The meaning of market share...

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes, phone tech advances fast, but. camera et lenses aren't a stationary target.

What isn't changing that fast is the need of users.

I would in fact argue that they are decreasing in terms of quality since the devices used by "photographers" are more and more screens - typically the screens of the smartphones themselves - instead of print.

The value is in the ease of sharing quickly.

The reality is IMHO two fold:
- The level of satisfaction of low end DSLRs isn't that great to start with for a variety of reasons centered around user experience and complexity of operation. Most of the owners bought them because they were hoping to get better results or for a "status" reason, but they are not willing to deal with the complexity of having to make choices, they just want nice pictures
- The level of quality of high end smart phones today satisfies the need of a majority of low end DSLR users, as well as their expectation for simplicity and something that just works. Even on my iPhone 7, it is really hard to completely mess up a picture, even in conditions when I would expect them to fail.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Rationally, ever since the ‘70’s, a lot of people using an SLR with a single kit lens would have been better off with a more compact alternative, so predicting on the basis of reason is tough! I would say that phone-cameras are objectively _better_ for the actual needs and wants of most casual photography, but it took having that camera included in the phone/music player/internet appliance that people were buying anyway for this to be widely realised.

The next level is what ILCs do do better, like zooming and freezing action. There again a more rational choice could be something like a 1” (or bigger) sensor compact where a lower minimum f-stop compared to a slow kit lens can cancel the low light performance difference, and yet in a smaller, lighter unit. Yet entry-level ILC kits continue to sell better than big sensor compacts, AFAIK.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Some good points thrown around, but the fact is that top end smartphones, where all the greatest imaging tech is, cost around 900 to 1,000 Euros where I live (Portugal).

Still a lot cheaper to get a 300 or 400 Euro DSLR kit... and this is what I see. Lisbon is a very popular tourist destination these days, and lots  of tourists walking around carry an entry level DSLR.

Someone mentioned that older phones are cheaper, but those will not have the latest imaging tech. My daughter has an iphone SE, cost still around 300 Euro, same as entry level DSLR...

[Paulo Bizarro]

Well, they won't have to. The iphone 5 is still sold today at a pretty low price and I expect the iPhone 8 to drop in price significantly in September 2018 and then again in September 2019.

By that reasoning, an entry level DSLR will be around 200 Euro complete with kit zoom:)

By that time, Huawai, HTC and Samsung will have released better offerings at a lower price with better cameras because they won't give that segment of the market to 2 years old iPhone 8.

Samsung S9 is around 1,000 Euro; I don't see a future S11 being cheaper...

The right comparison is not between the price of a low end DSLR and that of a smartphone. The right comparison is between the price of a DSLR and the gap btwn a 2 years old iPhone 8 competitor and the cheaper smart phone with a worse camera. Because you have to own a smartphone and it won't be that much more expensive to have one with a very good camera. And that is just the price part of the equation, but they main one is going to be convenience and availability. You have your smartphone with you 100% of the time.

But the cheaper and older smartphone will still cost the same as an entry level DSLR.


The smart phone with a "good camera" ends up being perceived as delivering a better experience than the camera, even though it's image quality may be worse in some cases.

Actually, holding the soap bar thin thing is a sometimes a challenge...

Remember, we are not talking about experts, we are talking about the 90% of the camera owners who take pictures without "being into photography".

For this segment, an entry level cheap DSLR still makes a lot of sense, and that is what I see of lot of young people carrying around.

I would be interested to hear where you got your data on the pro market?

I just gauged from the World Cup and the pros around the pitch. I am sure there are numbers around somewhere. It is hard to see Nikon being the dominant force in the pro market.

Around me I don't know any single Canon shooter left. They all moved to Sony. That is in Japan. I also see more and more black lenses in sports events, it was pretty obvious at Wimbledon recently, I was too focused on the performance of Belgium to look at the world cup.

They certainly still have many pro shooters I guess, but I have never seen any data on this.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BJL]

Some good points thrown around, but the fact is that top end smartphones, where all the greatest imaging tech is, cost around 900 to 1,000 Euros where I live (Portugal).

Still a lot cheaper to get a 300 or 400 Euro DSLR kit...

For most people, the marginal cost of a good phone-camera is only the price difference from the phone they would be buying anyway. And that might already be a fairly expensive big screen model for other purposes like games and watching videos.

But the price ratio phone-DSLR is apparently far higher in Portugal than in the USA—and also the DSLR-phone ratio in tourist photography!

