Digital camera market is collapsing

Aristophanes said:
Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax/Ricoh, and Fuji all fall into those categories and have for decades. With the exception of Nikon (which has an industrial arm) all the Japanese optical makers have been conglomerates. This started well before digital.

Becoming profitable might be easier if they downsize and adapt and lose some of the competition (bye-bye Casio).

All industries go through this.
Click to expand...

Small correction Nikon is also part of a keiretsu (Mitsubishi) just like Canon, Fuji etc.. One of the first japanese multinationals that was not part of Keiretsu was/is Sony. Although you are right when you say a Keiretsu is not the western view of a corporation/conglomerate but more being part of sphere of influence.

I also agree with Dante's last post. Though I prefer Film to digital he stated some sad truth in his previous Posts.
 
jsrockit said:
There have been no attacks that I can see... just "real" talk about film.
Click to expand...

Very true.

At this stage digital and film photography market almost has no relation with each other.

Digital has been the de-facto photography market and will continue until something else replaces it.

Film photography today is a small niche, which is why it needs more help to survive and grow into a sustainable one. Film users need to focus on this.

I have a suspicion that the used *digital* camera market plays a big role in tugging the new purchase numbers down.

Imagine, I can get a used Nikon D200 for ... about $200. That is one heck of a camera which for a person (myself for example) who couldn't care less about the latest AF speed or the number of AF point, or video, or memory buffer, etc.

Only those with the eye for the latest and greatest with the money to buy it will continue to buy new. And out of those, there are growing numbers who buy new cameras with the plan to ditch it the moment they know it's not for them.

I think one strategy that camera manufacturers can use to deal with this is the buy-back program or services. I think this will become more common as we see the trend continues.
 
People who value better photos will gravitate towards the proven tech of good optics and larger sensors that smartphones cannot readily incorporate into their designs.

This becomes the dedicated market. one of the reasons why it has stalled is because the dedicated camera makers are optical companies who have been in denial about the immediate social interaction demanded of their customers. They are 3-5 years late to built-in wi-fi and mobile OS incorporation into their products. IMO this has contributed greatly to stalled (not collapsing) sales. Much of this is because the Japanese optical companies are so niche even within their conglomerates they did not realize their incorporation of processing into the camera (bye-bye Kodak) did not stop with simply processing the shot. Their hesitation to network their devices meant they saw the engineered product as an end in itself with a great resistance to seeing the digital camera as a transmitter of photographic documents.

the move from desktop OS's to mobile OS's has come so fast these companies have not kept up with where their customers are. I would not be surprised if 1/3 of the sales declines come from customers not seeing the need to upgrade due to old metrics (MP, FPS, f/stop) and are waiting for superior connectivity.

Large sensor + dedicated optics + connectivity = the future of dedicated camera photography.

Can you imagine your next Ricoh GR with the capacity to shoot and then transfer RAW processing to your iPhone 6+ wirelessly, and then from an using the iOS8 camera roll, transmit that edited image straight to the RFF Gallery? Or to grandma?

Why the camera makers insist on this SD card interlude has become part of the problem.
 
IMO the film and digital comparison is pointless at this stage. Kickstarter is a good medium for niche hobbies such as shooting with small-ish format film (I understand that there is still much professional work done with film LF).

The good news out of all this is that camera makers must focus on the enthusiasts, as money from professionals becomes harder and harder to come by. Growth in mirrorless and fixed lens large sensor compacts (RX1, X100) is huge.
 
Dante_Stella said:
Mani,

I'm sorry that my pessimism about the long-term prospects of the film market gets under your skin. I would like to be optimistic (especially given that I use a lot of 120 film for a lot of purposes - I am very attached to my Fujis, my Rolleiflex, and my Autocord - as well as an expensive new Silvestri), but the film sales numbers are the numbers, just as the sad and continual decline in the variety of film materials has been out there for more than a decade. It cannot have escaped your notice that 35mm movie film recently and barely survived what easily could have been an extinction event (see the Kodak-Hollywood deal). And who knows what effect that might have had on 35mm film production (maybe none - but maybe enough to make it unprofitable). There are high barriers to entry, irreplaceable machines are wearing out, and environmental regulations are getting tighter. We can expect film prices to go up over time, and that will impact demand.

