Yes, but that does not encompass photography as a whole. You are describing a mainstream, practical use of photography. This has always existed...just the means of distribution got way better. We get it, phone cameras are better for these people and situations. But you are wrong about one thing, ALL of them had a camera.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
In the 70’s when I was a wee lad the key to a really successful gathering was a Polaroid camera and boxes of film. People just couldn’t get enough of the instant memories. Technology just upped it game that’s all. It had nothing to do with photography. Admittedly the phone today can do a lot more.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Thank you for your concern: My total daily exposure to light from my camera's EVF is typically far below 2 hours/day, and does not seem to be causing my eyestrain or affecting my sleep cycles versus the Leica M8 and M9 that I used to use. But I probably spend too much time in front of a computer, mobile device or television.
HHPhoto
Well-known
Depends on the kind of video features which you want to implement in a camera. A good audio quality, 4k and / or 120p does cost. And 8k costs a lot, as you need at least a 36 MP sensor and huge processing power.
Yes, they shoot video. But only as a "Notlösung" as we Germans would say. And have you ever seen the inside of these extremely low-cost entry level cameras? The sensor is not fixed with screws in it, neither with a special glue. It is done with tape. Yes, tape!! My trustworthy camera repair man has showed me. He said these cameras cannot be repaired anymore. They are not designed for being repaired. The sensor cannot be removed, you cannot go to the shutter.
The extreme cost reduction comes at a price. A camera without certain features (which are seldom used) could have a better build quality, but at similar price.
Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
"The old 'out' is the new 'in' ."
Instant film pictures are again very popular today: Polaroid has increasing sales for years.
And Fujifilm instax has been for several years now the most popular photo product in general. Fujifilm sold about 10.5 million cameras in their 2018/19 fiscal year alone.
Compare that to the digital camera market of 2020: Only 8.7 million units, from all manufacturers for all their digital camera types.
Cheers, Jan
JeffS7444
Well-known
Fujifilm's Instax is still a crowd-pleaser, and I think part of the magic are those Fujifilm plastic lenses which smooth out complexions and add a bit of "glow".
JeffS7444
Well-known
How much should a camera cost?
HHPhoto
Well-known
You are right. There are indeed very little differences between all the new MILCs.
And this is also one of the numerous reasons why the MILC market will continue to decline. Too much "me too" products.
Another one is that all the MILC manufacturers have said that they want to focus on the high(er) end market, because of the higher margins.
So concentration on the 2,000$ to 10,000$ segment. But how much of the enthusiasts are willing to pay so much money? If you are the "average Joe", average enthusiast middle-income photographer, who has to feed a family, you would have to think twice before you can spend so much money.
Or your wife is thinking for you, and then saying "no"......
.Cheers, Jan
HHPhoto
Well-known
The fascination of instax has absolutely nothing to do with the lenses and with a certain "glow". If you ask the young users about that they will look at you with big eyes and don't understand what you are talking about.
Instant film photography is all
- about the magic that a picture is developing slowly in your hands in front of your eyes
- that you immediately have a real, physical, tactile picture in your hands
- that you can give this picture as an instant present to friends, or other people you want to make happy.
Cheers, Jan
Last edited:
HHPhoto
Well-known
If we listen to the market, than the vast majority would tell us less than 1,500$.
I have talked about that over years with several camera stores, and all told me that the cameras below 1,500 $ / € have a market share of 85%.
And that is in the rich and relatively "photo-crazy" Germany. In less wealthy countries, and in countries in which photography is less popular the market share of the "below 1,500" is certainly even higher.
Cheers, Jan
JeffS7444
Well-known
In the USA, I think high price is not the problem: 1500 is enough to buy a number of very good camera bodies, both FF and APS-C, and I have seen APS-C systems selling for as little as 280 USD including 2 lenses from Canon USA. I think the "problem" is that cameras made 5-10 years ago were already good enough for most people!
css9450
Veteran
But a much-cheaper camera with video capability is too expensive, because it has video? I don't understand the logic.
Certainly, but in a consumer society we don't just give up like that... you always make something new and try to sell it anyway!
