What happened to the photography industry in 2013?

[dreed]

Lensvid Exclusive: What happened to the photography industry in 2013?

"2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in a long long time (maybe even decades)."

[Rob C]

I think that part of it is that most people now have all the cameras stuff they need - saturation point long reached, and I also believe that many take up photography on impulse and rapidly realise that it isn't the magical thing (for them) that they had imagined it might be. It neither drops knickers for those for whom knickers weren't going to drop anyway - at least not the right knickers - nor does it bring money to those who were never going to have it either. For basic photographic fun? You don't need to spend much for that.

In all sincerity, it's a money sink rather than a money maker, and as with yachts, the higher up the scale one goes the deeper that sink becomes, with peripheral requirements for it ever greater, more specialised and more expensive. If it hooks, it's just another addiction. With money tight and its use more focussed on essentials, maybe new recruits are harder to seduce for that all-important first shot.

Rob C

[Justinr]

I think that part of it is that most people now have all the cameras stuff they need - saturation point long reached, and I also believe that many take up photography on impulse and rapidly realise that it isn't the magical thing (for them) that they had imagined it might be. It neither drops knickers for those for whom knickers weren't going to drop anyway - at least not the right knickers - nor does it bring money to those who were never going to have it either. For basic photographic fun? You don't need to spend much for that.

In all sincerity, it's a money sink rather than a money maker, and as with yachts, the higher up the scale one goes the deeper that sink becomes, with peripheral requirements for it ever greater, more specialised and more expensive. If it hooks, it's just another addiction. With money tight and its use more focussed on essentials, maybe new recruits are harder to seduce for that all-important first shot.

Rob C

I'd agree Rob, I rather think that the bubble in camera sales has burst but whether this is primarily due to expense or the realisation that you cannot produce the best results by simply buying the dearest camera (although it often helps) is a moot point. I have heard the latter view expressed more frequently of late which is encouraging to those who struggle to turn a penny or two from the trade but disappointing for the manufacturers whose marketing mantra appears not to have the traction amongst consumers it once enjoyed.

[Christoph C. Feldhaim]

Maybe the question should not be
"What happened to the photography industry in 2013?"

but rather
"What happened to my photography in 2013?"

Not meaning to hijack the thread, just taking consequences after reading the linked article ....
And yes - thanks for sharing !

Cheers
~Chris

 

[Justinr]

Maybe the question should not be
"What happened to the photography industry in 2013?"

but rather
"What happened to my photography in 2013?"

Not meaning to hijack the thread, just taking consequences after reading the linked article ....
And yes - thanks for sharing !

Cheers
~Chris

 

Or maybe it should be 'What happened to the Camera Industry between 2003 and 2013?' Rather than a fall from grace perhaps we are simply seeing a return to normality now that the excitement of digital is no longer new.

[WalterEG]

I think that part of it is that most people now have all the cameras stuff they need

In fact, Rob, I'd postulate that people have far too many cameras ..... especially in terms of choice.

Remember the good old bad old days?  You had a choice of a Nikon F or a Nikkormat and a similar equation with Canon and Pentax and Minolta and Olympus and whoever else you care to mention.

With the advent of the digital camera there was an initial race for pixels and a strong attraction due to novelty and desktop processing.

Maybe the camera manufacturers are yet to realise that it is time to return to the old business model to some extent.  How can they justify the plethora of models where two used to do?  The pixel race has been well and truly run for some years now.  Model changes amount to little more in terms of product development to subtle esoteric nuances.  Where is the motivation for acquisition?

I suspect that the big collapse is possibly going to impact on the higher end Canikons.  Why pay the bucks is something cheaper will suffice — especially in the commercial pro market where camera output quality is confined to the final size of the image?  Just how many pixels do you really need to render a clean clear A-5 or smaller image.

In the amateur market, who needs a single function device like a camera when a multi-function device like an iPhone provides not only adequate image quality for the happy snapper, but also adds the bonus of seamless connectivity?

Perhaps there are more people like myself who see no point in being sucked into a false need to upgrade.  For what I do, and what my clients require, my 8 year old Canon still churns out a more than adequate result.

[Justinr]

In fact, Rob, I'd postulate that people have far too many cameras ..... especially in terms of choice.

Remember the good old bad old days?  You had a choice of a Nikon F or a Nikkormat and a similar equation with Canon and Pentax and Minolta and Olympus and whoever else you care to mention.

With the advent of the digital camera there was an initial race for pixels and a strong attraction due to novelty and desktop processing.

Maybe the camera manufacturers are yet to realise that it is time to return to the old business model to some extent.  How can they justify the plethora of models where two used to do?  The pixel race has been well and truly run for some years now.  Model changes amount to little more in terms of product development to subtle esoteric nuances.  Where is the motivation for acquisition?

I suspect that the big collapse is possibly going to impact on the higher end Canikons.  Why pay the bucks is something cheaper will suffice — especially in the commercial pro market where camera output quality is confined to the final size of the image?  Just how many pixels do you really need to render a clean clear A-5 or smaller image.

