Sparrow
Veteran
Aristophanes
Well-known
... he isn't hiding it very well
Nope. Lost causer.
New data released today:
http://petapixel.com/2015/02/12/importance-cameras-smartphone-war/
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
I don't think there is a hidden agenda here.
No one in their right mind would predict that we are going back to film from digital at the global-society level. That is just not going to happen.
But film as a healthy niche within the industry should be celebrated and supported however we can.
I often said it here, in 10 years, I want my daughter to still be able to get film, use film cameras and print in a darkroom should she chose to do so, regardless what digital photography has morph into.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
The so-called "normal hard working family father or mother, the average joe" or the "millions of US-Americans who now must have two or three jobs to earn their living because of the very low wages" because they "have to feed the family" aren't even part of the "DSLR and mirrorless system cams" buying demographic. Some may have purchased lower priced digital point and shoots at the advent but they soon transitioned into smart phones as their source for making photos. But realistically they aren't the market for DSLRs and ICL mirrorless systems. And today almost everyone has a smartphone camera and uses it for image making (and/or video clips.) Smart phone images are now ubiquitous, from urban warfare in Syria to the kid's birthday party in the park. They make up for the majority of images on the planet now and are in the hands of most of the so-called "average joe." I don't believe that this particular demographic you have attempted to define as part of the reason for digital camera sales decline are even part of the equation to begin with.
I'm a consumer of film and like to promote its use since it's in my best interest that it keeps being produced. And sure, I'd like to see new film cameras come on the market. I'm also a user of digital cameras too, including smartphones. But I can't let a confirmation bias stemming from my own desire to see film remain viable (and even grow in popularity) distort an interpretation of what's currently happening in the digital camera industry. To be sure, the sales numbers have dropped dramatically and we all know that. And we all know the impact of the smartphone (the article Aristophanes just now posted details this quite well.) But while I like that new users of film are popping up everywhere, I know that this is not going to have any big impact on what was already happening in the digital industry. The industry is adjusting now and making new film cameras isn't an answer for them. And as Aristophanes said earlier, "After every gold rush they still mine gold." Digital is here to stay and the technology will keep advancing. We may even see a whole new paradigm in what a camera is even supposed to be and look like (e.g., the current smartphone.)
I think that innovation has always been part of Sony's DNA; the TR-55 transistor radio, the Compact Disc (collaboration with Philips) and then the Walkman, Video8 and the Handycam, Hi8, etc.. They seem to understand microelectronics and mobility pretty well. Plus they didn't have any sort of camera design legacy/history that might have kept them less flexible.
pete hogan
Well-known
And that data was from 4 years ago. Going up, perhaps.
Ranchu
Veteran
Digital's very similar to those old video cameras, isn't it? If only they thought to put phones in them, a missed opportunity.
You could text people on your vcr, probably, too. But what would you call it?
You could text people on your vcr, probably, too. But what would you call it?
Ranchu
Veteran
Oh, gee, so sorry!
I was going with you guys' flexible definitions of consumer merchandise schtick, didn't mean to step on any toes.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Nam June Paik. Ant Farm. Chip Lord. Media Burn!
Ranchu
Veteran
I guess I don't know much about the history of media.
VertovSvilova
Well-known
Ant Farm did a residency at the same institution where I got my MFA. Although that was 20 years before my time there. However they had a big impact and were an integral and important part of the history. Some books about that period: State of Mind: New California Art Circa 1970 (from the exhibition from a few years ago) and also California Video: Artists and Histories (from the exhibition at the Getty Museum in 2008.)
A YouTube video on Media Burn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXY6ocvaZyE
And Chip Lord on Ant Farm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIUMzJv7BhU
Also of interest, this is from Wikipedia's entry on the Sony Portapak
"The Portapak would seem to have been invented specifically for use by artists. Just when pure formalism had run its course; just when it became politically embarrassing to make objects, but ludicrous to make nothing; just when many artists were doing performance works but had nowhere to perform, or felt the need to keep a record of their performances; just when it began to seem silly to ask the same old Berkleean question, ‘If you build a sculpture in the desert where no one can see it, does it exist?’; just when it became clear that TV communicates more information to more people than large walls do; just when we understood that in order to define space it is necessary to encompass time; just when many established ideas in other disciplines were being questioned and new models were proposed — just then the Portapak became available."
