CIPA data 2016: Another horror year for digital camera production

[jsrockit]

The seemingly constant introductions of the "new camera of the month" is not good for the industry overall, IMHO. Too much meaningless stuff (often only slightly upgraded items, Nikon!) being dumped in the marketplace.

Please offer an example... Which Nikon? Cameras are computers now and tech changes rapidly. Nobody says you have to buy every new camera.

And anyway, who needs dozens more megapixels being introduced over time when 8-12 mp suffices for "most" consumer needs?

People who want to print large? Tech moves on and 8-12mp sensors are no longer being made (generally speaking). Cameras are made with those who need the tech in mind and then trickles down to consumers.

I am turned off by digital and enjoy film. Yes, I do use digital but in very limited form.

These are just my opinions. Feel free to argue and disagree.

I wouldn't disagree with your personal choices.

 

[HHPhoto]

Since Apple makes 95+% of the profits on smartphones, seems to me, you are really not asking the right questions. Will Apple make inroads into India, by manufacturing there?

Yes, I am asking the right questions.
And no, probably Apple will not start manufacturing in India. Because Apple is a high-end, expensive and high margin manufacturer.
And India is
- a low-end, low margin market for smartphones
- has lots of competive disadvantages as industry location (industrial manufacturing) compared to other Asian countries.

An analyst makes a prediction about the next quarter, and commenters tell us how much they hate the company personally.

If you want to be a really good investor, you have to be extremely careful concerning analyst statements.
Look at the track record of the analysts.
For example look at the analysts of the photography market in the last years. They have been all completely wrong with their market assessments:
They said instant film will be the first film type that will be completely killed by digital. But instead now the instant film market is more than double the size as the DSLM market. So exactly the opposite of their forecast has happened.
They said film will be dead, now film makes a revival.
In 2009 - 2010 they said the growth in digital camera sales will continue. But instead the sales collapsed by 80% until now, and there is no end in sight.....

And lots of forum members here repeated that nonsense without critically thinking about it for years.

Analysts with such a horrible track record are simply not worth one Penny!!
And lots of the same analysts which told this nonsense about the photo market are now telling us that the record sales in smartphones of the last years will continue for many coming years.
Sorry guys, I don't buy it.
You will be wrong again.

Cheers, Jan

 

[kevin m]

Ahh all those making fun of Leica and their super high prices. They got it figured out from day 1...

Let's not rewrite history. Leica didn't "figure out" anything so much as they picked the only course of action available to them at the time. 😀

...Most consumers don't care about details, they want punchy colour and contrast, the iPhone 7 is the perfect camera for them.

Consumers aren't being stupid. Modern cellphone cameras are indeed "good enough" to take the pics that most people want to take.

...99% of the population could not care less that a 'real' camera can take better pics. If they remember to take it with them. The phone is always with them.

Exactly. The camera you have with you is always better than the camera you don't. And unlike a Leica M, any of the new Fujis, or all the 4/3's cameras out there, a cellphone literally fits in a pocket.

Yet folks like Sony are up to the RX100 V...RX100 versions 1-4 are still on the market. Go figure.
Get back to me when I get one of each on closeout for $100 at WorstBuy. ...

This camera is tempting because, like a cellphone, it's literally pocketable, too, and it offers "real" camera features a cellphone can only mimic. I'm disappointed Nikon cancelled their DL line, because it looked like a real competitor for the RX100's. Niche cameras like this with a well-defined niche will more likely survive, I feel, than all the "compromise" cameras out there.

 

[benlees]

Jan, Do us all a favour and tell us who the good analysts are, and what the future holds, then we can all buy the M10.😀

 

[KM-25]

I think all these topics do is make film lovers and advocates look vindictive, not really serving the bigger message that we all have a hand in keeping photography on the whole, relevant.

That is my bigger concern lately, not how the message is shared, but is it even worth sharing anymore as far as the broad perception of photography is concerned. I think yes, but we all have to work with and not against each other to keep it looking worthy.

A failure of a product in the marketplace does not necessarily assure solid footing for those which remain, so lets be careful what we wish for.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

And no, probably Apple will not start manufacturing in India. Because Apple is a high-end, expensive and high margin manufacturer.
And India is
- a low-end, low margin market for smartphones
- has lots of competitive disadvantages as industry location (industrial manufacturing) compared to other Asian countries.
Cheers, Jan

So you believe that the statements by Priyank Kharge, information technology minister for the Indian state of Karnataka, are incorrect? The initial effort reported will be much like Foxconn. The iPhone components will continue to be sourced worldwide - http://www.businessinsider.com/where-iphone-parts-come-from-2016-4.

