Reality?

[Jonathan Cross]

This observation may straddle other topic areas on this site.

We have just come back from a very pleasant week in SW France.  As usual I took my travel kit, a Fuji X-T2 and the 18-55 and 55-200 zooms, but stuck out from the crowd.  I hardly saw anyone with a camera, nearly everyone one was using a phone, or occasionally an iPad.  If I was shown an image it was on a phone.  It was the first time it had really hit me. 

Now we have phones costing almost as much as reasonable camera, it is obvious that the multi use, portability and image sharing features of phones are big selling points.  Has the tipping point been reached or passed?  We who use proper cameras know well the limitations of phone cameras, but with the obvious take-up of phones as imaging devices, how long will manufacturers continue to serve us?  They are not philanthropic and need profit.  If the market continues to decline, how long will it be before new cameras disappear?

Yours gloomily,

Jonathan

[Rob C]

I think it will happen relatively soon, as people just get fed up with the whole idea of photography which, for many, was just a quick way to being the artist they could never be any other way through available media.

There was a sense of rarity value to being a photographer; I doubt it holds that rôle anymore, where everyone is a photographer, either good or bad.

Rob

[Krug]

I thought that I would post (which is fairly rare for me) to agree with you Rob.  Even allowing for the slightly curmudgeonly tone (of which I am myself something of an expert) we photographers have been among our own worst enemies in too often claiming that "Photography is Art".  It is not any more than painting, sculpture or anything else is art. All of those - and other activities - may be art but are not automatically so. A large element of discrimination and expert knowledgable judgement (which even then will often not be sustained in the long term) before there is any realistic basis for such a claim. Photography as art does not require the activities of millions nor does it require, and certainly should not be driven by, ever more pixels or indeed any other technological breakthrough or development.  Whisper it ever so quietly but perhaps a retrenched commercial and technological future might just be good for photography as a genuine art medium.

[bassman51]

Phone cameras have far fewer limitations than the fixed lens 35mm (or other format) cameras of yore.  The latest have 2, 3 or even four lenses and sophisticated software that can create images blended from all of them.  The big problem for us “real” photographers is that their profits go to companies that don’t make “real” cameras.

[Peter McLennan]

There was a sense of rarity value to being a photographer; I doubt it holds that rôle anymore, where everyone is a photographer, either good or bad.
Rob

Agreed.  Everyone's a photographer now.

However, everyone's not a good photographer, they're just a photographer.  We still hold some of the keys to the kingdom, however small it has become.

[Les Sparks]

We just returned from a 2 week visit to several national parks including Crater Lake, Lassen Volcanic National Park, Redwoods National and State Parks, Olympic National Park plus several beautiful spots on the Oregon and Washington Coasts and found many of the people using real cameras. Most of the couples we saw had at least one person with a real (changeable lens) camera. So at least in our sample people still enjoy using something other than a cell phone camera.

I don't think things are really much different now than in the past when film was king. Then many or most people used instamatics and single use disposable  cameras. A few used medium to high quality 35mm cameras or medium formal film. The people using instamatics now use phones and the people who used medium to high quality cameras use medium to high quality digital.

I'm sure that the vast majority enjoy their photos no matter what camera they use.
 
Les   

[Jeremy Roussak]

Phone cameras have far fewer limitations than the fixed lens 35mm (or other format) cameras of yore.  The latest have 2, 3 or even four lenses and sophisticated software that can create images blended from all of them.  The big problem for us “real” photographers is that their profits go to companies that don’t make “real” cameras.

A slight generalisation, I think. I seem to recall that Sony makes phones and, at least arguably, "real" cameras.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

A slight generalisation, I think. I seem to recall that Sony makes phones and, at least arguably, "real" cameras.

Jeremy

The biggest camera I own at present is a Sony, which I much prefer to my iPh*ne. 

[jeremyrh]

A slight generalisation, I think. I seem to recall that Sony makes phones and, at least arguably, "real" cameras.

Jeremy

But only slight:

https://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/sony-mobile-global-business-news/

Smartphones cost Sony $879 million in the last financial year, after the company sold 6.5 million phones globally for a 1% market share.

[Rob C]

The biggest camera I own at present is a Sony, which I much prefer to my iPh*ne.

I don't even stretch to an iPhone - I have an ancient Samsung that was bought because it boastd a 5mp camera. In the event, it serves as a useful way of presenting things I want to buy, such as drillls, handles and the like to shopkeepers when I either don't know the name or model number for them, or forget it.

For pix, as in something I like to make? Never again.

Rob