Anyway, sorry for going off topic.....
However they had a big impact and were an integral and important part of the history. Some books about that period: State of Mind: New California Art Circa 1970 (from the exhibition from a few years ago) and also California Video: Artists and Histories (from the exhibition at the Getty Museum in 2008.)A YouTube video on Media Burn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXY6ocvaZyE
And Chip Lord on Ant Farm: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIUMzJv7BhU
Also of interest, this is from Wikipedia's entry on the Sony Portapak
"The Portapak would seem to have been invented specifically for use by artists. Just when pure formalism had run its course; just when it became politically embarrassing to make objects, but ludicrous to make nothing; just when many artists were doing performance works but had nowhere to perform, or felt the need to keep a record of their performances; just when it began to seem silly to ask the same old Berkleean question, ‘If you build a sculpture in the desert where no one can see it, does it exist?’; just when it became clear that TV communicates more information to more people than large walls do; just when we understood that in order to define space it is necessary to encompass time; just when many established ideas in other disciplines were being questioned and new models were proposed — just then the Portapak became available."
Anyway, sorry for going off topic.....
Ranchu
Veteran
The only thing I'm less interested in than video art would be computer art. What else have you got?
Dante_Stella
Rex canum cattorumque
And this hits the nail right on the head. Skiff keeps hitting the forums with this schadenfreude logic that the decline of standalone digital devices, plus some trivial film camera introduction/continuation/rehash, plus the anecdotal increased use of film cameras, equals the triumph of film. The argument draws a false logical correlation: the demise of standalone digital devices does not translate to an increase in film use, and even if it did. the orders of magnitude of digital and film markets are such that any effect would be tiny. Isn't it the case that CIPA dropped reporting film camera sales?
In the world I live in, despite stories I have heard about the resurgence of film, the raw materials for film work continue to be get more expensive, good commercial service continues to become more scarce, the servicing of film cameras is taking longer and is harder to source, and aside from a few items like Rolleiflexes, the value of film equipment is steadily drifting downward. I don't believe that given time pressures everyone feels in "the new normal" economy that people have the same amount of free time for film shooting, let alone home darkroom work.
The reality seems to be that unless film use ramps up to a place where running film lines generates a positive ROI, the party is not going to last forever. Celebrating the demise of standalone digital is a diversion that might make people feel better, but it doesn't change things. In fact, since the manufacturers of digital cameras often serve as the sole source of parts for the film cameras they previously made, chuckling at their demise is cutting off one's nose to spite the face. And when digital photography is moving to handhelds (the real story here), it just further marginalizes film photographers in the same way that handheld cameras make people think of bellows cameras as anachronistic.
I'm liking that I have been able to increase my collection of Fuji 6x9s at very low cost (now I don't need to reload a body except every 24 or so frames), but I recognize that if they are today half the price they were 2 years ago, then in 2 years, they might be worth only their weight in scrap metal. Hey, at least I'll have 900 or so pages of negatives and a pile of prints to show for it. And at least the price of 120 film hasn't crested $5 yet.
Dante
HHPhoto
Well-known
Lots of Asian OEM compact cam manufacturers already had to quit the market.
And if the strong sales decline continues (and that is very likely, because the reasons for the decline will not disappear anytime soon), in the next years the weaker of the Japanese manufacturers will probably follow.
E.g. Olympus is making losses with its camera operation for five years now.
How long can they continue under that circumstances?
How long will the shareholders accept that?
And that Sony's camera production has not been very profitbale is also not a secret.
Their CEO said very clearly "we cannot give a garuantee for our camera production for the next five years".
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
Complete nonsense.
I've never said that!!
I've clearly said that film photography will remain a niche compared to digital imaging.
But that this niche will grow in the future (we already see that in some segments).
And that there is a very good chance that we will see new film cameras in the future.
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.
Just look at the CIPA statistics.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
HHPhoto
Well-known
They are!
The normal working man / women with average income is about 80% of the customers buying DSLRs and mirrorless cameras.
The "gear-head" with a big wallet is the minority.
Talk to the camera manufacturers (I do this on every Photokina).
They will tell you exactly that.
And that is one of the main reasons of the declining sales.
Cheers, Jan
I agree that the digital world's current problems are not in any way related to film usage. It is all smart phones that are wiping out the traditional camera makers. Film use now is too small to be a factor in why most camera makers are losing money.
