Thom Hogan on declining camera sales

[Hans Kruse]

Wireless will never be as fast as wired given the same level of technology.  There is just way too much overhead in wireless.  I much prefer downloading the cards. Compare the fastest real world attainable wireless technology with USB3 speeds.

It's not a question about speed. My comment was about elegance and convenience in implementation. Like e.g. being able to download and install a firmware update via WiFi directly into the camera. Shouldn't be that difficult, should it? regarding downloading it is fine for me to put an SD card into my MacBook, but for others I think a lot could be learned from smartphones in terms of convenience and smartness, simply.

[BernardLanguillier]

It's one thing for someone to go out and try to duplicate a photo they have seen.  And for a professional that is earning money from that image, especially a unique take on a well shot subject or a totally new subject,  I can understand the consternation if it is another professional trying to take his sales.

But...If you allow 10 people to place their tripods in a particular set of 'holes', you are going to get 10 pretty different images.  That is only 1 decision among dozens that are going to impact the results.  Things like elevation of the camera, pitch, tilt, yaw, focal length (field of view), sensor size, filtration, shutter speed, ISO, aperture, lighting, etc.

As an amateur, I like other people shooting in the same location, especially if I get to see the results and compare them to my own.  Figure, I might actually learn something or have my own choices affirmed.

The key problem is that many people don't seem to realize that photography is at the core a terribly lonely occupation.

Social sharing is about creating the impression for oneself of belonging, it is about killing loneliness.

Sharing is a mean to an end that, in this case, is probably at the very opposite of the essence of photography.

So the gap may be with the misunderstanding that people buying cameras have come to terms with the intrinsic loneliness they are committing to? Would camera manufacturers somehow have a hard time accepting the fact that they need to design cameras for people who don't like a key component of photography?

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

If we look at cameras as picture taking devices they have in general long been good enough. OK sometimes we want/need more. Me, for instance I have been buying Sony SLRs for live view capacity. Would the Sony Alpha 900 have live view when it arrived, I would not buy three cameras.

There may be a feature/function/capability that we want/need. But, other than that cameras are pretty much good enough. So the traditional market is near saturation. Now, most people, that is potential customers, are actually not living in the west or in third worlds countries. More like in China and India. So I guess that part of the world will play a greater role, as those markets probably have less saturation.

I would guess that systematic improvements will still sell cameras but the replacement cycle is getting longer.

Best regards
Erik

[dwswager]

I would guess that systematic improvements will still sell cameras but the replacement cycle is getting longer.

Best regards
Erik

I concur.  That is why from a manufacturers standpoint, functionality increases make sense.  At a base level, will I take a 'better' photo in the technical sense with a new camera as compared to the D810 I have now?  Probably not.  So to get me to upgrade you have to make the new camera do something more.  The hard part is figuring out what that more is and is your base willing to pay for it, or can I attract new buys to my product with it?

[Hans Kruse]

I concur.  That is why from a manufacturers standpoint, functionality increases make sense.  At a base level, will I take a 'better' photo in the technical sense with a new camera as compared to the D810 I have now?  Probably not.  So to get me to upgrade you have to make the new camera do something more.  The hard part is figuring out what that more is and is your base willing to pay for it, or can I attract new buys to my product with it?

That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.

There are many photographers that believe they will take better pictures with a new camera. Mostly that is not the case. The money is much better spent on books, workshops, travel etc. to improve the skills and eye for photography in my opinion.

[BJL]

It is still not clear to me that the decline in ILC sales is anything more than maturing of the market, with the boom from ILC using photographers converting from film to digital mostly past, and digital ILCs with imaging [EDIT: typo!] performance good enough now that there is less reason than before to upgrade until the camera breaks.  The "nova" scenario probably applies only to pocketable fixed lens digital cameras, and those are probably doomed no matter what the camera makers do: reducing their inconvenience compared to phones is irrelevant so long as the camera in a phone (or the one in the desktop, laptop or tablet) is good enough at effectively zero net size, weight, and cost.  So to compete with phone-cameras, adding these convenience features would at best reduce "friction" with potential customers who have already been attracted by actual advantages, like more (optical) zoom or better handling of fast action + low light (sports, children).