Links discounting reports from Fortune and the Bloomberg interview?

 

[HHPhoto]

I think all these topics do is make film lovers and advocates look vindictive, not really serving the bigger message that we all have a hand in keeping photography on the whole, relevant.

Daniel, it has absolutely nothing to do with that.
I don't know one single film photographer who wants or who thinks digital to vanish / will vanish.
At least all film shooters I know are very tolerant people, and lots of them (me included) use digital, too.

But this "film is dead" marketing campaign of the digital photo industry wasn't helpful at all for photography in general.
It damaged photographic culture by
- trying to cut the photographic roots
- killing alternatives and choices.

Film photographers simply think that a photography world with both digital and film is just a much better world than having only one choice, digital.

Cheers, Jan

 

[KM-25]

But this "film is dead" marketing campaign of the digital photo industry wasn't helpful at all for photography in general.
It damaged photographic culture by
- trying to cut the photographic roots
- killing alternatives and choices.

Believe me, I know that all too well, made me hate digital for years and years.

I would not have have just spent major money on property that allows me over 500 square feet of darkroom space if I did not believe it to be a great investment and strategy for the future of my career.

I just think that the tone of these topics can get too adversarial when there are actually bigger picture issues with the perception of photography to be dealt with write large.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

But this "film is dead" marketing campaign of the digital photo industry wasn't helpful at all for photography in general.

I missed that marketing campaign. Do you have any links to the ads?

 

[KM-25]

I missed that marketing campaign. Do you have any links to the ads?

It was not literally an official campaign but was felt in person for years by those who would choose to adorn themselves with a film camera. For example, while I was at the inaugural Look3 festival in Charlottesville, Canon was a sponsor and one of their reps gave me truly grief for carrying around a Leica M6 instead of the latest and greatest digital gadget, seriously could not understand why I would use film.

From about 2002 until 2012 or so, film users needlessly caught flack from those who insisted film was dead, inferior and was a waste of time. Nikon even disallowed film entries from their long standing photo contest, so yes, the campaigning against film in order to get photo enthusiasts to buy digital products was real but not exactly transparent in origin.

To think otherwise is to ignore the utter hell it was to be a film shooter for well over a decade. Thankfully that is now over....and digital still can not decide what it wants to be for the long term.

 

[jsrockit]

I just think that the tone of these topics can get too adversarial when there are actually bigger picture issues with the perception of photography to be dealt with write large.

Agreed....

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

To think otherwise is to ignore the utter hell it was to be a film shooter for well over a decade.

The museums and galleries are still full of new work. I missed the hell.

 

[HHPhoto]

I missed that marketing campaign. Do you have any links to the ads?

No ads needed. They have used much more effective methods.
For example
- every time I visited one of the "home fairs" of the big camera shops / chains the digital manufacturers there said "film is dead, there will be no more film in the future, film is totally inferior, you must switch to digital"
- there they gave film shooters the feeling of being idiots when they like film
- exactly the same behaviour at the big fairs like the Photokina (biggest photo fair in the world)
- also the same behaviour by the print photo magazines, which get most of their income by ads from digital camera manufacturers
- and very often the same methods were used by the "brand ambassodors" online, the influencers on youtube, the bloggers and (digital) photography internet magazines.

Cheers, Jan

 

[jsrockit]

No ads needed. They have used much more effective methods.
For example
- every time I visited one of the "home fairs" of the big camera shops / chains the digital manufacturers there said "film is dead, there will be no more film in the future, film is totally inferior, you must switch to digital"
- there they gave film shooters the feeling of being idiots when they like film
- exactly the same behaviour at the big fairs like the Photokina (biggest photo fair in the world)
- also the same behaviour by the print photo magazines, which get most of their income by ads from digital camera manufacturers
- and very often the same methods were used by the "brand ambassodors" online, the influencers on youtube, the bloggers and (digital) photography internet magazines.

Cheers, Jan

I understand what you mean, but if you don't go to gear related events, gear websites, or buy gear magazines... then nikonhswebmaster's point is still valid and true. Film photography never left the art world.

 

[nasmformyzombie]

You don't explain why you are glad, but the film camera "business model" is even more decimated, we are now down to 3 Leicas, and 2 Nikons. The Leicas seem pretty secure.

There are more film cameras available than just Leica and Nikon.

See the list here.

The list is a year old, I believe Holga cameras are no longer made.

 

[HHPhoto]

I understand what you mean, but if you don't go to gear related events, gear websites, or buy gear magazines... then nikonhswebmaster's point is still valid and true. Film photography never left the art world.

