Prediction: The Age of the Standalone Still Camera is Coming to an End for all..

[Isaac]

… there are millions of us …

Perhaps there will be a generational change and enthusiast photographers will become as commonplace as poets.

I'm not sure what you mean: do you speculate that photographers who are enthusiastic about things like telephoto reach will become rare?  I see absolutely no trend in that direction; the opposite in fact.

I was speculating that there's nothing inevitable about photography as a widespread "hobby" beyond what can be satisfied by ubiquitous snap and share.

Although there is an obvious driver behind desire for telephoto reach, it isn't from enthusiast photographers --

The phrase that describes the most important segment of the DSLR community is: “soccer mom”. ... The three reasons parents buy high end cameras is telephoto reach, low light capability, and the ability to quickly focus on their children when they are jumping a hurdle or scoring a goal.

[BJL]

Now that the dslr tidal wave is over, all I can do is look at what was done in the past. Most people who wanted to record their travel and family used the simplest gear that they could that would give them a half usable picture. Has that really changed?
While there will always be a percentage of folks who want to do something a little better or want to be seen with a flashy camera, what was the percentage in the past? What's your memory of of this? I recall that narrow angle shots were not the norm.

I completely agree about the equipment needs of the most common mode of photography, what I call "casual" photography, mostly to preserve memories of family, friends, travels and such. What I am rejecting is Vincent Laforet's far more extreme claim, the false dichotomy that there will soon be only the two extremes of photographic equipment (a) camera-phones for this "casual photography, and (b) "professional photographic equipment".  Because in between these two type of photography, there has for a long time been a substantial number of photographers who want and use things like more telephoto reach or wider angle lens options or macro lenses, but do it with gear of distinctly less that "professional" grade and pricing; gear like 70-300/3.5-5.6 zoom lenses, super-zoom fixed lens digital cameras, and so on.  This middle group is far smaller than the "casuals", but still far more numerous than the professionals (plus amateurs who use "professional" equipment) so it puzzles me when I read so many people effectively ignoring their existence in this discussion, or of all the gear that they buy.  Just look at all the moderately priced "non-professional grade" telephoto lenses and super-zoom digital cameras, which do things that no phone can come close to.

This is no different than the pattern for a century or so, such as the eras when a preponderance of Brownies or Instamatics or compact 35mm film cameras with 3x or 4x zoom lenses coexisted alongside a smaller but healthy market for a higher levels of non-professional gear.


P. S. Can we also drop the inaccurate and sexist stereotype of entry level DSLR users as being mostly "soccer moms"?  I see roughly equal numbers of men and women using DSLRs at tourist locations where a more pocketable camera would probably serve them just as well, and in the college town where I live, I also plenty of young people enjoying photography with inexpensive DSLRs and clearly taking more care in the activity than casual snap-shooters or Instagramographers.

[amolitor]

If you want to sound very credible, here is a handy approach:

Say some stuff that is definitely true. Supply graphs and citations, or whatever, to make sure everyone knows that it's true.

Now state your insane and unsupportable thesis, as if it were a consequence. "Therefore, it's clear that .." is a handy phrase. Go easy, but be definite that your stupid thing follows.

For extra credit, wrap up with a couple more definitely true things.

(does this sound familiar?)

[LKaven]

If you want to sound very credible, here is a handy approach:

Say some stuff that is definitely true. Supply graphs and citations, or whatever, to make sure everyone knows that it's true.

Now state your insane and unsupportable thesis, as if it were a consequence. "Therefore, it's clear that .." is a handy phrase. Go easy, but be definite that your stupid thing follows.

For extra credit, wrap up with a couple more definitely true things.

Remember the most important part!  The thesis was just a tail to wag his name and latest project.  The more ridiculous the tail, the more the dog will wag (the KR thesis).

[Isaac]

P. S. Can we also drop the inaccurate and sexist stereotype of entry level DSLR users as being mostly "soccer moms"?

It would certainly be interesting to know the basis of the claim that "A majority of [DSLR] buyers are women. Most have kids under 6."

[BernardLanguillier]

It would certainly be interesting to know the basis of the claim that "A majority of [DSLR] buyers are women. Most have kids under 6."

It is well known that 93.2% of all statistics mentioned online are invented.

Cheers,
Bernard

[amolitor]

http://www.infotrends.com/public/Content/Press/2012/11.07.12.html

'Weighted toward males'

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

It is well known that 93.2% of all statistics mentioned online are invented.

Cheers,
Bernard

No, Bernard!
I'm quite sure it's closer to 93.7%.

Cheers,

Eric

[BJL]

It is well known that 93.2% of all statistics mentioned online are invented.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's for the internet as a whole: the rate is twice as high for claims made in discussion forums.  (Like that one about mothers of young children.)

[Isaac]

http://www.infotrends.com/public/Content/Press/2012/11.07.12.html

'Weighted toward males'

Selective quotation ;-)


Strangely market research firms seem to want money for their purchaser demographic data; which leaves discussion forum squabbles with just the fun-stuff -- "2/3 of casual DSLR users never (or rarely) take their camera out of full-auto mode. 72% purchased their camera simply for fun and for family snapshots, and 65% of those aged 18-29 considered their glorified point-and-shoots DSLRs a status symbol."

[BJL]

Selective quotation ;-)

That quotation in no way distorts the message of the full sentence:

The demographics of DSLR and CILC owners look very similar: photo enthusiasts, knowledgeable about photography, weighted to males, affluent, and early adopters.

(Which sounds a lot like the demographics of this forum!)

Unfortunately, the full demographic details are in the reports that InfoTrends sells, so I will settle for my own informal surveys of ILC usage as seen at tourist hotspots, which corroborates the "weighted to males".

[Isaac]

That quotation in no way distorts the message of the full sentence…

And the following sentence says…?

so I will settle for my own informal surveys of ILC usage as seen at tourist hotspots, which corroborates the "weighted to males".

Try informal surveys at pumpkin patches, xmas tree farms, after school sports… :-)

[amolitor]

And the following sentence says…?

Nothing relevant. This is disingenuous. You're relying on the fact that many people won't bother to click the link and read, and will therefore assume that whatever the next sentence is, it supports something or other you have said. This despite the fact that, as usual, you have said nothing.

[Isaac]

"The [2012] demographics of DSLR and CILC owners look very similar … Future CILC owner demographics reflect a more mainstream buyer, who may be stepping up from a point & shoot camera."

[BJL]

So the next sentence is:

"Future CILC owner demographics reflect a more mainstream buyer, who may be stepping up from a point & shoot camera."

I do not see how this prediction relates to the claim that ILC buyers are or will soon be mostly mothers of young children.  Or getting back to the OP, how does this InfoTrends prediction relate to the Laforet prediction that mainstream, non-professional camera users will lose interest in telephoto reach and low-light/fast action handling beyond what phones offer?  Be they stereotypical soccer moms or baseball dads, or people who enjoy watching sports or children at play or birds or other wildlife, is there the slightest evidence of decreasing interest in also photographing such sites?  (Sales numbers being now only about five times higher than in 2000 is not persuasive evidence!)

[Isaac]

… is there the slightest evidence …

We ought to be able to agree to the obvious: neither of us have access to current camera buyer demographic data.