Thom Hogan on declining camera sales

[Telecaster]

Posted today:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html

In addition to the wireless capabilities Thom advocates I'd add another: firmware updates. Why do I need a desktop or laptop for this?! Cameras should be able to download new firmware via WiFi and install it untethered. Sheesh!

-Dave-

[Tony Jay]

Interesting read.

This year will be very interesting watching the main players and their response to current market conditions.

Tony Jay

[kers]

Thom makes a good point about cameras not being able to share pictures in an easy way as phones do.
Still phones have 3G/4G, so will always have that advantage over camera's, wifi or not.
A lot of people do not care for high quality pictures, as long as they can recognize who is on it, it is good enough,
So i think the point and shoots will disappear and the higher end cameras will remain.

[Some Guy]

I asked the guy in local Best Buy when I needed a memory card how the camera sales were going.  "Slow, can't even give away the P&S cameras from last generation.  The cells are taking a serious toll, even with the larger cameras."

As print media wanes, it could follow with the DLSR too ans it just needs to look good on a screen.  No more desktop computers with big boxes and cables, laptops maybe for a while until the tablets kill them off too.  So many cellular and tablet apps for editing now too.  Cellphone screens are pushing to go to 4K quality within the year maybe with Samsung  and their built-in cameras will get there sooner.  No need to learn f/stops, shutter speeds, flash G/Ns, depth of field, color temperature as the cellphone will do it all for you automatically.  Everyone is a now photographer and videographer now with what's in their pocket.  Why carry all the other heavy and expensive stuff.

Spend some time looking at the Flickr cell site:  https://www.flickr.com/groups/73532194@N00/  It's beginning to rival DSLR work.

SG

[mbaginy]

Yes, interesting reading and Thom makes some good points.  I guess the majority of cell phone camera users are completely happy sharing and viewing their images on a laptop or computer screen, or on a TV.  These folks will probably never want to print large or post process in order to squeeze every fraction of potential out of their (jpg) images.  And that will be fine for them and a great deal of the market.

But there are others, who use cell phone cameras as reminders or to get GPS info or simple documentation.  They'll have dedicated gear which will far better suit their photographic needs.  I can't think of shooting those macros or landscapes I do (and print) with a tiny sensor or cell phone.  Try holding a split neutral density filter in front of an iPhone lens!  What about the requirements we place on Zeiss (as an example) lenses and then find cell phone images so great?

Where my wishes completely differ to Thom's is all those automatic features of transfer and download.  That's all fine and dany if all batteries are (constantly) fully charged.  Also, experience shows, that not all those automatic operations actually operate as intended.  I'd rather kick off the function or action and make absolutely sure that it was done.  We take backups and security so serious and want to rely on automatic transfers and such?  I foresee major disappointment and complaints.  I'm not convinced about that automation.

[dwswager]

Yes, interesting reading and Thom makes some good points.  I guess the majority of cell phone camera users are completely happy sharing and viewing their images on a laptop or computer screen, or on a TV.  These folks will probably never want to print large or post process in order to squeeze every fraction of potential out of their (jpg) images.  And that will be fine for them and a great deal of the market.

Bahahaha!  Most cell phone users are happy to view their images on a itty bitty iPhone 5.  Hell, my daughters don't even let the screen rotate so you can get a small image and you are stuck with itty bittty.  When we need to see something, like show a photo to a few people, I have to pull out my phone, nicknamed The Plasma (Samsung Galaxy Note II).  As I'm 50 years old, most of my cell phone photos are shot so I can enlarge them on screen and read something like product directions or serial numbers.

Where my wishes completely differ to Thom's is all those automatic features of transfer and download.  That's all fine and dany if all batteries are (constantly) fully charged.  Also, experience shows, that not all those automatic operations actually operate as intended.  I'd rather kick off the function or action and make absolutely sure that it was done.  We take backups and security so serious and want to rely on automatic transfers and such?  I foresee major disappointment and complaints.  I'm not convinced about that automation.

While the ability to wirelessly transfer images from my camera to something else would be nice, I don't need or want a bulk function.  It would normally be selected images and that would require me to do the kickoff.

[Iluvmycam]

Don't care about wireless or updates.

