Collapse of digital camera sales is accelerating

[KM-25]

Only time will tell what happens to either medium. And regardless of what that looks like, there will be plenty of info with enough time for people to make informed decisions as to what they should do to keep on using the tools or medium one prefers.

Personally, I can take only so much gloom and doom, film is dead, digital is dead rhetoric and then I have to cry uncle.

Life is short enough as it is, why waste time beating perfectly good horses....?....they are not dead yet.

 

[jsrockit]

The reality is: One film type is already again a mass market product: Fuji Instax instant film.
They sold about 5.5 million new cameras last year alone.
Is there a digital camera manufacturer like Nikon, Canon or Sony who has sold one of his models in such a volume?
No. Not one model was so successful.

By that measure, we can also say name a roll film camera that was as successful as any digital camera by Nikon, Canon, or Sony.

We all know Instax is its own separate category from other film or digital cameras. It's similar to cell phones in its usage i.e. typically not used for serious photography.

 

[mani]

By that measure, we can also say name a roll film camera that was as successful as any digital camera by Nikon, Canon, or Sony.

We all know Instax is its own separate category from other film or digital cameras. It's similar to cell phones in its usage i.e. typically not used for serious photography.

But it's not similar to cellphones - because cellphones are... well, cellphones.
But an Instax camera is (drumroll) a camera!

You're pretty persistently banging this same drum the whole thread now I see. 🙄

 

[Calzone]

My going to be 4 year old MM is my first digital camera, and for me it is still a great camera warts and all.

The M-246 interests me greatly for all the improvements and the big jump in High ISO performance, but I'm hoping that Leica comes out with a SLM (SL Monochrom).

Anyways I will still be keeping and using my old MM because it still serves me well, and I truly love the camera. Currently I'm on a waiting list for sensor replacement. I expect that at an age of 4 years to have a new sensor and a freshened up camera.

It kinda makes sense to me to keep on using an expensive camera, especially since I have bonded with it. Time is my friend, and I feel I am getting my money's worth. Anyways that's one reason why I originally bought the camera and justified the big expense.

Cal

 

[jsrockit]

But it's not similar to cellphones - because cellphones are... well, cellphones. But an Instax camera is (drumroll) a camera!

They serve the same purpose for most users... friends and family shots. The iPhone is thought to be the most used CAMERA in the world. Sure, it is also a phone, but it is also a camera. I don't want to use it, but you cannot dispute it being a camera.

You're pretty persistently banging this same drum the whole thread now I see. 🙄

Likewise sir.

 

[mani]

They serve the same purpose for most users... friends and family shots. The iPhone is thought to be the most used CAMERA in the world. Sure, it is also a phone, but it is also a camera. I don't want to use it, but you cannot dispute it being a camera.

But... but... but... how many times do we have to go over what this thread is about? This thread. And what it's about. It's not about what people are photographing, it's about dedicated cameras.

Oh never mind.

:bang:

PS: "it is also a phone" actually gave me a pretty good laugh though.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

So, on previous week I've let FF DSLR go, which was same as first FF DSLR I have purchased used. I was looking at new fancy cameras to decide what digital camera to get, but realized what small consumer DSLR which was purchased new for family use in 2009 is still as good as new fancy, RF-fake cameras.
No wonder sales are falling! 🙂
If you are buying camera for use and making right choice it will lasts for years and provide sharp, well exposed and saturated pictures.

 

[jsrockit]

But... but... but... how many times do we have to go over what this thread is about? This thread. And what it's about. It's not about what people are photographing, it's about dedicated cameras.

Oh never mind.

:bang:

PS: "it is also a phone" actually gave me a pretty good laugh though.

Come on Mani, it's only the internet.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Indeed!

I just ordered ten more rolls of Ilford XP2. I can see the headlines now: "Film sales way up for the year!"

What a coincidence, I ordered 12 rolls of XP2 Ilford. That is definitely be an increase of 200% in sales.

 

[mani]

Come on Mani, it's only the internet.

Yeah but that's the most pathetic internet response. You should've added 'lighten up!' for the full Internet Bingo.

I don't actually care about this issue, but I'm intrigued by the discussion (you know - the stuff that happens on a forum). But the quality of the discussion is constantly ruined when someone keeps interjecting "iPhones!!".

We established that smart phones have cameras and that they're effectively the 'mainstream' of digital photography now. But you really don't need to keep reiterating this point to counter every single thing that's said about film cameras or the precipitous decline of digital camera sales.

Oh and by the way, lighten up.

 

[Godfrey]

The "collapse of digital camera sales" does not mean the "resurgence of film". Film camera sales are virtually nil, there are only a few still in production and available new; any minor increase in the annual sales of film and processing is insignificant in the context of the camera equipment industry's need for revenue to stay profitable.

The "collapse of digital camera sales" means the "collapse of camera equipment sales" in a more general sense. As the popular use of cameras transitions to smartphones and other such devices, and the profitability of being a professional photographer continues to slide into the toilet due to the collapse of newspapers, magazines, and other venues through which to sell photographs and obtain jobs, and as the technology of today's cameras matures such that year to year improvements become increasingly smaller steps forward such that there's no motivation to buy another new camera every year, it is inevitable that the traditional camera manufacturers are facing an economic abyss and will need to change production and pricing structure to stay profitable.

What we have now available in cameras is astonishing capability at extraordinarily low prices, any one of which will last a decade's use without question. Enjoy it while you can.

G

 

[jsrockit]

Yeah but that's the most pathetic internet response. You should've added 'lighten up!' for the full Internet Bingo.

Ok, I tried to be nice even if in a generic way.

I don't actually care about this issue, but I'm intrigued by the discussion (you know - the stuff that happens on a forum). But the quality of the discussion is constantly ruined when someone keeps interjecting "iPhones!!".

You do care. 🙄 I get it, you don't like the iPhone...but iPhone photos are sold in major galleries.

http://www.howardgreenberg.com/exhi...mance/selected-works?view=multiple-thumbnails

It's a camera, even if we both don't care for it. My point is that it fills the majorities needs and that speaks to the OP's post.

We established that smart phones have cameras and that they're effectively the 'mainstream' of digital photography now. But you really don't need to keep reiterating this point to counter every single thing that's said about film cameras or the precipitous decline of digital camera sales.

Each time digital camera sales go down, someone comes on here and assumes it means that film camera and film sales have gone up (or will go up). I would think that neither has to do with the other at this point. My opinion is that negative / positive film will never be mainstream again. It's just not convenient enough and the infrastructure needed to support it does not exist. Instax is convenient, so it works for people and its popularity rests on a rare combination of nostalgia and convenience. Digital camera sales are down due to current models (sold over the last few years) being good enough for most (so they don't have to be upgraded as often) and camera phone sales. I don't see how this opinion is not relevant to the thread.

Oh and by the way, lighten up.

I tried to lighten it up, you chose to be an ***.

 

[sevo]

There is a part of my thinking that believes that digital cameras based on the traditional film model may in fact pretty much disappear. Completely replaced by internet devices and cameras like the RED.

Perfectly possible, in the long run. But the current decline in SLR sales has nothing to do with that - it is market saturation, plain and simple.

 

[miha]

The "collapse of digital camera sales" does not mean the "resurgence of film". Film camera sales are virtually nil, there are only a few still in production and available new; any minor increase in the annual sales of film and processing is insignificant in the context of the camera equipment industry's need for revenue to stay profitable.

The "collapse of digital camera sales" means the "collapse of camera equipment sales" in a more general sense. As the popular use of cameras transitions to smartphones and other such devices, and the profitability of being a professional photographer continues to slide into the toilet due to the collapse of newspapers, magazines, and other venues through which to sell photographs and obtain jobs, and as the technology of today's cameras matures such that year to year improvements become increasingly smaller steps forward such that there's no motivation to buy another new camera every year, it is inevitable that the traditional camera manufacturers are facing an economic abyss and will need to change production and pricing structure to stay profitable.

What we have now available in cameras is astonishing capability at extraordinarily low prices, any one of which will last a decade's use without question. Enjoy it while you can.

G

Wise words.

 

[Calzone]

What we have now available in cameras is astonishing capability at extraordinarily low prices, any one of which will last a decade's use without question. Enjoy it while you can.

G

Especially wise.

Cal

 

[Spanik]

We established that smart phones have cameras and that they're effectively the 'mainstream' of digital photography now. But you really don't need to keep reiterating this point to counter every single thing that's said about film cameras or the precipitous decline of digital camera sales.

Oh and by the way, lighten up.

Have we? Are they "the mainstream" or only "the mainstream" in a certain demographic? Maybe for certain use cases but not for others.

 

[mpaniagua]

What we have now available in cameras is astonishing capability at extraordinarily low prices, any one of which will last a decade's use without question. Enjoy it while you can.

G

I think it will be the same scenario as with film cameras. Most film users been shooting with cameras made more than 10 years ago. My guess is that, 10 years from now, people that like digital cameras will be using Digital Camera 10years+ old with no problem, unaware of the camera industry status. Sure, they will eventually die as mechanical cameras die as well, but we have enough of the around to last us a while.

Marcelo

 

[Godfrey]

I think it will be the same scenario as with film cameras. Most film users been shooting with cameras made more than 10 years ago. My guess is that, 10 years from now, people that like digital cameras will be using Digital Camera 10years+ old with no problem, unaware of the camera industry status. Sure, they will eventually die as mechanical cameras die as well, but we have enough of the around to last us a while.

Yes. My Olympus E-1 is still a superb photo maker, and it was manufactured in October 2003. I acquired it in 2008, with only 2400 actuations recorded, upgraded it to the final firmware revision, and use it with a small number of Olympus HG lenses still. Regardless of its write speed and only 5 Mpixel resolution, it still makes superb photographs.

Which reminds me: I better charge the batteries. ;-)

G

 

[Addy101]

They are about production and shipments.
But that is all totally splitting hairs:
What is shipped and produced all was ordered by those who sell the stuff. So in the end: production = shipment = sales.

Cheers, Jan

No, it isn't splitting hairs. First, production (and therefore shipments) can be influenced by different things, like, say, quakes. Also, producing something doesn't mean you're gonna sell it: go to your local bakery and ask if they ever have leftovers at the end of the day, they probably will. Apparently importers have warehouses of old cameras they need to sell before the new ones...

The one is talking about a market pull, the other is talking about a market push. It all isn't THAT important, but it IS something different.

 

[Jdi]

No, it isn't splitting hairs. First, production (and therefore shipments) can be influenced by different things, like, say, quakes. Also, producing something doesn't mean you're gonna sell it: go to your local bakery and ask if they ever have leftovers at the end of the day, they probably will. Apparently importers have warehouses of old cameras they need to sell before the new ones...

The one is talking about a market pull, the other is talking about a market push. It all isn't THAT important, but it IS something different.

It's splitting hairs. Sans smartphones, here's what's going on: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201606_e.pdf

You can't explain away short-term supply/demand mismatches when it's been going on for years.