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.

13 of 422 comments (clear)

  1. What happened? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:What happened? by grumpy_old_grandpa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Monitors did get a lot better, and with higher resolution, though. With 4k (3840 x 2160 or 4096 x 2160), or even 8k (7680×4320) you don't have to zoom out to a fraction of the original size any more. In fact, with your S3 of some 6 MP, you can see the picture in 100%. It means details like noise, camera shake will be more apparent.

    2. Re:What happened? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      We shot a lot of slides when I was a kid. When I first saw kodachrome it blew my mind. I wish there was anything today that could compare. I have a 4k monitor and view 10MP pictures on it but its not even close. I guess i'll have to wait for the 8k projectors.

      Watch this and be blown away:
      www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRzXgSMbBu0

    3. Re:What happened? by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Color gamut, contrast and gamma are better on a calibrated CRT then on a calibrated LCD.

      Amen.

      When you calibrate a CRT, you shift an analog envelope, and every color between the color points you adjust shift smoothly.

      When you calibrate an LCD, you shift a digital value to one that already existed, and lose a boatload of the digital color nuances between the color points, making many of them the same color.
      ANY calibration of an LCD means decreasing the number of colors. The "xxx% NTSC/AdobeRGB" gamut value becomes false the moment you adjust it, dropping through the floor.

      Plus, there are colors that an LCD still cannot display at all, like warm yellow. You would need a negative blue value to approximate them given the temperatures of R, G and B in LCD displays.
      Don't believe me? Take a paper McDonalds potato chip container. Try to match the red and yellow on it on an LCD display, comparing it to the physical colors.
      Even on the best LCDs, that won't work. The best you can do is a perceptual approximation, using brain trickery by shifting other colors so the brain compensates by thinking there is more warm red than there actually is. But that only works as long as you only look at the screen. Hold up something that really is that color, and it won't match at all. Or do a printout, and the result will be truly wrong, and that's not the printer's fault.

      CRTs are also limited, but not nearly as badly as LCDs.

    4. Re:What happened? by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current crop of phone cameras are certainly still inferior to dedicated cameras, but they're good enough for most people most of the time and thats what matters.
      Most people won't carry a camera with them at all times, but they do carry a phone and its good enough for occasional shots. A lot of those images are going to end up posted online at significantly lower resolution than even a phone camera can manage anyway, and they will be viewed on tiny screens.
      Aside from the convenience of being always in your pocket, phones have the added convenience of connectivity so you can upload your pictures immediately.

      Proper cameras will always be a niche for those who enjoy photography or do it for a living, but for the vast majority of people a phone camera is all they will ever need.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  2. Different market segments by davidwr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  3. Idiots... by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  4. Diminishing Returns by darkain · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Diminishing Returns by BlackPignouf · · Score: 4, Funny

      +1 Insightful
      -1 Choose Canon

  5. MP = BS by monkeyzoo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:MP = BS by monkeyzoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      No, it's because less megapixels allows more light to reach each pixel on the sensor. Megapixels does not equal quality.
      And to be clear, I was speaking of new models released within months of each other across price points. Do a research of the last 12 months of cameras from Canon or Panasonic on a photography review site and you will see through The Matrix that is mass consumer marketing.

  6. Re:Optics! by geekd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  7. As someone who has both a DSLR and an iPhone 6 by Xaedalus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.