No, it is not valid, because the art world is almost irrelevant for the survival or revival of film.
Artists just don't buy enough film or paper to keep the film / paper lines running.
The enthusiast / (serious) amateur market keeps the lines running.
And at those the 'film is dead' campaign was adressed.
And it has been very successfully, millions of photographers followed it.

Fortunately this campaign is slowing down.
Such a campaign hurts photography in general.
It is not good if one user base is set under pressure by the industry.
The industry should let the photographers feel free to choose the materials they want.
It is also better for the industry: I (and I am not alone) refuse to buy things from companies who say they know what is best for me, and tell me "you must buy that...."

Cheers, Jan

 

[HHPhoto]

There are more film cameras available than just Leica and Nikon.

See the list here.

The list is a year old, I believe Holga cameras are no longer made.

The list is even much longer. There are much more cameras from Lomography, several new medium format cameras including the Hy6 Mod.2 and the two latest Hasselblad H bodies.
And there are more than 20 manufacturers of LF cameras worldwide which offer countless different models.

Cheers, Jan

 

[KM-25]

No, it is not valid, because the art world is almost irrelevant for the survival or revival of film.
Artists just don't buy enough film or paper to keep the film / paper lines running.

I don't agree with this.

Artists are who keep the medium in front of serious buyers who like to know the story behind an artist's creation and in turn, outfits like The Phoblographer, NYT Lens, etc. pickup this good vibe and then look for other new angles to portray. Then enthusiasts and artists using film get talked about, featured and the good vibe keeps it rolling right along.

For sure, in large collective scale enthusiasts buy a large amount of supplies but not in the thousands of dollars a year as individuals like I do. All too often I hear about an enthusiast's "big" annual film usage and it barely amounts to even 100 rolls.

Also, most enthusiast film users develop their own film but don't wet print and instead, scan to get it on Flickr.

We are all in this together though so everyone is important, it all adds up.

 

[nikonhswebmaster]

Yeah yeah, there are lots of LF film cameras. And a couple of $7,800 Hasselblad bodies, which will take the $2,180.00 Hasselblad Film Magazine.

And yes, if one is so inclined, every new digital product could appear to be a conspiracy to keep film from users?

And I admit, however, I have absolutely no real insight into what defines "serious" in the amateur photo market.

I ride bicycles for relaxation, and exercise, and define "serious" as the use of a torque wrench, so I will stay alive. And I know those who race bicycles, and risk great bodily harm, with no chance of professional remuneration, or public accolades, and yes they rather mystify me -- but it's their life. Ditto with my rock climbing friends.

"Serious" is a word I don't use a lot, but I know that even "professional" often means nothing in the camera, or gaming computer, or bicycle sales world.

I have shot a lot of chrome, now there is so much of it, that it will never be scanned or printed, unless I receive a MacArthur genius grant. And like old records, you kind of have to live with the pops and scratches, after decades have passed.

Anyway, I have my tin foil hat, and everyone else has theirs. Shine on.

 

[HHPhoto]

I don't agree with this.

Artists are who keep the medium in front of serious buyers who like to know the story behind an artist's creation and in turn, outfits like The Phoblographer, NYT Lens, etc. pickup this good vibe and then look for other new angles to portray. Then enthusiasts and artists using film get talked about, featured and the good vibe keeps it rolling right along.

For sure, in large collective scale enthusiasts buy a large amount of supplies but not in the thousands of dollars a year as individuals like I do. All too often I hear about an enthusiast's "big" annual film usage and it barely amounts to even 100 rolls.

Also, most enthusiast film users develop their own film but don't wet print and instead, scan to get it on Flickr.

We are all in this together though so everyone is important, it all adds up.

Daniel, you have misunderstood me. Probably I should have been even more precise.
It is all right what you are saying.
But professionals shooting film may be 1-2% of the whole film shooter customer base. And they alone are not sufficient to keep the film lines running. That was my point.

And by the way, the film shooter customer base is much wider than most people think. For example you always hear that the "snap shooters" have all gone digital years ago, and no one of them is shooting film anymore.
Wrong in such a generalisation.
There are even today several million people worldwide using film for snapshots.
Here in Germany they get film, single use cameras, development and prints at "every corner of the street" in more than 4,000 drug store chain shops.
The Fujifilm USA film manager just recently explained in an interview that in the US market alone 9 million (!) single use cameras were sold in 2015. That is a lot that contributes to Fujifilm's and Kodak's film production.
In an interview at this weeks CPP fair in Japan the Japanese Fujifilm reps said that they are now also in Japan seeing an increasing demand for single use cameras by young photographers. Last year Fujifilm has introduced a special edition single use camera production in the dsign of their first SUC production in 1986 (30th anniversary limited production).

Cheers, Jan