Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 18, 2016, 04:13:07 am
Some reflections on camera sales… There is a thread called Nikon in difficulty? But I don't think it is a problem for Nikon only, rather a market contracting.
Let's look at the this graph from this article: http://petapixel.com/2015/04/09/this-is-what-the-history-of-camera-sales-looks-like-with-smartphones-included/
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/etcetera/PetaPixel1.png)
So, what can we see?
- The analogue camera market increased linearly from 1947 to 1998. Why was that? I guess it had to do development of income around the world. Somewhat also depending on innovation, like Minolta introducing AF in 1985.
- We can see a slow down from say 1991 to 1999
- But, starting 2000 analogue cameras sales crash and are essentially nil after 2005.
- The first digital SLRs show up first in 2004, so the crash of the analogue market is due to digital replacing analogue compacts.
- At 2005 the digital camera market explodes. There is a digital gold rush. Prices on digital equipment are high and camera sales tripple. Great business for camera makers.
- Somewhere around 2008 the market enters saturation. Most buyers have a digital camera. Now growth of market and prices may start consolidate. Innovation probably drives sales.
- Around 2012 the compact camera market starts crashing. This is of course due to smartphones booming
- Around 2012 we see mirrorless camera entering the market.
This is what happened:
(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/etcetera/PetaPixel2.png)
So, what does that mean for the camera industry? Camera sales are like back in 1998 and digital gold rush is over. Clearly, those times will not come back.
So what we see now is a near saturated market with relative few new buyers entering the market and cell phone cameras are the new digital photography boom.
The camera industry needs replacement sales. So they need to develop new stuff to make customers buy new cameras to replace existing ones.
Let's look at my buys.
- I started with digital compacts in 2003, Minolta Dimage 7i and A2
- 2004 I got my first DSLR Minolta Dimage 7D
- 2006 I bought the Sony Alpha 100, as I needed a backup for Dimage 7D
- 2008 I bought the Sony Alpha 700, that camera was the first one with a CMOS sensor from Sony and a major upgrade in image qualiy.
- 2009 was the year of the Sony Alpha 900, Sony's first DSLR. Unfortunately it missed live view, which I regarded essential for accurate focusing
- 2010 I bought the Sony Alpha 55 SLT the first Sony with real live view
- 2012 I got myself a Sony Alpha 77 SLT. This was a very nice camera with live view and 24 MP and good usability. It did still not replace my Sony Alpha 900 from 2008.
- 2013 Sony finally released the Alpha 99. So now I had a camera that could and did replace the Alpha 900.
- 2013 also marked my trip into medium format digital with a Hasselblad 555/ELD and a P45+ back. I was MFD skeptic than and I am MFD skeptic still. But I guess I had more money than sense…
- 2014 was they year I did not buy any camera. The Sony A7/A7r was tempting as it would be able to do things I wanted to do. But I felt the sensor technology was old. The 24 MP sensor was probably the same as the one in Alpha 99. The A7r sensor lacked electronic first shutter curtain and Phase Detection AF.
- 2015 Sony released the A7rII. It had a new sensor with electronic first shutter curtain and PDAF. I switched from Sony A-mount to Sony E-mount
- 2016 I bought an open box A7II as a backup, also bought some Canon EF mount lenses , a HCam Master TSII for tilt and shift work and some Zeiss lenses from the Yashica/Contax era
- 2017: I was spending a bit to much on gear in the last few years. 2017 will be a year of consolidation. Will try to sell of some stuff. The Sony A900 from 2008 is the only A-mount body I plan to keep. The Hasselblad stuff I will also keep, unless I find a really good buyer :-)
So, for me Sony delivered new cameras with features I wanted/needed almost each year. Would Sony have a functional live view on the A900 I would not have bought the A55, A77 and perhaps not even the A99.
The main driver for me buying the A7rII was that it could use Canon T&S lenses.
Will I buy a Sony A9 when/if it arrives? No, I don't think so. I rather spend my savings on travel than new gear. I seldom print larger than A2 (16" x 23") and I really felt that 12 MP was quiet enough for that size. Many of my best prints are from the 12MP APS-C era and those just work fine in A2-size. So going up in MP count is not important for me. I may still replace some lenses…
Best regards
Erik
Post by: shadowblade on December 18, 2016, 05:04:46 am
Sony isn't after the camera market. It's after the sensor market. Which, unlike the still camera market, has never been bigger and continues to grow exponentially. Making cameras is just a good way to showcase their product, and developing mirrorless cameras, rather than SLRs, not only allows them to tap into a less-developed market, but also to develop technologies (sensor-based AF and eye-detection AF being the most important ones) that are equally useful outside of a camera.
So, yes, the camera industry is in trouble. But Nikon is really the only camera company out there - all the other big players are diversified companies which happen to make cameras as part of their lineup, rather than as their core business.
Post by: davidgp on December 18, 2016, 05:29:00 am
Sony isn't after the camera market. It's after the sensor market. Which, unlike the still camera market, has never been bigger and continues to grow exponentially. Making cameras is just a good way to showcase their product, and developing mirrorless cameras, rather than SLRs, not only allows them to tap into a less-developed market, but also to develop technologies (sensor-based AF and eye-detection AF being the most important ones) that are equally useful outside of a camera.
That does not make sense with what Sony is doing lately and their representatives are saying... Sony made the camera business an independent company and the sensor business also an independent company... They both need to show the parent company they are profitable independently... The camera business is not to show off how good Sony sensors are... If they start to lose money I'm quite sure they will close the division or sell it like the PC Vaio division...
http://dgpfotografia.com
Post by: Tony Jay on December 18, 2016, 05:36:18 am
Looking ahead I would say that the compact camera will almost entirely disappear - those users will by-and-large be absorbed into the Smartphone market.
A small percentage may yet graduate to DSLR's (I count mirrorless cameras as DSLR's for this purpose.).
If I am correct then that leaves a very small overall market for Canon, Nikon et al.
This is very worrying considering that interest in digital imaging has never been higher - it is just that the Smartphone seems to have captured the domain well and truly.
My main concern is the fact that the industry in general and camera manufacturers in particular appear clueless how to counter this situation.
The Smartphone revolution (as an image maker) is not an early emerging trend - it is practically over! Done and dusted!
Camera manufacturers now face a massive uphill battle. All they can offer is interchangeable lens cameras (DSLR's and mirrorless). Smartphones currently encompass the rest of the market.
The only way that Canon, Nikon, and the rest can maintain their sales (or even increase sales) is to produce cameras that can convince a Smartphone user that it is worthwhile to graduate.
Better sensors or world-beating autofocus is not going convince the vast majority.
So what will help a Smartphone photographer to switch to a DSLR for image-making?
Better images, more control over the process - yes, that will help but is nowhere near enough by itself.
What will be needed is a DSLR that mirrors the overall functionality and convenience of a Smartphone particularly with respect to a seamless and quick path to social media.
Decent menus and intuitive touchscreen functionality would not go amiss either!
None of this functionality is intrinsically an issue of technology but it would require a paradigm shift of seismic proportions from the manufacturers.
Can they do it?
Can Nikon and Canon wake up in time?
AFAIK Sony (only latterly) in their mirrorless offerings allow one to view a histogram before pressing the shutter - this histogram approximates the raw data not a JPEG-derived data set. Canon and Nikon have never got around to doing this (or even allowing a histogram based on the raw data from an already captured image).
Yet this functionality is fundamental to digital imaging, but the biggest camera manufacturers in the world have forced their consumers (those who shoot raw anyway) to guess as to what an appropriate exposure might be for an ETTR image or one with a very large dynamic range.
So, how are they going to go dealing with the needs and wants of 14 year old pimply-faced teenagers (these individuals are their future market right now) who would want a camera to give them the experience they get from a Smartphone when they struggle to give dedicated DSLR photographers functionality that is fundamental to serious image making?
BTW one can easily substitute the raw histogram for any number of unimplemented but very useful technologies for image-making so just implementing a raw histogram in isolation certainly would not give any manufacturer the right to a self-congratulatory pat on the back.
I want Canon, Nikon, et al to succeed.
I want high quality DSLR and mirrorless cameras along with very high quality lenses to make good images with, so predicting the potential demise of one or more camera manufacturers gives me no cause for pleasure - only foreboding.
But until these companies realise that nearly all their future market are current Smartphone users and acts decisively on this knowledge I do fear the worst.
It would be nice to just stick my head in the sand and just look forward to the next mega-megapixel uber-autofocusing wonder but the reality is the world has changed and it will continue to change in ways that are not comfortable or pleasant at a very uncomfortable pace.
And I haven't even begun to discuss politics and the state of our planet - only the digital-imaging industry!
Tony Jay
Post by: davidgp on December 18, 2016, 05:45:54 am
I think we are already seeing what is happening... All manufacturers are going to try to seduce the pro/pro-amateur market... They are making less emphasis in releasing entry level cameras and more focusing in high quality lenses and cameras, where they can make more money selling less units... Clear examples of this trends are Sigma, focusing in high quality lenses and forgetting the entry level so-so ones... Or Fuji... Moving to medium format market.
Will it be enough for all manufacturers to live in this kind of market? Not sure, probably some companies will close... But I think we will still have a big collection of player from were to choose from...
http://dgpfotografia.com
Post by: BrownBear on December 18, 2016, 08:56:09 am
Old eyes are having trouble distinguishing green from blue in the graphs, but it appears that dSLR's have fluctuated around 10,000 per year since 2008. I'd have guessed they were dropping as well. Still a tiny fraction of the total market, made smaller and smaller simply by the increase in smart phone sales rather than any real change in dSLR purchases.
But I'm doing my part to fight the trend! I've put 2 dSLR's under the Christmas tree this year, and no smart phones. ;D
Post by: Rob C on December 18, 2016, 08:58:26 am
Fantastic and complex user-controlled technology is not, IMO, any worthwhile Holy Grail of itself. After too many years working cameras for a living, the less I have to mess about these day, the happier it makes me. I have absolutely no desire to interact with a screen and put my little fingers onto the place where I want to focus; I have even less desire to carry around a tripod and make 'considered' decisions about my pictures because the camera is anchored to a three-legged rock; that decision is already pretty much defined when the damned thing hits my face.
I have no yearning to cart around anymore two Westons and Invercones, plus a Minolta Flashmeter lll; far better a built-in device like Nikon's Matrix which beats me on pretty much any day, only needing me to stick my two-cents worth into the deal when I shoot in the gloom of a room towards a window.
I can fully appreciate the sense of pride some slightly less-old photographers still have playing with manual devices/inputs only to come up with what automation could have done for them in the blink of an eye, if not far faster. For a long time after I bought my first of only two dslr cameras I didn't want af lenses, either, and then when glaucoma came to roost and focussing became difficult, I grudgingly used it out of desperation, and now I wouldn't do without it at all, by choice, not only because I can't very efficiently.
If there's one thing I would certainly change about both my digital Nikons it's this: I would do what I think they did with the Df, and remove controls such as aperture and shutter from those hellish little wheels that I invariably manage to turn to unwanted positions as I walk around holding the camera in my hand. It's only Auto ISO, another thing I stupidly used to resent until I went there and tried it out for a while, that saves my ass when those bloody little wheels get shifted!
Except for very special pro situations, I think the less input a photographer has to make physically (I am not including aesthetics such as DOF decisons, nor choice of shutter to suit intent, of course) the better. Isn't that very much part of why cellphone cameras are such big news? Idiot-proof, much of the time.
