Doom and Photography ...

There is no doom for photography - just the sales of new equipment are leveling into reasonable figures.The quality that is achievable with today's equipment is already far beyond most users expectations, let alone capabilities.

What's next ? Even more complex networking capabilities, instant sharing on "social" networks? That has nothing to do with photography but is marketing pressure to create something new for the next model release.

The level of 'good enough' has been reached already and there is no significant improvement when upgrading to the next generation of equipment. Same in big screen TV's...
 
I'm not so sure Klaus. There's the equipment part, there's the immense flood of images part, and there's the general public's attitude towards photography... all of these happening at once. It's changed.
 
icebear said:
What's next ? Even more complex networking capabilities, instant sharing on "social" networks? That has nothing to do with photography but is marketing pressure to create something new for the next model release.

.
Click to expand...


But we don't know what's around the corner. When Nikon released the F5, it was hard to imagine major developments in photography...maybe the F6 would have better AF, improved ergonomics, faster motor drive, etc. but nothing major. But by the time the F6 was released in 2004, digital was already becoming established as the new direction for photography. No longer were imaging improvement expected solely from better lenses and better film, but a new era of photo development and photo sales was ushered. First it was the megapixel war, then the ISO, then the DR...


Who knows what other innovations might revolutionize the way most people consume and produce photography.
 
He writes well (as usual). The comparative lack of spare cash in many people's pockets and accounts must also have had a toll.

Klaus, many people for many years have predicted that technology has reached its peak and it hasn't happened yet.
 
Lauffray said:
haha not really, I just found it a little all over the place, I tried to find his point somewhere, where's the insight really ?
Click to expand...

No new insight since many of us had the same thoughts... but I thought it could open up a discussion here that might be interesting.
 
Thanks for sharing the article!

Lauffray said:
hm am I the only one who didn't finish the article ?
Click to expand...

A bit fluffy but not really saying anything new other than showing the declining trends.

In regards to the video claim, it already is a big thing, look at Vimeo. There's still, however, much value in a photograph, and I cannot see web based news giving video the forefront. Headlines will still be followed by quality photojournalism, and Vanity Fair, Vogue, GQ, Nat Geo, still can't play video between the pages.

When you've purchased a D800, a Nex, and an X100s, and a boxful of lenses....what else is there to buy?
 
Well I may be an analog only type *now* but I have used digital and if you want I'll give you my opinion here.

I don't like collecting things and am not into gadgetry.
I work in technology and while professionally keeping up with the latest and technical is fun, for hobby I just want to make pictures, all the technical hype and jargon is tiresome and brings me no extra joy.

The second part is usability, sure a lot of older film tech is incredibly clunky and cumbersome but I find *using* a digital camera today is a very frustrating experience, that's speaking nothing of the irritating software that comes along with it. I'm thankful for mirrorless that offer something of an alternative today
 
I don't think it's a burst bubble. It's simply a technology that matured to the point where the price fell to something reasonable in proportion to it's utility. Most cameras are plastic boxes with some technology in them, comparable to an iPad or your TV set, and there's no reasonable cause for them to cost $8000.

I remember when the computer you wanted cost $3000. Now the computer I want and need is about $350; but computer companies are still doing fine, because where the $3000 computer didn't sell to everyone, whereas now just about everyone has a computer and flips it every couple of years. It's a different market, but it's still a good one. Likewise, when I take a walk at lunch, I see tons of non-photographer tourists with $500 cameras on their neck--cameras fully capable of shooting a pro job, and they're all over the place. A high-tech camera is no longer something only a high-paid pro buys. I suspect Canon is doing just fine.
 
j j said:
Roger, what are your non-alarmist drivel-free thoughts on why camera sales are down?
Click to expand...
As Murchu said, saturation. Yes, camera sales are down. It ain't the end of the world, or of photography. Look at the language in this post, though: "I...I...I", "cataclysmic", "tipping point", parallels with overpriced coffee -- all the hallmarks of someone who thinks they're quite a bit cleverer than they are.

Of course we all think that, but some of us are better at disguising it than others. To me, not even attempting to disguise intellectual superiority is one of the hallmarks of drivel. Especially when the intellectual superiority is non-existent.

Cheers,

R.
 
If the news is correct that Samsung sold 10's of millions of smartphones in the last quarter
and they all have cameras in them,how is it that camera sales are down? After all they do
take pictures don't they? Peter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom