Photography industry changes...

[Precision Gem]

It's true most people are not interested in serious photography, and they never were. Back in the 1950's the popular camera was the Argus C3 if my memory is correct. Then in the 60's Kodak came out with these instamatic camera's with a drop in film cartridge, which were then replaced with the 110 cartridge that was even smaller, and worse quality. But people didn't care, just like today, most people want something simple at the sacrifice of quality. Instant cameras were all the rage in the 70's and 80's. Serious photographers used 35mm Nikons etc for action photography, but roll film for portrait, weddings and serious landscape work. I still have my Mamaya RB 67 pro S, and also a 4x5 view camera.

For a serious photographer, if they are professional, or serious hobbiest, the iPhone will never replace a real camera. The sensor is too small, the lens to limiting and fixed. If sensor technology advances to the point that the miniature sensor in a phone is as good as a full frame sensor of today, then certainly the full frame sensors will advance to the point where the images can rival 4x5 sensor of today.

There are a lot more people today buying high end camera's than you may think, and they are not just professionals. Stop into B&H photo any day of the week in NYC. Hundreds of customers in the store all the time. A lot of people who are not professionals, demand a lot more of photography than an iPhone can deliver.

Even with advanced DSLR's of today, they are missing the tilts and shifts of a view camera.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

There are a lot more people today buying high end camera's than you may think, and they are not just professionals. Stop into B&H photo any day of the week in NYC. Hundreds of customers in the store all the time. A lot of people who are not professionals, demand a lot more of photography than an iPhone can deliver.

We have two professional photography stores selling DSLRs here in Indianapolis. Two. They're rarely empty, but that's because those two stores are serving a metro-area population of just over 2 million people. Within those 2 million people, let's be generous and say that they sell DSLRs to 5,000 customers a year. Or about 7 DSLR's a day per store. That's one-quarter of one percent of the population. And that's assuming a unique customer each time.

Now compare that to the 19 Verizon, 20 Sprint, 18 T-Mobile, 19 AT&T, and 8 Best Buy stores. Plus our 1 Fry's, 3 Costcos, 9 Sam's Clubs, and the Apple Store. All of whom are selling smartphones as fast as they can get them in.

You can buy the bottom of the barrel Nikon/Canon kits at Best Buy, Costco, Fry's, and Sam's Club. But I'm at Costco often enough to see how slowly that pallet of Nikon D5500's shrinks. They only get new pallets in once a year now.

The last time I asked about Nikon anything at Best Buy, it took 10 minutes to find someone who knew where the key was to unlock the case that held one dusty D5500 box and some SD Cards. Note that this is the same Best Buy that used to have a full-time Nikon person back when I bought my D50 there in 2003.

And if someone does pony up the $500-800 for the D5500 (or the equivalent Canon) as their first DSLR? They're likely to not notice one bit of (positive) difference between its pictures (JPEG shot on Auto) and that of an iPhone. Aside from maybe the zoom lens that isn't worth $500-800 just to take photos of the kids at the zoo. But then they have to remember to take the pics off the card, and "hey!... These are too big for Facebook!" etc. It ends up getting left in the camera bag after a month, and then they're less likely to learn real photography over time.

And if someone wants to learn real photography with a camera that's clearly better than a smartphone? Well that will be $2300 for a D750 kit. And... Oh yeah, it doesn't have a touch-screen, and it can't shoot 4K video. For that you need to pay $3500 (plus a $300-1200 lens) for the D850.

...What?!?!

See the disconnect in price and perceived features for a new user? That's why only pros are buying now.

 

[Precision Gem]

I hardly think that a D750 is the least expensive camera that is better than a smart phone.
Certainly most any camera over a few hundred dollars is.

I vacation in Algonquin Park Ontario every fall, the people, mostly from Toronto come up to the park to view and photograph the fall colors. I would say about 50% or more are using camera's in excess of $1000. Many with camera bags worth over $10,000 once the lenses are figured in.

Brick and mortar stores outside NYC for camera equipment have fallen victim to online sales.

 

[mollyc]

I got my first digital SLR long before I had a camera phone because I realized that even on auto the fact that there was no shutter lag gave me way better results than a digital hybrid camera (or digital P&S). Shooting on auto on a dSLR can make a *huge* difference, even to a novice.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

I hardly think that a D750 is the least expensive camera that is better than a smart phone.
Certainly most any camera over a few hundred dollars is.

