carstenw wrote:
That is only one factor. The main one is that people don't carry cameras unless there is a special occasion, but they do carry phones. Game over cameras.
justruss wrote:
As an aside: If an analogy was a perfect model of the thing it was representing-- it wouldn't be an analogy so much as the thing itself.
The point was about artistic merit, and not technological differences; the entire point was that I think the photographic-public (us, on this site) have somehow confused technical quality for something else. We think we're producing Picassos when we're just a bunch of folks with good paints making Kinkades.... and we're telling a bunch of other folks making Kinkades with slightly less high-quality paints that they are Philistines. Get it?
I don't want to belabor this, because I do agree with some of what you're saying but: I'm pretty sure the first person to introduce artistic merit into this thread was you. Up till then, the comments were simply that smartphones have reduced the public's appreciation for the technical quality of images. We're folks making Kinkades, who are trying to convince other folks that painting is still worth doing, even if it's more difficult than just buying a printed poster at IKEA, and even if the end results don't have artistic merit.
As an aside, if an analogy was a perfect model of the thing it was representing,- it would still just be a perfect model of the thing its representing. But it's funny that you bring that up, since it ties back into this whole question of art/mechanical reproduction, etc.
'...and some would even go so far as to say that the "photographic-public" have even confused/ replaced the actual experience with the photograph'
This is entirely understandable. Photography uniquely enables us to 'stop the world', to stop the unceasing and inexplicable flow of the mystery of time as it rushes ever onwards, fading fast from memory.
Anything in the madness of modern life that encourages later reflection, even it is not great 'art' is fine by me. Where people go wrong is they don't think it through before the moment is upon them, nor do they care about quality. That is why there will always be a need for photographers as a separate group, people who see more and see more deeply. This market will shrink - fine. It will still be there.
Mirrorless simply needs to convince this smaller group of committed people it is a better mousetrap than the DSLRs.
carstenw wrote:
I am primarily worried about continued support for what I already own. If everything keeps working, I would be happy, but if something dies, can't be repaired and can't be replaced, that would be bad. A7, I am looking at you.
Repair? By the time your a7 dies they will be $500 used ones everywhere, get a couple of spares.
philip_pj wrote:
'...and some would even go so far as to say that the "photographic-public" have even confused/ replaced the actual experience with the photograph'
This is entirely understandable. Photography uniquely enables us to 'stop the world', to stop the unceasing and inexplicable flow of the mystery of time as it rushes ever onwards, fading fast from memory.
Anything in the madness of modern life that encourages later reflection, even it is not great 'art' is fine by me. Where people go wrong is they don't think it through before the moment is upon them, nor do they care about quality. That is why there will always be a need for photographers as a separate group, people who see more and see more deeply. This market will shrink - fine. It will still be there.
Mirrorless simply needs to convince this smaller group of committed people it is a better mousetrap than the DSLRs. ...Show more →
Philip, that was sort of a tongue-and-cheek, oblique reference to Susan Sontag. For some reason, it felt right in this thread given some of the commentary. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Photography
The growth in the camera market at the introduction of the digital age was unprecedented. The growth rate and even the volume should not have been expected to continue. It sparked an interest in photography because it made it easier to take and share photographs. Everyone with a computer and DSLR was the next great working pro. As a result many companies jumped in chasing the profits, creating all sorts of crazy contraptions as well as me too products. As is often the case the market is correcting itself and consolidating post boom.
The digital sensor did not create additional photographic talent, or increase peoples desire to hang images on their walls, it simply made it easier to do so. Likewise Smartphones will not eliminate enthusiasts interest in the pursuit of image quality or pleasure they derive from capturing what they believe to be art. The market for high end cameras will not evaporate, there will always be enthusiasts and pros who require the highest image quality. I have to believe that there are more of us now than there were 10-15 years ago. So the market will likely contract and stabilize somewhere between pre-digital and 2010 levels.
As an enthusiast we will likely have to pay higher prices and be restricted to fewer choices, but we will remain. Manufacturers are bound to consolidate and will have to turn a profit at lower volumes... something Leica is already accustomed to. On the positive side there will likely be a surplus of very good used glass in the future.
rattymouse wrote:
I will become a believer in the longevity of mirrorless when at least ONE maker can post profits from selling such cameras.
