# Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet



## distant.star (Feb 25, 2015)

.
"This is bold prediction, but it’s clear to me that over the next several years, the standalone still camera will disappear from the hands of everyone – with the exception of a few high end professionals."

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2015/02/24/prediction-the-age-of-the-standalone-still-camera-is-coming-to-and-end-for-all-but-pros/


----------



## mackguyver (Feb 25, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> "This is bold prediction, but it’s clear to me that over the next several years, the standalone still camera will disappear from the hands of everyone – with the exception of a few high end professionals."
> 
> http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2015/02/24/prediction-the-age-of-the-standalone-still-camera-is-coming-to-and-end-for-all-but-pros/


I agree with him in some ways, but the story about the Leica and Sony becoming stands for the phones is kind of funny. It just reinforces, to me, that the smartphone has definitely killed the general purpose/street photography camera. It makes you wonder if mirrorless (as it exists today as m4/3) will ultimately fail due to phones. Canon's play to retain and expand the higher end market makes a lot of sense in this context.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2015)

I'll agree with his premise

"The key is that the software on those smartphones, and the social media platforms and instant connection to the web – ARE BETTER and cannot be overcome by camera companies that fail to integrate software within their camera bodies going forward."

The vast majority of camera users are using social web sites for their photos, and a phone which uses the vast wireless networks in place around the world has a huge advantage.

Cameras that use Wi-Fi are clunky, and can only connect with a lot of effort when and where a appropriate Wi-Fi is located. The near field connectivity that allows you to slowly transfer images to your smart phone is not a solution. I don't know if there is a solution that will save the camera from obsolescence. Having a phone connection in a camera might help, but sending data over wireless is expensive, so you will have to pay for a additional device on your phone bill as well as $200 or more for the electronics. The price then becomes a factor.

Professional users could absorb the cost, so its something that needs to be offered now on high end cameras. I expect Samsung to be the one to do this.


----------



## NWPhil (Feb 25, 2015)

it's a bit like the idea of having the smartphone GPS app replacing a true GPS for hiking (yes, paper maps still better, but not the point here)
the phone works well in some situations and actually if you have net connection, can do better.

I think the compact camera it's tosted, unless it'a specialzed type and even those....
the mirrorless will remain a good option because all the cheaper legacy glass available and portability
the phone will take(already took and kwill keep on taking) away a lot of P&S users, but will bring a few into a a more advanced and rich featured cameras, as users get frustrated with it's(phone) limitations and/or want to explore further their creativity and photo-taking control.
Actually these days, having a dslr and a smart phone it's a good combo as the phone can work as an extended tool


----------



## mkabi (Feb 25, 2015)

I too will agree with most of what Laforet said.

At the same time, as important as many people feel about social media and connectivity right now. I don't think its as important for professionals, for a number of reasons. 
Reasons like:
-IQ (e.g. you can't make an album/magazine with cellphone pictures, you can't make a billboard and/or large print with cellphone pictures).
-Sustainability (again, you can't make an album with cellphone pictures, so if you are taking pictures to put on facebook, it will last about a week, before its pushed down with pictures of your honeymoon, birthdays, etc.).

BUT, this may change with advances of technology, for example bigger sensors in phones (which is already happening), interchangeable lenses on phones (somewhat happening but with little success).

Cell phones are winning. Let me correct that... smart phones are winning. Because, no matter what... you want to carry around a phone for emergency purposes (at the very least). Whether it be a P&S, Mirrorless or DSLR... no matter the weight of it, its just extra baggage. And, most people want to live in the moment... not carry around a clunky camera that they need to adjust every time they need to take a picture.


----------



## mrzero (Feb 25, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> "This is bold prediction, but it’s clear to me that over the next several years, the standalone still camera will disappear from the hands of everyone – with the exception of a few high end professionals."



I disagree. Cameras (still and video) have always been sought out by hobbyists, and they always will be. Look at the impossible project, reviving interest in relatively low-quality instant film cameras. And the number of people hauling DSLRs to their kids' events. There will always be people who want to step away from the "entry-level," whether it is a smartphone camera or a point-n-shoot film/digital. Smart cameramakers will simply step-up their integration with smartphones. A digital camera is just a computer attached to a lens. I think that enough people are yelling about the demise of the camera and the rise of the smartphone that Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Fuji are going to be willing to listen and consider how to do that. It just won't happen as quickly or efficiently as we'd like. The end result will be smarter cameras, and, hopefully, better lenses (since a cameraphone can't compete on optics).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 25, 2015)

mrzero said:


> distant.star said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



There are still people who buy tube type Audio equipment and reel to reel records as well as vinyl disk players. I have a whole room full of them. 

However, the number of buyers is so small that's its not a mass production business, and its expensive. These are simple devices that almost anyone can manufacture, Cameras are not, so those wanting them will have a limited selection of high end cameras, or will be buying on the used market.

Capabilities and innovation in the phone market is going to bring a lot of improvements. That's where the money is, and that's where R&D dollars will be going.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 25, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> "This is bold prediction, but it’s clear to me that over the next several years, the standalone still camera will disappear from the hands of everyone – with the exception of a few high end professionals."



Could happen. 

But if it does its also because CANIKON have no clue about customer oriented interconnectivity. Having worked with bleeding edge IT companies in Japan, I'm not surprised. They have all the tech - simply amazing tech - and little clue how to turn it into workable products for people to buy. There's really a lack of understanding how to build a people centric systems. 

Now, Canon recently acknowledged having failed the market in several ways (no high megapix camera, lack of interconnectivity etc.). So they understand the problem. However, when they go on to quote their stand-alone photo-card tv-viewer as a solution you just know they are not on the right track. And - oh where is that Canon Photo Web site they announced with big fanfare last year? (Yeah, I also forgot. Its called Canon Image Gateway and its difficult even to google it unless you know the name. The Danish version has several spelling mistakes on the first page...).

Maybe the best hope for CANIKON - and where the smartphone analogy fails - is that they probably can survive as profitable by selling a mere 12-16 mio. DSLRs per year. So there is only need for so many suckers like you and I to keep the DSLR market alive as it moves towards being high-end body/lens only (SIGMA understood this - and were spot on when they some years ago started developing 1.000$+ lenses instead of their previous 150$ lenses).

"Say no more" :-X


----------



## Crosswind (Feb 25, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> (since a cameraphone can't compete on optics).



This alone is the reason why smartphones will never reach the quality of a DSLR.

When talking about small compact cameras, there isn't much quality difference anyway.

If someone doesn't want to carry around a DSLR because it's too "bulky" - well... that's da trade y'have to deal with. I actually enjoy having a DSLR with me everytime I go outta ma house cause it's a very different feeling. I enjoy the world tru my camera lens. It's my passion. Photography is my life.

It's because I am happier with a DSLR out there than with a smartphone or compact camera, no matter the size or weight... even tou I prefer lightweight fix focals and smaller bodys.

Of course I always have my smartphone (moto g2) with me too, but it's not something I'd use for photos or even snapshots (toh it features a pretty good cam for a smartphone).

Btw. I wish that someday a camera like the EOS 100D will also feature a fullframe sensor instead of APSC


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 25, 2015)

For the masses he is correct, for serious hobby photographers or pros he is completely wrong and the article fails in a number of ways. 
Part of the "hobby" is the kit itself I doubt hobby photographers drual over smartphone camera specs. Then there is the lens limitations, exposure limitations and depth of field limitations not even forgetting the sensor limitations. 

Predictions like these have been made before and they went like so. Radio will kill newspapers, cinema will kill radio, TV will kill cinema and the internet will kill TV BUT in every instance including tablets of stone the use has got up not down. Im not saying smartphones have not detroyed the point & shoot market they have, but whilst DSLR sales have come off their 2009 / 2010 peak they are still well above the historical average and lens sales are definately up. Yes I think some of the companies will fail likely Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung etc. in th longer term but then again there is only a handfull of smartphone makers as well and there sales far exceed cameras who would have though we would see the demise of Nokia for instance. I actually hate the limitations of smartphones. 

For the duration of my lifetime Im sure DSLRs will be around after all you can still buy film albeit niche and B&W film has actually made a small comeback.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 25, 2015)

Just published!


----------



## danski0224 (Feb 25, 2015)

My phone can act as a Wi Fi hotspot. It is part of my plan.

I don't see an issue with connecting a camera to it, as I have paired several devices to the phone via Wi Fi and Bluetooth.

I don't have a Wi Fi camera to try it. 

There are limits with Android. One item I have has to go through an established Wi Fi network because it can't talk to the phone directly. Apple does not have this limitation. Maybe later versions of Android can address that.


----------



## dolina (Feb 25, 2015)

Here are some numbers to mull on

Production, Shipment of Digital Still Cameras in 2014

42.8 million

Production, Shipment of Interchangeable Lenses in 2014

22.3 million

Looks to me that the "Smartphones Already Won" will come to fruition before 2020.

How to tackle the collapsing camera market

http://youtu.be/bfCJDIf-NeA


----------



## untenchicken (Feb 26, 2015)

Yesterday, okay, I admit that I WAS rather DRUNK, I tried to call my wife with my eos m for half an hour before realising that it wasn't a phone


----------



## dolina (Feb 26, 2015)

untenchicken said:


> Yesterday, okay, I admit that I WAS rather DRUNK, I tried to call my wife with my eos m for half an hour before realising that it wasn't a phone


That's why the M2 and M3 arent sold in N. America.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 26, 2015)

dolina said:


> Here are some numbers to mull on
> 
> Production, Shipment of Digital Still Cameras in 2014
> 42.8 million



YUP. Its an astounding drop to 1/3 of previous total digital camera sales - albeit with pocket camera's taking the largest hit - but 2014 was also a nightmare for Canon and Nikon DSLR sales.


----------



## dolina (Feb 26, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> YUP. Its an astounding drop to 1/3 of previous total digital camera sales - albeit with pocket camera's taking the largest hit - but 2014 was also a nightmare for Canon and Nikon DSLR sales.


Per CIPA figures for 2014 of the 42.8 million still cameras produced only 10.32 million were DSLRs.

This contrasts to 2013 figures of 61 million still cameras produced only 13.64 million were DSLRs.