So, the future for dslr cameras? I suspect that making them too complex will eventually turn people away, because it's not old guys with historical baggage that those companies will have to attract, but fresh young blood not 'tainted' by memory of how it was. Old dogs, new tricks, not often good medicine!
Rob C
Post by: hogloff on December 18, 2016, 09:54:30 am
The more tech a gadget has, the more these young flock to it and the more they adapt to it. It's people like you that dig in their heels and long for the way things were 25 years ago...the young want new tech every year.
Post by: E.J. Peiker on December 18, 2016, 10:30:48 am
Post by: Rob C on December 18, 2016, 11:49:32 am
Rob, I think you are wrong. Young people are attracted to technology, new wizbang things including stuff like touch screens, voice input and even lately virtual reality. Have you ever witnessed these young kids make their way around the Internet world with their thumbs blazing and their voices dictating.
The more tech a gadget has, the more these young flock to it and the more they adapt to it. It's people like you that dig in their heels and long for the way things were 25 years ago...the young want new tech every year.
You may very well be right!
;-)
Rob
Post by: Martin Kristiansen on December 18, 2016, 11:55:11 am
A fresh vision, a point of view, a coherent narrative. That is photography. A camera that facilitates that is all we need.
I have my first shoot with my 80mp back in 6 months booked for tomorrow. A car shoot. I told the Art Director he doesn't need 80MP. He said it makes him comfortable. So out comes the Cambo and the Schneider glass. It will be fun. I will take along the A6300 as well in case. That's what we should be using anyway. 80MP for a A3 image and most of the usage being online. What a joke.
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 18, 2016, 12:31:31 pm
http://petapixel.com/2015/12/15/adobe-doubles-profits-thanks-to-growth-in-creative-cloud-subscribers/
Post by: Peter McLennan on December 18, 2016, 12:42:55 pm
Those are the questions the manufacturers have to answer.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/599/31609163321_48415b5891_c.jpg)
Post by: hogloff on December 18, 2016, 02:23:01 pm
Look at this guy. He's having just as much fun as I was with my D800. The issue is, will he be disappointed with his images? Will he want to move up to a more capable camera? Or are these images "good enough" ?
That's the question the manufacturers have to answer.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/1/599/31609163321_48415b5891_c.jpg)
Actually, that's the question the consumer needs to answer..."are they good enough", and I believe we all know that answer.
In the film days most photos were taken with P&S cameras and the resulting photos showed that. Today, instead of P&S cameras, people are using cell phones and from what I've seen, many photos are surpassing what was created using P&S film cameras.
So are the phone cameras of today good enough for the masses...I'd say yes and the phone cameras just keep getting better with each release.
Post by: shadowblade on December 18, 2016, 08:38:15 pm
That does not make sense with what Sony is doing lately and their representatives are saying... Sony made the camera business an independent company and the sensor business also an independent company... They both need to show the parent company they are profitable independently... The camera business is not to show off how good Sony sensors are... If they start to lose money I'm quite sure they will close the division or sell it like the PC Vaio division...
http://dgpfotografia.com
No, that makes perfect sense.
Keeping them separate makes them much easier to untangle and divest if necessary. It also lets the camera division essentially function like a Leica-style, small-volume producer if need be, producing little profit (but not losing much money either) while providing a valuable showcase for Sony sensors. Above all, it lets Sony sell off different parts of its business in different proportions - say, selling off 49% of the minimally-profitable camera business (not that it's minimally-profitable now, but camera businesses in general are heading that way) while retaining as much of the highly-profitable parts as possible.
Post by: davidgp on December 19, 2016, 02:30:23 am
Look at what the ipod/smart phone did to HiFi stereo sales... A $500 stereo bought in 1975 has better audio capability than in iPhone 7+ but people don't care because the phone is more convenient, smaller, holds all the music in one pocketable device, sounds good enough, etc, etc, etc. There's an industry that will never recover no matter how much they innovate - the units that are sold aren't even used to play music for the most part, they are used to play movies in a home theater type setting. Then there's the horse drawn carriage... Phones will continue to get better and better and camera sales will continue to get smaller and smaller and dedicated cameras will end up being a very niche or ultra high end product. Of course there will be the need for real cameras for advertising, movie making, and enthusiasts like those that frequent sites like this but for the average consumer, the phone is good enough...
The HIFI industry started to go downhill in the end of the 80s and 90s... But it was not because of the phones... It was because they started to do recordings to sound good in the radio... In your car... In your small radio devices, so people will buy the cassette or CD latter on... Those recordings were bad quality... With all the audio levels pushed high so it sounded strong... In those recordings, the difference between a bad HIFI system and a good one was minimal...
Now we are seeing a come back of good audio systems, vinyl discs are selling more than ever, with better record levels than the CD equivalent... And those come with HIFI audio systems.
P.D.: The iPod classic is a very good audio device, if you buy a good headphone amplifier for it, a good over the ear head phones (we are talking here more than 500 dollars investment), and you put on it good MP3 or lose less audio files... You get a real good HIFI system
http://dgpfotografia.com
Post by: davidgp on December 19, 2016, 02:31:43 am
No, that makes perfect sense.
Keeping them separate makes them much easier to untangle and divest if necessary. It also lets the camera division essentially function like a Leica-style, small-volume producer if need be, producing little profit (but not losing much money either) while providing a valuable showcase for Sony sensors. Above all, it lets Sony sell off different parts of its business in different proportions - say, selling off 49% of the minimally-profitable camera business (not that it's minimally-profitable now, but camera businesses in general are heading that way) while retaining as much of the highly-profitable parts as possible.
Ok, I'm still not seeing that Somy camera division is just to show off the sensors... But we can agree on disagree on that
http://dgpfotografia.com
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on December 19, 2016, 08:00:40 am
Other than that, and from this plot, at this scale, it seems to me that the green and red bars (DSLR, Mirrorless) have more or less kept the same size.
Post by: hogloff on December 19, 2016, 08:30:48 am
I don't think the camera industry is in difficulty; after all, there are more cameras been sold now than ever. They just happen to be in our phones.
Other than that, and from this plot, at this scale, it seems to me that the green and red bars (DSLR, Mirrorless) have more or less kept the same size.
Sure the DSLR's might have stayed roughly the same...but the money making lower end camera market is diving...it's this lower camera market that drove revenues for the camera makers...not DSLR's.
Post by: E.J. Peiker on December 19, 2016, 09:09:25 am
I don't think the camera industry is in difficulty; after all, there are more cameras been sold now than ever. They just happen to be in our phones.Look at the green bar more closely or go download the actual data. The scale of the graph is throwing you off. DSLR sales are roughly half today what they were just a few short years ago and mirrorless did not make up for that drop. Here is the real data right at the top of this link:
Other than that, and from this plot, at this scale, it seems to me that the green and red bars (DSLR, Mirrorless) have more or less kept the same size.
http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/how-bad-is-it.html
Post by: Kevin Raber on December 19, 2016, 10:19:45 am
Look at Sony last year. They introduced 9 cameras and one of those was even updated within 9 months of its previous version. They own the sensor market for the most part. While I don't think you will see that many new cameras from Sony this year you will see some amazing ones. Ask yourself why they are introducing G-Master lens with a road map for more. Sony will be camera company that sooner or later Nikon and Canon are going to have to contend with. Especially if some of the rumors on future cameras are real. If you take some of the technology they have shown in their latest cameras and repackage it into a pro-grade camera then there may be a significant new camera. Sony's CEO is very dedicated to the photography and making the finest cameras. i think they will surprise us next year.
The data shows that all camera sales are declining but the rate of decline is less in mirrorless and frankly I think you will start to see an upswing in the mirrorless market over the next 24 months. Another thing is that now that our industry has matured in the sense of availability of good digital cameras many photographers are upgrading at a slower pace. Differences in cameras aren't significant enough for a lot of shooters to buy a new version of a camera. Many are skipping versions and waiting for something much more significant. From what I have been told by counter salesmen at a few camera stores this is particularly true for the Canon 5d IV and even some Nikon models. Meanwhile, Fuji and Olympus have made significant new cameras this year and while late in the year, word has it they are selling very well. I think this will bear watching as we move into next year. Also, we'll see how the new entries into the so called medium format market go. If Hasselblad can deliver their X1D and it is accepted it could be interesting and more than anything else will be the Fuji GFX. Fuji has big plans for this format. I think it will be successful and there will be a lot of interest.
All of this and more will have an impact on the sales numbers and the market. I also think camera makers should interface better with the mobile phones and I mean in an almost seamless way without a lot of work by the photographer. Then you get kind of a marriage of both worlds. I'd love it if I could shoot with one of my higher MP cameras and be able to see my images on an iPad or iPhone and then be able to do something with an app and post it to social media. Today doing that can be a painful experience of trying to pair, sync or sign onto a device. Many people using mobile phones will sooner or later looking for a camera that may be better but they will not want to sacrifice their mobile phone. Wouldn't it be cool to be out shooting with a larger MP camera and then get back to the car or home and see all the images on your mobile devices, without the hassle of having to pair or sync these devices?
I'll have more to say on this topic in an article next year.
Post by: David S on December 19, 2016, 10:30:21 am
Dave S
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 19, 2016, 03:35:27 pm
I don't think I agree. If we look at the initial data I have posted it seems that the camera advanced camera market before the digital boom was 5-10 MPieces. Check the 2004 data analogue sales around 10MPiece and very little ILC sales. 2005 analogue sales almost zero and ILC starting up.
In 2012 there was something like 17 million ILCs sold and in 2016 the figure is more like a bit over 9 millions. It may be that we are going to a stable market for ILCs and advanced cameras around 5-10 MPieces. Replacement buys and new customers. The big loosers are low end compacts.
I would think that smartphone cameras are getting more capable and we see new smarphone cameras like the Hasselblad True Zoom (https://www.motorola.com/us/products/moto-mods/hasselblad-true-zoom).
I don't feel that is a bad thing. Folks take a lot of great pictures with smartphone cameras and they are perfectly good enough both screen and decent size prints. You recall when Michael shot a P45+ and a Canon G10 (https://luminous-landscape.com/kidding/)?
A group of experts with 200 years of digital photography amongst them could not really tell them apart at 13x19". So, I think that G10 was good enough, for 13x19". No surprise for me, as I found my Sony RX100 can make decent prints at A2 (16x23") and I could not see the benefit of P45+ over my 24 MP full frames below A1 (23x32"). Phone cams are in a rapid development.
Phone cam technology of course moves upscale. So in 5-10 years when phonecam technology has migrated to MFD, Phase One we will have the IQ6-650MP. But 15-20 MP phone cam technology will be good enough for anything except 8K projected at say 4 m wide and watched at 1.5m distance (*), or large prints.
It may be that ILCE makers like Sony will have a larger piece of the advanced camera cake, but I don't think cake will grow that much because of phone cam users moving upscale. What I think increases the market is folks in India and China and others countries getting richer and being able to buy photo gear.
But, 10 million pieces of cameras is still a decent market.
Best regards
Erik
There is a lot more going on behind the scenes than a lot of people really know and over the next few months, I believe a lot will be revealed that may show how the industry is going. I think Henrik said it best in our interview of Henrik https://luminous-landscape.com/catching-henrik-hakonsson-ceo-phase-one-interview-kevin-raber/. We will be seeing consolidation and maybe even mergers as well as new owners and acquisitions. After the holidays I am thinking of interviewing some front line camera sales guys that will let us in on what they are seeing. Also, I believe there will be news about some camera makers and suppliers and changes with them. This year 2016 every camera company was trying to get a product to stick. Phase One was the first out of the gate with the 100MP camera. and it is a fine camera and they are doing well. Why? they are focused on a small but excellent product line with a well-defined market. They don't try to be everything to everyone. They know their audience and they focus on it.
