Slashdot Mirror
What Happened To the Photography Industry In 2014?
Iddo Genuth writes 2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in decades — but what happened in 2014 and will the upcoming blitz of cameras (including the super resolution Canon 5D S with 50MP sensor to be announced tomorrow) change everything in 2015? The official numbers published by CIPA (the Camera & Imaging Products Association) are out and they tell a story of a struggling photography industry trying to stay afloat in a sea of smartphones. Will it survive? This is the big question all of the photography manufacturers are facing over the past two years, and eventually what does it all mean for us as consumers? One thing that tiny phones lack, no matter their megapixel count, is the space for heavy glass or large sensors, which seems to leave a lot of room in the market even for small(ish) but dedicated cameras.
Eyes didn't get better. I still use my crappy Canon S3, terrible low-light performance and crappy image stabilization and all.
Mostly random stuff.
I expect that the camera-equipped smartphone is decimating the market for cameras that can only do what smartphone cameras can already do.
I also expect that it is decimating the market for that slightly-better cameras that people would have bought if it wasn't included "free" in the phone they already own.
I would be surprised if it is putting a big dent the $700+ market. Heck, with everyone carrying a camera around, there are probably some people who find they enjoy photography and want to upgrade to a DSLR that otherwise would not have.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Camera size has always been a big factor in photography. Smartphone cameras have that locked down solid. There's simply no competition to always having a decent small camera in your pocket all the time. The camera market has reverted back to only being for true hobbyists that want something better than what their phone gives them.
Most people don't understand photography. The amount of people who know what F numbers, exposure time, and ISO mean are insufficient to support a camera market. Most people just want to mash a button and get a picture. Phones give them that. They aren't going to make prints, they aren't going to adjust color and contrast after the fact. They'll probably just slap a filter on it and tweet it. You ever been to the zoo or an aquarium? How many people turn off the flash when taking a picture of something through glass? Not many...
Meanwhile people who fancy themselves photographers buy the most expensive DSLR they can with the biggest lens and push people aside to get their prize photos, which they get with the automatic shooting mode... The demand for professional photos is dropping. Quantity is making quality less important. If you have 100 people with iPhones that can take print quality pictures at your wedding, out of the thousands of pictures that will be taken some are bound to be great. Sure a wedding photographer will get better ones, higher quality ones, closer ones. But is it worth the expense? First you have to pay the photographer, then you have to pay for the rights to the photo (assuming you can even obtain copyright ownership), then you probably have to pay for prints. When all most people will do is save it on their computer for posterity and post a bunch of pics on Facebook.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Those of us interested in DSLR cameras are at the point of diminishing returns. I didn't buy a new DSLR or any new glass in 2014, and hardly got anything new in 2013. Why? Because the longevity of the equipment keeps increasing. I'm currently shooting with a 5D Mark II, and all but the most absolute extreme conditions does this camera perform nearly perfectly. The same goes for the lens collection in my bag, they cover more than 99% of the conditions that I'm shooting it. It is very rare where I'm feeling like the equipment is the limiting factor to the point where I want to invest the money to replace it.
These are tools. They don't follow the same mindset as other consumer electronics that work on annual cycles. When was the last time you thought about replacing your hammer because there is a newer model built with a slightly different design? That's exactly how many of us feel in the photography world right now.
For everyday use, cell phones have gutted the compact camera market. Not much more to say. That leaves the mid to high end market of amateur photographers looking at DSLR's and such. Even that market has a few hurdles, though. First, photography is the kind of hobby that sounds really interesting and great but has not only a high learning curve but also requires a ton of dedication, which leads to a high burnout rate among amateurs. Second, and more importantly, GoPro type recorders are way more interesting and easier to use for most people looking to get into a visual hobby. They can mount one on whatever they have (bike, helmet, drone, car, whatever) and immediately start sharing fun and interesting stuff to their circle of friends.
There will always be a market for professionals and prosumers, but the problem is that their products are generally priced high enough that they form a barrier to entry for more casual users. Casual users are generally happy with their smartphone cameras, and they're not going to make the jump to a dedicated camera unless they can get something that is a significant improvement at a reasonable price. DSLRs are generally still $400ish, and mirrorless are typically even more than that. That's just not enough to convert people with a casual interest. If they sold something like the Rebel SL1/EOS 100D for $200, they might get people who are curious, but they're not.
What's the cost to make one of these things really like? Because it would seem that advancements in manufacturing technology should have driven the cost down dramatically over time, and it doesn't seem like that's happened. Are the camera manufacturers just unwilling to undercut themselves, to accept lower margins? The problem is that the effective cost of a smartphone camera is $0 for most people, and that's definitely undercutting standalone cameras...