Contrary to your repeated misreadings (and misstatements) of my views on film's long-term prospects, it doesn't bother me in the least that people like to use film. I would like them to use more so that I can continue to buy it in the future. But when I see people sanguinely predicting the end of digital cameras/photography and the immortality of film, I am reminded that I am old enough to remember when Smith-Corona declared that word processing on computers was a fad.

The decline of standalone camera sales does not mean that digital cameras are "dying out" or that all digital camera sales are imploding. From a practical standpoint, it just means the form of the device that is eating at the film market (cost and convenience, as noted, being big factors for consumers) has gone from being a digital camera in a separate box to a digital camera in a phone.

Dante
Click to expand...

And even then it will be possible to make your own "film" in your kitchen. Try that with a digital sensor. When I'm reading about people doing daguerrotype, Lippe plates and other fancy stuff at home then I cannot accept that film is dead.

If they would make a digital camera I'd like to use I'd change. But I'm having far more fun with my Fuji's, Mamiya's, Bronica's and Kiev's. And because I'm having fun, the results are better as well. Going to take the G617 and some Velvia for a spin this weekend.
 
KM-25 said:
I'm not sure what the heck is going to happen to digital, because frankly it seems to thrive utterly on getting people excited to try what is next rather than the images they make, so it is like dating a girl who changes her personality every week because she does not know who she is. Pre-digital, big companies like Kodak pulled in billions from "Doing the rest" as you "Take the picture". Now all that is gone and what is left is what was once the snapshot now turning into a graphic for a text or Facebook post. As pretty as the packaging on a item purchased may be, once we open and remove said product, the pretty package has served it's purpose and is discarded....the same thing is happening with the snapshot.

[...]

Digital as a new era to be ushered in has matured. But digital as a device to record our lives will be forever immature, because it is designed to keep people coming back who thrive on tech and the latest gadget and convince those who don't thrive on it that they need to in order to take better photos. Can that keep big camera companies afloat? Only time will tell.

Meanwhile, I enjoy a great career in which I use more and more black and white film and less digital and expect to keep on reaping the benefits of that.
Click to expand...
Well, as someone commented to me recently; sometimes it's almost worthless to try to predict the future given the track of advancement we had in the last decades. Though this isn't quite the point.

As of the throwaway mentality of digital media, I'd blame society for it, or capitalist thinking.
Look elsewhere and there it is.
This is just that the model is wrong altogether for the times that are coming. It's up to the industry to move on from hype.

I can get to see this too on the phone industry. Most midrange smartphones do enough and more, but it is the force of the industry that keeps pushing users forward to keep "upgrading".
I was shocked when I couldn't download and install a messaging app (it it were a game or so I'd understand) into an iPhone 3GS that I got to use until my main phone comes back from repair. A perfectly usable system, iOS6, perfect a year ago can't run now a simple messaging program? C'mon.

Aristophanes said:
Large sensor + dedicated optics + connectivity = the future of dedicated camera photography.

Can you imagine your next Ricoh GR with the capacity to shoot and then transfer RAW processing to your iPhone 6+ wirelessly, and then from an using the iOS8 camera roll, transmit that edited image straight to the RFF Gallery? Or to grandma?

Why the camera makers insist on this SD card interlude has become part of the problem.
Click to expand...
Agreed on that. I was initially quite skeptical on photography with a smartphone, BUT it turned out to be a very useful sub-medium.
It's the camera that is always with you, inconspicuous and can be edited and shared on the spot.
Years ago one would have had a polaroid and a camcorder for it.

On the line of the topic, cellphone cameras seem to have stuck into the 13MP 1/3" format for a generation (which could be... a year). If there were a trend for bigger sensors, even if just up to 1/1.7; It would be more interesting for us enthusiasts and a convergence towards higher quality for this kind of camera. Not denying the improvements that are being implemented, but a bit more real state would be nice.

The point many of us have mentioned about being the snapshot camera, true. A few days ago a friend told me that he'd never buy a camera; most people that aren't into photography cover their snap needs with just this device.
 
Seems funny to me that people are fantasizing about their 'ideal' digital camera in this thread - as though everything would be 'fixed' if only the manufacturers could finally 'get it' and make just precisely their niche camera. The problem is that the market depends on economies of scale: only Leica can get away with making a couple hundred bodies in a special edition and selling them for $22,500 each.