In the amateur market, who needs a single function device like a camera when a multi-function device like an iPhone provides not only adequate image quality for the happy snapper, but also adds the bonus of seamless connectivity?

Perhaps there are more people like myself who see no point in being sucked into a false need to upgrade.  For what I do, and what my clients require, my 8 year old Canon still churns out a more than adequate result.

Older and less expensive cameras may well be able to produce excellent images but at the higher end of the market I would suggest that the conditions under which such results can be produced are far wider. In fact I blogged about it here -

 http://inkplusimages.com/wp/blog/2014/02/16/full-frame-and-moving-on/

[dreed]

Or maybe it should be 'What happened to the Camera Industry between 2003 and 2013?' Rather than a fall from grace perhaps we are simply seeing a return to normality now that the excitement of digital is no longer new.

Indeed!

Before digital, how often were new cameras released and how often did you buy (or need to buy) a new one?

[dreed]

...
Remember the good old bad old days?  You had a choice of a Nikon F or a Nikkormat and a similar equation with Canon and Pentax and Minolta and Olympus and whoever else you care to mention.
...
Maybe the camera manufacturers are yet to realise that it is time to return to the old business model to some extent.  How can they justify the plethora of models where two used to do?  The pixel race has been well and truly run for some years now.  Model changes amount to little more in terms of product development to subtle esoteric nuances.  Where is the motivation for acquisition?
...

I think you're forgetting just how many models Canon did have...

EOS 5000, 500, 50 (&50E), 5, 1

Along side the "1" series, they almost always had an "x000", "x00", "x0" and "x".

However, I think they only went through two iterations of that naming scheme as the "5s" were followed by "3s" and I don't recall any other numbers.

[RSL]

Remember the good old bad old days?  You had a choice of a Nikon F or a Nikkormat and a similar equation with Canon and Pentax and Minolta and Olympus and whoever else you care to mention.

But in the Leica line you had your choice of an M3, M2, M4, etc.

Maybe the camera manufacturers are yet to realise that it is time to return to the old business model to some extent.  How can they justify the plethora of models where two used to do?  The pixel race has been well and truly run for some years now.  Model changes amount to little more in terms of product development to subtle esoteric nuances.  Where is the motivation for acquisition?

I suspect that the big collapse is possibly going to impact on the higher end Canikons.  Why pay the bucks is something cheaper will suffice — especially in the commercial pro market where camera output quality is confined to the final size of the image?  Just how many pixels do you really need to render a clean clear A-5 or smaller image.

In the amateur market, who needs a single function device like a camera when a multi-function device like an iPhone provides not only adequate image quality for the happy snapper, but also adds the bonus of seamless connectivity?

Perhaps there are more people like myself who see no point in being sucked into a false need to upgrade.  For what I do, and what my clients require, my 8 year old Canon still churns out a more than adequate result.

Walter, take a look at Nikon's pro lineup. Nowadays there's the D800, which for most can take the place of medium-format, and the D4, which with its incredible top usable ISO is the sports-shooter's dream. Everything else is described either by that wretched term "prosumer," or by the term point-and-shoot.

Point and shoot is dead. People obviously agree with you that nobody needs a point-and-shoot when they have 8 or 9 megapixel cameras in their cell phones. I suspect the "prosumer" stuff is going to continue for a while. It appeals to people who want a camera they can brag about and once in a while bring out for a picture of the cat.

I think you're right that the pro lineups are going to have to stabilize. Pros know what they need to do the kind of work they do, and they know that a cell phone won't do the work. On the other hand, they know they don't need a D4s when their seven-year-old D3 will still get the job done. Nikon's going to have to learn to deal with that reality. I think Canon, with it's many irons in other fires, can adjust without too much pain. Nikon's a different story. I hope the adjustment doesn't kill them.

[Rob C]

What a dull world it would be if we only bought what we needed.

Celebrate choice.

But the two are not mutually exclusive, Keith. Choice was ever there, but at the top of that choice there was also a standard which needed no 'improvement' as such: you could buy your Nikon F, F2, F3 etc. or Canon's F1 and also your 500C, C/M or whatever or, should you prefer, either an RB or an RZ. I see no pix produced today that look any better than anything those cameras - in the hands of good photographers - were producing. The retouching today looks worse, but that's about it.

Of course, that's from a professional usage point of view; if you are simply into collection, then there's far more to collect today and in that case, good luck. In fact, one could take a leaf from Billy Eggleston's paperback and collect a box of old Leicas if one wanted; I believe that in Japan they buy newest iterations and don't even open the box! Now, were Nikon able to develop a similar aura around its old cameras...!

Rob C

[RSL]

But the two are not mutually exclusive, Keith. Choice was ever there, but at the top of that choice there was also a standard which needed no 'improvement' as such: you could buy your Nikon F, F2, F3 etc. or Canon's F1 and also your 500C, C/M or whatever or, should you prefer, either an RB or an RZ.

Right, Rob, and there also was a time when you could buy a Ford of any color as long as it was black.