Also, most of the features that Thom H. talks off might best be supported by the camera working wirelessly with a phone or tablet that can offer an existing cellular data connection, a powerful processor, and a far bigger and better touch screen than fits the ergonomics of a "stand-alone" camera. What ILC at any price offers a preview/review screen matching that of the latest iPhone or Samsung Galaxy S models?

As to ILC's; I agree with several above that for overall sales (not affected greatly by the profitable but far smaller high end sector) improving convenience will win many more sales than incremental improvements in IQ.  I expect that the biggest change with interchangeable lens cameras and their lenses will be offering an overall reduction in the size and weight need to meet the user's goals for IQ -- for example, by making EVF-based systems good enough to displace the optical viewfinder for an increasing number of potential ILC buyers.

[BJL]

That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.

Yep, and what did Apple do about it? Effectively, it has rolled the iPad functionality into a so-called "phone", the iPhone 6S! (As Samsung had already done.)

[Hans Kruse]

Yep, and what did Apple do about it? Effectively, it has rolled the iPad functionality into a so-called "phone", the iPhone 6S! (As Samsung had already done.)

The 6+ which I have does not replace an iPad IMHO. The point made is that if the product is very good as the iPad is then the existing users of the product do not upgrade very often. The sales is then for new customers. The iPad's are not out of favor in my opinion, it is just already so soon after the launch a mature product. Probably it is also hurt by the cheaper products that compete now. Just like the iPad the higher end cameras that do not compete with camera phones will stabilize and likely at a lower volume than today.

[dwswager]

That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.

It called becoming a commodity.  Not quite there with DSLRs, but we are getting close.  It's why a few months ago I suggest we were going to plateau. Comuters, operating systems, cell phones, etc 

[jjj]

"What has to happen is simple, and I’ve been saying it for seven years now: the camera needs to be reinvented."

The camera has been reinvented, as he says a few paragraphs earlier -- It’s that smartphones are fast, fun, and convenient for dealing with images. Plus the image quality is “good enough.”

Exactly.

The other thing that does not get mentioned is that digital got people who thought £80-90 for a camera was pricey to happily pay several hundred pound for a digital P+S and also convinced many to get a DSLR who would not have bought an SLR. Until phones took that entire market away that is.
It would be interesting to see how the last decade's enthusiast/pro camera sales compare to pre-digital. Much higher I think and such cameras will probably go back to that way of spending after the boom where people upgraded their cameras every couple of years for better quality. Now even the lowliest camera can produce amazing pics, so maybe people will go back to using a camera until it wears out rather than upgrading ASAP.
It's exactly like the software market. I predicted a move away from the annual upgrade cycle 7-8 years back as it became obvious that software had become good enough for most people with most software maturing rather than dramatically innovating. Which made subscription or a much reduced income the obvious end point for software companies.

It is still not clear to me that the decline in ILC sales is anything more than maturing of the market, with the boom from ILC using photographers converting from film to digital mostly past, and digital ILCs with imagine performance good enough now that there is less reason than before to upgrade until the camera breaks.

  Indeed..

[jjj]

That's right and not only a problem for camera manufacturers. Apple has the same problem with the iPad even though it's only slightly less than 5 years since it was launched. There is no compelling reason to upgrade or at least not enough.

But the new one is 0.5mm thinner and 2 grams lighter. It must be better!

Apple's obsession with marginal shrinking of gear particularly gets in the way of functionality with computers. Having extra clutter after connecting more external hard drives, DVDs and other bits that used to be inside a single elegant device is not progress in my view. But hey it is very slightly thinner and impossible to upgrade, so it again must be better.   