DSLRs are the domain dominated by Canon/Nikon.

I think in 2015 sales for still cameras will drop below 30 million and sales for lenses will drop below 16 million while smartphones will hold steady at around 1.3 billion give or take 0.1 billion units.

Current owners shouldnt worry. Our cameras will work perfectly fine until it breaks down or get stolen just like our PCs that has kept flat growth for the past few years.

Either still camera brands merge/bought out, turn into yet another Android smartphone brand, explore more lucrative markets (ie Cinema EOS) or go higher end (ie point & shoots with larger image sensors or Pentax going full frame/medium format).

Another way to look at the figures is that unless you are a a trend setter/early adopter your average consumer is lengthening the duration of their upgrade cycles as new product segments are created to take their money.

Like say the personal computer, it appears people are going beyond the 3 year upgrade cycle and those buying are first time owners. Those who already have a personal computer are buying a tablet/smartphone instead.

Those people who traditionally bought a point and shoot are now probably happier with a smartphone.

Some stats on smartphone users in 2014 from Samsung.

How smartphones are used

92% use it to take photos
80% use it to send photos

Criteria for buying a smartphone

36% image quality of the camera


----------



## dak723 (Feb 26, 2015)

Yes, smartphones are taking over photography. That's already happening and is no surprise to anyone. For the average person just taking photos for social purposes, the phone will always win, regardless of whether cameras become more web friendly. For most people, if they already have their phones with them, they won't also carry a camera. But as long as folks need zoom lenses there will be a need and a market for interchangeable lens cameras - and not just for pros - but hobbyists as well.


----------



## docsmith (Feb 26, 2015)

....meh.....

Different markets....A person satisfied with a smart phone as a camera was not likely to ever buy a DSLR. But the "majority" of people out there were never likely to buy a SLR/DSLR. I see smart phones killing the P&S market, but the issue to me for DSLRs isn't smartphones, but the fact that the migration from film to digital is mostly complete. Anyone that wanted a DSLR likely now has one or can now purchase a used one for a very nice price. 

So, we've now reached the point where "new" DSLR sales are going to be for those upgrading to a new model or people buying their first DSLR. But the rush of people dumping their SLR for a DSLR is mostly over.

I am sure DSLR sales will decline and Laforet will conclude he was right. But a decline is DSLR sales is nothing more than predicting the obvious. It is only following the trend followed by the introduction of every paradigm shifting (digital DSLRs in this case) technology.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 26, 2015)

Here is the CIPA forecast for 2015 along with the history going back several years. Taking several decades of film camera users and converting them to digital resulted in the huge bubble in the 2010-2013 timeframe. Likewise, there is a similar bubble in lens shipments - except it lags by about two years. Some points I see...
1) Market saturation is certainly occurring. The question is how low will it go?
2) The camera industry has seen this kind of downturn before and the big players survived. In fact, they seemed to be able to deal with shipments of 3.5 million as a nominal level (although many would say with minimal R&D at those points).
3) The impact of smart phones is most seen in the P&S arena (full CIPA report is at http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr1000.pdf )
4) I like to think smartphones are great for image capture... perhaps not so good for photography.
5) Anyone who has watched prints coming off a minilab film printer can attest to the fact high image quality is not demanded by the masses. As fast as possible 4x6 prints with most of the faces recognizable is what is desired and "good enough" for many people. Today's expectation is instant sharing of blurry image captures.
6) The smartphone is also the photo album - it's almost 4x6 inch print sized and holds thousands of images. It's easy to pass around and share. DSLR's not so much!

The question is can pros and serious enthusiasts provide sufficient market for the level of development we have come to expect? It used to be the pro bodies were updated on a ten year cycle and lenses even longer. We are likely headed in that direction again.


----------



## ritholtz (Feb 26, 2015)

danski0224 said:


> My phone can act as a Wi Fi hotspot. It is part of my plan.
> 
> I don't see an issue with connecting a camera to it, as I have paired several devices to the phone via Wi Fi and Bluetooth.
> 
> ...


I don't think so it is integration issue with net. It just happens to be one of perks of using phone for taking pictures. Camera manufacturers can easily close this integration gap in cameras. 70D some what already does it in the sense all the pictures inside camera are available to phone interface in real time. 

But it still doesn't address convenience issue where phone is going to stay with users all the time. Dedicated camera is a extra luggage to lugging around for simple users. Lot of these users are never interested in taking pictures if it is not for convenience of phone. 

Alternative is making cameras more portable and implement smart phone functionality (calls and internet) as well. If I can use my camera to make calls and connect to internet, I can just leave my phone at home.


----------



## tntwit (Feb 26, 2015)

Well, we might as well throw out all the DSLR cameras anyways. According to Phonearena, the Samsung Note 4 takes better pictures than a Canon DSLR. It's a big article on the website and a lot of people seem to be buying into it.

Of course, the Canon has a 3rd party lens, none of the shots involve dynamic subjects, they shot the Canon on full Auto but then used the RAW images and "minimally processed" them and then compared them to fully automatic, fully processed cell phone images. They also don't make it really clear where they were in the images that they were zooming in on, and gloss over the fact that DSLR have a narrow depth of field (depending on settings and typically considered an advantage)compared to a cell phone, making certain parts of the image appear soft.

These articles frustrate me because they consistently focus on the type of pictures where cell phones can compete, and ignore the types they cannot, like anything that moves in anything but bright sun light.


----------



## dolina (Feb 26, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> The question is can pros and serious enthusiasts provide sufficient market for the level of development we have come to expect? It used to be the pro bodies were updated on a ten year cycle and lenses even longer. We are likely headed in that direction again.


I guess that explains why the 7D Mark II took 5 years before it got updated. Most folks thought it'll follow a 3 year cycle.


----------



## Sunnystate (Feb 26, 2015)

Unfortunately Canon as the market leader is to be blamed partially for the state of the affairs. They were on the right track with the classic 5D and than something unthinkable happened! They went the opposite way of the logic, basically catalyzing demise of DSLR for enthusiasts, amateurs and even in some cases prosumers. In the age of hard reality of surviving in the incredible hard competition from EASY and wonderful not to mention cheap technology, Canon started to cater only to low level professionals like small event photographers (wedding) or extremely high end and exclusive video market, this is laughable business move. They speed up the the process and give the momentum to the alternative technology. I know, I am here forever, reading those silly post, those strange people encouraging Canon to price them self out of the market and demanding futures that nobody really needs instead what everybody is looking for, statements like: just give me 12 fps and high ISO and I buy two of them, or yeah for that I will pay easy $5000-$6000 dollars LOL!!! It really may be to late to reverse this especially seeing all those new cameras coming full of unwanted gimmicks that failed to prove being desired so many times already, but than again if somebody on the position of a leader with such a leverage is unable to really lead than it deserve to sell security cameras and printers only, well maybe for some the dream will come true, and they will be able to own Canon cameras purely professional like the cinema models now, worth a medium size house and feel like a big shots pros... Unquestionable support for Canon of this forum as fascinating as it is, in the end is nothing more than a house of cards build by many eloquent Canon proponents using many clever tricks also including rather harsh elbowing and humiliation.


----------



## mrzero (Feb 26, 2015)

dolina said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > The question is can pros and serious enthusiasts provide sufficient market for the level of development we have come to expect? It used to be the pro bodies were updated on a ten year cycle and lenses even longer. We are likely headed in that direction again.
> ...



And yet, we get new iPhones every year or so. And, despite the fact that my iphone is now several generations outdated, Apple has continuously updated its operating system to add features that its hardware will support. Perhaps cameramakers will do the same thing. 

In Laforet's article, he talked about using digital cameras as stands to hold up smartphones taking timelapses. Why aren't cameramakers putting something as simple as a software intervalometer into high end digital cameras? Once they realize that they need to start making "smartcameras," there will be a revolution in the digital photography field. I'm not talking about just dropping Android into the firmware. I'm talking about making a serious effort at integrating cameras directly with existing devices, and taking full advantage of firmware and hardware. On a $1,000+ camera, I think such things should be included.

I bought my first smartphone because I wanted to sync it with my laptop. I bought the 6D so I could use the wifi to get pics on my iphone and get them to social media ASAP. When people see me do that, they say, I wish my camera did that. The point-and-shoot I bought my wife has the same capability but she can't figure it out without me. If Canon made that kind of thing easy and quick on a smart camera, I think they'd keep people buying cameras. It may not stop the shrinking market, but it would certainly slow the losses.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 26, 2015)

"The key is that the software on those smartphones, and the social media platforms and instant connection to the web – ARE BETTER and cannot be overcome by camera companies that fail to integrate software within their camera bodies going forward."

What is it about "key" that people can't understand.

Remember this discussion: 



old-pr-pix said:


> This presentation was made at PMA recently by Heino Hilbig of Mayflower Concepts, a management consulting firm.
> http://youtu.be/bfCJDIf-NeA



Here I go again...all major camera manufacturers (Nikon, Sony and Canon) have done a horrendous job incorporating new usability and communication technologies into their higher end cameras. 

The entire world can navigate through their phone menus, focus their pictures, switch settings, etc. etc. with the simple swipe of a finger. Yet, Canon produces only one advanced amateur camera (70D) with a touch screen on it. 

Try communicating with the internet (uploading images to even professional sites like Adobe Cloud) with a DSLR. Good luck. And, don't even get me started on the lack of basic editing software on cameras that are dedicated to photography as compared to multifunction devices like tablets and smart phones.

And, if you don't think those things are needed by professionals, you obviously don't understand the competitive world many professionals live in. 

It's embarrassing that a professional carrying around a $4,000 camera can't scroll through his or her pictures, pick two or three, do some quick edits and upload them for client access on a shared site, when anybody with a smart phone can do it within seconds.

For many professionals, delivering the best looking pictures simply doesn't cut it when the clients have already posted some fuzzy, out-of-focus iPhone shot on their website and Facebook page. Being first does count in business and Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., are failing us miserably in that regard. 

The irony is the technology is neither new nor expensive. It is here, they just refuse to provide it to their customers. Laforet and Mr. Hilbig are correct, and I would add that smartphones have won because camera manufacturers have collectively refused to move into 21st century communications.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 26, 2015)

I concur I use my Canon 6D regularly with my iphone mainly as the remote release but also to upload photos to the cloud I can then do basic edits in Lightroom on my iPad or Macbook Pro. 

