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.