Look at Sony last year. They introduced 9 cameras and one of those was even updated within 9 months of its previous version. They own the sensor market for the most part. While I don't think you will see that many new cameras from Sony this year you will see some amazing ones. Ask yourself why they are introducing G-Master lens with a road map for more. Sony will be camera company that sooner or later Nikon and Canon are going to have to contend with. Especially if some of the rumors on future cameras are real. If you take some of the technology they have shown in their latest cameras and repackage it into a pro-grade camera then there may be a significant new camera. Sony's CEO is very dedicated to the photography and making the finest cameras. i think they will surprise us next year.
The data shows that all camera sales are declining but the rate of decline is less in mirrorless and frankly I think you will start to see an upswing in the mirrorless market over the next 24 months. Another thing is that now that our industry has matured in the sense of availability of good digital cameras many photographers are upgrading at a slower pace. Differences in cameras aren't significant enough for a lot of shooters to buy a new version of a camera. Many are skipping versions and waiting for something much more significant. From what I have been told by counter salesmen at a few camera stores this is particularly true for the Canon 5d IV and even some Nikon models. Meanwhile, Fuji and Olympus have made significant new cameras this year and while late in the year, word has it they are selling very well. I think this will bear watching as we move into next year. Also, we'll see how the new entries into the so called medium format market go. If Hasselblad can deliver their X1D and it is accepted it could be interesting and more than anything else will be the Fuji GFX. Fuji has big plans for this format. I think it will be successful and there will be a lot of interest.
All of this and more will have an impact on the sales numbers and the market. I also think camera makers should interface better with the mobile phones and I mean in an almost seamless way without a lot of work by the photographer. Then you get kind of a marriage of both worlds. I'd love it if I could shoot with one of my higher MP cameras and be able to see my images on an iPad or iPhone and then be able to do something with an app and post it to social media. Today doing that can be a painful experience of trying to pair, sync or sign onto a device. Many people using mobile phones will sooner or later looking for a camera that may be better but they will not want to sacrifice their mobile phone. Wouldn't it be cool to be out shooting with a larger MP camera and then get back to the car or home and see all the images on your mobile devices, without the hassle of having to pair or sync these devices?
I'll have more to say on this topic in an article next year.
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on December 20, 2016, 03:55:06 am
Sure the DSLR's might have stayed roughly the same...but the money making lower end camera market is diving...it's this lower camera market that drove revenues for the camera makers...not DSLR's.
Sure, we all know that. But what we need to do is to consider Apple, Samsung, and Huawei are also camera makers today:)
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on December 20, 2016, 04:02:12 am
Thanks for bringing your insight into this. Personally, I think that until the market driving company like Canon and Nikon decide what their future path is, we will not see a major difference. You give very good examples but these come from companies that do not "rule" the market overall. Phase One, Fuji, even Sony... you mention that Sony are introducing the G master lenses for a reason. Sure, they are able to resolve more lpm, and this is also the drive from Zeiss with the Otus and recent Milvus lenses.
But the truth is that Canon has gone down this road much earlier, with a 50mpx sensor in a DSLR, and the updates on their core lenses: the new 16-35 f2.8 L MKIII is just an example. Nikon has also introduced in 2016 an amazing lens, the 105 f1.4. The thing is, especially Canon, they have the size and momentum to compete in all market tiers, offering slid choices in several segments.
Post by: Yashika on December 20, 2016, 09:04:09 pm
The thing is, especially Canon, they have the size and momentum to compete in all market tiers, offering slid choices in several segments.
Why you say "especially Canon"?
Solid choices? Canon seem to me to be low end choices.
Nikon offer best DX, best FX, action camera.
Nikon old D810 landscape camera still better in many respect than newer Sony.
Better in every respect than Canon.
Of the Top 10 premium-quality prime lenses, 4 are made by Nikon (Zeiss only has 2, Leica only has 2, Canon only has 2). Nikon doubles top scores over others.
Of the Top 20 premium-quality prime lenses, 9 are made by Nikon (Canon makes 6, Zeiss makes 3, and Leica stays at 2). Nikon still dominates, completely.
(Does not yet include new Nikkor 105 f/1.4!!)
http://www.lenscore.org
Of the Top 10 premium FF camera, Nikon makes 6, Sony 3, Canon 1.
Of the Top 10 premium ASP-C cameras, Nikon makes 5, Sony 2, Pentax 3, Canon 0
(Does not yet include Nikon D500, which is better than all of them!!)
http://www.senscore.org
The only element "especially" about Canon is its absence from the very top compared to others.
The "especially" element actually applies to Nikon, with respect to its complete dominance at very top compared to others.
CONCLUSION: if there is a "niche market specialist" in the best DSLR + lens market offerings for the consumer, Nikon is company which seem to have a lock on it.
Post by: shadowblade on December 20, 2016, 09:19:41 pm
Why you say "especially Canon"?
Solid choices? Canon seem to me to be low end choices.
Nikon offer best DX, best FX, action camera.
Nikon old D810 landscape camera still better in many respect than newer Sony.
Better in every respect than Canon.
Of the Top 10 premium-quality prime lenses, 4 are made by Nikon (Zeiss only has 2, Leica only has 2, Canon only has 2). Nikon doubles top scores over others.
Of the Top 20 premium-quality prime lenses, 9 are made by Nikon (Canon makes 6, Zeiss makes 3, and Leica stays at 2). Nikon still dominates, completely.
(Does not yet include new Nikkor 105 f/1.4!!)
http://www.lenscore.org
Of the Top 10 premium FF camera, Nikon makes 6, Sony 3, Canon 1.
Of the Top 10 premium ASP-C cameras, Nikon makes 5, Sony 2, Pentax 3, Canon 0
(Does not yet include Nikon D500, which is better than all of them!!)
http://www.senscore.org
The only element "especially" about Canon is its absence from the very top compared to others.
The "especially" element actually applies to Nikon, with respect to its complete dominance at very top compared to others.
CONCLUSION: if there is a "niche market specialist" in the best DSLR + lens market offerings for the consumer, Nikon is company which seem to have a lock on it.
Lenscore and Senscore are a load of crap. Who knows how they derive their numbers? Their process is completely opaque, they don't publish any of the raw numbers or their methodology and all they give is an arbitrary score. And, in most cases, their relative scores are contradicted by every other review site out there (Digital Picture, DxO, Photozone, etc.) which either publishes its raw measurements or provides sample images so we know what they're talking about.
Subjective rankings (e.g. 'these cameras are the best 10 out there' or 'these are the three lenses you must own') are worse than useless. They're no better than a articles which say, 'These are the ten best holiday destinations in 2017' - nothing more than clickbait.
D810 beats 5Ds in landscape (due to DR), but 5Ds kills D810 as a studio camera, where you can control the lighting. It has higher resolution, better connectivity, a better LCD, etc. And the Pentax K1 kills both of them when the subject doesn't move and you can find a lens which fits your application.
D5 beats 1Dx2 in certain very-challenging AF situations (in most situations you can't tell the two apart, unless one of them is set up incorrectly) but the 1Dx2 beats the D5 when you need to shoot video, or when you're shooting subjects at low ISO (very common in photojournalism or when using flash) or when you need a high-end long-tele zoom (the Canon 200-400 with inbuilt TC doesn't have a competitor which even comes close).
Anyway, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether Nikon, Canon, Sony or anyone else is in trouble as a company (i.e. what the thread title says). You can make the best cameras in the world and still go bankrupt. And you can make a fortune out of junk.
Post by: mecrox on December 21, 2016, 06:08:42 am
Sure, we all know that. But what we need to do is to consider Apple, Samsung, and Huawei are also camera makers today:)
A very good point. And increasingly it is companies like those and the Silicon Valley types which have the R&D funding and the expertise to develop (and patent) the most telling new ideas and applications. Not a happy position for the traditional photography industry, potentially anyway. It can produce superb hardware, no question, but increasingly that may contain electronics and software it doesn't really own and has little control over. And those are the bits with all the value. I have no idea what the future will bring but it is pretty hard to believe that in 2025, say, the same six or seven traditional outfits will be making the same traditionally styled things they have until now. I do have a sense it is end of era time. There may be many things to regret about that but with the money position - turnover, margins, profit - looking so weak I don't think things can just carry on as is, at least for quite a few of the players. Maybe some consolidation - fewer but stronger players, perhaps by then allied with the new electronics powerhouses - is the answer.
Post by: BrownBear on December 21, 2016, 06:59:39 am
I have no idea what the future will bring but it is pretty hard to believe that in 2025, say, the same six or seven traditional outfits will be making the same traditionally styled things they have until now.
There's a whole lot in that.
I have a small window into the upper levels of "Silicon Valley." Nothing specific and certainly not to the detail of photo capture, rather more about process. New products don't appear suddenly in a vacuum, rather they follow years of research and technical study, pre-prototypes, prototypes, Betas, and finally production models. My source doesn't get down to details, rather he just shakes his head and laughs. His words are approximately "You just won't believe what's coming up through the departments. It's a new world out there, making today's models look like Model T's."
Post by: Telecaster on December 21, 2016, 04:52:07 pm
-Dave-
Post by: FabienP on December 21, 2016, 05:33:25 pm
There have been small steps to provide apps for cameras or optional features for a modest price (for instance Sony) but so far this is marginal at best and not many features are exposed in the SDKs made available to third party developers. Also, I think manufacturers are literally hostile to people who add functionality to existing firmware (such as Magic Lantern for Canon cameras) as it makes artificial segmentation of products by withholding functionality more difficult.
I am not sure I would buy yet another camera for more megapixels but I would welcome software enhancements, even if I have to pay for those:
- A menu system that does not show the JPEG related options and greatly declutters the interface. A menu structure that makes sense would help, too.
- Reliable histograms (based on RAW readings)
- Custom crop ratios in EVFs
- Some assistance for focus stacking, possibly even automating the whole capture
The list is by no means complete and each user might have different requirements. But most of these things could be done on current hardware and would be cheap to develop compared to new sensors or autofocus technologies.
Now, would it attract new customers and lead people using other systems to switch brands? Not sure about that...
And if the camera is bulkier than a smartphone it will be left at home anyway.
Cheers,
Fabien
Post by: chez on December 21, 2016, 08:02:20 pm
And if the camera is bulkier than a smartphone it will be left at home anyway.
Cheers,
Fabien
I think the camera would be left at home regardless if its smaller than the smartphone as the smartphone can text and make phone calls...and take photos.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on December 22, 2016, 12:45:23 am
I wouldn't spend 3k$US on a new menu system…, but I guess I would not do an upgrade for megapixels either. But who knows?
The other points you make are on my top priority list, too.
Best regards
Erik
...
I am not sure I would buy yet another camera for more megapixels but I would welcome software enhancements, even if I have to pay for those:
- A menu system that does not show the JPEG related options and greatly declutters the interface. A menu structure that makes sense would help, too.
- Reliable histograms (based on RAW readings)
- Custom crop ratios in EVFs
- Some assistance for focus stacking, possibly even automating the whole capture
The list is by no means complete and each user might have different requirements. But most of these things could be done on current hardware and would be cheap to develop compared to new sensors or autofocus technologies.