Dolina - The averaged SLR sales figures were 8M from when the Canon AE-1 came out with Olympic years always being higher and the year after Olympics lower. Lens sales were weaker than modern numbers. 

If our family is average my wife only takes pictures on her cell phone as does my son, my daughter uses her cell phone but also regularly uses her CSC camera which she has two lenses. I use my cell phone more as a "recording device" and take photographs with my Canons or my Olympus OM-D E-M10 and have multiple lenses for both, I also print up to A3 my family do not. 

Smart phone sales have peaked also as have tablets which actually declined in 2014, GoPro sales are another factor they sold 5.3M cameras in 2013 and a similar number in 2014 but sales are slowing partly through saturation and partially through competition. The high end DSLR market which is a tiny percentage of DSLR sales actually grew in 2014 and is predicted to grow in 2015 its the Rebel end which has declined.


----------



## gsealy (Feb 26, 2015)

I have friends that come to stay with me in Arizona when it gets cold up north. They asked "Why would you spend $3K on a camera when a mobile phone takes pictures just fine?" For them a picture is a picture is a picture and they don't know anything about photography. Nothing. If you mention f stop, noise, and so on, then their eyes gloss over and they walk away. The pictures they take are of dogs, flowers, children, and friends at birthday parties. Most people are right there in that space. Yes, they and anybody else do not need a $3K camera to do that. 

But there always comes a time when people take photographs and then compare their efforts to what a professional or highly skilled amateur can do. There is a difference in what they see. And then they start to ask questions, like why are their photographs so much better? At that point they suddenly become disenchanted with their mobile phone camera. It seems like an inferior machine. The photographs that were once great are now embarrassing. Hello, DSLR.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 26, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> The high end DSLR market which is a tiny percentage of DSLR sales actually grew in 2014 and is predicted to grow in 2015 its the Rebel end which has declined.



Please share from where you have numbers to support this. We are many who a very interested. Thank you.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 26, 2015)

gsealy said:


> I have friends that come to stay with me in Arizona when it gets cold up north. They asked "Why would you spend $3K on a camera when a mobile phone takes pictures just fine?" For them a picture is a picture is a picture and they don't know anything about photography. Nothing. If you mention f stop, noise, and so on, then their eyes gloss over and they walk away. The pictures they take are of dogs, flowers, children, and friends at birthday parties.



Hmmmm. Based on what is posted on photo sites such as CR and dpreview cats and brick walls seem to rank extremely high amongst DSLR shooters...


----------



## Pookie (Feb 26, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> gsealy said:
> 
> 
> > I have friends that come to stay with me in Arizona when it gets cold up north. They asked "Why would you spend $3K on a camera when a mobile phone takes pictures just fine?" For them a picture is a picture is a picture and they don't know anything about photography. Nothing. If you mention f stop, noise, and so on, then their eyes gloss over and they walk away. The pictures they take are of dogs, flowers, children, and friends at birthday parties.
> ...



You actually base high end DSLR users work and equipment based on this forum?!?!?! That explains a lot of the logic and rationalization behind the sales forecasts of DSLR's posted here in this thread. This site is ripe with hobbyist, amateur and newbie views of photography. Based on that criteria an expert here has over 5k post and lists equipment like badges of honor... this qualifies them to give advice on DR, the newest equipment, give dubious advice and speak for the "pro" environment. None of which has any basis in reality.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 26, 2015)

distant.star said:


> .
> "This is bold prediction, but it’s clear to me that over the next several years, the standalone still camera will disappear from the hands of everyone – with the exception of a few high end professionals."
> 
> http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2015/02/24/prediction-the-age-of-the-standalone-still-camera-is-coming-to-and-end-for-all-but-pros/



People who believe that are the same people who believed that Instamatics would kill SLRs back in the day. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.

All cell phones are doing is replacing the Instamatic market, which itself was replaced by point and shoots in the interim.

The problem with stupid people, such as the writer of that blog, is that they only look at what is happening in the last few years and not at the whole history of photography. There have been a great number of "cell phone" type cameras for the masses that have come and gone, but high end cameras are still with us, and they are there because they have performance capabilities that the common cameras of the day do not.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 26, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> For the masses he is correct, for serious hobby photographers or pros he is completely wrong and the article fails in a number of ways.
> Part of the "hobby" is the kit itself I doubt hobby photographers drual over smartphone camera specs. Then there is the lens limitations, exposure limitations and depth of field limitations not even forgetting the sensor limitations.
> 
> Predictions like these have been made before and they went like so. Radio will kill newspapers, cinema will kill radio, TV will kill cinema and the internet will kill TV BUT in every instance including tablets of stone the use has got up not down. Im not saying smartphones have not detroyed the point & shoot market they have, but whilst DSLR sales have come off their 2009 / 2010 peak they are still well above the historical average and lens sales are definately up. Yes I think some of the companies will fail likely Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung etc. in th longer term but then again there is only a handfull of smartphone makers as well and there sales far exceed cameras who would have though we would see the demise of Nokia for instance. I actually hate the limitations of smartphones.
> ...



I think it is more likely that companies such as Canon and Nikon will fade than the others. The advantage that Sony and Samsung have over the others is that they can leverage technology developed for other applications into the market and in a tech arms race will likely win over single focus companies as a result. Nikon in particular will be vulnerable to this. There is no way they can beat either Sony or Samsung in a tech arms race.

Samsung and to a lesser extent Sony will use the high end camera market to test their technological advances with the ultimate goal of having that trickle down to the more lucrative cell phone market. Canon and Nikon cannot do that, they are going to have to make their money up front and not indirectly like the other two, and given enough time they will eventually lose that battle.


----------



## LDS (Feb 26, 2015)

dolina said:


> Like say the personal computer, it appears people are going beyond the 3 year upgrade cycle and those buying are first time owners. Those who already have a personal computer are buying a tablet/smartphone instead.



The tablet market already stalled as people turned towards PCs again (see for example http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/05/global_fondling_on_the_down/). Anyway, expect most of new "tablets" to be much more alike laptops (keyboards, pen input) than the previous generation. 

Smartphones sales are still strong, partly due to bigger screen sizes available (one of the reason of the declining tablet sales), and partly because contracts ensure more upgrades compared to tablets. Also the "status symbol" factor works better with phones than everything else.

It is true upgrade cycles for PCs are now longer, after all right now they are enough powerful for most use for more years than before. But more capable SSDs and 4K+ monitors may have an impact in creating demands for upgrades. Also, as long as some applications kill the 32 bit versions, and Windows 10 becomes available, some older PCs may need to get upgraded.


----------



## SwnSng (Feb 26, 2015)

I don't know. Another way to look at it is...that you now have millions more people interested in taking Photographs. If you compare the people taking photographs 20-30 years ago with everyone doing it now (in any form) I'm sure the number is an order of magnitude greater maybe even 2 orders. 

That means out of this ever growing smart phone instagram population of photographers there are going to be a % of those who want to take it more seriously. How is that a bad thing, sure profits have been down mostly because of the dead point and shoot business that smart phones have cornered but all the major Camera makers need to do now is separate themselves to Phone cameras in quality and you will have an ocean of potential customers in the near future.


----------



## LDS (Feb 26, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I'll agree with his premise
> 
> "The key is that the software on those smartphones, and the social media platforms and instant connection to the web – ARE BETTER and cannot be overcome by camera companies that fail to integrate software within their camera bodies going forward."



First, nobody ever wonder if the "social media platforms" will be still here and so strong, say, ten years from now? Or they will get out of fashion and some new toy will take their place? Nobody worried about how much standalone cameras will be replaced by drone-mounted ones??

Software is better? A dedicated device will always perform better - it will have the proper ergonomics designed for a given task, and its processor will be dedicated to the task, without having to fulfill the needs of other applications running concurrently.

Also, beware of the PR of those said platforms. To stay afloat, they are in a desperate needs that their users products keep on feeding contents to them for free. The day users products get tired of feeding such platforms for free, those platforms have a big problem. Thereby they need to ensure you believe you have to feed such platforms as much as you can, even if you have very little reasons to do so.

Frankly, I feel no need to have a camera connected with such platforms. Just because I need to review my photos on a decent monitor much bigger than 5"-6", properly calibrated, adjust then if needed, and only then publish them. After all my CF cards store much more GB than those allowed monthly by my phone contract.
Also I prefer to save battery charge to use it to actually take photos, instead of wasting it keeping a wifi/mobile connection alive.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 26, 2015)

Tugela said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > For the masses he is correct, for serious hobby photographers or pros he is completely wrong and the article fails in a number of ways.
> ...


You may have a point with Nikon but not Canon, Canon just purchased Axis security camera business for $ 2.5BN, have their printer business, semiconductor lithography, ophthalmic equipment, digital radiography equipment and mixed reality. They are also moving into automotive cmos sensor assemblies. 

Try GfK for insights into the photography market they publish regular reports.


----------



## LDS (Feb 26, 2015)

mrzero said:


> And yet, we get new iPhones every year or so. And, despite the fact that my iphone is now several generations outdated, Apple has continuously updated its operating system to add features that its hardware will support.



Phones employ a generic processor, which makes them easier to reprogram. Often, the software is a generation or two behind the hardware, that's why sometimes some features are added later, when the software catches up.

Cameras use processor(s) designed for image taking, but less flexible. But wow many phones are as fast as a camera in processing images? It's like having a powerful, dedicated GPUs, or not...



mrzero said:


> In Laforet's article, he talked about using digital cameras as stands to hold up smartphones taking timelapses. Why aren't cameramakers putting something as simple as a software intervalometer into high end digital cameras?



Because of the lucrative accessories market  If they can sell you a $10 accessory at $130, they are very happy. Now the new 5Ds have such a software AFAIK (and Magic Lantern as well, AFAIK), after all, cheap Chinese clones are actively killing that market. Same for connectivity, wifi adapters have been available for years, but at crazy prices. Just beware, an always connected camera with a vulnerable OS running on it is at risk too...



mrzero said:


> I'm not talking about just dropping Android into the firmware.



