by his vision.

 

[KM-25]

I'm not surprised phones have gutted the point and shoot market. But am somewhat confused why the hobby/enthusiast market has been impacted by phone sales. Why are all digital camera sales down so much?

I have a theory on this and it is not likely to be very popular, but here goes...

Photography as a pursuit of craftsmanship, talent and the challenge of having it all come together in a truly great image has been decimated by sheer automation & software instead of an artisan approach to claiming a visual victory.

People are moving on to other types of art to show *their* talent and hard work, not that of HDR or the latest technology. In short, everyone can do it, so some are moving to other means of expression in that the result can bear their fingerprints, their imperfections, the stories of their lives and their world.

I know it is not what people want to hear but when I talk to some people about it who actually approach *me* as to why I stay in it, this is why they have left the hobby, anyone can do it so it is not really all that special anymore.

And people want to have their passions and escapes from daily life feel special.

 

[Huss]

I have a theory on this and it is not likely to be very popular, but here goes...

Photography as a pursuit of craftsmanship, talent and the challenge of having it all come together in a truly great image has been decimated by sheer automation & software instead of an artisan approach to claiming a visual victory.

People are moving on to other types of art to show *their* talent and hard work, not that of HDR or the latest technology. In short, everyone can do it, so some are moving to other means of expression in that the result can bear their fingerprints, their imperfections, the stories of their lives and their world.

I know it is not what people want to hear but when I talk to some people about it who actually approach *me* as to why I stay in it, this is why they have left the hobby, anyone can do it so it is not really all that special anymore.

And people want to have their passions and escapes from daily life feel special.

Which is exactly film photography is making a come back.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

And people want to have their passions and escapes from daily life feel special.

Seems more of life/work counseling issue than a specific creative issue.