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.
Really, the only thing my SLR does better than my phone is Optics, which makes distance & low-light photos possible. Taking a snap of what you had for lunch? My phone does that just as well as the SLR.
"There are people who do not love their fellow human being, and I _hate_ people like that!" - Tom Lehrer
Get me an affordable light field imaging camera and I might spend as much as I did on my phone. Otherwise, it's still just pictures and I dont see the point in carrying another device which doesn't offer significant advantages to what my phone provides.
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?
I just dropped off a couple of rolls of 120 at the lab.
Have gnu, will travel.
Is the one you have with you at the time you need to take a picture.
Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
Since I am keen and current collector and analogue photographer, I could see similar thing happening, that is happening to vinyl records. There is surprisingly lot of buzz going on. Now most of action, however, shifted towards places like Flickr and eBay: good lenses are on sale for big money, good analogue cameras of the past do interest collectors in large numbers, and in all their variety, toy camera movement is noticeable and many outstanding plastic cameras are made again either with improvements or with more playful rebranding.
Thus, it shifted slightly, it may moved away from where traditional photo industry was, it may be unnoticed by everybody with a phone as camera in place of cameras for the masses, but it is thriving. Actually some analogue film manufacturing facilities are about to be restored (www.filmferrania.it). Everything became so much more accessible, and this fuels interests in photography, with a lot of pleasure along. Digital did not kill the film, I could only recommend anybody to rediscover joy of film shooting. Of course, for some digital may be covering their needs - here again stuff like lenses and such is still applicable too.
Servant of karma
Yes, the optics are better on DSLR, and there are more bells and whistles, but...
Here are just a few features that can be done quickly and with relative ease on a phone, and are a lot more hassle on a DSLR.
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
"The iPhone camera quality already surpasses many lower end dedicated cameras, and is so convenient it surpasses many mid range cameras too."
Care to share your iPhone photos with us?
"a smartphone is also an infinite number of possible cameras in terms of interface, with connectivity literally no camera made yet can match " :)
Because that's what matters the most!
Somehow I doubt you will share any photos
The megapixel count has already been irrelevant for 5 years or more, even on actual digital CAMERAS! Any astute consumer will note that the higher-end cameras by each manufacturer have FEWER megapixels than the entry level models in the series. For the entry-level, megapixel count is a dick-measuring contest to attract naive and ignorant shoppers.
I HATEHATEHATE them. They don't do what I want, impose their own priorities, and make it impossible for me to tell them (quickly, or at all) what *I* want to do. When I hit the shutter button, that's not a suggestion; I want the shutter to trip at that exact moment, not dick around trying to focus on what it thinks I want. I know what I want; I often shoot in "M" mode on DSLRs, and I can judge exposure by the "sunny 16" rule -- if it's sunny, the exposure is f 16 at 1/ISO speed.
If they had a camera phone which let me set ISO, f stop and shutter speed easily, and allowed for easy manual focus and *instant* shutter release, I might feel differently.
This page accidentally left blank
Because the photography market is strong as ever from my viewpoint, both for professional photographers that don't feel the need to upgrade kit that's good enough to do what they're doing and the same for hobbyists. It's those pesky home users that just want to feel like they're saving memories by snapping with their cell phones you're not going to entice to buy a separate camera. It's just one more thing left in the closet after you get sick of lugging it around.
As a person who just got back from an awesome overseas trip, I took about 1900 photos on my Nikon. I took 200 on my smartphone.
I'm certainly far more proud of the ones coming from my Nikon, but there is an important catch. I had to wait until I was home to really dive into them and put them on the net.
For the life of my, I can't understand why Canon, Nikon and others are not fully embracing this connected world. All $500+ cameras should come with Bluetooth/Direct Wifi and GPS built in. All photos should be geotagged, in a timely manner, and be able to be linked through an open API to a smartphone app that transfers the original RAW files into a JPEG and uploaded instantly to social media.
Smartphones will not be competing with sensor size or quality anytime soon, but they sure make sharing photos a lot easier. That is what people really care about.
The article intermingles two completely different industries, the production of cameras with photography services. ("...the photography industry for 2014....the real story behind the big fall of the camera industry market in 2013...."). That is, camera makers versus photographers.
There has been a change in the photography industry recently, with new photojournalism graduates unable to earn a living in photography (a NY times profile on this trend was published last year). Established photographers are leaving the field due to loss of revenue. Just sayin', that's the photography industry and this article is about camera manufacturing. Both changes are interesting and significant.
www.cgstock.com
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.
Here you go. Albeit not my pics.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
The DSLR taught me the technical side of photography and how to appreciate it. I'm a fair-to-middling amateur, who bought a Nikon D40 and loved it so much that I taught myself the basics of photography. My D40 allowed me to take some beautifully-staged photos that have won small-time photo contests and generated enough demand that I sold some prints. All the manual controls at my fingertips taught me how to stage a photo. That, IMHO, is the power of DSLRs and why they should never go away. There is a great deal of art and beauty in taking the time and effort to put knowledge of photography into effect to capture the beating of a hummingbird's wings, or the exact refraction of light through the dew on a flower. But the work I love the most are my "catch the moment" photos, where the power and beauty come from all the independent factors like outside lighting, people, animals--all the stuff that cannot be controlled for. My iPhone is more than good enough to catch those moments. I have taken photos with my iPhone that, while technically inferior, manage to catch the moment of light and tone and mood and people that I perceived. It is my generation's polaroid, and I enjoy trying to compensate for the technical inferiority by taking compelling photos. It's fun, I fail A LOT which is to be expected, but my few successes are pretty amazing. The market adjustment isn't a bad thing, it is just once again separating those who value technical prowness in staging a good photo, versus those who just want to take a photo.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
I have a Canon PowerShot SX130IS 12.1 megapixel mid-range point & shoot camera (well it was mid range when it came out). Its got a bigger sensor, bigger lens and higher optical zoom level (12x) than any smartphone camera I have ever seen, including the one on my Nokia N900.