This would be a very silly move. The last thing you want, is a generic OS designed to handle different tasks, and not a "real time" one also (a "real time" OS is one designed to handle time sensitive tasks). It would just take more memory, more CPU, more battery power with littler or no advantages. And the last thing I want, is a camera which could become riddled with malware as well...


----------



## unfocused (Feb 26, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> Here is the CIPA forecast for 2015 along with the history going back several years. Taking several decades of film camera users and converting them to digital resulted in the huge bubble in the 2010-2013 timeframe. Likewise, there is a similar bubble in lens shipments - except it lags by about two years. Some points I see...
> 1) Market saturation is certainly occurring. The question is how low will it go?
> 2) The camera industry has seen this kind of downturn before and the big players survived. In fact, they seemed to be able to deal with shipments of 3.5 million as a nominal level (although many would say with minimal R&D at those points).
> 3) The impact of smart phones is most seen in the P&S arena (full CIPA report is at http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr1000.pdf )
> ...



There is a lot of truth to what you say. However, one point that Laforet and the Mayflower Concepts speaker are making, and which I agree with, is that because camera manufacturers have fallen behind the curve on usability, their customers are paying a premium in inconvenience due to a lack of features that are readily available on smart phones. In most cases, there is no excuse for that. 

Perhaps the manufacturers can all get by for a few more years without integrating core convenience and connectivity features into enthusiast and professional cameras, but how long can that go on? Sooner or later the "I don't need wi-fi...I don't need touch screen...I don't need to instantly edit and upload photos from my phone" crowd will die out and we have several generations of potential camera customers who find DSLRs laughably antiquated.

Yes, I agree that demand is cyclical and we are at the tail end of the rapid growth prompted by the digital camera revolution. But the key difference is that in all other cycles, persons who moved up from basic cameras to more sophisticated cameras generally gained convenience along the way, or there were significant quality incentives (printing one's own photos was inconvenient, yes, but the reward was sufficient to overcome that inconvenience). The mistake I think manufacturers are making today is that they are penalizing upgraders by removing or rejecting common features that consumers have come to expect and there isn't enough of a reward to offset that inconvenience.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 26, 2015)

Tugela said:


> The problem with stupid people, such as the writer of that blog, is that they only look at what is happening in the last few years and not at the whole history of photography. There have been a great number of "cell phone" type cameras for the masses that have come and gone, but high end cameras are still with us, and they are there because they have performance capabilities that the common cameras of the day do not.



You sure you want to call Vincent Laforet "stupid"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Laforet

Show me your Wikipedia entry.


----------



## LDS (Feb 26, 2015)

distant.star said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Laforet



The fact is good at shooting doesn't mean is also good at forecasting the market, nor that he's right.

But after all, if I were a professional photographer today, I'll do whatever I can to ensure less and less people try a DSLR. Cameras became too powerful and easy to use, and images easier to sell worldwide. Better to get rid of the competition as soon as possible, tell them phones are enough...



distant.star said:


> It wouldn't take much to create one... Another lie of the 'social society' is Wikipedia is an authoritative source


----------



## K (Feb 27, 2015)

I disagree with the statement that cell phones are going to kill stand alone cameras. Why? Because they already have.

At this point, the culture has already changed. Any base model cell phone has a camera capable of taking the kinds of photos the vast majority of consumers want or need. This wasn't the case a few years back when some base model phones had 1-3mp cameras.

However, there will always be those people who seek higher image quality than what a cell phone can produce. They want true camera functionality. These are the people that are not interested in instantly sharing photos and who are willing to carry a dedicated device (camera) to capture high quality images. This is your photo hobbyist or person who wants more quality for their family. These folks will buy Powershots or entry level DSLR. *Stand alone cameras will be around for a long, long time...* Their market will shrink - but I believe the majority of that shrink has already occurred.

As to the statement about cell phones killing stand alone cameras? Will never completely kill them off. How much more will the stand alone camera market decline? In my view, it will decline by the number of people out there who want slightly higher IQ than what is currently available in cell phones, but who is compromising with the weight and having to have an additional device. I don't believe that to be a large segment at all. These are the people who will dump their dedicated cameras as soon as the cell phone reaches the quality and features they are looking for. These are people who aren't very demanding on IQ, but recognize the inferiority of cell phone photography. That is a small segment. Because you either have people who don't know or care about IQ that much who are happy with cell phones and will never buy a camera, or those who know about IQ and will likely never be satisfied with cell phone image quality. 

Those few inbetweens will bail once cell phones satisfy. But as I said, cell phones currently satisfy the vast majority of people - and thus the damage has already been done for the most part.

Keep in mind one thing, whatever improvements are made to sensors for cell phones, are improvements that will be seen in larger sensors. Thus, the larger sensors will always be ahead. 

The dynamic here is the acceptable quality level of the lowest end devices - cell phones. While the best keeps getting better, the worst is getting better too. And the worst eventually will reach a point where it is good enough for anything the basic user needs.

Right now, that already is the case for most people.

Let's not forget that prior to cell phone cameras - what was out there?

The majority of people were happy with the disposable cameras from the drug store. And before that, Polaroids. Sure, people had regular cameras too -and yes, they did have better image quality. But the story is the same. Most folks aren't image quality oriented. Simple as that.

If they were, 50% or more of the "pros" out there who shoot weddings and events would be out of a job. Because there is a lot of garbage out there - and a lot of "pros" only survive because the average consumer isn't a critic of photography. This was true to an extent in the film days - BUT...with film you actually had to have some skill.

But enough about IQ. Connectivity is the other factor. The reason a lot of users put up with the lower IQ, was for the convenience of not having to carry around even a pocket sized camera. And the instant sharing. Huge.

Who prints anymore? The only prints I ever see anymore are wedding and children's prints. That's about all I see on walls in homes anymore. Even that is going away. People's "home" is now facebook. People share and also keep photos there for themselves. Accessible anywhere.

I'm not some old guy, and I think not having to get film developed is huge! Yet, to the average consumer these days - the idea of having to transfer photos from one device to another is unacceptable. Even 1 step extra is too many. Too slow. Having to deal with memory cards? That is even worse. Shoot a photo, then take the card to another device like a computer. Copy it. Then from there move it to internet. Too many steps.

All that is acceptable is to take the photo on the cell phone. That's it. Most people do not even want to deal with having to upload. They let Google or Apple or whatever automatically sync their photos to the cloud. All in the background. All they do is shoot photos, and it is up on the web where they want it.

This is the short attention span, ultra lazy, gimme the shortcut, instant gratification society we live in. 

That is where the medium is - the internet. So..what devices views these photos on the internet? We talking about taking photos, what about viewing them? This has a lot to do with the subject, because it plays into what is good enough. Well, most cell phones have 1080 screens. Most computer monitors have 1080 screens. I know they're moving to 4K slowly...but even then...is anyone pixel peeping? These people don't pixel peep. Only the photography nerds on this forum and others do that. 

Does the average consumer ever notice the heinous noise levels in cell phone pictures? Not at all. Do they even know what digital noise is? NO!


So there you have it, right now - IQ is good enough for most - and the connectivity and convenience is to such an extreme lever, it is literally shoot the picture and then hit one button to share.


There isn't anything more that they can do to make cell phones any more appealing to hurt dedicated camera sales. All they can do is up the IQ which they will. But that is moot at this point.


----------



## Pag (Feb 27, 2015)

This is good news for professional photographers. For the last ten years, competition has exploded because so many people would buy a SLR just to have a decent camera, spent a lot of time learning how to use it, then figured "Hey, if I've spent hundreds of hours learning photography and a few grands on gear, maybe I could make money off this skill!"

But now, people who aren't already hobbyists have no need to invest in a SLR since their phone meets their basic needs. Going up a level has a barrier of entry again: you must be willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars and many hours just for an increase in image quality. Some people will do it, of course -- some always have -- but fewer than in the last few years.

At the same time, the difference between a pro photographer and an everyday photographer will become more obvious to the uninitiated. There's a limit to how large you can realistically print a cellphone picture, small sensors are crap at bokeh, and you can't zoom a tiny lens. These are all things that are immediately obvious and that adds value to the gear a pro owns. The difference between a cellphone camera and a SLR are much larger than between an entry-level SLR and a pro-level SLR. (Admittedly, some technology could reduce that quality gap, but whatever can be used in a cellphone can also be used in a SLR)

With a reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers and a clearer separation of quality for the pros, I think the market for professionals may become much better in the long term.


----------



## Act444 (Feb 27, 2015)

gsealy said:


> But there always comes a time when people take photographs and then compare their efforts to what a professional or highly skilled amateur can do. There is a difference in what they see. And then they start to ask questions, like why are their photographs so much better? At that point they suddenly become disenchanted with their mobile phone camera. It seems like an inferior machine. The photographs that were once great are now embarrassing. Hello, DSLR.



That's certainly what I did - and how I got started! 

(except it wasn't with my phone, it was with my P&S)


----------



## quod (Feb 27, 2015)

LDS said:


> The fact is good at shooting doesn't mean is also good at forecasting the market, nor that he's right.


The fact that you may _not_ be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.


----------



## dswtan (Feb 27, 2015)

People are posting graphs and arguing statistics here, as usual, instead of looking at photos.

Topically, this was just posted today:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/02/26/top-25-mobile-photos-flickr-2014/ 

Enjoy! I know I did. 

FWIW, I use all my cameras as often as I have them available -- phones, compacts, MILCs, DSLRs -- hell, I even used my iPad the other morning for a quick shot! (Felt ridiculous, as it should, but I needed it RIGHT THEN!)


----------



## unfocused (Feb 27, 2015)

Pag said:


> This is good news for professional photographers. For the last ten years, competition has exploded because so many people would buy a SLR just to have a decent camera...
> 
> ...At the same time, the difference between a pro photographer and an everyday photographer will become more obvious to the uninitiated. There's a limit to how large you can realistically print a cellphone picture, small sensors are crap at bokeh, and you can't zoom a tiny lens. These are all things that are immediately obvious and that adds value to the gear a pro owns...
> 
> ...With a reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers and a clearer separation of quality for the pros, I think the market for professionals may become much better in the long term.