Now, would it attract new customers and lead people using other systems to switch brands? Not sure about that...
And if the camera is bulkier than a smartphone it will be left at home anyway.
Cheers,
Fabien
Post by: shadowblade on December 22, 2016, 02:15:06 am
A modern smart phone is a lot like the wrist- or forearm-mounted multifunctional devices of science fiction, with the only difference being that it is carried rather than worn. It's a multimodal communications device, a timepiece, a video and sound recorder, a camera, a navigational aid, an image projector, a concierge, a PA and more.
Sure, a single-purpose device of the same size and weight would do some of these things better than a multifunctional device, but the multifunctional device does it more than well enough for most purposes, and there's something to be said for versatility and integration. That leaves single-purpose devices as specialised tools for specific, demanding purposes, rather than everyday tools.
It's not just cameras (apart from the high end) which are disappearing. Many people no longer wear watches - they are now a fashion accessory rather than a timepiece. Dedicated GPS devices are becoming less necessary. Dumb phones have mostly disappeared. So have portable voice recorders. So have electronic dictionaries, electronic notepads and similar devices. Camcorders have become much less common than a decade ago. Even Gopro is suffering.
If camera makers - chiefly Nikon, but also Canon, to a lesser extent - fail to adapt, their fate will resemble Nokia's. Nokia was the king of dumb phones - another single-purpose device whose purpose was subsumed by multipurpose devices, in a similar way to what is happening to the lower end of the camera market. They failed to adapt to new markets and new technology and, as a consequence, have all but disappeared.
And phone cameras are only going to get better. In a few years, improvements in diffractive optics will allow for much larger sensors and wider apertures without increasing the device size and thickness, while electroactive polymers will allow for true optical zoom without needing an extending lens or moving lens elements. Capacitors, to replace lithium-ion batteries, already hold more energy and charge faster. They won't match full-frame interchangeable-lens cameras, but, for anything other than large prints, high-detail publications or certain technical uses, they may be good enough.
If there's one company well-placed to take advantage of all this, it's Sony. After all, they also make smartphones and other electronics, in addition to being a major supplier of sensors. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to make a string of interconnected devices, all centred around using the Xperia phone as a central controller and display.
Post by: davidgp on December 22, 2016, 02:35:27 am
If there's one company well-placed to take advantage of all this, it's Sony. After all, they also make smartphones and other electronics, in addition to being a major supplier of sensors. It wouldn't be a stretch for them to make a string of interconnected devices, all centred around using the Xperia phone as a central controller and display.
If one thing we can soy from Sony it is that their software interfaces are not their strong point (I have the Sony A7 II for the last six months and I miss my Canon 5d II menus of 2008).
Sony is already putting a big OS in the camera, they are using android... But really... Their App Store implementation is a bit of a joke... Try to buy one of their apps from Europe... Only way is to buy one of those PlayStation gift card... I was not able to use my credit cards nor PayPal account... Was a bit of a joke...
I'm not interested in controlling the camera with the phone... For my style if photography... Landscape one mainly, I have my hands already busy with the camera, tripod, etc... I don't need to be worrying also for my phone to take pictures... It will get in the middle...
Curiously... After seeing Kevin videos of Hasselblad interface or phase one interface I think Japanese interface designer should take notes of how simple a camera interface can be at the same time as practical...
I think software is going to be one of the key factor in the camera for the future... But camera makers need to think in terms of practicality and user friendliness before just starting to out there every option... In that Hasselblad video where that engineer was talking about the thoughts about the software interface... That it is what other camera makers should think about...
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on December 22, 2016, 04:28:02 am
Why you say "especially Canon"?
Solid choices? Canon seem to me to be low end choices.
Nikon offer best DX, best FX, action camera.
Nikon old D810 landscape camera still better in many respect than newer Sony.
Better in every respect than Canon.
Of the Top 10 premium-quality prime lenses, 4 are made by Nikon (Zeiss only has 2, Leica only has 2, Canon only has 2). Nikon doubles top scores over others.
Of the Top 20 premium-quality prime lenses, 9 are made by Nikon (Canon makes 6, Zeiss makes 3, and Leica stays at 2). Nikon still dominates, completely.
(Does not yet include new Nikkor 105 f/1.4!!)
http://www.lenscore.org
Of the Top 10 premium FF camera, Nikon makes 6, Sony 3, Canon 1.
Of the Top 10 premium ASP-C cameras, Nikon makes 5, Sony 2, Pentax 3, Canon 0
(Does not yet include Nikon D500, which is better than all of them!!)
http://www.senscore.org
The only element "especially" about Canon is its absence from the very top compared to others.
The "especially" element actually applies to Nikon, with respect to its complete dominance at very top compared to others.
CONCLUSION: if there is a "niche market specialist" in the best DSLR + lens market offerings for the consumer, Nikon is company which seem to have a lock on it.
It seems you have missed the part about "size and momentum"; Canon are a much larger company than Nikon. That takes care of the "especially" part. Nikon may be the best at everything, but it seems that the majority of SLR users (pros, enthusiasts, and amateurs) prefer Canon, go figure...
Canon is absent from the very top, really? This is laughable.
Post by: mecrox on December 22, 2016, 04:44:24 am
If one thing we can soy from Sony it is that their software interfaces are not their strong point (I have the Sony A7 II for the last six months and I miss my Canon 5d II menus of 2008).
Sony is already putting a big OS in the camera, they are using android... But really... Their App Store implementation is a bit of a joke... Try to buy one of their apps from Europe... Only way is to buy one of those PlayStation gift card... I was not able to use my credit cards nor PayPal account... Was a bit of a joke...
I'm not interested in controlling the camera with the phone... For my style if photography... Landscape one mainly, I have my hands already busy with the camera, tripod, etc... I don't need to be worrying also for my phone to take pictures... It will get in the middle...
Curiously... After seeing Kevin videos of Hasselblad interface or phase one interface I think Japanese interface designer should take notes of how simple a camera interface can be at the same time as practical...
I think software is going to be one of the key factor in the camera for the future... But camera makers need to think in terms of practicality and user friendliness before just starting to out there every option... In that Hasselblad video where that engineer was talking about the thoughts about the software interface... That it is what other camera makers should think about...
Software is a good example of how the traditional camera industry has suffered. In recent years, huge expenditure and research in many industries has been put into how humans interact with machines, objects, technology, problem-solving, machine-learning. This is the kind of research only the largest, most forward-looking companies can afford but when the payoff eventually comes it is huge. It's the edge that allowed Apple, say, to take out Nokia. Self-driving cars are likely to be the next one. The problem is that all camera companies are minnows by comparison and simply cannot afford the research, least of all in a sharply declining market. And it shows - when was the venerable camera file system last given a thorough makeover, for example? There is a ratchet effect here, too. With each passing year, the weight of expenditure and research elsewhere knocks traditional camera companies even further behind.
My own hope is that in coming years, some mixing and matching starts to occur. The best elements of some current camera companies could be acquired by outfits who do have the expertise to do a proper software job, for example. I don't think camera companies as they exist today have the funds or the expertise to manage it and it is hard to see a rosy future without some breaking up and rearrangement in the traditional camera industry.
Post by: shadowblade on December 22, 2016, 04:47:32 am
If one thing we can soy from Sony it is that their software interfaces are not their strong point (I have the Sony A7 II for the last six months and I miss my Canon 5d II menus of 2008).
Sony is already putting a big OS in the camera, they are using android... But really... Their App Store implementation is a bit of a joke... Try to buy one of their apps from Europe... Only way is to buy one of those PlayStation gift card... I was not able to use my credit cards nor PayPal account... Was a bit of a joke...
I'm not interested in controlling the camera with the phone... For my style if photography... Landscape one mainly, I have my hands already busy with the camera, tripod, etc... I don't need to be worrying also for my phone to take pictures... It will get in the middle...
Curiously... After seeing Kevin videos of Hasselblad interface or phase one interface I think Japanese interface designer should take notes of how simple a camera interface can be at the same time as practical...
I think software is going to be one of the key factor in the camera for the future... But camera makers need to think in terms of practicality and user friendliness before just starting to out there every option... In that Hasselblad video where that engineer was talking about the thoughts about the software interface... That it is what other camera makers should think about...
Then don't control the camera with your phone. Technology isn't about you - it doesn't stop progressing because you like your current tool. Where there's an application, it will be developed.
For many others - both photographers and casual users - it'd be an incredibly useful tool.
Control 3 Gopro-style cameras through the one interface, to capture a scene from different angles simultaneously. Scatter 10 of them around a waterhole and use them to capture wildlife at dusk, controlling each one individually. Attach a flash unit to a drone and use it to provide lighting you otherwise couldn't achieve in that environment. Point two of them in the same direction for stereoscopic shots, and control them simultaneously. Spend an afternoon placing them all aroumd a mountain, then use them to shoot the sunrise from six different locations - then retrieve them all by drone before moving on. The list of applications is endless.
And these 'Gopros' won't be the current small-sensor, fixed-focal-length toys currently available. They'll have APS-C or full-frame sensors (made cheaper by economies of scale, since almost every device will have one or more imaging sensors) and a variety of lenses, made lightweight and compact through the use of diffraction technology and polymeric components, with zoom provided by shape-changing electropolymers. All controlled remotely and housed in a tough, lightweight and shockproof polycarbonate housing. Store five of them, and five Speedlights, in a Pelican case for a portable studio, all controlled remotely via a tablet.
Think of cameras as speedlights which take photos - the eyes of the imaging system, rather than the brain, as it is at the moment. You can use just one, or more than one, and can put it wherever is best for the shot, not just somewhere where you can get your eyes behind it.
I remember these same arguments when digital replaced film, and when Photoshop replaced the darkroom. Each time, you had a core group of Luddites who liked their existing tools, couldn't see how the new technology could be an improvement, feared the democratisation of photography and generally despaired at its future. And, each time, they turned out to be wrong. No-one would use a technology unless it was better for the task in at least one key way. And, now, images are being created which would never have been possible with film, or with darkroom techniques. The same thing happens in other fields, too - the doom-and-gloom when command line interfaces were replaced by GUIs, when film-based X-rays and CT scans were replaced by monitors. The Luddites were never right, and those who couldn't adapt or couldn't take advantage of new technology found themselves surpassed by those who could.
Post by: Tony Jay on December 22, 2016, 06:25:26 pm
There is no avoiding it and there is no stopping it!
I am not just talking of "technology" here but our planet and societies are in a constant state of ferment whether we like it or not or understand and perceive it or not.
Much of this change is not comfortable (at least for me - I see a lot of badness coming) but denying its reality is not helpful.
The key to dealing with change is how it is managed.
This is relevant on an individual level, community and society, governments and companies.
Of course the response to the same issue will of necessity be different depending on the level at which it is tackled.
The photographic industry as a whole, IMHO, has not necessarily been very successful in tackling the issue of future-proofing themselves. By definition this cannot be a one-off process but needs to be an ongoing endeavour.
Think of Kodak - they invented the digital sensor!
The digital sensor killed Kodak!
Kodak completely failed to understand the implications of their very own invention!
Currently I see, on a smaller scale, a lot of the one-dimensional thinking that led to the demise of Kodak in many other companies that belong to the larger family of the photographic industry.
The issue is not one of technological advances necessarily but a failure to see how the market as a whole is changing.
