Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
The inherent Disposable Culture of digital cameras --one must upgrade every two or three years, right?, or fall horribly behind-- is pushing people towards more stable equipment.
I agree, why buy Disposable (and long-term unreliable) New when you can get much cheaper Reliable (but long-term reliable) Used?
I still use my almost 9-year-old Canon 5D with excellent results, even if its high ISO usability makes one cringe when compared to newer digital cameras. Then again, the high ISO is just as usable as high ISO film.
I stopped buying new every year five years ago. It is both refreshing and liberating. I only go for something new if I've studied samples for a very very long time, and if I can afford it. The manufacturer's High Anxiety to push new models out the slave-workers' chug-a-matic in shorter time spans allows to buy new "old" at much reduced prices.
Either they stop having consumers perpetually beta-testing their products, or in the long-term they'll fail. If I were them, I'd opt for a well-engineered, robust, five-year relevant piece of hardware that may have consumers purchase less (isn't that the case now?) but be loyal long-term customers who know their products won't let them down, and they won't feel they're being tricked into the Update-A-Year salesplan.
End of rant.
I agree, why buy Disposable (and long-term unreliable) New when you can get much cheaper Reliable (but long-term reliable) Used?
I still use my almost 9-year-old Canon 5D with excellent results, even if its high ISO usability makes one cringe when compared to newer digital cameras. Then again, the high ISO is just as usable as high ISO film.
I stopped buying new every year five years ago. It is both refreshing and liberating. I only go for something new if I've studied samples for a very very long time, and if I can afford it. The manufacturer's High Anxiety to push new models out the slave-workers' chug-a-matic in shorter time spans allows to buy new "old" at much reduced prices.
Either they stop having consumers perpetually beta-testing their products, or in the long-term they'll fail. If I were them, I'd opt for a well-engineered, robust, five-year relevant piece of hardware that may have consumers purchase less (isn't that the case now?) but be loyal long-term customers who know their products won't let them down, and they won't feel they're being tricked into the Update-A-Year salesplan.
End of rant.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I wouldn't either.
There's a big difference between distilling data from CIPA and molding it into a story that one prefers and wants to believe, versus looking at the industry with the eyes of a finance person who has no emotional interests in photography and whose only priority and interest is making money.
If one looks at the finance sector's take on the digital camera industry, one will likely get a clearer picture without any bias or emotion attached (and/or ask your own financial adviser what their take is on it.) Anyone can interpret data and make it appear to support their own personal beliefs and desires (we're all sometimes guilty of it, and I am too.) But if one is truly interested in an unbiased version, I'd go to a source that has no horse in the race, like these sorts of resources:
http://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/digital-camera-industry/toc
http://www.reportlinker.com/p010256...ustry-Trend-Profit-and-Forecast-Analysis.html
But then again, that sort of information and data isn't free either. At least we're getting free advice here.
Ranchu
Veteran
So, then, sales of digital cameras falling 30% per year is actually not a bad thing at all, it just needs to be explained properly by a financial advisor.
Sure.
Sure.
From what I've heard, Precision Equipment seems to be in a much tighter place than Imaging. I'd say there's very limited options for diversifying there.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
I think you missed the point. It's not that the market hasn't dropped etc., it's about interpreting data from one source (CIPA) and making your own armchair assessment on the entire industry. I'd much rather listen to a financial specialist with knowledge of the industry and no emotional attachment to film cameras versus digital cameras if I want to get a realistic idea of the direction of the industry. I think you're smart enough to understand what I was implying.....
Ranchu
Veteran
I guess not. Is it an ad hominem, you're attacking the person, rather than what they're saying?
"Ad hominem means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
"Ad hominem means “against the man”. As the name suggests, it is a literary term that involves commenting on or against an opponent to undermine him instead of his arguments.
http://literarydevices.net/ad-hominem/
VertovSvilova
Well-known
No, it was not meant that way at all. But as a response to the dialogue that developed from the post that stated "I would still not want you as my financial advisor" by another person here. I agreed and felt that if one really wants to delve into the future of the industry, then why not get advice from a financial specialist in that industry. Otherwise it becomes speculation based on one's bias about how they personally feel about the industry based on one data source, and in this case another type of 'digital versus film' sort of dialogue. There are other posts here contradicting the interpretation of that data which for the most part were based on one person's perception colored by what they perhaps prefer to understand and not necessarily what might truly be the outcome of the industry. And that's part of human nature (I admitted I'll do the same thing sometimes, too; we all do.) We all speculate with bias. But there is other information out there that's different than a wholly pessimistic outlook based on current CIPA data (and yes, the industry is well aware of the decline of sales and certainly doesn't deny that.)