Which raw materials are getting more expensive? Please be specific as I have 20 years experience working in the chemical industry and for the most part the past few years prices have been VERY soft. What raw materials are you seeing increase in price?
What data do you see that suggests the above? Are these observations based on facts or just speculations?
This is demonstrably false as anyone who follows the price of good quality film equipment knows. Low end grade film equipment hit rock bottom years ago, and had nowhere else to fall. Good quality film equipment is holding value very nicely, much to the chagrin of those like me looking for a deal.
This is nothing but doom and gloom speculation which no basis at all in fact. I have two young children, and hold a senior executive position in my company. I shoot and process my own film, often 4-5 rolls per week. People make time for the things that they love.
This has no basis at all in fact. Ilford Photo is 100% profitable and reports "robust sales" as well as "strong increase in film usage". Film Ferrania is bringing back a new coating line, backed by an enormously successful Kickstart campaign. A brand new emulsion from another film supplier was just announced (BERGGER Pancro 400). Fujifilm continues to earn more money from film and film processing than their entire digital camera line. 2.7 million INSTAX camera sales in one year alone.
Until you back up your gloomy predictions with some actual data, the prevailing evidence shows that film is finding it's proper place in today's world. There's nothing wrong with film holding a niche role in photography.
Again, demonstrably false. I don't know where you get your data, if indeed you have any, but Fuji cameras are NOT dropping in value as you claim. I sold my first Fujifilm GSW690 camera about 8 or 9 years ago for $700 even. Looking at KEH today I find a GSW690 for sale there for $754.
You really want to bet that their price falls to zero in 2 years? I'll take that bet, big time.
You are correct that digital's demise is entirely unrelated to film usage. The rest of your post really fell off the rails. I'd really like to see actual data that can back up your claims.
Olympus has suspended all of their dividend payments until the time that their camera division returns to profitability. That is a HUGE blow to their stock. Further, Olympus has never once hit their sales targets for digital cameras in the past 5 years. Not once.
Panasonic, which has never made a penny in profit from cameras, says that their camera division has at most 2 years to achieve 5% ROI (as well as any other money losing division) or it gets closed down.
Fujifilm recently stated a profit for their digital camera division, the first in over 10 years, but only after a massive change in their accounting methods. They added the highly profitable optical group into the Imaging Solutions division. This had the (likely desired) effect of hiding the loses of their camera division.
Ricoh has slowly wound down their camera division, now down to only a few models.
Sony is actually in decent shape compared to the others above.
I am not surprised no data was supplied upon request. Lots of "facts" dissolve upon scrutiny.
jyl
Just learning to focus
I'm new to this discussion, sorry if the following points have been made before.
1. Film cameras were - completely - obsoleted by digital cameras, except for the dedicated (and anachronistic) hobbyist. It started with the midrange of the film camera market (okay quality point and shoots), moved to the low end (cheap point and shoots) and the high end (SLRs, high end rangefinder).
2. Digital cameras are now being - partially - obsoleted by smartphones. Very few people carry a digital point and shoot camera, they simply take pictures with their smartphones, and this is especially true of younger people. With smartphones becoming almost universal and less expensive, the digital point and shoot camera will disappear.
3. Digital cameras were able to completely replace film cameras, because they could do everything that film cameras could, and were so much faster, cheaper and more convenient.
4. Smartphones can only partially replace film cameras, because they are inherently limited by the tiny sensor and tiny lens. Smartphone pictures are just fine for most people and most purposes, but there are people and purposes that only a camera can satisfy. (Among those "purposes" are to show off, to be a toy, etc - it isn't all about function.)
5. So in a few years, on the CIPA chart almost all of the "compact digital" bar segment will have disappeared. There will be the "D-SLR" and "mirrorless" bar segments, and maybe a new bar segment for "action camera" or something else. The total bar will be maybe half the height of the 2014 bar. Yes, digital camera industry production will be cut by another 50% or more.
6. How terrible is that? Well, look at the bar for 1998, the peak of film camera production. The great majority of that year's production was point and shoots, mostly pretty cheap ones. Maybe 25% of the bar represents quality, interesting film cameras - the higher end rangefinders, the SLRs, the MFs etc.