The entire market is at a crossroads. The DSLR makers may still be managing to hold onto profits, but the future of those profits is also questionable. Fuji et al are grasping at mirrorless because otherwise they'd basically be out of the camera business by now I think there is a bit of a battle of attrition going on now, and the likeliest companies to survive are those who can afford to subsidize their camera business longer than the other guys.
Tariq Gibran wrote:
...and some would even go so far as to say that the "photographic-public" have even confused/ replaced the actual experience with the photograph, as if the best moments are those fully lived and not photographed...the sacrilege!
That's entirely true. Stepping back from staring into the philosophic abyss on photography to a real world experience: Christmas Eve here in Germany, at the gf's house with her family and a friend. Her friend starts recording video in very dark light of a few people singing using her smartphone. Then she tries to get us to turn on the lights (which someone had turned down on purpose for mood), then she tries to get us to react to the singing using hand motions (as if directing us)-- doing this incessantly. It was frustrating/annoying. In my mind she was ruining the moment, and taking it three steps beyond choreographing an otherwise spontaneous moment of a family goofily singing together (not altogether well, but that's kinda the point)-- watching the whole thing, panning back and forth, through her phone. In that moment... the moment didn't exist. Only the recording did. Reality was the thing captured on the screen; the actual signing, and family being together, was like an uncollapsed wave equation that needed a measurement to reify it.
Spyro P. wrote:
Repair? By the time your a7 dies they will be $500 used ones everywhere, get a couple of spares.
I hope that you are right, but if these cameras do not sell like hotcakes, the used ones might get snapped up. Anyway, my actual outlook for the future is more positive than most around here, I think that high-end photography will stay around, as will any of the manufacturers smart enough to scale back their business to what it was in the late film days. People don't buy as often any longer, you can't base a business on a 2-3 year replacement cycle any more.
carstenw wrote:
I am primarily worried about continued support for what I already own. If everything keeps working, I would be happy, but if something dies, can't be repaired and can't be replaced, that would be bad. A7, I am looking at you.
Somebody seems to fail to remember that the mirrorless players are the ones that missed the start on the transition from SLR to DSLR. This is the advantage that CaNikon still have, and the others had to catch up. Now, the DSLR had given people something they were thinking they need, and a false monetary advantage. You would only have to invest once and then shoot the whole life for free. This was attractive for the ones that cared abut it, so in about five years most got to the digital age. After that things slowed down, even more so because the benefits of the newer cameras are not justifyable to "normal" people, i.e. not the ones that always require "high end" stuff. Now, low end DSLR are starting at 300 EUR for a 1100D plus kit lens, and it looks like a camera and for everybody it feels like a camera, if that is what you are looking for, and it has the Canon name to it. It will take pictures for sure. Now, the NEX3 is about the same, actually a little less at a big electronics reseller here in Germany and you can et the E-PL3 with kit lens for 250. So no price advantage, not really a weight advantage since the 1100D is not really heavy, so no need for going mirrorless. And while we ae discussing small cameras and pocketable cameras, the world out there has them already : the cell phone.
Now, I am also optimistic about the future for people like us, because I think there will always a market for good cameras, but what happened to the film makers might also happen, maybe to a smaller degree to the camera makers : their product might become obsolete for a lot of people.
Folks, we're seeing a repeat of the cycle that's happened several times before. It happened in the late 70's/early 80's when the original AE SLR boom bottomed out once P&S's got halfway decent, and in the mid-90's when the AF SLR boom petered out and AF P&S's and 1-hour labs got halfway decent. It probably happened a couple times before those as well.
There's always a boom-bust cycle in the photography market. Something new & noteworthy shows up in the serious amateur space (AE, AF, Digital), there's a major boom. The public jumps in because it suddenly makes serious cameras better for them than the compact toys they normally buy, then the change makes its way down enough that the compacts get good enough and the public abandons the higher end of the market in droves for crappy compacts yet again. The only difference this time is that the new 'good enough' compacts are actually smartphones with actual advantages over DSLR's for the sort of social photography the public overwhelmingly prefers (and yes, the public has always been about social photography. Social Networking websites just make things easier than flipping through 200 lousy 4x6's in person).
This will no doubt happen again in a few years when the camera makers come up with something that drives an actual upgrade boom (which is almost always the precursor to a general boom). It'll probably be mirrorless in some form, but who knows for sure.
Please post some BIF/sports samples, Adam. 