Wow! That's a whole lot of wishful thinking. Let's break it down:



> For the last ten years, competition has exploded



You are obviously too young to remember the previous 40 years or so. I have never seen a time when competition was not exploding. The supply of photographers has always far exceeded the demand for my entire life. 

But, the problem is not an oversupply of photographers, the problem is the disappearance of markets. Photojournalism as a career is all but dead. Almost no one goes to a commercial portrait studio anymore. Those that remain survive on weddings, high school portraits and babies – all areas where the supply of photographers vastly exceeds the demand.

The most talented photographers working today survive largely through teaching workshops and writing. Scott Kelby may shoot a lot of professional sports, but he pays his bills with his publishing and training empire. Look at Creative Live's stable of photography instructors. Most make more money from teaching and publishing than they do from their photography.



> ...At the same time, the difference between a pro photographer and an everyday photographer will become more obvious to the uninitiated.



If only that were the case. 

Sure, some people do see the difference, but very few are willing to pay for that difference.



> There's a limit to how large you can realistically print a cellphone picture, small sensors are crap at bokeh, and you can't zoom a tiny lens. These are all things that are immediately obvious and that adds value to the gear a pro owns...



This is based on the false assumption that anyone cares about prints. Almost every picture looks great on a cellphone and quite a few look pretty good on a tablet. That's where pictures live today and that's not going to change. So, the ability to print an image in a large size is pretty much irrelevant.

I won't get into a debate about whether or not these things are "immediately obvious" other than to say that I've printed 20 x 30 images from both my 5DIII and my iPhone and, while there is a definite difference in the "look" of the images, I doubt if very many casual observers would be able to tell me which is which.



> ...With a reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers and a clearer separation of quality for the pros, I think the market for professionals may become much better in the long term.



Who says there will be any reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers? As I said the supply has always far outstripped the demand. There is no evidence that will change. As for the "clearer separation of quality" again, that's in the eye of the beholder and there is nothing to suggest that the average customer is going to suddenly become either more perceptive or willing to pay for the difference in quality.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 27, 2015)

distant.star said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with stupid people, such as the writer of that blog, is that they only look at what is happening in the last few years and not at the whole history of photography. There have been a great number of "cell phone" type cameras for the masses that have come and gone, but high end cameras are still with us, and they are there because they have performance capabilities that the common cameras of the day do not.
> ...



If they make claims like, then sure, I am more than happy to.


----------



## Tugela (Feb 27, 2015)

quod said:


> LDS said:
> 
> 
> > The fact is good at shooting doesn't mean is also good at forecasting the market, nor that he's right.
> ...



Not really. Being a photographer doesn't mean that he isn't out of touch with photography. Certainly, suggesting that cell phones will kill of DSLRs/MILCs suggests that he is out of touch, or at best, clueless.

Does he think that he is about to replace his gear with an iPhone? I think not, but somehow he thinks we are all about to. What an idiot.


----------



## dolina (Feb 27, 2015)

The reason why you have to push numbers is because people tend to push anecdotal evidence.

We all know how global those things are. 

But thank you for posting that link.

Time was I was laughed up about image quality of smartphones. 

I was able to get a passing grade in a photo contest with a smartphone photo submission. 

It could have gotten a higher score if it was if the subject was a wee bit more striking.



dswtan said:


> People are posting graphs and arguing statistics here, as usual, instead of looking at photos.
> 
> Topically, this was just posted today:
> http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/02/26/top-25-mobile-photos-flickr-2014/
> ...


----------



## jcarapet (Feb 27, 2015)

TL;DR. This bro preaches truth, and I am curious how "real camera companies" respond

This article resonates with me more than I care to admit. It's a lot of thoughts to chew over, but I agree with most of them. 

For the general population, the main requirement for photography equipment is to provide the lowest barrier of entry to producing the image we envisioned. This can mean portability, simplicity, or easy access to filters and facebook for instant posting. For the higher end artist, it is to have the highest quality image capturing equipment available to ensure our vision is properly preserved. For people like me in the middle, it is to have the highest quality equipment to make up for our deficiencies as an artist. ;D

The most striking thing that he mentions is the "SLR's as tripods", where he relies on the incredibly capable phones to capture the vision of what he wants. Not because it's the highest quality single image, but the camera has the features to capture what is happening the easiest. 

A "camera" company will always focus on the sensor technology, justifiably so, but they will miss out on the important aspect of image processing and extra features. These are critical aspects to us as the end user. There are phones out with CPU's that are more powerful than some laptops running photoshop today. And yet camera companies like Canon are refusing to use 3rd party chips to handle image processing?

This is why I think a 2nd tier vendor like Samsung with the right marketing will dominate the SLR/camera market of the future. With 1.0 firmware, Samsung introduced a fantastically feature-rich camera (and it's about damn time somebody noticed). Then, they adjusted firmware and added a plethora of consumer friendly features because they were flexible. This is the happy medium that I hope we will see provided from camera companies in the future. Not the separation of sensor-cameras and cell cameras, but camera's with amazing sensors that will allow app developers to hack into their immense potential. Only one way to find out I guess...

P.S. I love my 5D3, and you will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers. So deal with it.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 27, 2015)

I was thinking this the other day using my iPhone 6+

Vs my old 1d mk3

1dmk3 10mp 10fps decent buffer highest ISO 3200 (above that is unusable)

iPhone 6+ 8mp lots of fps ( not sure but it's fast and buffer seems crazy deep)
Don't think high ISO it matches the 1d3 but it's decent low ISO dr it kills the 1d3

Of course the 1d is able to change lenses and focuses light years faster than the iPhone but
From and iq only standpoint I think the iPhone is on a par or a bit better. 

So phone cameras have come an amazing distance in a short time look at what a phone camera was like in 2008 compared to high end Dslr it wasn't even a remote comparison. 

And we'll as for point and shoots? Don't really see why they still bother making them to be honest


----------



## LDS (Feb 27, 2015)

quod said:


> The fact that you may _not_ be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.



Well, I have a degree in Physics and lead an R&D department in the hardware and software market. My office hall is full of lens blanks - a nice collection -, because in this very space a lot of high-end industrial and scientific optics have been designed and developed.

Sure, my photos are far crappier than his, but I have a far better knowledge in hardware and software (and their future) than he has - because I actually design and implement it - not just use it. My income comes from such a job. And surely, I would write a much more professional bio in Wikipedia, his is written in a very amateurish way.

Do you believe everybody sustaining an argument does it just because he or she truly believes it? How naive... There are often big commercial interests in pushing one or another. And exactly because his future depends on this market, he has a big interest to try to push those arguments that ensure his advantages, not somebody's else. An increasing number of photographers able to produce images with a quality once the realm of very expensive professional products and workflows is a threat. As some media already demostrated, could be cheaper to buy images from a local photographer than sending your own expensive ones.
Convincing people they not need a versatile system like a DSLR, but a selfie-oriented device is enough for them, may ensure less competition in the future.

Also, as many people working in the media industry, he has the "strange" idea that actual fashions will last forever, just to tell you tomorrow that there's a new fashion - which of course will last "forever" too.

Only time will tell if social media will last, and if their business model is sustainable in the long run (how long some can keep on losing money is yet to see). Are they too a bubble ******* to deflate?

Anyway, having cameras software strongly tied to very proprietary services which may go out of business looks a bit silly to me. I understand some users may have a *real* need of instant or near instant publication, others look to me just pushed to that model for commercial reason, not real needs.

Anwyway, it's a bit ironic to see his blog is sponsored by Canon...


----------



## LDS (Feb 27, 2015)

unfocused said:


> You are obviously too young to remember the previous 40 years or so. I have never seen a time when competition was not exploding. The supply of photographers has always far exceeded the demand for my entire life.



The difference is today reach of *each* photographer. In the old days, how large was a market for a photographer? Unless you were able to sell your images to some large and well known agencies, your work had good chances to be limited to a restricted area, and competition was also restricted to photographer working in that area and the large agencies covering that area. The entry barrier, both financial and technical, was much higher.

Also, archives were much difficult to search. Today you can sell your image worlwide easily, and that means that each photographer has any other photographer as a competitor. Sure, those working on "events" mostly, which are local in nature, still have some "natural protection", but if you create different type of images, you get a far, far larger competition today. And even for "local events" the chances a non professional photographer able to get a good shot and publish it, are far higher than years ago.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 27, 2015)

Pookie said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > gsealy said:
> ...



You should have your doctor check your humor levels...


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 27, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Does he think that he is about to replace his gear with an iPhone? I think not, but somehow he thinks we are all about to. What an idiot.


No he doesn't, and with some reading comprehension you would agree that he never made that point. In fact he specifically pointed out *several times and with highlighting*, that smart phones won't reach a point where they can fully replace a professional camera.

His claims can be summed up as "amateurs value connectivity more than image quality", "DSLR makers were asleep when that trend became apparent" and "it's not sure whether DSLR makers can continue a business model that was so far financed by amateurs".

His article suggests another interpretation, aimed directly at photography related forums: there is a lot of talk about megapixels, dynamic range, high iso noise, corner to corner sharpness and lens bokeh. The camera market, however, cared about neither of these issues, but is/was decided by a separate issue (connectivity) that was rarely covered in discussions here and elsewhere. Yes, that hurts. :'(


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 27, 2015)

distant.star said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with stupid people, such as the writer of that blog, is that they only look at what is happening in the last few years and not at the whole history of photography. There have been a great number of "cell phone" type cameras for the masses that have come and gone, but high end cameras are still with us, and they are there because they have performance capabilities that the common cameras of the day do not.
> ...



