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

[mpaniagua]

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.

I would venture to say the sale/buy of used film cameras is having an impact on the consumer digital camera market. If I want something easy to use, I get a smart phone. If I want something that will let me express myself in an unique way, I get a film camera. Seems thats the case at least with Lomography customers.

Regards.

Marcelo

 

[michaelwj]

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.

Most things are via software, and may look fake to you now, but they look fine to 99.9% of users, and in 10 years will look fine to you too.
Is a Nikon/Canon/Leica less of a camera because they use software to make up for optical deficiencies? Like it or not, hardware is just there to provide the raw data for the software, it's the same in every digital camera. It's just that the phone pushes less to hardware in favour of software, and so it should, it is a computer.

Phones as just for snapshots? Really? That's a bit elitist isn't it? At what point is a camera sufficient for "art"?

 

[jbrubaker]

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

Iphone 7+ does not do telephoto, nor does any other phone without an add-on lens. What the Iphone does is crop the photo so it looks like you're zoomed in on the subject. I love my smartphone (Google Pixel) for what it is - a camera I always have with me, but it does not take the place of a camera with interchangeable lenses and a large sensor. --- john.

 

[mpaniagua]

Iphone 7+ does not do telephoto, nor does any other phone without an add-on lens. What the Iphone does is crop the photo so it looks like you're zoomed in on the subject. I love my smartphone (Google Pixel) for what it is - a camera I always have with me, but it does not take the place of a camera with interchangeable lenses and a large sensor. --- john.

Well, neither a camera with a tele lens 😉 so whats the difference?

Regards.

Marcelo.

 

[benlees]

Iphone 7+ does not do telephoto, nor does any other phone without an add-on lens. What the Iphone does is crop the photo so it looks like you're zoomed in on the subject. I love my smartphone (Google Pixel) for what it is - a camera I always have with me, but it does not take the place of a camera with interchangeable lenses and a large sensor. --- john.

It does actually. Has two cameras.

 

[PKR]

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.

I think it can be distilled ..

Those who print their images and those who don't.

If you don't print (and printing is necessary with digital work due to bit rot) your images aren't important .. valued. Publishing on the web doesn't require more than a cheap phone made image. How many times have phone photographers, who made a great photo, wished it had been made with a better camera?

Times change, photography (small "p") has changed. Not better or worse, just really different in a very short time. Automation doesn't give you the ability to SEE. Just makes focusing, exposure and web publishing easy..

Best to you KM-25, pkr

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_degradation

http://www.computerworld.com/articl...g/google-cloud-loses-data-belgium-itbwcw.html

http://www.cloudcomputing-news.net/news/2015/jan/26/what-happens-when-data-gets-lost-cloud/

 

[Tompas]

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.

Exactly. Same as it ever was.

 

[benlees]

Printing need only be a bearer of craft, if desired, not necessarily importance. Just like slides, digital images can be projected. Or shown on screens hanging on the wall. Certainly not uncommon.

 

[mpaniagua]

Printing need only be a bearer of craft, if desired, not necessarily importance. Just like slides, digital images can be projected. Or shown on screens hanging on the wall. Certainly not uncommon.

Agree. I would say its more relate to the intend and personal involvement of the photographer on the image, not the media.

Ive seen pretty crappy printed photography that I would call art, and inspiring image online, either on personal blogs, public image sharin, online magazine, etc. that are pure art in it greatest expression.

 

[goamules]

Expressing ideas with repeatable, novel images is art. Capturing the a common view that any other cell phone holder could capture at that spot and time is not art. There is the difference. And I don't have an art degree.

 

[emraphoto]

No kidding, right?

Anyway, the point of this is that when phones can make pics that 99% of the public like, camera mfgs are royally shtonked.

for some of us the point was very clear. for the record, i agree 100%. i was working on point and shoots for a long time and printing/having shows. i would have zero problem working on a phone today.

 

[Steve M.]

Cameraless cameras (cell phones) are the natural evolution from mirrorless cameras. I'm waiting on the imageless camera, which would be the natural evolution from cameraless images (pinhole photography).

 

[FrozenInTime]

Have a look here :
https://www.dpreview.com/products/compacts/all?sort=chronological&view=grid

Scroll all they way down through 20 years of compact cameras
There is a lot of landfill.

 

[willie_901]

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 amateur / 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.

Bingo!

Before the iPhone and its 'me too' competitors, the public bought relatively inexpensive P&S, fixed- zoom lens digital cameras for the same reasons they previously bought inexpensive 135 (or smaller format) film P&S fixed- zoom lens cameras. The reasons weren't photography as a means of creative expression. They were documenting family events, social events and vacations.

I agree the enthusiast market is mature. Just about every new still-photography camera delivers high IQ in diverse conditions. Improvements in the underlying technologies are now incremental. From about 2000 through 2012 the improvements (pixel density and signal-to-noise ratio) were revolutionary.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Expressing ideas with repeatable, novel images is art. Capturing the a common view that any other cell phone holder could capture at that spot and time is not art. There is the difference.

I am not going to make a list, but that is so wrong.

And I don't have an art degree.

Alt-Art? 😀

 

[skucera]

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.

When I was in college 30 years ago, some fine artists in the school derided students studying photography and graphic design as "mere illustrators," and also derided paintings and drawings that were too representational for their tastes as "too commercial." It was as if those 19- and 20-year-olds had heard someone older and sager say that and thought it was a cool idea.

Sometimes, quite a few people do define artists' work by their tools more than their vision. Sad, really. Especially on this forum, with folks who use both, sometimes in the same afternoon....

Scott

 

[peterm1]

When I was in college 30 years ago, some fine artists in the school derided students studying photography and graphic design as "mere illustrators," and also derided paintings and drawings that were too representational for their tastes as "too commercial." It was as if those 19- and 20-year-olds had heard someone older and sager say that and thought it was a cool idea.

Sometimes, quite a few people do define artists' work by their tools more than their vision. Sad, really. Especially on this forum, with folks who use both, sometimes in the same afternoon....

Scott

Yep, when I was 19 I knew everything too. 😱

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Yep, when I was 19 I knew everything too. 😱

When I was 19 I had a professor who had studied with Kandinsky at the Bauhaus, and we would imitate his German accent.😱

 

[hap]

Industrial.....is scalable . Artisanal.....is not

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Artisanal.....is not

Why are we talking about food? Are hungry zombies eating film?