it seems the second coming ain\'t mirrorless...it\'s the cell phone!
Indeed. And \"back in the day\" there were no doubt more Brownie cameras than TLRs... ;-)
The analogy might hold true if we were comparing, say, point-and-shoots to DSLRs, or even Rebels to 1DXs. Traditionally the casual consumer has gravitated towards the least expensive product that fulfills a capability, with the pricier gear the domain of professionals and enthusiasts...
Perhaps my point wasn\'t clear. The cameras in cell phones, in terms of photographic use, almost always replace the functionality of point and shoot film/digital cameras, and do not replace the kinds of cameras in that list. (And, yes, there are a few people who do \"serious\" photography with cell phones, but that is very much an outlier approach.)
So, cell phones don\'t really challenge \"expensive\" (from the consumer point of view) DSLR and mirrorless cameras and, in fact, the market on which their effect has been most devastating has been the digital point and shoot market. Lots of folks who shot or would have shot those cameras have found the very small, very convenient, and already accessible cell phone cameras to be more appealing than carrying a second device — and the fact that the smart phone camera is also part of a system that allows easy sharing is a plus.
In the \"pricier domain\" I think that the major impact on DSLR sales to enthusiast through \"professional\" photographers is more likely to come from mirrorless cameras.
YMMV.
Dan
I agree with all of that too. I was just basically calling into question the method of using the average daily users on Flickr to postulate on market trends as they pertain to DSLRs. Particularly since it was suggested that Flickr would be skewed towards the types of users you see on Fredmiranda than the \"general marketplace\"...which given the high cell phone usage on Flick, I don\'t think is the case.
Oct 14, 2014 at 05:51 PM
Previous versions of artd's message #12631464 « At Canon, We See Impossible »