I dont have a Wikipedia entry BUT I do have 35 years in the Motion Picture rental business and over 15 years in the professional stills & amatuer business. Vincent Laforet is being deliberately provocative in the same way Jim Jannard was when he launched Red Cameras. Trust me if Vincent Laforet was to shoot all his future work on an iPhone he would soon be out of work and he knows it. Agencies dictate minimum requirements, studios & broadcasters dictate miniumum requirements NOT Vincent. Neflix will ONLY allow originally shot 4K for its premium 4K service that removes ALL smart phones period and even some high end motion picture digital cameras. 
My entire professional life has been about improving image quality and that encompasses many things not simply the camera and its CMOS chip. For the masses smartphones may well be fine and thats their decision, but accepting the status quo is not my style and history teaches me at least that Smartphones will have their day in the sun until the next best thing comes along. 
Recently a film about Turner later life has been released can you imagine telling Turner water colors are no longer acceptable you can only use oils and you can only use oils from three companies, Apple, Google & Microsoft Im sure he would tell you go poke it. Creativity is not about the medium but the user Vicent is wrong to narrow it to Smartphones.


----------



## blanddragon (Feb 27, 2015)

I still do not get why we call them 'Smartphones'. No one using them seems smart. The 'Smartphones' are not very intuitive and touch screen interfaces are buggy, prone to damage from very little impact. They are always smeared with human goo of some type. 

The users of 'Smartphones' seem to always be lusting for the next iFruit XXX model before the current one stops providing functioning. 

Plus I see most users, under 30, never speaking into the 'phone' part of the thing. I have called my children on many occasions and been scolded when I should have just 'sent a text'. As if the social exercise of using language that does not include emoticons or etymology is somehow offensive. 

As we are mostly a poser society now, I will continue as I always do. Not worried what someone thinks of me as they are too busy wondering what someone thinks of them. YMMV


----------



## quod (Feb 27, 2015)

LDS said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that you may _not_ be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.
> ...


Blah blah blah... Do you have a point other than to point out how smart you think you are relative to the rest of us? That is a fallacious and failing argument by the way.


----------



## LDS (Feb 27, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> His claims can be summed up as "amateurs value connectivity more than image quality"



And that's why he's wrong. We should also "amateurs" - what it really means.

Non professional photographers take images for very different reasons. And not all of them - and probably just a small part of them, although very visible due to the hype sorrounding "social media" today - require "instant connectivity". While there amateurs who value image quality a lot. We all agree that P&S market is already ******* - but even here you can find people needing a small, light camera yet versatile and delivering high image quality. A niche market, probably, but not a so small niche. But people approaching DSLR and their systems? Sure, there is the "gear collector" for whom the "feature set" printed on the box is of paramount importance. But those really interested in photographic art and technique, and looking for quality and versatility? Why their cameras shoud be turned into smartphones wannabe, when what you need while shooting is less distractions? Do you really need in-camera notifications of how many likes and retweets your last photo got? Do you shoot just to please your ego, or do you have other reasons?

Even among professional there could be some who could value today connectivity much more then image quality i.e. paparazzi and sport/photojpurnalists, while others don't.

If that was his thought, well, he's using "amateurs" in the negative meaning many "pros" use. But is this really the target market, or maybe some camera maker has a better understanding of their market and what user really want? While user feedback is important to design a product, following only user feedback is not really the way to design a good product. Apple has been successful in the past years exaclty because was able to find good designs most users would have never thought about. When Canon asked Colani a new design for camera bodies, he delivered a new ergonomic design that became the de-facto industry standard, still in use today. Would users have ever asked for that? I really doubt it. Probably, they would have asked for some bells and whistles, thinking "out of the box" is something much more difficult, and it's not usually achieved just chasing fashions.

And sometimes fashion is wrong. On my previous smartphones (I got my first one in 2002... - said it was the future, people wandered how could I use such a large phone...) I could answer a call pressing a single button, while not even looking at the device. Now most buttons went way, and answering a call requires - a swipe, and a "touch" - and of course you have to look at the phone. Of course, calling/answering is now out of fashion. You should just take images and upload them.

PS: I know I can answer with a single button press on a bluetooth device - just I don't wear one all the time...


----------



## DRR (Feb 27, 2015)

I think Laforet made a huge miscalculation, which is apparent if you read no further than paragraph 3.

"Smartphones already won."

The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.

Sure, there's some overlap. Point and shoots are a dying breed in large part because of smartphone cameras because the image quality is comparable and the size is smaller, and you always have it with you. Laforet has a point here. But that's where it ends.

The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides, does not mean it's taking anything away from the other markets. It just means that there's smartphone camera growth. The Apple comparison he makes with Pro apps actually proves my point better than his. Pro apps stay constant even through the explosive growth of App store "consumer" apps. It did not precipitously fall - if pro apps had been at war with consumer apps, it would have. It did not fall because those are two different, distinct markets. No one is using a 99 cent app versus Final Cut Pro. No one is using a free iOS app instead of color grading with a pro app. They are two distinct markets that exist independently of each other.

You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.

This is in part because he's not adjusting for the number of photos taken either. Yes, smartphone photos are becoming more and more dominant versus still camera photos if you look at percentages. But when you realize that the number of photos taken overall has increased exponentially, you'll realize that no one is ditching their higher end kit for a smartphone. Some people are taking thousands of photos a year with their phone, where previously they had taken none. There's no death to the still camera because smartphones are not at war with the still camera. They're at war with "not-having-a-camera-with-you." That battle they have absolutely won.


----------



## Rudeofus (Feb 27, 2015)

LDS said:


> And that's why he's wrong. We should also "amateurs" - what it really means.
> 
> Non professional photographers take images for very different reasons. And not all of them - and probably just a small part of them, although very visible due to the hype sorrounding "social media" today - require "instant connectivity".


You think that social media were a short fad that won't go anywhere? Welcome to the year 2015! Look at the member count of facebook versus ALL photography related forums together, then please stop preaching about "probably just a small part of them". In case you missed it: Facebook Users Are Uploading 350 Million New Photos Each Day, and that was 2013 ... 



DRR said:


> You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.
> 
> [...]
> 
> The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.



It may sound absurd to you, but it's right there happening. People around me who were never seen without their DSLR suddenly snap around with smart phones, while their DSLR collects dust at home. You did read the postings that DSLR sales are hurting badly, and have so for a few years, yes?


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 27, 2015)

DRR said:


> ... There's no death to the still camera because smartphones are not at war with the still camera. They're at war with "not-having-a-camera-with-you." That battle they have absolutely won.



But, that is exactly part of the death spiral. Why bother to take a "real" camera if you are not specifically planning to take photos. Then, when unexpected opportunity arises, any shots wind-up taken with your smartphone since it's there. If the images are "good enough" you are less inclined to even think about bringing a camera. For that matter, why have the "real camera?" Most of our family friends have made that transition.

Just look at any major retailer to see how far camera sales have fallen. How many feet of display space are they willing to dedicate to cameras vs. what they had just two years ago? How prominent is the display? The local Target used to have ~40 feet of display right at the front of their electronics section - lots of brands of both P&S and DSLR. Now they have about 5 feet way off to the side. Great clearance deals on some DSLR's and lenses though. We are talking about consumers here, not enthusiasts and pros.

The local pro camera shop (where I go to play with the Pentax 645Z that I keep trying to justify!) has recently started selling GoPros and drones and having a lot more classes being taught by pro photogs. Both the store and their pro teachers are moving toward different revenue sources in efforts to sustain themselves. At least they aren't selling smartphones (yet!).


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 27, 2015)

DRR said:


> ...The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides...



Not to worry, the U.S. government has just addressed the "connectivity" part. The FCC has voted to take over control of the Internet in their move toward "Net Neutrality."

The major DSLR providers can relax now, the FCC will screw it up so badly that no one will be able to upload their photos without a serious per picture charge tax. That will kill off  discourage all those smartphone toting 'togs Facebooking their way to the future. :-\

Do you think that's the solution?


----------



## Pag (Feb 27, 2015)

unfocused said:


> Who says there will be any reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers? As I said the supply has always far outstripped the demand. There is no evidence that will change. As for the "clearer separation of quality" again, that's in the eye of the beholder and there is nothing to suggest that the average customer is going to suddenly become either more perceptive or willing to pay for the difference in quality.



I think there might be fewer would-be pros because there will be a higher barrier of entry. Amateurs won't have a SLR if all they use is their cellphone, and they won't know how to use one. That doesn't mean there won't be more would-be pros than is needed, just that the ratio may go from 5-to-1 to 2-to-1.

As for the difference in quality, I'm not talking about slight differences in sharpness and dynamic range, but about real differences in what the picture shows and what it can be used for.

Size: If you want an advertisement billboard, you can't use a cellphone picture because it will look like crap. If you're a portrait photographer, you could offer 60" prints that will blow out of the water anything a cellphone can output.
Bokeh: Everything is in focus in a cellphone photo, so you can't have bokeh. If a client wants a picture with a blurred background, then a camera will a large sensor must be used.
Zoom: Cellphones have a prime wide-angle lens. If you want pictures of something distant, like sports or animals, then you need a camera with decently-sized lens. Again, gear makes a difference here.

If you're that negative about the photography market, then you should just leave the business. No sense continuing if you think things are already bad and only becoming worse. Yeah, photography as a commodity is dying. You must find a way to make your offer stand out as a uniquely desirable service if you want to succeed.


----------



## ChristopherMarkPerez (Feb 27, 2015)

I'm not sure Laforet took the idea far enough.

To me it's not a matter of whether in the future still cameras will sell in the kinds of volume they do today.

To me it's a fundamental question of how images are and will be distributed and consumed. In short, what will images "mean" to those who look at them? Where will they go to look? What technologies will be offered in response to market demands?

With 1.8 BILLION images a day uploaded to the 'net what is the "purpose" of an image? In the age of the "selfie" who will look? What "need" will there be to pay for someone to monkey a camera when the art director in the back room can and does today! do a quicker, better job of it?

Whatever the answer(s), the still camera/imaging market will shrink. Yet, as the advent of dry plate silver halide recording media failed to fully kill oil painting (pro or amateur), the cultural narcissism currently fueled by highly integrated imaging systems will not fully kill the desire or use for still cameras.


----------



## distant.star (Feb 27, 2015)

.
I like the way you think. Especially like the "highly integrated imaging systems."




ChristopherMarkPerez said:


> I'm not sure Laforet took the idea far enough.
> 
> To me it's not a matter of whether in the future still cameras will sell in the kinds of volume they do today.
> 
> ...