What is sorely needed is a Japanese Leica knockoff rangefinder for $2500 - $3000

A 6mp FF back for the Hasselblad film cams for $2500 - $3000

[Hans Kruse]

Posted today:

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/panic-is-setting-in.html

In addition to the wireless capabilities Thom advocates I'd add another: firmware updates. Why do I need a desktop or laptop for this?! Cameras should be able to download new firmware via WiFi and install it untethered. Sheesh!

-Dave-

I agree that many camera manufacturers still have a lot to learn from smart phones even 7 years after the first iPhone. I can't believe that my new D810 does not even have a GPS built-in, not to mention WiFi or touch screen. It's a wonderful sensor but the rest feels like from the last century. Even though my relatively new Sony RX100 III does have WiFi, it is somewhat clunky done and no touch screen. And no updates of firmware via WiFi from the camera. I just did a firmware update and it was the first time and it took me probably about 30 minutes to find the website, read the instructions, install an extra thing since I run Yosemite on my Mac, then find out that the firmware download is at the bottom of the page which was not obvious, download it, install the firmwareupdater, connect the camera via a USB cable, then run the update. The update itself was instructed via the firmware update, but ran very very slow. I didn't time it but I think it was about 15 minutes to just run the firmware update as the progress bar slowly moved to completion. At least it did complete....

No surprise that new cameras does not fly of the shelves

I doubt very much that camera sales will come back to previous high levels. I think it will stabilize at a level where there is a balance and that this will be quite a bit lower than the sales today. Yes, the things Thom mentions would be nice to have, but I don't think this would change much. The key is that most people are not interested in the details of photography, the just snap some pics and share them and never print, so a smartphone with the excellent sharing capabilities is enough. Yes, anybody knows that they could get better quality and they could start zooming if they got a real camera, but it seems these days that a 28mm iPhone camera has become the normal lens

[sniper]

Not sure wi-fi is going to be faster than copying off the memory card.  We had a wireless transfer gadget for a D3 a few years back, it was part of an event printer set up, that was the top of the range at the time but it was painfully slow, and every know and then it "dropped" an image, we ended up switching to tethered.
I can see why sales are down, if you've got a camera in your pocket why lug a big proper camera around, and as someone already said most people only put them on facebook or twitter, they don't need decent quality for that (and to be fair some phones are half decent)

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

.... I can't believe that my new D810 does not even have a GPS built-in...

I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?

[degrub]

geotagging

Frank

[Hans Kruse]

I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?

If I'm lost somewhere, at least I'd like to know where

[Chris_Brown]

Not sure wi-fi is going to be faster than copying off the memory card.

It should be. In fact, "tethered" should be wireless, secure, fast, and glitch-free. The Canon WFT wireless transmitters are all abysmal in performance and reliability given what they cost. And the fact that Canon doesn't make one WFT for all their cameras is a sign they don't care about wireless convenience.

 

[AFairley]

I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?

You kidder!

 Actually I like geotagging images.  I have lots of chromes shot in NYC in the 80s, many of them I have idea where they were shot except for some where I wrote the location on the mounts (obviously I did not keep a shot log).  It's not like I really need to have that information, but I do wish I did.  (Then there's the time I forgot I was working with a scan and went to check the EXIF for exposure information, but that's another story....)

[Isaac]

"What has to happen is simple, and I’ve been saying it for seven years now: the camera needs to be reinvented."

The camera has been reinvented, as he says a few paragraphs earlier -- It’s that smartphones are fast, fun, and convenient for dealing with images. Plus the image quality is “good enough.”

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I've found some of my best subjects and locations when lost.

And that is exactly my point. Geotagging should be prohibited by law. Find your own damn spot, don't search for AA's tripod holes (or anyone else's, for that matter).

[dwswager]

I agree that many camera manufacturers still have a lot to learn from smart phones even 7 years after the first iPhone. I can't believe that my new D810 does not even have a GPS built-in, not to mention WiFi or touch screen. It's a wonderful sensor but the rest feels like from the last century. Even though my relatively new Sony RX100 III does have WiFi, it is somewhat clunky done and no touch screen. And no updates of firmware via WiFi from the camera. I just did a firmware update and it was the first time and it took me probably about 30 minutes to find the website, read the instructions, install an extra thing since I run Yosemite on my Mac, then find out that the firmware download is at the bottom of the page which was not obvious, download it, install the firmwareupdater, connect the camera via a USB cable, then run the update. The update itself was instructed via the firmware update, but ran very very slow. I didn't time it but I think it was about 15 minutes to just run the firmware update as the progress bar slowly moved to completion. At least it did complete....