What's going to happen is actually the opposite of interesting niche digital cameras, as the remaining manufacturers scrap for the remnants of a shrinking enthusiast market by making ever more boring generic plastic boxes, and at the top end far more expensive pro cameras.
We've lived through a golden age of digital already - it's behind us. I've enjoyed the ride myself: the first camera I bought was a crappy 3(?) megapixel Canon Elph (ixus here in Europe) and since then I've owned Canon, Nikon, Epson, Olympus and Leica digitals. But the ride is almost over.

Take a look at today's (!) TheOnlinePhotographer if you doubt it:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepa...top-worrying-and-love-the-bomber-iphone-.html
 
A lot of gloom and doom here... I'm pretty sure we will continue to have very nice digital cameras available to us in the future. Ever since the emergence of small format cameras, there have been interesting (and useful) cameras available at all price points. Some make it, some don't. The iPhone will not be the only camera left standing.
 
The world turned sh!!te as soon as instant coffee was invented.....now as for cameras on the decline....ahh well, let me come back after i grind 7gms of fresh beans.
 
Doom and gloom here for sure. Happily, I have enough cameras to last me the remainder of my life if every camera company went out of business tomorrow. So I'll keep doing photography for a while.

But I don't really believe all this doom and gloom anyway. Yeah, the market is changing and all kinds of stuff is moving out of vogue, selling less, etc etc. Big concern for the camera companies and their product development/marketing folks.

Little concern of mine, however. As I said, I have enough cameras to keep me entertained and working, and I believe the companies will sort out their financial difficulties with the current milieu anyway. ;-)

G
 
On smart phones -- I have to say, I'm impressed with my Windows Lumia 920. F2 Zeiss lens, 35mm focal length, mechanical image stabilization. I'm one of those who is contributing to the decline of digital point-n-shoot sales. I used to get GAS for some select point-n-shoot models... The Fuji F30, others. I used to roam eBay looking for a deal on certain models. I'd put some on my Watchlist. Had it not been for my satisfaction with this camera on this phone, I'd certainly have purchased another digital point-n-shoot. It pains me to admit that this phone is a surprisingly capable low-light shooter. Images are not as noisy as I thought they would be, and the f2 with mechanical IS "just works" in low-light. It is great for taking candids -- people think you're futzing with your phone, perfect camouflage. Needless to say, it's always with me. (I'm probably the only person who buys his smart phone based on their lens specs. Android? OIS? Windows 8? Who cares? 35mm Zeiss f2!)

That said, I'm a film user through-and-through. My current facination is with point-n-shooters mainly -- Pentax PC 35 AF, Oly XA rangefinders, Nikon L35 AF with its lovely sonnar... I justify their use by thinking I have "full frame" camera in a discreet form factor. That's part truth/part rationalization. Reality is, I just like using them. They're fun to shoot.

Although film sales are declining, there have been long periods when film was produced at lower production levels -- say in the 1940's, when the world population itself was lower and cameras were not nearly as ubiquitous as they are today. Film was still made/sold. While it can not be denied that the heyday of film has come and gone, my take/hope is that it will be produced far into the future. I think it will. If film production was commercially viable at 1930's and 1940's demand levels -- pure speculation on my part, but I think it will be viable at lower productions levels at or near these levels in the future.

As for the moment, I can get whatever film I want. Live in the moment.
 
Godfrey said:
Doom and gloom here for sure. Happily, I have enough cameras to last me the remainder of my life if every camera company went out of business tomorrow. So I'll keep doing photography for a while. But I don't really believe all this doom and gloom anyway. Yeah, the market is changing and all kinds of stuff is moving out of vogue, selling less, etc etc. Big concern for the camera companies and their product development/marketing folks. Little concern of mine, however. As I said, I have enough cameras to keep me entertained and working, and I believe the companies will sort out their financial difficulties with the current milieu anyway. ;-) G
Click to expand...
This is exactly why there are sliding sale numbers. If all photography needs are met with existing equipment nothing new will be sold.

A lot is made of digital development driving camera sales, but have a look at 35mm camera history. New features all the time: viewfinders, RF, SLR, auto-return mirrors, in camera metering, auto exposure, autofocus, inbuilt motor wind, full electronic program with matrix metering.

As many here will confirm, there's nothing necessary in that progression. Use your Leica I and be happy.

With film there was still money to be made from camera use. With digital there is only the sale (or occasional accessory). The new imaging business model is like a Ponzi scheme in that once new buyers tail off the whole thing will collapse. OK that's exaggerated but as many have said there's a correction. It's turned out that 16mp and 1600iso is the sweet spot, nothing more is required by the mass marketplace.
 