----------



## 9VIII (Feb 27, 2015)

There's always the things that a phone camera physically can't do.
Sports and wildlife.
Lowlight
Macro
Bokeh

I honestly don't think the enthusiast market is going to shrink, but we've all known that the P&S market was dead a long time ago, so that's just stating the obvious.


----------



## Maiaibing (Feb 28, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I honestly don't think the enthusiast market is going to shrink



DSLR market did not only shrink - it imploded over the last years... The only question is if and when will the abject decline will stop? Canon thought it would correct itself in 2013 and again in 2014. Still Canon faced a double digit sales drop 2012-13 and 2013-14. 

That's the reality of the DSLR market.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Feb 28, 2015)

Repeated from State of the Industry 2014 thread...
"... mirrorless (or non-reflex in CIPA terms) shipments were stable while DSLR shipments dropped 24% in 2014. One out of four interchangeable lens cameras shipped is now mirrorless. (MILC - 3.3 million vs. DSLR - 10.5 million)

The CIPA forecast is for a further decline in shipments of all ILC in 2015 down to ~13 million units.

Another interesting statistic from CIPA is that the percentage of female buyers of build-in lens cameras has fallen significantly while the percentage of female buyers of interchangeable lens cameras has risen by 4-1/2 times since 2005. Female buyers still only account for 18% of ILC sales (up from only 4%). I wonder if that is enough to lead to a pink 5DIV? "


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 28, 2015)

Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them. 
Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back. 

I love my iPhone the apps have changed our lives but as a camera it sucks (actually the keyboard also sucks compared to the Blackberry) but I understand for millions its good enough. Millions watch badly set-up TVs, poorly set-up sound and have no dress sense that doesn't stop others striving to do better.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 28, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.
> Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.
> 
> I love my iPhone the apps have changed our lives but as a camera it sucks (actually the keyboard also sucks compared to the Blackberry) but I understand for millions its good enough. Millions watch badly set-up TVs, poorly set-up sound and have no dress sense that doesn't stop others striving to do better.



+1

The rest of you all need to get out and take some pictures. ???


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 1, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.



Analog SLR cameras weren't replaced/upgraded in such short cycles as DSLRs, therefore that 20 year average is pretty pointless. You might as well post the 1000 year average and declare last year's numbers as "spectacularly high".



jeffa4444 said:


> Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.


Good luck finding anybody voluntarily looking at your holiday/rock concert/airshow pics from last week. Or month. Remember: it's 2015, and it's not cameras or images, but willing eye balls that are scarce these days ...


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 1, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.
> ...


Actually my photographs get looked at regularly that is one of the benefits of being a member of a photography club they are judged by independent experts and twice annually the club holds gallery weekends for the local community to view members photographs entered into competitions. I also regularly post to Flickr and get judged so your last point in factually incorrect.


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 1, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> Actually my photographs get looked at regularly that is one of the benefits of being a member of a photography club they are judged by independent experts and twice annually the club holds gallery weekends for the local community to view members photographs entered into competitions. I also regularly post to Flickr and get judged so your last point in factually incorrect.



And you think that applies to the images of the majority of entry level photo amateurs, i.e. those who bought the majority of DSLRs (both in numbers and in value) five years ago? 

Then go and compare your standard of success ("some dedicated people looked at my images after I promised I'd look at theirs", "I have my own photo stream on one of the world's largest write-only-memory sites") with what was considered success twenty or thirty years ago ("people pester me for photos of last month's event", "friends/family watch slides from last summer", "friends/family have my prints hanging in their homes"). Like it or not - you involuntarily just made my point.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 3, 2015)

Rudeofus said:


> jeffa4444 said:
> 
> 
> > Actually my photographs get looked at regularly that is one of the benefits of being a member of a photography club they are judged by independent experts and twice annually the club holds gallery weekends for the local community to view members photographs entered into competitions. I also regularly post to Flickr and get judged so your last point in factually incorrect.
> ...


I think your being rather idiotic. Before smartphones the vast majority of photographs were prints made at the local chemist or photography store shown to the family & friends and put away in a cupboard. Some where shown at camera clubs etc. 
Now they get sent to friends via Facebook or Twitter etc but there still consumable just as before, sure smartphones mean more get taken daily but that doesnt make Smartphones somehow better its just different. The vast majority of smartphone photography is not very good whereas many people using a DSLR are making a decision to shoot photographs in a more considered & controlled manner its like comparing crayons and oils.


----------



## dolina (Mar 3, 2015)

I would like to see how sales of the 1D, 5D, 7D, 6D,and xxD compared to those of the Rebels.

For all we know sales of single and double digit bodies stayed stable and only the Rebels suffered.

I think only specialised point and shoots will end up surviving. Like say those with superzooms, water proofing and large sensors.

Canon bought that CCTV company while Nikon bought a a retinal imaging firm.

Good to see these companies diversifying in a market they know is shrinking.

Still cameras will be the domain of pros and enthusiasts who wants to go beyond smartphone photography.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 4, 2015)

This GfK report has something to say! 

http://www.gfk.com/Documents/The%20Evolving%20Landscape%20Of%20Photography%20-%20Digital.pdf


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 7, 2015)

The interesting comment from the GfK report is that a high percentage of young adults is basically unaware of compact system cameras. The numbers they quote are 37% in Germany and 54% in UK of 18-24 year-olds are basically unaware. They pose this as a challenge to manufacturers to "educate" these potential customers. In other words, convince them they need larger, heavier equipment that costs much more money to get higher quality photos that will be more difficult to post to Facebook. Tough task!


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 7, 2015)

Well, here's how I look at it: I don't think any cell phone can be purchased without a camera embedded in it, can it? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think so. While I am sure there are many people who consider the camera on their phone when making that purchase there are many of us who couldn't care less about the camera feature on the phone, or the texting feature for that matter. The phone is just there and is on every single phone offered under every single plan. To say that the smart phone is somehow a competitor to the DSLR isn't exactly true. If phones were not "free" for signing a two year contract, many people would not be upgrading so often. Heck, some cell companies even offer to buy out your contract from one company to join their new plan.

The DSLR market is quite different. A person that purchases a DSLR is actually making an effort to go out and buy a DSLR. There is no "plan" incentive, no contract, no free DSLR for signing up with Adobe or anything like that.

I have a smart phone. So does the wife. So does our 20 something daughter. Between us all I do not think more than 20 photos have been taken with those phones in the nearly two years we've had them. Then again, we all have trouble making duck faces and don't post photos of ourselves every couple of hours on FaceBook. I suspect that there are millions who get the smart phones that only use the phone feature. They just are not buyers of the camera phone. They just want a phone.

I don't think the smart phone is going to destroy the DSLR in the future. That's just me. I could be right. I could be wrong. It doesn't matter to me either way. Something tells me that if some company offered a free DSLR every two years to sign up with their service ( Adobe? Flicker? Photobucket? Facebook? ViewBug? Google?... APARENT sales would skyrocket. Having to pay for a product for a special purpose is quite different from being given a device with no special purpose for free.


----------



## time123 (Mar 8, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > ...The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides...
> ...



I hope you are joking or simply have a misunderstanding of what net neutrality actually means. Net neutrality as supported by the FCC and the bulk of technology companies (Google, etc.) means that when you have an Internet connection you are simply paying for a connection to the Internet in which your Internet Service Provider (ISP - Comcast, etc.) cannot modify or force you to pay extra to use the bandwidth you are already paying for based on what you want to do on the Internet. No net neutrality means you are completely at the mercy of your ISP in what you do on the Internet meaning they will have the capacity to slow down or even prevent access to visit or use sites on the Internet unless you pay them even more. Net neutrality ensures that an Internet connection is simply an Internet connection and ISPs cannot add additional fees and charges to use specific sites or services - in fact net neutrality forbids this.

Hypothetically, would you like the Netflix package where if you are already paying for Netflix and now Comcast can say you have to pay an additional $10 per month if you want it in HD on top of what you are already paying, even if you are already paying Netflix for the HD package? Or how about the Youtube Premium package for an additional $5 per month where you can watch full videos without them stalling out every 20 seconds? Performing these feats from a technical perspective at the ISP level is exceptionally easy and their anti-net neutrality position is just a scheme that ISPs want to use to bilk the consumer out of more money for their already excessively expensive and crummy Internet connection provided (USA is already around 11th place in Internet speeds and in the rankings of around 28th in total Internet users). Net neutrality ensures the exact opposite of what you happen to think the USA government is attempting to do.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 8, 2015)

A more simple analogy is postage.

What the cable companies were trying to do was charge the receiver (you) and the sender (the package provider) postage for the same package. And if the sender wasn't prepared to pay the postage service extra money they had the option to not deliver, or even to not allow you to see it actually existed.

But you are already paying to be allowed to see everybody equally, you currently have a choice of places to buy even though you probably don't have a choice of internet provider. 

Say B&H paid Time Warner/Comcast to not show Adorama as a result in a web search, or Amazon, or any other camera retailer? You would have no choice, B&H could charge what they need to and Time Warner/Comcast would get even richer for doing nothing other than making you, who already pay for a service from them, pay even more to B&H to cover their cable bill.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Mar 9, 2015)

The comment was intended to be sarcastic. Besides, CR is not the place for a debate over net neutrality. That said, time will tell if this is a good move or not for the typical user and what will be the cost impact. Years ago I used to manage a nationwide corporate computer network. Based on that background I have little confidence the FCC can improve anything. Perhaps I am wrong; but there are several extremely technical network management issues that are totally misunderstood or overlooked by this very politically driven FCC move. The general media representation that this will benefit the average user is by no means the full story. Look into the publications of IEEE and other technical societies to see examples of the problems that will result from the intended government controls.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2015)

Yes, I'd far rather trust the cable companies, they are so reasonable, fair, efficient and such good value!


----------



## lintoni (Mar 9, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Yes, I'd far rather trust the cable companies, they are so reasonable, fair, efficient and such good value!


----------



## unfocused (Mar 9, 2015)

I don't know how this discussion veered off into "net neutrality" but achieving "neutrality" by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service (As the FTC has now done) ought to scare anyone who values internet privacy, freedom and innovation.