People discovered that paying thousands to have a photographer take pics of your wedding (or event), then finding out that you'll need to pay him extra for every single print of a picture from his reel is actually a huge scam. Photographers gave themselves a terrible name as scam artists doing this and as such once cameras for the rest of us sucked less we took our own pictures.
Digital photography just made the scam obvious when you took your own wedding photos to Walmart and they told you they couldn't print them unless the (long out of business) photographer sold you the rights.
This also applies to family photos at your local department store (years ago, I know) and so on.
Yes, photographers can take a better picture than me. They can also scam me. I paid for your time, why don't I own the product you made while you were working on my dime?
The one HUGE advantage your iPhone has is that it is with you, in your pocket. You can't take a picture with a camera you didn't bring with you.
I think what's happened is that general consume expectations have changed. Consumers have been trained to want snaps and short videos of what's happening in the moment, and cell phones fill that need admirably. They're not high quality -- the lenses on most phones are atrocious, and it really is not all about the pixel count [1], but it's the camera that you always have on you, and you can share in seconds, so it's no surprise at all that it's filled a need that, really, hardly existed before. I get paid to take pictures with professional gear, yet I still take snaps with my camera phone. I understand that the two platforms fill different needs.
Is conventional photography dead? Hardly. There are things you can do with more conventional camera/lens/lighting combinations that phones and tablets just can't match. I think what we're seeing is a shift where people previously fumbling with cameras found their needs met with their phone camera, and the pros continue to use pro equipment.
Of course, pro equipment is changing too. 4/3, video in-camera, (with external modules to capture pcm stereo sound and sync it with the video), VR in-camera (Sony Alpha) or in-lens (Canon and Nikon), and a host of new post-processing capabilities, are changing the face of photography. But there will always be things high end equipment can do that can only be done by high end equipment, and there will always be a market for that somewhere.
During these shifts, I'd expect perfectly capable products to be left by the wayside. I would expect pocket cameras to have a hard time of it, as there is a lot of overlap with what current cell cameras can do. But wait a few years, and people may realize that shooting with a fixed plastic lens and zooming in software doesn't give good enough results, and midrange dedicated cameras may make a comeback. But they'll probably have some type of sharing built in. (We're already seeing dedicated cameras with wifi dongles, and more lately, wifi built in.)
[1] Pixel count is the MIPS of this century. Past a certain point, (which in my opinion has already passed in consumer gear) most users will not notice. Just as most generic consumer PCs have more CPU than most consumers need, most modern camera sensors have way more pixels than most consumers will ever notice. Also like MIPS, there isn't a 1:1 correspondence between pixel count and performance. Things like color depth, color pallet, different types of distortion, moire, in-camera post processing, and several other factors have as much or more to do with how well the photo turns out than mere resolution. And the hard fact is, the more pixels you have, the longer it takes to write to storage (other things being equal), the more space it takes up, and the longer it takes to load into and export out of editors. As a pro, I saw a moderate but constantly irritating slowdown in my workflow just going from a 12 Mpixel camera to a 24 Mpixel camera. (Nikon pro bodies.) Every operation that involved reading or writing a file was taking noticeably longer. Bigger isn't necessarily better. There has to be a *reason* to go to higher resolution, else you're probably fooling yourself.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Personally I think the next big thing in photography will be digital 4x5 medium-format cameras for the 'serious amateurs'. It's already taking hold with the high-end pros, but current tech for a digital MF system is $50,000+ (Phase One / Mamiya, Hasselblad - especially the 'full' 4x5 sensors) - well beyond what any sane 99%er would pay for a 'hobby'. It looks like some low-end digital backs have already dropped to the $15k range (Pentax, low-end Hasselblad?, older, refurbed Phase One gear) - within a few years (I'm hoping anyway) they'll be into the $6k-$8k range to match higher end current DSLR cameras, but with even better low-light sensitivity, dynamic range and color gamut. Until then it'll take a LOT to get me to spend real money to upgrade my Nikon D800e - I'm just not a good enough photographer to need a better camera (yet).
Until they figure out how to make the entire screen on an iPhone Plus act as an image sensor I don't see cell phones competing in that market.
I don't have time to read it thoroughly and so far I'm not sure what to make of it. Can it be a joke? What he wrote - like "the skill of a photographer matters more than the equipment" and ""Amateurs worry about gear; professionals worry about money; masters worry about light." - is certainly correct if lacking depth, but his photos are simply horrible. I do better with a cheaper camera, and I'm a mediocre photographer. The first one, at the very beginning was ok, but the rest... Just wow.
It is indeed possible to take good pictures with a cellphone, as long as the goal is simple and the conditions are right; and it is easier to make bad pictures with a pro camera if one doesn't know what they are doing. But comparing an iPhone to a 5D is ridiculous. It's like saying that a Camry is almost the same as a Shelby Mustang GT500.