And if you're referring to me saying "you're smart enough...." I meant that sincerely and put a smilie next to it in the hope that you would not think it was sarcasm. I genuinely do think you are smart enough to understand the implication of my post (and I was indicting myself in it too; that we all have our own bias and way of wanting too see the world, etc..) And as a reminder, by just saying "Sure." as a one-line response is often used as a dismissal of someone else's opinion. And so it does makes one feel compelled to answer. I'm sure you understand that, too.
Anyway, my sincere apologies if you felt it sounded like an ad hominem. And to be sure I understand the definition. For the record, English is my native language. My use of VertovSvilova is in reference to the thesis I wrote while earning the MA degree in art history; Google it for an explanation if you're not familiar with those names (they are two separate names.
)
Ranchu
Veteran
Well, that's fine then. I see no need for you to apologise to me. I just notice that the numbers get posted, some people don't like the numbers for whatever reason, and proceed to talk about everything but the numbers (you weren't doing that). Then it's all so complex that we can't fit it all into our little heads, and only a Professional Financial Advisor can figure it out and let us know.
It just gets a little much.
It just gets a little much.
Skiff
Well-known
But,
- smartphones are not produced by our camera manufacturers;
our companies don't profit from these sales, they are severly hurt by them (and they are loosing their backbone market, the compact cameras)
- smartphone sales increased exponentionally: that cannot be continued for years, a sales drop there in 2-3 years is very likely
(financial analysts are talking of a "Fahnenstange", a clear indicator of a future sales drop).
Please read my posts. I've never said that.
I've said that we will very likely see new film cameras in the future, because the camera manufacturers urgently need new, attractive niches which are profitable and sustainable.
Film cameras alone will not save the manufacturers, but they will contribute to future financial stability.
Film photographers today are "stable" customers. They are enthusiasts, they love photography, they are not running behind short trends. So it is aesier to deal with them for the manufacturers compared to the crowd who loves 'fads'.
And for years all the 'experts' have said there will be no more new film cameras in the future. I am convinced in the next years we will see that that was wrong.
HHPhoto
Well-known
You are right.
That is one of the main problems.
The "business strategy" of the digital camera manufacturers is to force the customers to buy a new camera in a 2 - 3 year cycle.
But with DSLRs and mirrorless system cams such a buying behaviour is extremely expensive for the customers.
And normal hard working persons, people, who have to feed a family, or those like millions of US-Americans who now must have two or three jobs to earn their living because of the very low wages......
well, all these "average joe" people just cannot afford a new digital cam in a 2- 3 year cycle.
Camera manufacturers are just ignorant and without contact to the real life of their average customers if they think a business strategy which is based on this short cycle model could work in the mid- and long-term.
Now more and more customers are emancipating themselves from this strategy. More and more are thinking twice before they spend so much money.
By the way, it may be a bit nitpicking, but it is interesting nonetheless:
Today all worldwide relevant digital camera manufacturers are members of the CIPA (see the list on their homepage).
In 2014 42,7 million digital cameras were produced in total (all models).
In 1998 38 million film cameras were sold by the CIPA members at that time.
But at that time much less companies were members of the CIPA compared to today. Lots of Asian, especially all the Chinese camera manufacturers were not members of the CIPA at that time.
I visited China at that time, and photography was very popular there at that time. I've seen so much Chinese photographers with Chinese film cameras. Cameras from companies I've never heard of, like 'Great Wall'.
So some million additional film cameras have to added to 38 million of the CIPA members.
Means in 2014 the digital camera production is already fallen back to the level of film camera sales at the end of the nineties.
At the end of 2015 we will see whether the decrease is again another 30-35% p.a. like in the last years, or if it will be "only" by 20-25%.
In any case: The digital sales boom is over. It is a thing of the past. That's the reality.
Personally, it does not worry me. I am totally fine with the cameras I have.
The manufacturers have to think about new, sustainable business strategies.
Cheers, Jan
Aristophanes
Well-known
Nonsense.
Total nonsense.
If this was the case then why is Apple now a $700 billion company based on the rapid turnover of iPhones.
Same for PC before that where every major Intel update created a whole new buying splurge.
Then market mature, retrench, stabilize and find a new, most consistent normal.
The camera market is NOT "collapsing". It is reverting to a normalized replacement cycle based on maturing tech.
The fall of sales is only following a massive, almost unprecedented increase in dedicated camera sales over the past decade.