Strategically Kodak never really understood how the market would change as a consequence of their own invention, how other companies would exploit that technological breakthrough - they stuck resolutely to film and print as the core of their business never believing the situation we now see as reality would ever happen, and died a horrible death as a result.
Currently, most camera manufacturers are not at the cutting edge.
I emphasise again that IMHO the issue is not primarily technological but rather a failure to read the market.
The Smartphone revolution, and the way things are done as consequence has already had a profound effect on what we traditionally think of the camera industry.
Whole classes of cameras have already become redundant and unmarketable at any price.
These types of cameras were always the prime money-spinners for those manufacturers.
Phase One and Leica may never have produced point-and-shoot cameras or low-end DSLRS but they have always only represented a very small niche market.
Canon, Nikon, Sony (Minolta), Pentax, Olympus, etc have always relied very heavily on those types of cameras for their profitability and ultimately their viability.
The market that traditionally bought point-and-shoots and low-end DSLR's have resolutely changed allegiance to the Smartphone.
The rapidity with which this realignment of the market has occurred has given every camera manufacturer a bad case of whiplash.
Currently the companies that manufacture cameras that also have several other strings to their corporate bows are coping with the situation much better than those whose operations are largely dependant on manufacturing cameras.
This is the reason for the current concerns about the future of Nikon.
Other companies may be just as stressed but it may not yet be so obvious.
Unless some major thought is given, and very rapidly, by the camera industry, to how they are going to re-engage with the market and regain lost market share and create a new market for their products then real trouble lies ahead.
Kevin hinted at a whole raft of industry-wide changes coming in the new year.
News like this could be reassuring or it could merely portend a coming disaster.
I really do not get the impression that any of the manufacturers are really demonstrating a proactive approach at the moment but rather a reactive stance in response to unwanted, unpleasant, and unforeseen realities.
In other words their current corporate strategies are well behind the curve.
The question then becomes, which companies can get ahead of the curve to produce cameras that can really capture and recapture market share.
For those companies that cannot succeed here I foresee fire sales and bankruptcies of camera divisions or potentially whole companies.
In ten years time I foresee an industry with a lot fewer names competing.
Hopefully, though, at least some of those changes that Kevin hinted at represent constructive win-win partnerships and mergers that strengthen the industry rather than a representation of a failure to adapt.
Change, evolution, and revolution are inevitable and ongoing. Change cannot be ignored - it can only be managed.
How we manage change, individually, and corporately, will define the history of what for us is still in the future.
Tony Jay
Post by: davidgp on December 23, 2016, 03:20:01 am
Then don't control the camera with your phone. Technology isn't about you - it doesn't stop progressing because you like your current tool. Where there's an application, it will be developed.
For many others - both photographers and casual users - it'd be an incredibly useful tool.
Control 3 Gopro-style cameras through the one interface, to capture a scene from different angles simultaneously. Scatter 10 of them around a waterhole and use them to capture wildlife at dusk, controlling each one individually. Attach a flash unit to a drone and use it to provide lighting you otherwise couldn't achieve in that environment. Point two of them in the same direction for stereoscopic shots, and control them simultaneously. Spend an afternoon placing them all aroumd a mountain, then use them to shoot the sunrise from six different locations - then retrieve them all by drone before moving on. The list of applications is endless.
And these 'Gopros' won't be the current small-sensor, fixed-focal-length toys currently available. They'll have APS-C or full-frame sensors (made cheaper by economies of scale, since almost every device will have one or more imaging sensors) and a variety of lenses, made lightweight and compact through the use of diffraction technology and polymeric components, with zoom provided by shape-changing electropolymers. All controlled remotely and housed in a tough, lightweight and shockproof polycarbonate housing. Store five of them, and five Speedlights, in a Pelican case for a portable studio, all controlled remotely via a tablet.
Think of cameras as speedlights which take photos - the eyes of the imaging system, rather than the brain, as it is at the moment. You can use just one, or more than one, and can put it wherever is best for the shot, not just somewhere where you can get your eyes behind it.
I remember these same arguments when digital replaced film, and when Photoshop replaced the darkroom. Each time, you had a core group of Luddites who liked their existing tools, couldn't see how the new technology could be an improvement, feared the democratisation of photography and generally despaired at its future. And, each time, they turned out to be wrong. No-one would use a technology unless it was better for the task in at least one key way. And, now, images are being created which would never have been possible with film, or with darkroom techniques. The same thing happens in other fields, too - the doom-and-gloom when command line interfaces were replaced by GUIs, when film-based X-rays and CT scans were replaced by monitors. The Luddites were never right, and those who couldn't adapt or couldn't take advantage of new technology found themselves surpassed by those who could.
I agree with those examples, let me write my ideas other way... What I want to say it is that the camera must still stand by its own... It's usability via software and hardware controls must be on its own... Even though you can do what you explain... Because in a great majority of scenarios one person will interact with just one camera to make just a photograph...
Post by: Tony Jay on December 23, 2016, 05:10:25 am
I agree with those examples, let me write my ideas other way... What I want to say it is that the camera must still stand by its own... It's usability via software and hardware controls must be on its own... Even though you can do what you explain... Because in a great majority of scenarios one person will interact with just one camera to make just a photograph...David, I think you will find in the near future that a camera will be connectable with the world in much the same way that a Smartphone is now.
I think this is inevitable.
The reason is simple - any kid using a Smartphone, taking pictures, posting them to Instagram and other sites is not easily going to take to a current DSLR (or even a current point-and-shoot type camera).
The difference would be a bit like a kid used to driving a Lamborghini being asked to "graduate" to a model T Ford.
This analogy is meant to describe the overall experience, not the image quality possible with good DSLR's.
Simply put, the future market for cameras IS the current Smartphone generation.
Very, very few of them will ever use or want to use a DSLR of the sort we regard as state-of-the-art today.
To them a DSLR is highly retrogressive despite the impressive image-making ability of these cameras.
The implications of this kind of future for cameras is not exactly comfortable for me but, as I said I think it is inevitable.
Tony Jay
Post by: BrownBear on December 23, 2016, 05:23:12 am
Simply put, the future market for cameras IS the current Smartphone generation.
Very, very few of them will ever use or want to use a DSLR of the sort we regard as state-of-the-art today.
To them a DSLR is highly retrogressive despite the impressive image-making ability of these cameras.
Bingo.
Try introducing one of them to a DSLR. ::)
I just did so with our very artistic 17 YOA granddaughter. She's studious and very intent on outcomes, and she spent an afternoon with the DSLR. It sparked her interest in the capabilities of her smart phone, but she hasn't since picked up the DSLR. Her complaints with the limitations of the smart phone have made her intent on the next generation of smart phones rather than a switch to the DSLR.
Post by: razrblck on December 23, 2016, 08:00:18 am
Bingo.
Try introducing one of them to a DSLR. ::)
I just did so with our very artistic 17 YOA granddaughter. She's studious and very intent on outcomes, and she spent an afternoon with the DSLR. It sparked her interest in the capabilities of her smart phone, but she hasn't since picked up the DSLR. Her complaints with the limitations of the smart phone have made her intent on the next generation of smart phones rather than a switch to the DSLR.
A very close friend (27yo) of mine is just like that. She had a Galaxy S5 Mini with a very poor camera (now replaced with a S7 for Christmas). She did buy a Sony RX100 as a more serious camera, but hasn't used it much. Some of her photos do not look taken with such a poor phone camera, at all, and she has learned a lot just by doing things.
Her biggest complaint is workflow. Even the Sony is slow and clunky to move photos from the camera to the phone and it does so only with low resolution and high compression JPEGs that look really bad. She isn't that big in sharing on social media either. She does it for selected pictures and once or twice a month, but her habit is mostly sharing privately with friends (like me).
A dedicated camera could certainly bring a lot of technical improvements and the ability to use different focal lengths, but ultimately it would be way too inconvenient (especially when shooting RAW).
The world has changed a lot. We don't need dedicated cameras anymore to record photos even for ourselves, because we always have one with our phones. But such cameras will not disappear either, as professional will always need such tools for their job.
That being said, I wouldn't really mind if a modern camera could properly do integration with phones either via Bluetooth or WiFi. The current solutions require headache inducing procedures for pairing, provide very limited functions (like only transfer for low quality JPEGs or limited camera controls) and ultimately make you waste even more time than bringing a laptop with you.
Post by: davidgp on December 23, 2016, 11:22:20 am
David, I think you will find in the near future that a camera will be connectable with the world in much the same way that a Smartphone is now.
I think this is inevitable.
The reason is simple - any kid using a Smartphone, taking pictures, posting them to Instagram and other sites is not easily going to take to a current DSLR (or even a current point-and-shoot type camera).
The difference would be a bit like a kid used to driving a Lamborghini being asked to "graduate" to a model T Ford.
This analogy is meant to describe the overall experience, not the image quality possible with good DSLR's.
Simply put, the future market for cameras IS the current Smartphone generation.
Very, very few of them will ever use or want to use a DSLR of the sort we regard as state-of-the-art today.
To them a DSLR is highly retrogressive despite the impressive image-making ability of these cameras.
The implications of this kind of future for cameras is not exactly comfortable for me but, as I said I think it is inevitable.
Tony Jay
Hi Toni,
I
I agree with your point of view... I think it is still compatible with what I commented... Whatever the connection of the camera, the camera will still be a useful object by its own...
Saying that, even if there is some efforts for camera manufactures trying to attract mobile phone people... (Well, really making them come back to the camera world... Probably the majority of these people had a camera in the past)... I see all of them focusing in the pro-user mainly... Look at what Canon, Nikon, Sony, Sigma, Zeiss, Fuji and other are doing... Less entry level lenses... More focused on high end lenses and pro-cameras... That it is good for us and bad for our wallets...
I don´t think the market will ever come back to the high peaks 4 years ago...
Regards,
David
Post by: Torbjörn Tapani on December 23, 2016, 11:40:08 am
In 2015 I was in BC, Canada. My friends posted videos to instagram or whatever from the mountains. I have yet to make my selects. Everyone I would share it with have already seen it.
My Sony action cam is a more useful camera than my 36 MPix DSLR. It came with the phone for "free". You should see it. It's tiny. It has wifi. I get liveview on my phone. Any camera that lacks this basic connectivity is practically useless for the smartphone generation.
Post by: scooby70 on December 23, 2016, 11:55:23 am
Any camera that does not upload directly to the cloud is just obsolete. The smartphone is a far more capable device than any DSLR.
In 2015 I was in BC, Canada. My friends posted videos to instagram or whatever from the mountains. I have yet to make my selects. Everyone I would share it with have already seen it.
My Sony action cam is a more useful camera than my 36 MPix DSLR. It came with the phone for "free". You should see it. It's tiny. It has wifi. I get liveview on my phone. Any camera that lacks this basic connectivity is practically useless for the smartphone generation.
This makes me feel old :D
I'm not interested in phones, I can't see myself ever uploading / sharing a picture on social media and I have no on line presence, no Facebook, Instagram, Friendface or anything like...
I use my cameras in Aperture priority mostly, manual sometimes and shutter priority rarely. I'm a dying breed and I know it. I do wish the next generations luck but I do hope that in the future all of the wifi and internet stuff can be turned off and that the device (will they still be called cameras?) can be used as a stand alone non internet connected camera :D
Post by: BrownBear on December 23, 2016, 01:02:21 pm
I'm not interested in phones....
That's me to a "T." When I retired the cell phone was turned OFF.