This opens up the possibility of a broad range of regulatory requirements that will have a far more detrimental impact on internet access than the problem it was supposed to fix. In order to protect their jobs, regulators need to be regulating something and this new ruling will give them an opportunity to wade into a whole range of regulatory schemes with the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences and innovation-crushing rules.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 9, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I don't know how this discussion veered off into "net neutrality" but achieving "neutrality" by reclassifying broadband access as a telecommunications service (As the FTC has now done) ought to scare anyone who values internet privacy, freedom and innovation.
> 
> This opens up the possibility of a broad range of regulatory requirements that will have a far more detrimental impact on internet access than the problem it was supposed to fix. In order to protect their jobs, regulators need to be regulating something and this new ruling will give them an opportunity to wade into a whole range of regulatory schemes with the potential for all sorts of unintended consequences and innovation-crushing rules.



In a choice between incompetent fools who are bought and paid for by money grabbing criminally inclined corporations, and putting 100% trust directly in those money grabbing criminally inclined corporations, one can't fail to believe, however naively, that at least we might have some sway over the former.

The problem isn't the way it works now, the problem is the way the cable companies are pushing it to work. Roll on Chattanooga, that is how all cable should be financed and run. Do you know how much internet costs and the standard bandwidth you get in South Korea? Can you explain how the capitalist credo is working in an industry where most consumers have the choice of one provider? And where the two biggest providers by far are being given a green light to merge into a single mega corporation?


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Mar 9, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> I have a smart phone. So does the wife. So does our 20 something daughter. Between us all I do not think more than 20 photos have been taken with those phones in the nearly two years we've had them. Then again, we all have trouble making duck faces



Not everyone makes those STUPID duck face photos . . . 

I currently own both an iPhone 6 and a 1DX. Each has its purpose but in the right hands (and the right circumstances) both can produce impressive work. Not comparable results of course, but good stuff if one knows what they're doing.

Just 10 minutes ago I was having a text discussion about SLR vs. phone photos. I used my phone to snap a quick pic of two 16x20 framed photos I have on the wall. Both were concert photos--one taken with my old iPhone 5 and the other with my "old" Canon 5D3. The iPhone photo is hardly exhibition quality, but it held up pretty well even enlarged that big.

The camera in your hands is the best one, and I'm not running home to get my SLR when a simple snapshot accomplishes my goal getting a quick photo. So I guess I'm saying you must not take snapshots . . . ???


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 9, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > I have a smart phone. So does the wife. So does our 20 something daughter. Between us all I do not think more than 20 photos have been taken with those phones in the nearly two years we've had them. Then again, we all have trouble making duck faces
> ...



I just do not take photos with my phone. Almost never, ever. That's part of my point, I think. The camera is a part of the phone, but for many people doesn't matter. The fact that people tend to get a new phone with every contract renewal (with attached camera) and the fact that cell phone plans keep getting cheaper, and the fact that so many more 10s of millions of people can afford to get a cell phone every year naturally means that the camera feature is in higher demand whether the camera is ever used or not. That's really what I meant. Obviously, for a huge number of people, the camera on the phone may be the only camera they ever have. But let's face it... the vast majority will only use it for snapshots, or social media, etc. and really do not have an interest in taking photography any deeper than that. Just like most people who get a car have no interest in being a NASCAR owner or driver.

In the current world economy it makes sense to me that DSLR cameras and gear sales have gone down compared to the demand for "free" cell phones with ever cheaper plan rates. Essentially, the cell companies are financing the phone gear through the phone plans. There is no comparison to DSLR sales at all that would be honest.

A DSLR is a luxury item for most people in the world. Yup, for most it really is.

23 years ago I was a Bell South Mobility franchisee. There were no free phones. One had to have stellar credit to sign up, and a 400 minute plan ran about $450 a month. That is if one stayed in the home network. Roaming fees were $2 a minute. If one ventured more than 5 miles or so from the interstate... he was roaming. Now, nobody gets charged for roaming and anybody can sign up. What does an unlimited talk, text, and data plan cost these days? I think Sprint advertised $50 a month a few minutes ago. That includes a free Phone, camera, and pocket computer all rolled into one.

As far as, "The best camera is the one in you have" statement? I have no idea what that means. We know that isn't true. Otherwise we wouldn't all be hanging around here hoping for the next grail to be announced. That is sort of like the gun forum I frequent where guys get a new rifle and say, "It shoots better than I do." What?

Comparing the two markets is silly to me. They are not the same market. It is like comparing tricycles to downhill mountain bikes. One has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## apmadoc (Mar 10, 2015)

I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years. 

One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years

Look at the current stats on Flickr : https://www.flickr.com/cameras

Beyond just cameras - Tablets are now replacing PCs as a trend


----------



## Ozarker (Mar 11, 2015)

apmadoc said:


> I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.
> 
> One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years
> 
> ...



You know what is funny? I remember when getting the smallest cell phone possible was the way to go. The tinier the better. Now the phones are pretty much miniature tablets and much bigger than the tiny phones people wanted in the mid 90's (Those phones were unbelievably small). Then phones with cameras were born... then with browsers, then smart phones. It sort of makes sense that the point and shoot is disappearing in that regard. I am starting to see lots of people take pictures with their tablets now, and my Kindle Fire does a pretty good job. I still don't see them as replacing the DSLR though. I could be very wrong though.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 11, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> apmadoc said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.
> ...


Actually recent Stats suggest Tablet sales have stalled, larger smartphones and better featured small laptops are squeezing the growth (hence Apple new 12" Macbook).


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Mar 11, 2015)

CanonFanBoy said:


> As far as, "The best camera is the one in you have" statement? I have no idea what that means. We know that isn't true. Otherwise we wouldn't all be hanging around here hoping for the next grail to be announced.



The gist of this phrase is the simple fact that if you don't have a camera, in any form, you can't take a picture.

If something unexpected or spectacular happens, you'd rather have a phone photo than nothing.

When that alien ship lands right in front of me, I don't want to have to say "WOW, you guys wait here while I run home and get my 1DX." ;D  :


----------



## Rudeofus (Mar 12, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> I think your being rather idiotic.



Stating such an unwarranted insult in a sentence with such a glaring grammar error is not only idiotic, it's actually quite funny.



jeffa4444 said:


> Before smartphones the vast majority of photographs were prints made at the local chemist or photography store shown to the family & friends and put away in a cupboard. Some where shown at camera clubs etc.



Allow me to call to your attention the time period between 2003 and 2012, when most images were taken on a digital camera (P&S, DSLR) and sent via email or posted on image hosting websites. This is actually the process which smart phones plus social media all but replaced during the last few years.

Everybody, including Vincent Laforet in his blog, agrees, that superior image quality and additional artistic freedoms, available predominantly to users of professional level photographic gear and post processing, tend to yield better images. What the author argues, though, and rightfully so IMHO, is the apparent fact that communication efficiency trumps image quality heads down for most people, and as a result the overall market has boldly moved in a direction which you personally may or may not agree with.

Don't be afraid, the market trend police is not going to take away your camera, and the fact that you can still buy large format cameras, glass plates and collodion, should tell you that there is plenty of room for people who prefer to surf the trailing edge of technology ...


----------



## LonelyBoy (Mar 13, 2015)

apmadoc said:


> I don't think this is a particularly bold prediction. It's a market trend that's been going on for years.
> 
> One only has to look at sales for the point and shoot cameras as a trend over last 10 years
> 
> ...



Except the tablet trend is reversing as the people who want them, have them. It's always tempting to assume that lines continue in the same direction indefinitely into the future, but they don't.

It's similar to the claim that people don't read anymore, while Harry Potter, Twilight, and Fifty Shades of Grey sell massive numbers. And, of course, the young generation is ruining the world and has no appreciation for anything, as has always been the case.


----------



## Tugela (Mar 14, 2015)

DRR said:


> I think Laforet made a huge miscalculation, which is apparent if you read no further than paragraph 3.
> 
> "Smartphones already won."
> 
> ...



But that is exactly what most of these "expert" analysts do. 

It was the same thing when tablet sales were in their growth phase. The same "experts" were claiming that PCs were ******* because there was no growth, but guess what - it didn't happen. The role of the PC is just as valid today as it was before, but there is no market growth because the market is saturated. The same thing then happened to tablets, are these same people now going to claim that tablets are "*******" because the market has saturated?


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 16, 2015)

Tugela said:


> DRR said:
> 
> 
> > I think Laforet made a huge miscalculation, which is apparent if you read no further than paragraph 3.
> ...


Looks like your finally coming around to my opinion.


----------



## K (Mar 18, 2015)

The desktop PC is a perfect comparison.

The fact is, the DSLR simply does MANY things that cell phones (and even mirrorless cameras) can't do.

The PC does things that tablets and other computing devices cannot do, or at least not do very well.

The DSLR will be dead when mirrorless cameras can autofocus as fast as and as accurately, and have a view finder that is as good as an optical view finder. 

As for cell phones....they will never kill real cameras. Ever. All they did was take away all the casual shooters who either A. didn't really take many photos before in the first place, and thus weren't technically "in the market" B. weren't the types to carry any kind of camera in the first place C. The few who did bring a camera, but used small point and shoots.

Cell phones only satisfy those seeking total convenience. Anyone looking for image quality will seek a dedicated camera. So long as there are people seeking good image quality, the DSLR will exist.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Mar 30, 2015)

I played around with the Panasonic Lumix CM1 last week its technically a camera with a phone rather than the other way around Panasonic in the UK will retail it through camera stores. 
its a 20MP 1" sensor, fixed lens with 4K video about the size of an iPhone 6 but twice as thick, Android with currently Kitkat about to be upgraded to Lollipop. The pictures on display were pretty impressive much better than any iPhone and the shutter button is more like a regular camera two stage. The ring on the front screws off and you can fit say a Lee Seven5 filter holder with a 37mm adaptor or its for additional future attachments. Seems that the two i.e. smart phones and compacts are finally merging.


----------



## dolina (Apr 19, 2015)

Actual shipments in 2014
Forecasted shipments for 2015




CIPA2015Forecast by alabang, on Flickr

Point & shoots is the most affected in drop in sales.

Interchangeable lenses and bodies the least affected.

People on photo forums will still buy dedicated still cameras.

People who dont will probably use what they have until it is too expensive to fix or just get a new smartphone.


----------