[dwswager]

Obviously, the 2 things that make cameras in cell phones viable is 1) Convenience...People tend to have the with them most of the time and they are relatively easy to carry and 2) Connectivity...You can share them on screen or post and email them immediately.  One other thing that also plays is the processing capability built into the phone to in some way manipulate the image.

There are segments of the market that would benefit from connectivity...consumer DSLRs and photo-journalists, for example.

My thing is more on the processing side.  I use my phone with outboard photo related apps like Sun Surveyor and DOF and ND calculators.  I also tether my phone to my camera to control my camera for focus stacking, long exposure and other reasons.  If I could remove the cell phone from the process and do these things on camera, especially if the camera could automatically use the data/results.  For example, lets say the camera had the ability to calculate ND exposure time factors.  I set the camera to shutter speed X and tell it I'm adding 10 stops of ND, does it automatically calculate and set the new shutter speed?

The question for manufacturers is can they do this and will users pay for it?

[BJL]

The 6+ which I have does not replace an iPad IMHO.

Not for your purposes, and not for all iPad users (which is why Apple still sells millions of iPads every month), but these big phones do meet the needs of a large number of former iPad and Android tablet buyers ... in the same way that phones now meet the need of many (not all!) former compact digital camera buyers, and even of a good number of snap-shooters who enthusiastically bought a DSLR with a single slow kit zoom lens, and now find themselves mostly leaving the camera at home and using the phone instead.

[dwswager]

Not for your purposes, and not for all iPad users (which is why Apple still sells millions of iPads every month), but these big phones do meet the needs of a large number of former iPad and Android tablet buyers ... nn the same way that phones now meet the need of many (not all!) former compact digital camera buyers, and even of a good number of snap-shooters who enthusiastically bought a DSLR with a single slow kit zoom lens, and now find themselves mostly leaving the camera at home and using the phone instead.

I have used a 5.5" Samsung Galaxy Note II for the last 2 years and resisted buying a tablet.   My next phone most likely will be Note 4 and I still probably won't buy a tablet, especially something as limited as an iPad. My phone does about 90% what a tablet can do.  The only downside is the smallish screen.

[dwswager]

This is one part of the equation to make the next generation cameras more functional:

A Battery for Electronics That Lasts Twice as Long

[sniper]

I always wondered why a camera needs a GPS? In case you get lost?

We are never lost.... just geographically dislocated 

[SZRitter]

And that is exactly my point. Geotagging should be prohibited by law. Find your own damn spot, don't search for AA's tripod holes (or anyone else's, for that matter).

Umm... for me it is more so I can build a map of where shots were taken, and be able to easily revisit a location if needed/desired. That said, few of mine are geo-tagged (seriously, Olympus needs to add it to their cameras...). You can always stirp the exif data before posting online if you want, but you can't magically create it if you never had it.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Doesn't having GPS on drain the battery faster?

[SZRitter]

Doesn't having GPS on drain the battery faster?

Probably. But I almost never run through a single battery on my E-M5, let alone the two spare batteries I have with me. If you have a habit of running through batteries, then yes, it could be an issue.

[BJL]

Doesn't having GPS on drain the battery faster?

So long as you can turn GPS off if/when you do not need it, why are you bothered by the fact that sone other people like a convenient record of where they took a photo?

I do not understand the habit of some people to argue against a popular feature simply because they personally do not want or need it, but can easily ignore with no harm.  Especially when adding such a feature (like video in a CMOS camera) has a favorable ratio of popular appeal to cost, so that its presence is likely to move the camera to a higher volume, lower margin, lower price point, benefiting even those who do not use the feature.

(But a camera making use of the GPS in my phone via WiFi or Bluetooth would also be fine with me!)


P. S. As an old-timer used to changing film every 24 to 36 exposures, the possible need to swap in a spare battery once a day is very, very low on my list of worries when choosing a camera.