I have a perfectly good iPhone. Somewhere around here. I guess. Last time I saw it, anyway. Hard to locate sometimes because it's always off until I need to make a call. I've even heard that it will take pictures.
But I pay the bills, so I get to pick when to use it. I don't want to be disturbed by it umpteen times a day. Very few people have my cell number. And those who do know to leave a message. Or better yet, call our land line and leave a message there. We generally check our home phone for messages at least once a day. I've "returned" calls to my cell phone as much as two weeks after a message was left. If I got around to it.
No way, no how, am I going to let a cell phone run my life. Apps are the forms you fill out when you want a loan or a job. Don't need either one. ;D
Post by: hogloff on December 23, 2016, 01:37:28 pm
Next day after work was wanting to get some dinner. Had no idea about the restaurants in town. Used my phone to get onto the web and reviewed the available restaurants...picked one, clicked on it's phone number and made a reservation for later that evening.
On the way home I wanted to pick up my wife some chocolates...again no idea where. Internet through the phone to the rescue.
Was in Aukland last year sitting in a traffic jam...big accident. Used my phone gps and it was smart enough to know about the traffic jam and rerouted me around the traffic.
Picked up a rental in Kauai. It had a few scratches and dings. Pulled out my phone and took snaps of the damage so I would not have any issues when returning the car.
You guys can choose not to embrace technology and live in the good old days...but there is no denying there are many advantages to today's phones if you choose to take advantage of them.
Post by: BrownBear on December 23, 2016, 02:02:43 pm
You guys can choose not to embrace technology and live in the good old days...but there is no denying there are many advantages to today's phones if you choose to take advantage of them.
And fortunately I don't need them. Retirement is all about slooooowing down my pace of life, so a few minutes or miles saved are immaterial. Found some great restaurants simply by wandering, and byways are for exploring rather than rushing. Apps are still blank forms for loans and jobs, neither of which I need. ;D
Post by: chez on December 23, 2016, 02:57:03 pm
And fortunately I don't need them. Retirement is all about slooooowing down my pace of life, so a few minutes or miles saved are immaterial. Found some great restaurants simply by wandering, and byways are for exploring rather than rushing. Apps are still blank forms for loans and jobs, neither of which I need. ;D
I'm retired and just got back from Havana where I used the phone to navigate the streets of Havana using an app. Not only did it give me directions when I needed them, but also gave me lots of historical info on buildings as I wandered by them.
You can still slow down and use technology.
You do use a channel changer with your tv and don't run up to the tv to change channels or adjust the volume. :)
Post by: Rob C on December 23, 2016, 04:07:39 pm
Cameras. I sort of agree that the days of normal cameras as we knew them are almost over. Here, in Spain, I seldom see anyone with one - it seems the cell wins every time. Hell, my photo-supplies wholesaler closed down at least a decade ago, when once he used to be thronged with guys buying materials for their photo-businesses. It's just like the processing labs. I suspect that colour film will vanish well before black/white stock; that being so, I see a continuing future for Leica's old bodies as well, and maybe even Hasselblad will some day put a tentative toe into rebirthing, or at least supplying a dependable source of spares to keep the venerable 500 Series going if only to support the brand and thus keep interest in the digital part of the business alive and well - maybe, big maybe!
However, backwards compatibility aside, I do think that cameras for professional use will continue in some form or another. They may well become ultra-expensive, the province of a very limited number of marques, perhaps thus putting the photographic professional back into the general 'professional' bracket within which he once sort of belonged. That would be nice. Democracy ain't necessarily the best system; just look around to see where it's getting us these days. Nobody expects a dentist to set up without spending mega bucks on equipment; why should snappers feel they are entitled to a different deal should they want to go professional? Frankly, I have aways felt that official qualifications should also be a legal requirement; only somebody who feels lacking in skills would worry about that. This isn't the place to fill in the details on that topic, but I would say that now, more than ever, there's a distinct need for it.
If anything, perhaps this could be the dawning of a better deal for the professional photographer, completely reversng my thoughts on where the industry had been heading...
However, I shall just hope to continue playing with my obsolete cameras until I no longer can, or just lose interest.
Rob C
Post by: John Hollenberg on December 23, 2016, 04:31:54 pm
Post by: Telecaster on December 23, 2016, 05:01:24 pm
As for smartphones: in my life they're an enormous plus. During my recent travels (Hawai'i, the Big Island) I used both Apple & Google's map apps to locate and preview all sorts of off-the-beaten-path stuff. Beaches, ocean views, obscure eateries & cafés & shops and much more. When I got up during the night to take in the stars from my lanai (balcony) I knew what I'd be seeing and could time my viewing accordingly. No need to print paper tickets for my flights…I had electronic tickets. All Good Stuff!
-Dave-
Post by: Tony Jay on December 23, 2016, 07:44:33 pm
I don't know if your "cellphone" is actually a "smartphone" or not.
However, if it is actually a smartphone then it will have two methods to determine its location.
The first one, as you have discovered, is rather inaccurate and it uses a system of triangulation from nearby microwave towers to figure out where it is.
The second method uses the built-in GPS unit and this is VERY accurate - to within a metre.
I have navigated myself thousands of kilometres through parts of Africa where signposts, if they ever existed, are now non-existent.
Particularly helpful in parts of Namibia (and other places) where one cannot even find another person to ask directions if lost.
I stress that the smartphone was on "aeroplane" mode - there was no network access anyway once I left Windhoek or other large centres - so the only way the smartphone knew where it was was the built-in GPS.
So, do a bit checking with the particular model of phone that you own - it may well have a built-in GPS - and, if so, a very accurate method of location determination.
In an emergency scenario it is possible that an accurate location determination might be very helpful.
Tony Jay
Post by: Tony Jay on December 23, 2016, 08:20:17 pm
Re. the camera industry future-proofing itself (or failing to do so): I'm not concerned about that. As long as people are interested in taking photos there'll be companies producing photo-taking devices. They may well not be the companies we currently have, but if not so be it. As Kodak discovered, if you fail to deal with reality it'll eventually deal with you. (Note that this also applies to realms other than the photo industry, and is why I fret less about the current state of those realms than many of my peers. ;) )All the big players in the camera market have always used their low-end offerings to cross-subsidize the development and production of the more high-end product.
...
-Dave-
Most of us are using those higher-end cameras and despite the cost to us being more than a low-end camera and lenses we have benefited from not having to pay twice or thrice more for the equipment we like to use.
This pleasant arrangement is rapidly coming to an end.
The lower end of the camera market (where the money is (was!) for the camera manufacturers) has been almost completely captured by the Smartphone manufacturers.
Now, unless someone can set me straight on this, the only camera manufacturing company that is that is benefiting from this situation is Sony.
All the others are bleeding and bleeding badly.
The market for high-end equipment is small, and for sure not all the players will be able to re-invent themselves as high-end niche players - Leica and Phase One spring to mind.
The market just cannot accommodate all the current players.
So, if this is the future then major casualties are inevitable and prices to consumers would inevitably be higher because that cross-subsidization and economies-of-scale that were always so important to these companies is lost.
However, I don't believe that any of the bigger players are just following this approach.
They absolutely and uncompromisingly need to recapture at least some of the market share that they have lost and will continue to lose to the smartphones.
The company(ies) that succeed in this endeavour will survive - the others will die.
I personally believe that the passport to success for these companies is to produce cameras that have equivalent (and preferably better) image-making abilities of current cameras along with the convenience and ease of use (and again maybe even better) of the Smartphone experience.
Why?
Simply because the future camera market is the current Smartphone generation: they simply are not going to muck around with any image-making device (whatever it is called) that does not offer them the experience they are used to when using their Smartphones.
I worry that many of the camera manufacturers will probably be incapable of making the paradigm shifts that are needed to achieve future market success despite the fact that the issue is absolutely not a technological one but rather one of state-of-mind.
The result will be a very different industry in the future with far higher costs of production (Moore's law notwithstanding) and therefore premium costs to the consumer.
I have a very strong vested interest in these companies succeeding in Royal style - I have no desire to be a prophet of Doom - because I want to shoot with really good equipment that doesn't require me to mortgage my house to acquire.
Tony Jay
Post by: scooby70 on December 23, 2016, 08:22:25 pm
You guys can choose not to embrace technology and live in the good old days...but there is no denying there are many advantages to today's phones if you choose to take advantage of them.
Just to explain about my own attitude to technology... I'm not exactly living in the good old days but rather avoiding things that remind me of work. For decades I was a workaholic in the computer industry and then moved into another technology related area for another 12 years. I retired at 49 and now technology has a very minor role in my life. I have a lap top and a tablet but when I'm not using them they're off and put out of view. I hate to see computers in peoples homes, I think that if they're in view they dominate rooms so I turn mine off and put them out of sight. Someone gave me a smartphone but it's PAYG and I rarely turn it on. I'd rather sit in traffic jam and listen to the radio or the sounds of the world around me than attempt to use a smartphone to navigate a way out of it and if I want to eat out in a strange town I ask someone where to go. These are just my choices :D
Post by: BrownBear on December 23, 2016, 09:58:30 pm
Driving north on I-95 from Florida a few days back I asked an interesting looking guy behind the counter at a Pilot station if he knew of any good Japanese restaurants in the next town, where we planned to spend the night. He got the biggest smile on his face, and the line built behind us as he asked about our favorite dishes, then went into raptures about one in particular for it's seafood udon. We drove half an hour from our hotel, right past two other Japanese restaurants, to try it. Darned if he wasn't right, too!
We're timing our trip south next week to arrive at the same town in time for dinner. The Pilot guy recommended another restaurant for oyako donburi, and we plan to be there with bells on. ;D
Post by: DeanChriss on December 24, 2016, 04:16:28 pm
I got my first camera when I was a kid more than 4 decades ago. Since those first days photography has always slowed me down and made me really look at my surroundings. I regard that as a Good Thing. That applies whether I'm doing a landscape and waiting for cloud positions or the right light, or whether I'm standing in one spot all day long waiting for a bird to appear. Sometimes the mind wanders, sometimes you see and/or photograph some great event or creature that you originally did not expect. Serendipity.
A few weeks ago I was photographing eagles near a big river, or trying to, along with quite a few others. The activity level was pretty low so if you weren't paying attention you could miss a fly-by that might be the only one for a couple hours. Older photographers were doing what I was doing; watching, waiting, and trying to be ready. The younger photographers (30's I'd guess) were looking at their phones, attempting to hold them in so they could see the phone and the river simultaneously. If an eagle flew across they'd pocket the phone and take some shots. After that they'd do some brief pixel peeping and get the phone back out, or just get the phone back out. I have no idea how successful their photography was. Once in a while someone would actually talk on their phone. I think these were all long distance conversations because they had to talk really loud. Oddly enough, people often make such
On a different and longer trip last fall my wife and I would usually spend at least part of any given day where no cellular signal existed. One day rather than have the phone eat the battery looking for a signal that didn't exist, I turned it off and put it in our SUV's center console. Nearly three weeks later my wife asked me where my phone was, and I hadn't yet missed it.