The losers have been replaced by Apple, Adobe, Canon, Nikon, Sony (poorly run), Flickr (Yahoo), SmugMug, even Leica. All those mini-labs had their capital put into Intel, and Macs, and Windows, and lately tablets, Android, iOS.
Photography has never been more ubiquitous, popular, and a source of staggering revenues (Instagram).
Point in fact: smartphones are produced by the same fabs (mostly Sony Semi) that make the vast majority of sensors for al cameras.
Film camera manufacture is, for all intents and purposes, essentially dead. It is now a salvage market. note that the same applies for motion picture cinema where no 70mm manufacturing exists anymore as Arri and others have exited for purely digital. They now real on their lease stock in perpetuity, until entropy takes over.
Ranchu
Veteran
The topic is camera sales, not how popular photography is. Phones have cameras, so they can produce photography. However no camera sales result from that, just phone sales.
Aristophanes
Well-known
It is hard to call them just "phone sales" when they are not just phones, but also cameras.
In fact, verbal telephony is one of the last reasons for sales now, behind texting, apps, and, yes, photography.
the P&S market has been incorporated largely into the smartphone multifunction device, but their optical and sensor inferiority means there is still substantial market room and appetite for higher-end, dedicated cameras.
Olympus and Fuji and Canon and Sony—best sellers of the P&S market both in digital and film—gave up their revenues to Apple and Android. But the DSLR and mirrorless markets are still very large. Yes, they overshot production (as did cars 5 years ago, by almost 38%, and US housing, and PCs), but this is a normal business cycle.
There will continue to be steady demand for dedicated, higher-end, large sensor, optically superior cameras beyond the smartphone paradigm. The sheer scale of the industry now, soon to be driven by the higher fidelity of 4k/5k/8k screens, means that top imaging equipment will continue to be in demand from multiple suppliers. Nikon has the resources to target a tiny niche with a dedicated astrophotography D750. How cool is that?
Ranchu
Veteran
You can download production and shipment data of digital cameras in PDF format from this page.
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html
Ranchu
Veteran
I get the angle, I just disagree. I think it's an intellectual cop out.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
That's pretty much what they are. 'Phone' is just a convenient word with which everyone is familiar, and because they are normally acquired through 'phone' companies via contracts. Although they aren't really 'phone' companies any more, either. They are 'data distribution' companies (e.g., Verizon has been selling off its copper land lines and isn't really in the 'phone' business anymore.)
An iPhone has 'phone' in the word for marketing purposes. A 'phone' was still a familiar name and assumed to be a necessary device at the time of the iPhone's initial introduction. But one can also define them as a camera with a phone app. There are many who seriously (as art production and even commercial work) use this small camera that also happens to have a phone integrated in with it. I'm really not sure why one can't call them 'cameras.' They are indeed cameras. I have photographic prints made from them and I call those prints 'photographs.' Apple is in reality also a camera company.
Aristophanes
Well-known
After every gold rush they still mine gold.
HHPhoto
Well-known
This is just your opinion, and not based on facts.
But as we all know, you have no knowledge at all about the photo industry.
You have permanently demonstrated that by posting complete fairy tale numbers here, which have nothing to do at all with reality.
Just some days ago you said in a different thread that DSLR and mirrorless sales alone were over 80 million units last year.
But in reality they were only 13.4 million units.
The digital camera market lost 2/3 of its sales volume in only 4 years.
Of course that is a sales collapse.
You should have come to the Photokina last year to talk to the manufacturers (I did).
They disagree with you.
They see the paradigma change.
They expect the sales continue to fall.
They expect a market stabilisation earliest in 4-5 years, on a level of 15 - 25 milion units (for all digital camera types together; compact, DSLR, mirrorless).
That's about to less than half of the former market for film cameras.
So it is not a 'reverting to normal' like you said. The situation for them is much more difficult.
And of course it is absolutely no nonsense at all that the normal hard working family father or mother, the "average joe" cannot afford a DSLR or mirrorless for about 1,000 - 6,000 bucks in a short 2-3 year cycle.
The people just don't have so much money to spend on new cameras with only tiny differences compared to the forerunners in such short buying cycles.
This business model of the digital camera manufacturers is just not working anymore.
Cheers, Jan
If it was as dire as you believe, we wouldn't see so much new gear being introduced all the time and many companies would be getting out of the game... not entering into it.
Aristophanes
Well-known
And the business model of the film industry is?
That is the HHPhoto hidden agenda: a return to "normal" photography which is film-based.
My numbers are accurate and I used to work in the photo industry on the mini-lab side.