Spanik said:
And even then it will be possible to make your own "film" in your kitchen. Try that with a digital sensor. When I'm reading about people doing daguerrotype, Lippe plates and other fancy stuff at home then I cannot accept that film is dead.
Click to expand...

Ok, you've lost me here. With the installed base of all kinds of cameras (hundreds of millions of film and digital), it doesn't seem likely that we will run out of working examples of either in the lifetime of any adult of today.

But any event that bricked all digital cameras suddenly (like an EMP) would also wipe out electronic film cameras and pretty much all types of output equipment (enlargers, scanners, etc.). Silver printing cannot be done without artificial light, and many alternative processes require artificial light for prep (because the sensitizers are sensitive to UV).

Easy solution: Polaroid, so long as this imagined disaster happens before 4/15 (or is it 3/15? I'm not looking at the huge stash right now), when all the FP-3000B expires. Otherwise, the apocalypse will have to be in color! :)

Dante
 
Aristophanes said:
People who value better photos will gravitate towards the proven tech of good optics and larger sensors that smartphones cannot readily incorporate into their designs.

This becomes the dedicated market. one of the reasons why it has stalled is because the dedicated camera makers are optical companies who have been in denial about the immediate social interaction demanded of their customers. They are 3-5 years late to built-in wi-fi and mobile OS incorporation into their products. IMO this has contributed greatly to stalled (not collapsing) sales. Much of this is because the Japanese optical companies are so niche even within their conglomerates they did not realize their incorporation of processing into the camera (bye-bye Kodak) did not stop with simply processing the shot. Their hesitation to network their devices meant they saw the engineered product as an end in itself with a great resistance to seeing the digital camera as a transmitter of photographic documents.

the move from desktop OS's to mobile OS's has come so fast these companies have not kept up with where their customers are. I would not be surprised if 1/3 of the sales declines come from customers not seeing the need to upgrade due to old metrics (MP, FPS, f/stop) and are waiting for superior connectivity.

Large sensor + dedicated optics + connectivity = the future of dedicated camera photography.

Can you imagine your next Ricoh GR with the capacity to shoot and then transfer RAW processing to your iPhone 6+ wirelessly, and then from an using the iOS8 camera roll, transmit that edited image straight to the RFF Gallery? Or to grandma?

Why the camera makers insist on this SD card interlude has become part of the problem.
Click to expand...


Whilst I think you're talking a lot of sense here, and I think this is the way things will probably end up going, it's really not what I personally want at all.

What comes out of the camera isn't the finished result, I don't do a lot of editing, but every image goes through some level of editing.

The Social Media effect which has everybody wanting their images in the length of time that it takes to post to Instagram doesn't have any space for thoughtful editing or post processing, just "a picture NOW"

That's not the route to high quality work.
 
Did anybody actually read the article the OP linked? It's not about the declining sales of digital cameras. That's old news and has been publicized for quite a while now. The figures that the OP posted are from other sources. He was prefacing his post about this well understood industry decline in sales and profitability and linked to an interview with Leica's Alfred Schopf about how Leica is remaining profitable and about their current business plan (and a plan which includes direct sales from Leica owned stores; btw, Leica continues to sell film cameras too, including a newly introduced model.)

That's what the article is about. What is Leica doing in this period of diminishing digital camera sales. Nobody is commenting on the article and on Leica's approach to profitability in the digital era. :confused:

Instead it turns into film versus digital which is a dead argument and a useless one, too. They are different media. Use the medium that works for you.
 
BlackXList said:
Whilst I think you're talking a lot of sense here, and I think this is the way things will probably end up going, it's really not what I personally want at all.

What comes out of the camera isn't the finished result, I don't do a lot of editing, but every image goes through some level of editing.

The Social Media effect which has everybody wanting their images in the length of time that it takes to post to Instagram doesn't have any space for thoughtful editing or post processing, just "a picture NOW"

That's not the route to high quality work.
Click to expand...

High quality really = printing still.

That's a niche, like film.

The vast majority of photography has always been vernacular and we benefit from that economy of scale (even Leica). Quality is subjective.
 
I just bought an Argus c3, never had one before. Made between 1946 and 1951, looks like. Slick. Coated Cintar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom