Computational photography can work in the traditional camera makers advantage if they adapt to it. They have more real estate for hardware(CPU), cooling, battery power and storage in a camera body that needs to support lenses made for larger sensors. An overwhelming advantage in IQ and display resolutions are just getting higher as well in the future in addition to becoming cheaper and more efficient. Pictures I took years ago on point & shoot cameras that looked great on displays of the time look horrible on today's high res displays. Current displays pale in comparison to the resolution and dynamic range high cameras are now recording. ILC camera's will likely go back to being lower volume equipment for enthusiasts and professional's however. The camera bubble of the 2000's is over unless you are a smartphone maker!
PicGuy wrote:
Another major problem is the user base for dedicated cameras is dying off fast.
Very very true. I never, EVER see anyone under 35 or so carrying a traditional camera. It's always much older people. They wont be around much longer and sales will take another serious leg lower. Probably that is what Canon is seeing when they state sales are heading for a 50% decline in a couple of years. The implosion of the traditional camera industry is not over yet. Not by a long shot.
Young people are making photos almost exclusively with smart phones. Or drones.
Sy Sez wrote:
Seemingly of more interest to investor's than photographer's.
A sensible buying decision priority should be on the gear that best suits your need's, rather than one that less serve's your need's, simply because a particular company has more sales than another.
You are reading text that isnt there. No one is saying buy gear based on a company's sales. A total straw man argument on your part.
rattymouse wrote:
Very very true. I never, EVER see anyone under 35 or so carrying a traditional camera. It's always much older people. They wont be around much longer and sales will take another serious leg lower. Probably that is what Canon is seeing when they state sales are heading for a 50% decline in a couple of years. The implosion of the traditional camera industry is not over yet. Not by a long shot.
Young people are making photos almost exclusively with smart phones. Or drones.
Another angle of the user base aging is they will be on a fixed income in retirement and many will not have the ability, or desire, to buy new gear.
I never, EVER see anyone under 35 or so carrying a traditional camera. It's always much older people.
You need to get out more and hang with folks who are younger than you! ;-)
There are lots of younger folks using "traditional" cameras. Heck, some of them are using cameras that are more traditional than what I use — both my sons shoot film!
gdanmitchell wrote:
You need to start getting our more. Hanging with folks who are younger than you! ;-)
There are lots of younger folks using "traditional" cameras. Heck, some of them are using cameras that are more traditional than what I use — both my sons shoot film!
Wow. So much brazen ignorance stuffed into so few words. You are truly efficient.
1. I get out just fine, far often than most. None of my last 3 (expanded) passports has lasted more than 3 years before I ran out of pages.
2. I live less than 5 minutes away from one of America's largest and most prestigious universities. I can count on one hand and still have 5 fingers left over how many young kids each week I see carrying traditional cameras. The same goes with their parents. Smart phones everywhere.
3. Film cameras are no longer "traditional". I was speaking only of digital ILC's.
One thing you need to learn, if possible (unlikely) is that just because your experience is different than mine, it does not negate the fact that I am indeed having said experience. Your immense pompousness does not override, in any way, other's experience.
rattymouse wrote:
Very very true. I never, EVER see anyone under 35 or so carrying a traditional camera. It's always much older people. They wont be around much longer and sales will take another serious leg lower. Probably that is what Canon is seeing when they state sales are heading for a 50% decline in a couple of years. The implosion of the traditional camera industry is not over yet. Not by a long shot.
Young people are making photos almost exclusively with smart phones. Or drones.
This is absolute nonsense. You make a grand generalization about how almost exclusively young people use phones instead of cameras. That flys in the face of what many of us see. If course if you’re at a university, you see phones. Try going somewhere where people are tourists and pay attention.
jctriguy wrote:
This is absolute nonsense. You make a grand generalization about how almost exclusively young people use phones instead of cameras. That flys in the face of what many of us see. If course if you’re at a university, you see phones. Try going somewhere where people are tourists and pay attention.