I've got nothing against technology. In fact studying physics and mathematics for way too long has kept me self-employed for over 30 years. I help design industrial products, now mostly small electronic stuff with even smaller radios inside. I work with people whose ages range from older than me to millennials and generation Z folks. I know for a fact that these young people are absolutely brilliant, but their ways are very different. Their phones are semi-permanently connected to their ears through some sort of umbilical cord. Not surprisingly they are not very aware of their surroundings when they walk down the hallway, but somehow they do great work. I couldn't function like that and I'm happy about it. I like being immersed in the here and now, and I like concentrating on one thing at a time, but people are just not like that anymore. True or not, a study by Microsoft concluded that human attention fell from 12 seconds in the year 2000 to eight seconds in late 2015. We now have a shorter attention span than goldfish. Another study I saw (can't recall where) said our ability to multitask has increased. Maybe these cancel one another out? Regardless, I can hardly imagine many generation Z people spending lots of time taking a photo. They do want photos, but at the press of a button as they're moving on to some other task.
Happy Holidays!
Post by: razrblck on December 25, 2016, 11:12:02 am
Cameras. I sort of agree that the days of normal cameras as we knew them are almost over. Here, in Spain, I seldom see anyone with one - it seems the cell wins every time. Hell, my photo-supplies wholesaler closed down at least a decade ago, when once he used to be thronged with guys buying materials for their photo-businesses. It's just like the processing labs. I suspect that colour film will vanish well before black/white stock; that being so, I see a continuing future for Leica's old bodies as well, and maybe even Hasselblad will some day put a tentative toe into rebirthing, or at least supplying a dependable source of spares to keep the venerable 500 Series going if only to support the brand and thus keep interest in the digital part of the business alive and well - maybe, big maybe!
I don't think it's far fetched at all. With modern industrial 3D printers (both for plastic and metal parts) many companies are moving their whole spare parts warehouse to the digital realm by manufacturing the pieces needed on demand. This opens up the possibility of manufacturing new parts for old models. Daimler, Fiat and Mercedes already announced their intention to do exactly such thing, and I expect some camera companies to follow suit. It would cost them a very small investment, and they could make even more money from decades old sales just by making new spare parts and giving service for old cameras.
Film is not going to die after all. There will always be people going for it, even if it's just a short lived novelty for them. If we could make it a bit more accessible (easier to process film rolls) I'm sure even more people would jump on it. C41 and E6 are expensive and more complicated processes that even passionate amateurs often cannot justify. Black and white is a lot simpler, but still requires knowledge, effort and money upfront (thanks mostly to the huge markups that "ebay sharks" put on old darkroom equipment). My younger cousins all expressed interest in shooting film, but they declined when I explained what they needed to do it themselves. Labs have pretty much disappeared as well, the few remaining are jacking up prices as time passes.
However, backwards compatibility aside, I do think that cameras for professional use will continue in some form or another. They may well become ultra-expensive, the province of a very limited number of marques, perhaps thus putting the photographic professional back into the general 'professional' bracket within which he once sort of belonged. That would be nice. Democracy ain't necessarily the best system; just look around to see where it's getting us these days. Nobody expects a dentist to set up without spending mega bucks on equipment; why should snappers feel they are entitled to a different deal should they want to go professional? Frankly, I have aways felt that official qualifications should also be a legal requirement; only somebody who feels lacking in skills would worry about that. This isn't the place to fill in the details on that topic, but I would say that now, more than ever, there's a distinct need for it.
I kind of agree, but money alone isn't a big enough barrier to entry if you want to keep quality high. There are a lot of picture snappers out there that call themselves professional photographers just because they can afford relatively high end equipment and a business. We will never stop people that lack the skills but have the means to get into this world. keeping a low barrier to entry is, in this case, a good compromise because we still get to enjoy people with real talent that otherwise would've never had the opportunity to shine.
I believe cameras with bigger sensors will become rarer, possibly more expensive. Though, they would definitely have to bring truly advanced features and stunning image quality to keep selling and compete with phones. I'm not sad to see compact, consumer cameras disappear. They were never as good as the bigger cousins nor as convenient as smartphone cameras.
I really hope for camera makers to stop releasing countless of "cheap" cameras with large sensors (APS or m43) and put all those resources in refining the higher end models instead. Do we really need a D3400? No, like we didn't really need a D3300. Even a D3200 was mostly unnecessary, as the D3100 (which I had for a time) had a really amazing sensor for such a low-end camera. Where are the DL cameras instead? Last I heard they have been postponed again to Jan 2017 (initial release was June 2016) for critical issues. Nikon, how about taking your head out of your ass and putting some serious effort into cameras that are actually interesting instead of wasting more money refreshing the D3000 line with... Bluetooth? Seriously?!
The market for high-end equipment is small, and for sure not all the players will be able to re-invent themselves as high-end niche players - Leica and Phase One spring to mind.
The market just cannot accommodate all the current players.
So, if this is the future then major casualties are inevitable and prices to consumers would inevitably be higher because that cross-subsidization and economies-of-scale that were always so important to these companies is lost.
However, I don't believe that any of the bigger players are just following this approach.
They absolutely and uncompromisingly need to recapture at least some of the market share that they have lost and will continue to lose to the smartphones.
The company(ies) that succeed in this endeavour will survive - the others will die.
I personally believe that the passport to success for these companies is to produce cameras that have equivalent (and preferably better) image-making abilities of current cameras along with the convenience and ease of use (and again maybe even better) of the Smartphone experience.
Why?
Simply because the future camera market is the current Smartphone generation: they simply are not going to muck around with any image-making device (whatever it is called) that does not offer them the experience they are used to when using their Smartphones.
I worry that many of the camera manufacturers will probably be incapable of making the paradigm shifts that are needed to achieve future market success despite the fact that the issue is absolutely not a technological one but rather one of state-of-mind.
The result will be a very different industry in the future with far higher costs of production (Moore's law notwithstanding) and therefore premium costs to the consumer.
I have a very strong vested interest in these companies succeeding in Royal style - I have no desire to be a prophet of Doom - because I want to shoot with really good equipment that doesn't require me to mortgage my house to acquire.
Agree, companies need to shift their mentality. They clearly have the technology to get up to speed, but they are not giving it enough attention and care. If I remember correctly, bcooter said a few times that clients now want video as well as stills. This is true even for event and wedding photographers (heard first hand from many local photographers). Having such capability in your still camera is now essential, but it needs to work well. Nikon is finally moving in this direction after being the first to introduce video in a DSLR, but they are still not treating it with the attention they could. Canon is one step ahead, but again both lack the convenience of smartphones. Photographers here are starting to take more pictures and video with their phones (besides their main camera gear) as well as instant cameras (Fuji Instax and Polaroid Snap) because their clients want content on the spot. They want to share a wedding moment when it happens, not wait two weeks after the fact. You would need a team and/or more equipment to do the same kind of on demand, on-the-spot delivery with traditional cameras
As for the generational gap, I can talk a bit about myself. I started photography on film and only had access to digital around 2005, borrowing the family's camera. In 2007 I got my own digital camera, but still kept film gear by my side. Though it was a time of fast change and before the big craze started by Lomography, so film was out of the question until about 2011 when I built a darkroom with some friends. Now we are able to shoot and print almost everything, limited only by the kinds of chemicals we can buy and if we want to bother with more time consuming processes. Through my friends I also have access to about 400 different, working film cameras if I want to spice it up. My experience is that, if presented with something that is manageable, people will gladly shoot film with enthusiasm and curiosity. I have helped plenty of times with photography workshops and the film based ones are always the most demanded by all age groups.
I always take my time when taking pictures, even with digital. Sometimes I go out for a walk and come back with just one or two snaps after hours being outside and looking for interesting scenes. I also can't go out without my phone, as I use it to keep in touch with my closest friends. It's amazing to be able to communicate with them instantly or share bits of my life with them. Without all this technology I would've never been able to get so close to people that for me are just amazing. When they share parts of their life with me or just hear their voice even if they are on the other side of the globe (slight lag but manageable) it doesn't feel weird at all. I feel like a true citizen of the Earth, a member of the human species. There are no borders for us. Cameras in phones are just a way to share life, quickly and painlessly, with the people we care about. But hey, I print photos as well and put them in albums, just like I love reading real books instead of e-books.
Old or new it doesn't matter, what matters are the emotions I feel when I read a book, snap a picture or share a moment with someone close without issues, limits or obstacles.
Post by: Telecaster on December 26, 2016, 04:23:43 pm
I always take my time when taking pictures, even with digital. Sometimes I go out for a walk and come back with just one or two snaps after hours being outside and looking for interesting scenes. I also can't go out without my phone, as I use it to keep in touch with my closest friends. It's amazing to be able to communicate with them instantly or share bits of my life with them. Without all this technology I would've never been able to get so close to people that for me are just amazing. When they share parts of their life with me or just hear their voice even if they are on the other side of the globe (slight lag but manageable) it doesn't feel weird at all. I feel like a true citizen of the Earth, a member of the human species. There are no borders for us. Cameras in phones are just a way to share life, quickly and painlessly, with the people we care about. But hey, I print photos as well and put them in albums, just like I love reading real books instead of e-books.
Coulda written this entire paragraph myself. :D I've held back some of my favorite photos from my most recent travel adventure from online sharing, instead printing them and giving them as holiday gifts.
-Dave-
Post by: Rob C on December 27, 2016, 05:52:11 am
Rob, just for you:
I don't know if your "cellphone" is actually a "smartphone" or not.
However, if it is actually a smartphone then it will have two methods to determine its location.
The first one, as you have discovered, is rather inaccurate and it uses a system of triangulation from nearby microwave towers to figure out where it is.
The second method uses the built-in GPS unit and this is VERY accurate - to within a metre.
I have navigated myself thousands of kilometres through parts of Africa where signposts, if they ever existed, are now non-existent.
Particularly helpful in parts of Namibia (and other places) where one cannot even find another person to ask directions if lost.
I stress that the smartphone was on "aeroplane" mode - there was no network access anyway once I left Windhoek or other large centres - so the only way the smartphone knew where it was was the built-in GPS.
So, do a bit checking with the particular model of phone that you own - it may well have a built-in GPS - and, if so, a very accurate method of location determination.
In an emergency scenario it is possible that an accurate location determination might be very helpful.
Tony Jay
Hi Tony,
Just come onto this thread again, so sorry for the rude delay in response!
Yes, my cellphone is, reputedly, smart; it's a venerable Samsung Galaxy Ace GT - S5830 and on its second battery in all that time. It's currently on charge, and as I don't want to take it off until that's done, I can't check out the possible alternatives to location-finding. It does have the capability to work off the USB in the car, as the salesman insisted on demonstrating before I bought, but I have never thought of using that either. I don't really want to speak to anybody unless I'm at home and at ease, and as I now seldom drive anywhere that I don't already know by instinct almost rather better than by sight, navigation in that sense is not a priority, though I am certain that in our France-crossing driving days, it would have been better than the maps my wife used to read for us.
Truth to tell, my entire relationship with the cellphone was based on the concept of emergency, strong in my mind because of the permanent heart problems I have. After wasting some good image situations by using that device, I stopped, determined never again to waste an opportunity by using a poor relation to the already (some imagine) poor relation D200 I usually cart around when the Muse half-promises to accompany me...
Part of the problem is, I'm certain, age-related: I find it hard to remember how to use modern devices if, once deciphered, I don't utilise them, constantly.
Best wishes for 2017, and don't go falling off Scottish cliffs!
Rob
Post by: Tony Jay on December 27, 2016, 07:10:44 am
I can confirm that your model Smartphone does indeed have a built-in GPS.
As long as you have an appropriate app installed to take advantage of the GPS you are good to go!
Tony Jay
Post by: Rob C on December 29, 2016, 02:02:55 pm
Hi Rob,
I can confirm that your model Smartphone does indeed have a built-in GPS.