For photographing LEGO creations (and getting right in there for close-ups, the macro mode and bigger/better sensor beats any smartphone hands down.
And for photographing when out and about (e.g. buildings, buses, trains, planes etc) where you want to be able to zoom in on things further away the 12x optical zoom easily beats the 0x optical zoom on all the smartphone cameras.
My daughter is presently in India and was in Africa before that. She has been using her iPhone 5s to take pictures and basically it looks like she is just scanning them from NatGeo.(She isn't a natgeo photog) They are completely stunning. She also has a DLSR with her but she hasn't sent any photos because that is a pain. With the iPhone all she has to do is find Wifi and up they go.
The key test here is that she doesn't have a SIM card in that phone. So she is literally using it primarily for its camera and using it in preference to a hard core DLSR that she is very familiar with.
So while I am not a fan of stupid features in a camera(I'm looking at you sepia tone) I think that the critical thing that the camera companies need to do is to make sure that they are focusing on a few key features. One is to make it way way easier to get the pictures off the camera. I don't want this to be a dedicated software thing or some kind of crap where they have an online service where they try to have a value add but something where I can walk into a wifi hotspot and start sending them wherever the hell I want.
The next feature set I want will take advantage of the larger lenses. So night vision from hell. Maybe thermal vision would be cool. Super duper slow mo and I am talking like 200 fps minimum and ideally reaching out to 1000 frames. These are things that a tiny lens camera just can't do.
The last thing to keep in mind is that the number of professionals using almost any given camera is pretty much zero. So have a pro mode that is off by default. I will never set the ISO, I will never pretty much set anything like that. So keep those features hidden. A great example of this stupid catering to professionals with a camera that isn't professional is a Sony Cybershot that I have. It will record mov(or something common) up to around 720 but at 1080 it goes to some stupid DVD ready format. Who the hell uses DVDs? Basically it just means that to use the HD format I then have to upload the videos and convert the mess to mp4 or something from the last decade. What a pain. I would not have purchased the camera had I known that the 1080 format was stupid. On top of that I need to have a charger to charge the battery. No USB plug. It does have some uber-proprietary Sony plug for something. So basically did the Sony designers even know about the Home PC when they made this camera?
Here is a winning feature: The real camera's photographs show up on your phone's built in photo album when it is nearby so that you can then do what you want with them. Not just what the MBAs at the camera company will allow you to do. Everyone has a phone that they know how to use well. So take the awesome pictures on the camera and do the rest with the phone. Probably way better than trying to put android on the camera and just making a crappy android interface. I don't need crappy version of instagram on my camera.
Many posters feel that the technical superiority of their DSLR and the relative technical weakness of smart phone cameras means that smart phone pictures are a lesser entity. True enough if we all shoot subjects that play to the strengths of DSLRs and always have our dedicated camera equipment in hand and ready to go. But in the real world, the truth is that I too often do not have my far superior professional cameras anywhere near me, but I have my cell phone on my person or within 2 feet of me near 24/7/365, and I have got far more really good shots with a smart phone than with all my wonderful and much loved high and medium end cameras and accompanying great lenses combined. All, just because I have it handy all the time and I've figured out what will and won't work on a teeeny little camera. The images won't blow up very far, aren't terribly sharp... you name it, but they are way better than the image I didn't get. And funny thing, all told, my track record is better with the dumb camera in the smart phone than the good cameras. All my photographic training with everything from DSLRs to studio 8x10" view cameras and lighting and some professional work etc, etc, etc, taught me enough to make very good use of a handy little crappy camera. In many ways, I'm a better photographer with a little crappy camera such as I at one time much derided.
Don't step on the baby.
DSLR manufactures could try manufacturing cameras that weren't defective.
Leica had problems with IR filtering.
Canon had problems with light leaks.
Nikon had problems with grease splatters and flares.
Pentax had problems with banding.
BTW, it's time for a common full-frame mount, so lenses could be interchangeable from brand to brand. There is no value added from having custom mounts.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
Once upon a time it was large format or nothing with in the world of print. Then National Geographic shocked the pros by accepting 35mm Kodachrome slides. Gradually the standards slipped and until the interwebz pretty much killed print media since people demanded online content. Then microstock happened and companies realized that they didn't need such high quality images for ads that had the longevity of a fart in a tornado. Cheap rules.
Professional photographers have been fighting this since the first digital and throwaway film cameras came into being. With Facebook et.al. brides no longer cared about wedding albums - they simply post online. Prints and albums were the mainstay of the pros and they have been bombarded with demands from brides for the photos on DVD as cheap as possible. Cameras abound and a lot of amateurs fancy themselves as photographers because they can push the shutter button and then slap it out in Lightroom with some preset edits. Quality has simply vanished in the face of camera ubiquity. I love getting an invite to a wedding - I work as an unpaid photographer and then post the watermarked photos for them to see. I get a lot of orders that way because the quality difference is obvious.