I frequent Washington, DC which is a tourist "Mecca" and of all the people I see walking around the overwhelming majority of those using dedicated cameras are oriental. It is a rare instance where I see an American tourist with a dedicated camera. It is obvious that smartphones have prevented multitudes of people from using dedicated cameras and this is having a big impact on camera sales. It is no coincidence that camera sales are tanking while smartphone camera capability is rapidly improving by leaps and bounds. What age group is the most prolific at using smartphones? It is younger people. It isn't hard to connect the dots to understand what is happening with the dedicated cameras user base.
rattymouse wrote:
Wow. So much brazen ignorance stuffed into so few words. You are truly efficient.
1. I get out just fine, far often than most. None of my last 3 (expanded) passports has lasted more than 3 years before I ran out of pages.
2. I live less than 5 minutes away from one of America's largest and most prestigious universities. I can count on one hand and still have 5 fingers left over how many young kids each week I see carrying traditional cameras. The same goes with their parents. Smart phones everywhere.
3. Film cameras are no longer "traditional". I was speaking only of digital ILC's.
One thing you need to learn, if possible (unlikely) is that just because your experience is different than mine, it does not negate the fact that I am indeed having said experience. Your immense pompousness does not override, in any way, other's experience....Show more →
During decades as a college faculty member, I've spent a bit of time around the folks about whom you speak.
As the only person whose opinion you respect pointed out above, "One thing you need to learn, if possible (unlikely) is that just because your experience is different than mine, it does not negate the fact that I'm indeed having said experience. Your immense pompousness does not override, in any way, other's experience."
I've been covering a multitude of varied events on and off campus and it's a pretty consistent experience. Younger people do not use dedicated cameras. Hell, it's harder and harder to see ANYONE using a dedicated camera. I show up to these events and I'm basically it most of the time.
Granted this is largely isolated to the New England area but I doubt we are outliers in the trend.
I'm sure there are exceptions but in general the trend is not a good one and I don't see any good news ahead for the camera market as the population ages out.
ggreene wrote:
I've been covering a multitude of varied events on and off campus and it's a pretty consistent experience. Younger people do not use dedicated cameras. Hell, it's harder and harder to see ANYONE using a dedicated camera. I show up to these events and I'm basically it most of the time.
Granted this is largely isolated to the New England area but I doubt we are outliers in the trend.
I'm sure there are exceptions but in general the trend is not a good one and I don't see any good news ahead for the camera market as the population ages out. ...Show more →
With a bit of clarification, I agree with you about young people not using "dedicated cameras" much — which I take to mean cameras that are not smart phones.
Most people who used to do that — the vast legions of folks using Instamatics and Polaroids and other cameras to record their day-to-day lives and special occasions — are not using standalone cameras any more. They are using smart phones, for the most part. (Though if you travel, especially internationally, you will see more point-and-shoot standalone cameras than you might expect. I've made a point of paying attention to this in recent years — also to things like the number of ILC cameras, mirrorless/DSLR cameras, etc.)
But "most people," young or old, were never using special cameras like SLRs or the more recent DSLRs and mirrorless cameras. That was a relatively smaller group.
Those of us in photography forget. We think back to high school, college, etc. and it feels like everybody we knew was using an SLR (or TLR, etc.). But maybe that wasn't quite as true as we remember. This morning I was thinking back to my high school photography club. We had a darkroom, cameras we could check out ranging from TLRs to early DSLRs and more... and photography was a big part of our lives — so much so, that it seemed like all of our friends were into it, too.
But when I step back and think about it, there were probably no more than 10 of us in the club, if that. The school had over 1000 students. That's a pretty small percentage...
...yet, at the college where I taught for so many years there was and is a vibrant and growing photography program with hundreds of students taking classes... and using the modern equivalents of the gear I and my photo club friends used back then.
jctriguy wrote:
This is absolute nonsense. You make a grand generalization about how almost exclusively young people use phones instead of cameras. That flys in the face of what many of us see. If course if you’re at a university, you see phones. Try going somewhere where people are tourists and pay attention.
I guess you missed point #1.
I've stood on the Great Wall of China and not seen (hardly) any traditional cameras, only cell phones.
I've stood at the iconic Daibutsu statue in Kamakura Japan and not seen (hardly) any traditional cameras, only cell phones.
I could go on and on and on.
Sure, a few ILC are spotted amongst the teaming millions, but they are now the oddballs and not the norm.
Today I was out in one of the USA's largest art fairs. An event that draws tens of thousands of tourists. I counted 3 ILC amongst the crowd. Three.
I saw on Pentax 67 and a guy carrying a Leica M film camera. That's how oddball ILC cameras are now; almost matched by film cameras.
There's a reason why the CEO of Canon sees a larger 50% drop on ILC coming in the next few years and the above is a big part of it.
ggreene wrote:
I've been covering a multitude of varied events on and off campus and it's a pretty consistent experience. Younger people do not use dedicated cameras. Hell, it's harder and harder to see ANYONE using a dedicated camera. I show up to these events and I'm basically it most of the time.
Granted this is largely isolated to the New England area but I doubt we are outliers in the trend.
I'm sure there are exceptions but in general the trend is not a good one and I don't see any good news ahead for the camera market as the population ages out. ...Show more →
Yes, exactly. Some here ignore the obvious trends but those who are objective, notice it very easily.
New England is in no way an outlier. They are fitting the general trend that is happening world wide. Camera sales are in complete collapse, catastrophically so when you consider world wide population gains. There are more people than ever in the world and very very few of them are interesting in traditional ICL cameras.
ggreene wrote:
I'm sure there are exceptions but in general the trend is not a good one and I don't see any good news ahead for the camera market as the population ages out.
One other occurrence I think is contributing to the decline of the ILC market segment comes from the massive collapse of the lower end and midrange P&S segment. This is where many people got their initial interest in photography and then moved up to more capable ILCs. This was possibly the greatest single feeder system the ICL makers had to grow their user base in the digital era. Now this segment has be all but replaced by smartphones for over half a decade. A fair amount of the current market losses could be a cumulative affect of the disappearance of the low/mid range P&S market segment.
PicGuy wrote:
One other occurrence I think is contributing to the decline of the ILC market segment comes from the massive collapse of the lower end and midrange P&S segment. This is where many people got their initial interest in photography and then moved up to more capable ILCs. This was possibly the greatest single feeder system the ICL makers had to grow their user base in the digital era. Now this segment has be all but replaced by smartphones for over half a decade. A fair amount of the current market losses could be a cumulative affect of the disappearance of the low/mid range P&S market segment....Show more →
Good point. I talk to the younger technicians at the lab where I work and to them, the names of Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, etc have no meaning. They are not exposed to those names and so never get close to entering into the "ecosystem" of ILC cameras. If they have heard of any traditional camera, it's typically Sony. They have brand recognition that stretches the most.
The next leg lower in camera sales is going to happen as the older folks die off. This is quickly becoming a geriatric hobby. As is car collecting. None of the younger folks have any interest in cars. It's amazing how little interest there is there.
rattymouse wrote:
Good point. I talk to the younger technicians at the lab where I work and to them, the names of Canon, Nikon, Fujifilm, etc have no meaning. They are not exposed to those names and so never get close to entering into the "ecosystem" of ILC cameras. If they have heard of any traditional camera, it's typically Sony. They have brand recognition that stretches the most.
This is something that should worry Canon in the long term as they're the most dependent on their brand status to generate sales. In the last few years Sony has been very skilled in getting their name out their on social media where younger people reside. They are more and more seen as the "hot" brand with all the latest tech. For all the vaunted marketing skills you here about Canon their ability to create market buzz is in a tailspin.
ggreene wrote:
This is something that should worry Canon in the long term as they're the most dependent on their brand status to generate sales. In the last few years Sony has been very skilled in getting their name out their on social media where younger people reside. They are more and more seen as the "hot" brand with all the latest tech. For all the vaunted marketing skills you here about Canon their ability to create market buzz is in a tailspin.
Canon, like most traditional camera companies, has move their business away from photographic endeavors. Every year it's less and less revenue for their business. That is the pathway towards the success of their company in the future. Every company has reached that decision. Anyone can see that they are milking their legacy business for what it is worth while preparing for a far different future.
A classic example is Fujifilm. They are a success today for the very reason that they divereged away from their photographic legacy. Their digital cameras have in no way shape or form replaced their film business in terms of revenue and certainly no profit. Not even close. Instead, it is all their non photographic businesses (which there are many), that has replaced their film business.
Then there's Kodak...which tried to stay with photography and went bankrupt.
I've stood on the Great Wall of China and not seen (hardly) any traditional cameras, only cell phones.
I've stood at the iconic Daibutsu statue in Kamakura Japan and not seen (hardly) any traditional cameras, only cell phones.
I could go on and on and on.
Sure, a few ILC are spotted amongst the teaming millions, but they are now the oddballs and not the norm.
Today I was out in one of the USA's largest art fairs. An event that draws tens of thousands of tourists. I counted 3 ILC amongst the crowd. Three.
I saw on Pentax 67 and a guy carrying a Leica M film camera. That's how oddball ILC cameras are now; almost matched by film cameras.
There's a reason why the CEO of Canon sees a larger 50% drop on ILC coming in the next few years and the above is a big part of it.
A few among millions is a complete and utter nonsense. No one is disputing a trend, nice strawman, but saying that you never see young people with cameras is just willfully blind. I guess the people I saw in san fransico were true unicorns. Out of the maybe 6 people taking pics of the Golden Gate Bridge, 3 had ‘real’ cameras and all under 40yrs old...so basically a majority!
Hi. Just a visitor to this board. I shoot Nikon. Same discussions there. Here are my thoughts.
1. The folks who use phones as their best camera are folks who, absent phones with cameras, would use point and shoot cameras.
2. ILCs have always been for pros, enthusiasts, and some folks who were marginally enthusiasts (like gadgets and wanted better photos than a P&S could provide).
3. Phones with cameras do exist, so the group in #1 now use phones almost exclusively.
4. Pros and enthusiasts still use ILC, and some of the marginal enthusiasts use ILCs and some use phones (as they provide a nice image and are still a cool gadget).
5. Since ILCs are now the domain of almost exclusively enthusiasts and pros, prices will go up and so will quality. High end gear with larger margins will be the norm. Low end ILCs and low end lenses will be dropped.
6. High end ILC development is in a strange place right now, second only to the advent of digital. The introduction of mirrorless and software features have caused an uptick in innovation in the market. We are seeing big changes and this drives sales up. At the same time, all of the existing ILCs are really good, so folks are not upgrading as quickly. Right now these two trends are having an offsetting effect. However, going forward, we will likely see a slowing of innovation. This is natural as the new tech becomes mature. This will mean upgrade cycles will become longer because the cost to upgrade will increase (see 5 above) while the marginal benefit of upgrading declines. But, due to higher margins on these products the major camera manufactures will be fine. We may see mergers, but likely not the dropping of well established brands.
7. Nothing above considers what comes after mirrorless and the current wave of software advancements. Some new technology will likely come along that will be disruptive just like digital, and then mirrorless, and those that adapt will do great and those that don’t will become Kodak.
rattymouse wrote:
Very very true. I never, EVER see anyone under 35 or so carrying a traditional camera. It's always much older people. They wont be around much longer and sales will take another serious leg lower. Probably that is what Canon is seeing when they state sales are heading for a 50% decline in a couple of years. The implosion of the traditional camera industry is not over yet. Not by a long shot.
Young people are making photos almost exclusively with smart phones. Or drones.
Maybe in your next of the woods... but I d see young photographers in asia.
I think the more conservative nature of the culture helps this.
The US is on a latest gaget with your phone crazy.
Plus many reality shows do things with there phones.
Drones and video - vbloging.... I see that happening. just not on scale like a phone.
granted i am not say tons of young shooters. but i do see them.