[32BT]

Some good points thrown around, but the fact is that top end smartphones, where all the greatest imaging tech is, cost around 900 to 1,000 Euros where I live (Portugal).

The problem is that 90% of the consumers are not even aware of the actual price because of the purchasing model and barrier to entry. It (very apparently) makes all the difference. It skews more than just marketshare stats: think of all the tech talent wasted on creating mobile apps that are already obsolete at launch or will simply be ignored because even the trees get lost in the forrest. (Mind you: i'm not refering to the underlying technology).

Barrier to entry is just part of the success, but it's probably the relevant part for the discussion. That'not to say that a lot of the entry-level users are indeed also better served with computational imaging and thus by their mobile devices.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

We will be soon looking as strange, walking around with our big white lenses and heavy cameras, as those guys you still see today with huge boom boxes on their shoulders.

[BernardLanguillier]

We will be soon looking as strange, walking around with our big white lenses and heavy cameras...

Maybe a bit less if they have an orange ring at the front... 

Cheers,
Bernard

[David S]

An item to remember is that many of these shooters do not want to spend time processing their shots. So they use a phone to take the shot and post on line almost immediately and directly with no (or very little) bother. This may change over time but I suspect it is more the "Norm" as of now.

Dave S

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

The madness of the Instagram and selfie-era of mass photography - 7,000 cars!

A Canadian farm boasting beautiful sunflowers has reportedly put an end to photo-seeking visitors for the remainder of the season due to a massive crowd over the weekend.

http://www.foxnews.com/travel/2018/08/02/sunflower-farm-closes-after-being-inundated-with-selfie-seekers.html

[NancyP]

"Actually, holding the soap bar thin thing is a sometimes a challenge..."
+10e6     My fingers have featured in some photos.
Phones are good for "record" shots. No question. And a few of the 3rd party apps seem to be handy for shooting RAW and for setting exposure manually, so there is some post-processing head-room.

[BernardLanguillier]

Let’s rediscuss this in 3 years...

I am very confident that the shipment of ILC in numbers will be 2-3 times lower than what it is today and that the winner will be the brand with the best high end offering.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Martin Kristiansen]

Let’s rediscuss this in 3 years...

I am very confident that the shipment of ILC in numbers will be 2-3 times lower than what it is today and that the winner will be the brand with the best high end offering.

Cheers,
Bernard

Of course you think that Bernard. And we also all know you think the winner will be Nikon.  And that’s  great. If I ever have to go into battle I want to be on your side. You define loyal, that’s not a bad thing.

[chez]

Some good points thrown around, but the fact is that top end smartphones, where all the greatest imaging tech is, cost around 900 to 1,000 Euros where I live (Portugal).

Still a lot cheaper to get a 300 or 400 Euro DSLR kit... and this is what I see. Lisbon is a very popular tourist destination these days, and lots  of tourists walking around carry an entry level DSLR.

Someone mentioned that older phones are cheaper, but those will not have the latest imaging tech. My daughter has an iphone SE, cost still around 300 Euro, same as entry level DSLR...

Yes...but it's not strictly the camera that makes the phones interesting to the masses...but the totally integrated system from camera to phone to the net along with tons of apps. Do you really believe the masses will carry a separate camera that does not allow instant posting onto their favourite sites since the vast majority of images make it online.

The ability to snap and post all within the same minute is what makes the cameras within the phones so popular. Add in the quality of the phone images becoming very good, access to a bunch of apps to enhance the image and I really don't see what a dedicated camera provides that phone camera does not.

[BernardLanguillier]

Of course you think that Bernard. And we also all know you think the winner will be Nikon.  And that’s  great. If I ever have to go into battle I want to be on your side. You define loyal, that’s not a bad thing.

If I thought it were to be Nikon I would have written it. Why would the ultimate loyal Nikon fan you see in me not scream his love?

I have no clue who it’s going to be. As of now my bet is in fact more on Sony, but Canon and Nikon both have the technological potential.

But this thread isn’t about a particular brand, it is about the evolution of the market.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

Yes...but it's not strictly the camera that makes the phones interesting to the masses...but the totally integrated system from camera to phone to the net along with tons of apps. Do you really believe the masses will carry a separate camera that does not allow instant posting onto their favourite sites since the vast majority of images make it online.

The ability to snap and post all within the same minute is what makes the cameras within the phones so popular. Add in the quality of the phone images becoming very good, access to a bunch of apps to enhance the image and I really don't see what a dedicated camera provides that phone camera does not.

Exactly!!!

Cheers,
Bernard