As long as you have an appropriate app installed to take advantage of the GPS you are good to go!
Tony Jay
Hi Tony,
Yes, but I tried it again yesterday and it says, more or less: "make sure to have open skies available (I assume to get a satellite fix) and connect to a larger power source." In that case, I imagine they mean that connecting to the USB socket in the car it would be okay - insofar as power goes, but would simply having more power make it any less inaccurate than in my free-standing test, where it made the battery dive very rapidly? I guess I need a connection wire to try it out in the car... Looking into the cellphone's controls, I note that the GPS thing is currently switched off to conserve power. A friend gave me his old sat.nav car unit, but I've never used it: I know where I am going around here - perhaps only too well! Worse, it's unikely I'm going anywhere much else.
But hey, thank you for your interest and research!
;-)
Rob
Post by: razrblck on December 30, 2016, 10:39:58 am
Post by: E.J. Peiker on December 30, 2016, 03:08:22 pm
GPS on modern phones need a data connection to properly work (either WiFi or 3G/4G) unlike the dedicated satnav systems. This might be your issue, Rob!No they don't. You just need to get a GPS app for the phone that uses the GPS chip without needing the data connection. Garmin, TomTom and others offer such apps for the smart phones. There's even a free one called maps.me. They even work with the phone in Airplane mode making it possible to track your flight if you are at a window seat.
Apple/Samsung doesn't ship such an app with their phones because of contractual obligations with the carriers but there are many GPS apps for these phones that do not have these restrictions.
Post by: pegelli on December 30, 2016, 03:25:51 pm
GPS on modern phones need a data connection to properly work (either WiFi or 3G/4G) unlike the dedicated satnav systems. This might be your issue, Rob!Even Google maps can work with just a GPS signal without WiFi or 3G/4G connection. Just download the maps into memory (a standard function) and you have a fully functional SatNav without any network connection.
Post by: Tony Jay on December 30, 2016, 04:23:48 pm
GPS on modern phones need a data connection to properly work (either WiFi or 3G/4G) unlike the dedicated satnav systems. This might be your issue, Rob!This is complete rubbish!
Did you actually read the whole of the thread?
I have been thousands of kilometres from any data connections using the dedicated GPS unit that actually comes built-in to all modern smartphones.
If you had also been paying attention you would have noted me telling Rob that the triangulation method (that does use microwave towers and needs data) is actually very inaccurate while the dedicated GPS in the phone is very accurate.
Tony Jay
Post by: Rob C on December 31, 2016, 08:02:37 am
The cellphone works via my home contract for Internet, not any local WiFi into which I have to tune; so, I assume that when it gives me a reading for location, it is taking that reading off a combination of local cellphone signal transmitters and also satellite, or why the need for open skies? Wouldn't it just work perfectly well without sky access if it depended only on relay transmitters?
The worst problem is not accuracy, but battery depletion if used without access to bigger power units.
Rob
Post by: BrownBear on December 31, 2016, 09:02:33 am
The worst problem is not accuracy, but battery depletion if used without access to bigger power units.
There it is.
The GPS in our truck croaked at just the wrong moment, so my wife turned on the map function in her iPhone (standard feature). It worked well and in some details was better than the Garmin in the truck. But it sucked power like a kid drinking a milkshake. Fortunately we had a charge cord in the truck, or it would have died long before we reached our destination.
Post by: pegelli on December 31, 2016, 09:32:17 am
There it is.It's probably more the screen then the GPS by itself that sucks the power. At least that's my experience with my old S4mini with an aging battery. Put the screen in lower intensity and off when on a long stretch of straight road, then you can manage much longer trips.
The GPS in our truck croaked at just the wrong moment, so my wife turned on the map function in her iPhone (standard feature). It worked well and in some details was better than the Garmin in the truck. But it sucked power like a kid drinking a milkshake. Fortunately we had a charge cord in the truck, or it would have died long before we reached our destination.
Post by: Tony Jay on December 31, 2016, 05:05:43 pm
I am not clear at all about this stuff about apps. If my Samsung already enables me to find a satellite (which is why I think it tells me to work under open skies to find location), doesn't that mean that it already contains an app? Or, is there a further thing that indeed has to be downloaded? As I say, it does show me a spot on its map where it thinks I am, badly, and does tell me to use a bigger power source.Maybe you do already have an app installed.
The cellphone works via my home contract for Internet, not any local WiFi into which I have to tune; so, I assume that when it gives me a reading for location, it is taking that reading off a combination of local cellphone signal transmitters and also satellite, or why the need for open skies? Wouldn't it just work perfectly well without sky access if it depended only on relay transmitters?
The worst problem is not accuracy, but battery depletion if used without access to bigger power units.
Rob
Just having a GPS unit in the phone is not enough.
Without the phone having some graphical way of showing YOU where it is the fact that the phone itself knows where it is becomes a complete non sequitur - hence the need for an app.
Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post: a smartphone will either use triangulation from local microwave towers or it will use its GPS unit. It does not use a combination of the two. My suggestion is to not waste data (money) and to make sure that one uses the GPS when one needs to find one's way around precisely because it does not cost data (money) and the GPS unit is MUCH more accurate.
As for power requirements particularly when driving - just use the 9V option in your vehicle (the cigarette lighter) to keep the phone charged.
I kept my smartphone charged for five weeks in just this way when travelling in Africa in 2015 while using it as a GPS.
Never made one phone call during that time.
In addition one can buy (relatively cheaply) what I call USB batteries that one charges via USB cable and then one can draw power, again via a USB cable to the phone that will keep it charged for several days.
I own a couple of these batteries and took them to Africa as well, as an emergency back-up in case all the camera batteries were drained and I did not have another charging option. As it turned out that was never the case and I did not actually need to use them.
In Australia the Nissan Patrol that I use for photographic expeditions has 12 9V sockets that continually run or charge a multitude of devices including fridges, GPS units, Smartphones, two laptops, charging for satellite phones, and charging batteries for a combination of five still and video cameras. The vehicle has two extra deep cycle batteries to deal with this and what is called a step-up charger that keeps these batteries in tip-top condition.
I also have a large solar blanket to keep these large deep-cycle batteries charged if the vehicle is not moving for any length of time. When on photography expeditions I will often be far away from 240 V mains power for days to weeks at a time.
The point I am making is that it is actually pretty simple to get around the limitations of the battery that is built-in to a smartphone. Consider that current Samsung phones just use a simple USB cable for charging rather than more complicated options of earlier generation phones. Nothing more than a USB cable (it comes with the phone) and a simple 9V plug that has a USB port is all that is required for what would essentially be infinite power while driving. Any general electronics store stocks items such as these and they are cheap.
Tony Jay
Post by: razrblck on January 01, 2017, 04:34:23 am
Over the years manufacturers like Qualcomm (https://www.qualcomm.com/products/izat) have implemented a lot of neat features that rely less on cellular data. They still look for cell towers and WiFi hotspots for quick positioning, and use a data connection to download up-to-date orbital information to speed up the whole process (downloading straight from the satellites is incredibly slow). Your phone will also need to keep its internal clock up do date if you want good accuracy, that also requires an internet connection.
Assisted GPS (A-GPS) devices can get your position in the middle of nowhere with great precision, but they will be slower at first finding your position when not in range of any cell tower or WiFi signal.
On the apps side, as you pointed out, you won't need data connection if you have downloaded your maps. It will only be required for traffic updates or to speed up operations (like finding routes and searching for places). I've even seen applications use cool tricks with the accelerometer to keep your position updated even with complete loss of GPS signal (like in a long tunnel). Downloading maps does not speed up positioning, nor does it improve accuracy.
Post by: Tony Jay on January 01, 2017, 05:19:44 am
Wow guys, calm down. :D I said they need data connection to properly work.Simply untrue.
I have used Smartphones as a GPS as described and can speak from experience - lots of experience.
I don't care whether the smartphone takes a couple of seconds longer to get a fix or not.
I do care about accuracy and using triangulation (and wasting data and money to do it) doesn't cut it.
I can vouch for the accuracy of the GPS unit by itself giving a fix to a metre - this it will do whether I am in a city or a thousand kilometres away from the nearest microwave tower.
Nobody, especially me, said any app or downloading maps improved the accuracy of the GPS.
Tony Jay
Post by: ErikKaffehr on January 01, 2017, 05:26:32 am
I down't think GPS sucks a lot of power. I had a small GPS-logger for many years. You put it in the camera bag and it samples position with a few seconds interval. You read out the coordinates to a GPX-file and sync that file with Lightroom. I usually forget to charge it, but with full charge it works for a few days, perhaps a week if battery is new. The whole device is like a small camera battery in size.
The GPS-logger works without maps.
Maps can be helpful, though, as GPS-devices often have an option to stay on roads. So using the map adds some accuracy.
Common GPS is accurate within say 30m, or so, but it can loose accuracy if it can just detect a few satellites.
My A-mount Sonys had built in GPS and I loved it. In general, I love sharing information so being able to geoencode my images have been a godbless. Great pity Sony has removed it on the A7 (FE-mount) models.
In camera GPS has a problem. Lets say we travel 80 km and start shooting. The GPS can take some time to sort out the new position, so the first images may be tagged with the wrong position.
Best regards
Erik
Wow guys, calm down. :D I said they need data connection to properly work.
Over the years manufacturers like Qualcomm (https://www.qualcomm.com/products/izat) have implemented a lot of neat features that rely less on cellular data. They still look for cell towers and WiFi hotspots for quick positioning, and use a data connection to download up-to-date orbital information to speed up the whole process (downloading straight from the satellites is incredibly slow). Your phone will also need to keep its internal clock up do date if you want good accuracy, that also requires an internet connection.
Assisted GPS (A-GPS) devices can get your position in the middle of nowhere with great precision, but they will be slower at first finding your position when not in range of any cell tower or WiFi signal.
On the apps side, as you pointed out, you won't need data connection if you have downloaded your maps. It will only be required for traffic updates or to speed up operations (like finding routes and searching for places). I've even seen applications use cool tricks with the accelerometer to keep your position updated even with complete loss of GPS signal (like in a long tunnel). Downloading maps does not speed up positioning, nor does it improve accuracy.
Post by: Tony Jay on January 01, 2017, 05:41:43 am
I do GPS logging with the smartphone as well.
Either way, even if one has a less that stellar battery in one's smartphone given the plethora of simple but effective technologies available to maintain its charge there is no real reason for a dead phone.
Tony Jay
Post by: mecrox on January 01, 2017, 09:10:03 am
Using a smartphone as a GPS logger does use less power because there is much less for the GUI to do.
I do GPS logging with the smartphone as well.
Either way, even if one has a less that stellar battery in one's smartphone given the plethora of simple but effective technologies available to maintain its charge there is no real reason for a dead phone.
Tony Jay
I have a satnav app on my iPhone which has a low-power mode and it uses very little of the battery when it is engaged. Battery drain is only an issue on full power mode. I don't know or much care how it works but it just does and it doesn't require a continuous mobile or wifi signal either. Very useful all round to reduce unseemly arguments about where we are going and how. My impression is that older smartphones aren't so good for all this, though. They won't have such sophisticated battery management tech or low-power processors and their gps stuff may not be quite so good either. There are plenty of modern but fairly inexpensive smartphones these days. No need to blow the bank with Apple or Samsung. I'd get a modern cheapie rather than wrestle with a much older model of anything, and a rechargeable pocket battery pack can be picked up for a few bucks.