I see no pix produced today that look any better than anything those cameras - in the hands of good photographers - were producing.

But I think you and I agree that that's always been the case. It's always going to be the case. Digital makes it less labor-intensive, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy behind the camera is what makes good pictures.

[Justinr]

But in the Leica line you had your choice of an M3, M2, M4, etc.

Walter, take a look at Nikon's pro lineup. Nowadays there's the D800, which for most can take the place of medium-format, and the D4, which with its incredible top usable ISO is the sports-shooter's dream. Everything else is described either by that wretched term "prosumer," or by the term point-and-shoot.

Point and shoot is dead. People obviously agree with you that nobody needs a point-and-shoot when they have 8 or 9 megapixel cameras in their cell phones. I suspect the "prosumer" stuff is going to continue for a while. It appeals to people who want a camera they can brag about and once in a while bring out for a picture of the cat.

I think you're right that the pro lineups are going to have to stabilize. Pros know what they need to do the kind of work they do, and they know that a cell phone won't do the work. On the other hand, they know they don't need a D4s when their seven-year-old D3 will still get the job done. Nikon's going to have to learn to deal with that reality. I think Canon, with it's many irons in other fires, can adjust without too much pain. Nikon's a different story. I hope the adjustment doesn't kill them.

I get the feeling that the pro end is stabilizing, haven't we heard murmurings of late that  Canon are not really doing anything new or exciting at the moment and the recent activity in the Nikon stable is more a catch up exercise? Where do either go from here?

[Rob C]

But in the Leica line you had your choice of an M3, M2, M4, etc.

That's true, but not all at the same time.

Anyway, apart from a very tiny and narrow band of professional users, the majority of pros after the mid-50s was into TLR and, increasingly, 135 and 120 format slr camera systems, and that's the key: systems. And don't forget that prior to the Nikon F the Exakta Varex was considered one of the world's most useful cameras. I had two, a Varex lla and then a Varex llb before I bought the Nikon F.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob, I'm not at all sure why you would think that was my point.

Well, I can't really understand what else you meant. We always had choice, and buying what we don't need seems a strange way to behave at the best of times, in photography or anything else. The only person for whom I see it making sense has to be a collector.

Rob C

[RSL]

That's true, but not all at the same time.

Well, they didn't come out together, though the M3 and M2 were only three years apart, but at the end of the sixties I was shooting an occasional wedding, a weekly ballet class, and various other events, such as the debutant's coming-out ball that convinced me I didn't want to keep doing that kind of thing, with an M2 and an M4. The old M2 would do the same things the M4 would do.

[Rob C]

Indeed!

Before digital, how often were new cameras released and how often did you buy (or need to buy) a new one?

I always worked with two bodies in each of my two systems, 135 and 120. As the older 135 one wore out I'd replace it with whatever new one from Nikon was around, still leaving me with two working top-of-the-line cameras. And cameras that travel do get murdered by sea and mildew, silica gel notwithstanding.

In 120 it was a different equation: I moved from Rollei and Mamaiya TLRs to Hassy, and that 120 format, in all honesty, pretty much always meant indoor camera for me, and just never found itself physically abused or worn out.

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob, I need a watch to keep track of time. I don't need a Rolex, a simple, inexpensive watch is all I want. But I'm happy the choice exists.

You see how things have improved: now you don't even need a watch or camera - your cellphone does it all. Unless you swim or sail, but then there's probably a waterproofing app you can find on the Internet!

Just been interrupted by the doorbell: the community's administrator has just been, along with the community president and a plumber, to inform me that the main water supply to the four buildings has sprung a leak somewhere, that it's lost underground, can't be found and we need a new set of pipes to be laid to each building. We face a € 2000 water bill for mainly lost water. Factor in the cost for the new plumbing on top, and I'll need to find a job to pay for my part of all of this shit! Never mind new cameras or watches.

;-(

Rob C

[Manoli]

You see how things have improved: now you don't even need a watch or camera - your cellphone does it all. Unless you swim or sail, but then there's probably a waterproofing app you can find on the Internet!

Rob,

Get with the program - there's a WATERPROOF CASE that let's you use your iPhone underwater .. I can't believe you didn't know THAT !  Speaking and telling the time have never been so easy, or has it ?

M

[Justinr]

I always worked with two bodies in each of my two systems, 135 and 120. As the older 135 one wore out I'd replace it with whatever new one from Nikon was around, still leaving me with two working top-of-the-line cameras. And cameras that travel do get murdered by sea and mildew, silica gel notwithstanding.

In 120 it was a different equation: I moved from Rollei and Mamaiya TLRs to Hassy, and that 120 format, in all honesty, pretty much always meant indoor camera for me, and just never found itself physically abused or worn out.

Rob C

Genuine question Rob. Over your career how many different cameras did you actually own? What I'm trying to get at here is what was the average life of a film camera body and how does that compare with what we are seeing presently in the digital world? I have a feeling that now  digital is here and established the rapid pace of equipment replacement is slowing, the difference between the two may not be as great as is generally thought and is set to narrow further.