I think what HH is trying to say is that we need some variety in cameras again and that variety could be the selling point. Additional software features aren't going to do it for people who buy $2000+ cameras. Additionally, there are many people who like their cameras to be exact how they like them. I'm 47 years old and I still prefer a pretty basic digital camera. No video, stripped down menus? Sign me up... however, I get I'm in the minority and that Leica (maybe Sigma) is most likely the only game in town for this. Therefore, I use Fuji and ignore a lot functionality. I would rather it wasn't there though... it's just how I like things.
JeffS7444
Well-known
Certainly, but in a consumer society we don't just give up like that... you always make something new and try to sell it anyway!
I think what HH is trying to say is that we need some variety in cameras again and that variety could be the selling point. Additional software features aren't going to do it for people who buy $2000+ cameras. Additionally, there are many people who like their cameras to be exact how they like them. I'm 47 years old and I still prefer a pretty basic digital camera. No video, stripped down menus? Sign me up... however, I get I'm in the minority and that Leica (maybe Sigma) is most likely the only game in town for this. Therefore, I use Fuji and ignore a lot functionality. I would rather it wasn't there though... it's just how I like things.
Yes but how am I supposed to bitch and moan about climate change if I won't curb my own new-toy urges at least a little bit?
No matter what camera I buy, I know that I'm going to grow bored with it in 6-18 month's time. But as long as I'm happy with the results, who cares? There are more interesting ways to spend excess cash.
Disappointed_Horse
Well-known
Certainly, but in a consumer society we don't just give up like that... you always make something new and try to sell it anyway!
I think what HH is trying to say is that we need some variety in cameras again and that variety could be the selling point. Additional software features aren't going to do it for people who buy $2000+ cameras. Additionally, there are many people who like their cameras to be exact how they like them. I'm 47 years old and I still prefer a pretty basic digital camera. No video, stripped down menus? Sign me up... however, I get I'm in the minority and that Leica (maybe Sigma) is most likely the only game in town for this. Therefore, I use Fuji and ignore a lot functionality. I would rather it wasn't there though... it's just how I like things.
You're too young to be a curmudgeon, but you're showing great promise. (I'm 49 and feel exactly the same way.)
HHPhoto
Well-known
??
You should have really read what I have written.
Features like 4k / 120p and 8k are expensive or very expensive (8k). But 99.99% of photographers don't need it. And therefore do not want to pay for it.
The same is valid for very high fps numbers (higher than 10).
And for high megapixel counts. As 99.9% of all taken digital shots are either
- viewed on the extremely low resolution computer and smartphone screens (only 2-4k)
- or when the rarely prints are done than mostly at max. 30x40cm (for which 18 MP are totally sufficient with even 300dpi printing).
Manufacturers are more focussing their efforts on higher-priced cameras (especially in the MILC area). Offering features the huge majority of photographers simply don't need (examples see above).
This mismatch will lead to further declining sales in the coming years. Less and less photographers are willing to pay for features they don't need.
On the other hand we have an increasing demand for film cameras. Especially from young(er) people. There is a chance for camera manufacturers in the future to satisfy this increasing demand.
Cheers, Jan
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Nope. You begin sounding like Jan: ''you are wrong"! This aside, none of them had a dedicated camera. All of them had devices that can do hundreds of different things quite well. We call these devices 'phones'.
Just wait for 5G to come online -in parts of Asia it will happen this year, and the communications spectrum will change faster and more profoundly than ever before. How 'photography' will do in this new reality is anyone's guess but I bet that the big players are spending a good chunk of cash trying to figure it out. Cheers, OtL
Now, you corrected it... nobody had dedicated cameras.
I've seen iPhone photos (prints) in pretty prestigious galleries in NYC (Kathy Ryan, Michael Christopher Brown, etc.). I would say they are certainly considered cameras at this point. The most popular camera ever really.
I'm really not at all. I'm flexible, but I use what I like of course.
JeffS7444
Well-known
What if the 0.01% are the only ones buying new cameras? The other 99.99% already have plenty of good options starting at 280 USD, but they simply don't seem to care.
PS: USA price for Canon EOS 5DS-R seems to have been reduced to 1500 - wow. Currently out of stock at B&H Photo, Canon USA etc though.