7. Take the 2014 bar, cut it by 50%, and - hey - that is pretty close to taking the 1998 bar and cutting it by 75%. In other words, the higher end digital camera industry will be about the same size (in units) as the higher end film camera industry was before. The lower-end and mid-range digital camera industry will largely disappear.
8. So, in a nutshell, my prediction is:
a) The digital camera will consolidate to only DLSR, mirrorless, high end fixed lens, and any other form factors that cannot be replaced by a smartphone. By units, the industry will lose 50% of its current size, but it will probably lose only about 25% of its revenue. Because the digital point and shoots, that are going away, are lower end and lower price. For example, in 2013 the industry made about 44 million digital camera units with fixed lenses and about 16 million with interchangeable lenses, but the industry's camera revenue was about JPY 550 billion from fixed lense cameras and about JPY 650 billion from interchangeable lens cameras. http://nikon.com/about/ir/management/business_info/imaging/index.htm (see "Market Conditions").
b) Some companies will be driven out of the business, most of the major brands will survive. For example, Nikon's imaging (camera) business made revenue of JPY 352 billion and profit of JPY 31 billion in 1H2014, it made revenue of JPY 277 billion and profit of JPY 27.5 billon in 1H15, when the "compact DSC" (as they call the fixed lens category) business goes entirely away, Nikon's imaging business can probably still be profitable. Admittedly ownsizing will be required - won't need as many Chinese assembly plants, etc. http://nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2015/15_2qf_d_e.pdf
1. Film cameras were - completely - obsoleted by digital cameras, except for the dedicated (and anachronistic) hobbyist. It started with the midrange of the film camera market (okay quality point and shoots), moved to the low end (cheap point and shoots) and the high end (SLRs, high end rangefinder).
2. Digital cameras are now being - partially - obsoleted by smartphones. Very few people carry a digital point and shoot camera, they simply take pictures with their smartphones, and this is especially true of younger people. With smartphones becoming almost universal and less expensive, the digital point and shoot camera will disappear.
3. Digital cameras were able to completely replace film cameras, because they could do everything that film cameras could, and were so much faster, cheaper and more convenient.
4. Smartphones can only partially replace film cameras, because they are inherently limited by the tiny sensor and tiny lens. Smartphone pictures are just fine for most people and most purposes, but there are people and purposes that only a camera can satisfy. (Among those "purposes" are to show off, to be a toy, etc - it isn't all about function.)
5. So in a few years, on the CIPA chart almost all of the "compact digital" bar segment will have disappeared. There will be the "D-SLR" and "mirrorless" bar segments, and maybe a new bar segment for "action camera" or something else. The total bar will be maybe half the height of the 2014 bar. Yes, digital camera industry production will be cut by another 50% or more.
6. How terrible is that? Well, look at the bar for 1998, the peak of film camera production. The great majority of that year's production was point and shoots, mostly pretty cheap ones. Maybe 25% of the bar represents quality, interesting film cameras - the higher end rangefinders, the SLRs, the MFs etc.
7. Take the 2014 bar, cut it by 50%, and - hey - that is pretty close to taking the 1998 bar and cutting it by 75%. In other words, the higher end digital camera industry will be about the same size (in units) as the higher end film camera industry was before. The lower-end and mid-range digital camera industry will largely disappear.
8. So, in a nutshell, my prediction is:
a) The digital camera will consolidate to only DLSR, mirrorless, high end fixed lens, and any other form factors that cannot be replaced by a smartphone. By units, the industry will lose 50% of its current size, but it will probably lose only about 25% of its revenue. Because the digital point and shoots, that are going away, are lower end and lower price. For example, in 2013 the industry made about 44 million digital camera units with fixed lenses and about 16 million with interchangeable lenses, but the industry's camera revenue was about JPY 550 billion from fixed lense cameras and about JPY 650 billion from interchangeable lens cameras. http://nikon.com/about/ir/management/business_info/imaging/index.htm (see "Market Conditions").
b) Some companies will be driven out of the business, most of the major brands will survive. For example, Nikon's imaging (camera) business made revenue of JPY 352 billion and profit of JPY 31 billion in 1H2014, it made revenue of JPY 277 billion and profit of JPY 27.5 billon in 1H15, when the "compact DSC" (as they call the fixed lens category) business goes entirely away, Nikon's imaging business can probably still be profitable. Admittedly ownsizing will be required - won't need as many Chinese assembly plants, etc. http://nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2015/15_2qf_d_e.pdf