No surprise that new cameras does not fly of the shelves

I doubt very much that camera sales will come back to previous high levels. I think it will stabilize at a level where there is a balance and that this will be quite a bit lower than the sales today. Yes, the things Thom mentions would be nice to have, but I don't think this would change much. The key is that most people are not interested in the details of photography, the just snap some pics and share them and never print, so a smartphone with the excellent sharing capabilities is enough. Yes, anybody knows that they could get better quality and they could start zooming if they got a real camera, but it seems these days that a 28mm iPhone camera has become the normal lens

Why?  Two reasons:  Mindset and onboard power!  Camera manufacturers think a DSLR should be a digital version of a film SLR!  Hence, they have no idea how to break out of that box and incorporate new functionality. In addition to space and weight, all these things take power. 

Wireless will never be as fast as wired given the same level of technology.  There is just way too much overhead in wireless.  I much prefer downloading the cards. Compare the fastest real world attainable wireless technology with USB3 speeds.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My philosophy is much about sharing.

Regarding tripod holes. I place my tripod with about 15 cm precision, GPS is accurate to 10 m perhaps. So I am not that concerned about folks reusing my tripod holes.

Would I be a commercial photographer, my view may be different. But I am no commercial photographer… simple as that.

Best regards
Erik

And that is exactly my point. Geotagging should be prohibited by law. Find your own damn spot, don't search for AA's tripod holes (or anyone else's, for that matter).

[dwswager]

Regarding tripod holes. I place my tripod with about 15 cm precision, GPS is accurate to 10 m perhaps. So I am not that concerned about folks reusing my tripod holes.

Would I be a commercial photographer, my view may be different. But I am no commercial photographer… simple as that.

It's one thing for someone to go out and try to duplicate a photo they have seen.  And for a professional that is earning money from that image, especially a unique take on a well shot subject or a totally new subject,  I can understand the consternation if it is another professional trying to take his sales.

But...If you allow 10 people to place their tripods in a particular set of 'holes', you are going to get 10 pretty different images.  That is only 1 decision among dozens that are going to impact the results.  Things like elevation of the camera, pitch, tilt, yaw, focal length (field of view), sensor size, filtration, shutter speed, ISO, aperture, lighting, etc.

As an amateur, I like other people shooting in the same location, especially if I get to see the results and compare them to my own.  Figure, I might actually learn something or have my own choices affirmed.

[Bernard ODonovan]

Look at the history of photography from day one to present and understand the different types of non user and user across the range of competences, wants and needs and it is easier to understand why things change as technology progresses and disruptive developments like roll film, format options/types,  digital, video and camera phones take place. If the makers he seems to target want to focus on specific groups at different levels in their market then so be it. They have their reason for being what they are and the types of Customer they wish to serve with their own skill set of manufacturing and development curve.

The Yen has dropped and if it stays down long enough it could explain some of their own optimism and site of production moves

The real problem occurs when users better served by the entry level gimmicky products want to dictate to the makers they obsess over what the high end and flagship models should be like. Then we see lots of internet ranting... If it goes on long enough to affect shareholders then the makers may be forced to squirt out a "like that" product or two, knowing full well what they are best at and what they really need to focus on to stay in the business they want to be in...

The laws of physics and current technology will dictate what cameras will be like for specific specialist user groups, no amount of "works today but maybe useless in the future" additions will change that. What it would achieve is delay and disruption to more important developments

We should be happy that these makers can now focus on specialist camera types rather than exponential growth in manufacturing demands for the mid to low end products of the market. Crying over the buying habits of people who prefer Camera phones and their negative impact on a part of the Camera market that had undergone recent boom years solves nothing...

Everyone’s whishes are important, but the higher you go up the product level the less likely those extra non essential features and function will be adopted. Some people will never be satisfied as they want it all their own way ;-)