I vacation in Algonquin Park Ontario every fall, the people, mostly from Toronto come up to the park to view and photograph the fall colors. I would say about 50% or more are using camera's in excess of $1000. Many with camera bags worth over $10,000 once the lenses are figured in.

Brick and mortar stores outside NYC for camera equipment have fallen victim to online sales.

(does quick search) There's what? 4? 5? dedicated camera stores in NYC? That's a city of 8 million people. I'm not surprised that they're busy.

If you think any camera costing a few hundred dollars is better than an iPhone, then you need to upgrade your phone. I bought a D7200 2 years ago (to replace my D50) for shooting miniatures in a studio. I returned it because my iPhone 6S, with a RAW app, beat it. My wife stopped using her small Canon digicam as soon as we upgraded to the 6S. And the 6S is an OLD Apple model.

Sure, there are use cases where a DX-format Nikon would be OK. But the lowest-end Nikon that was still worth MY money was the D750, because it uses a full-frame sensor, and has low-light performance that beats my iPhone.

Again... The best selling camera at my local shop is the D850. There's a waiting list, and they get snapped up so fast that the staff doesn't have any time to learn how to use them. The high-end is what's selling right now.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

If you think any camera costing a few hundred dollars is better than an iPhone, then you need to upgrade your phone. I bought a D7200 2 years ago (to replace my D50) for shooting miniatures in a studio. I returned it because my iPhone 6S, with a RAW app, beat it.

Okay, I'll bite... Beat it in what regards? It certainly can't beat it in resolving and definition power, it's just not physically possible, with a smaller lens and sensor to have more detail, light or better colour. So I am genuinely interested in what way/s it beat the D7200. Comparing RAW to RAW images from both devices.

I have a plethora of small M43 devices that are ages old now and all of them outperform my 8+, hands down. Comparing RAW to RAW images, both taken on a tripod. The little M43's have better detail, colour and light, even though they are 7 or 8 years older.

 

[ThatSandWyrm]

Okay, I'll bite... Beat it in what regards? It certainly can't beat it in resolving and definition power, it's just not physically possible, with a smaller lens and sensor to have more detail, light or better colour. So I am genuinely interested in what way/s it beat the D7200. Comparing RAW to RAW images from both devices.

I have a plethora of small M43 devices that are ages old now and all of them outperform my 8+, hands down. Comparing RAW to RAW images, both taken on a tripod. The little M43's have better detail, colour and light, even though they are 7 or 8 years older.

Here you go: http://www.warstrike.org/2016/02/comparing-cameras-nikon-d7100-vs-iphone.html

It was actually the D7100, but the comparison still holds (and it wasn't my only test). The iPhone must be making up in software processing what it lacks in sensor area. Or Apple's getting the best parts available. But regardless, the differences are slight. Final image quality favors the iPhone. Initial image quality (before RAW adjustments) favors the D7100.

 

[Apple fanboy]

Here you go: http://www.warstrike.org/2016/02/comparing-cameras-nikon-d7100-vs-iphone.html

It was actually the D7100, but the comparison still holds (and it wasn't my only test). The iPhone must be making up in software processing what it lacks in sensor area. Or Apple's getting the best parts available. But regardless, the differences are slight. Final image quality favors the iPhone. Initial image quality (before RAW adjustments) favors the D7100.

I'd have to disagree. My iPhone 7+ can't hold a candle to my D7100 or D750 when paired with decent glass etc.

 

[mollyc]

He was shooting ISO 50. That’s not low light. What happens when you need ISO 800 or 1600? Or faster.

 

[robgendreau]

Whilst this is true there will always be an argument for quality over quantity.
As we continue to push the envelope with 4K, 8k, HDR, 3D etc. the consumer seems increasingly happy to accept lesser quality images and videos.
Yes smart phones are getting better and they are convenient. But I rarely use mine for any content I plan to keep or share.

What consumers? I don't get the reference. 4k HDTVs and now HDR are pushing the other ones outta the stores, and Netflix is hyping 4k and HDR content like crazy. The consumers I know want higher quality video. And better cameras in smartphones are a big selling point. So somebody out there is interested in better quality, both in the content they consume that is created by others, and in tools for creating better content, whether they be phone tools or cameras or lenses. I even know a wedding photog who lost jobs cuz he was doing 4k video. But maybe I misunderstood.

And one of the points of the OP was that 2017 WAS different, that sales are coming UP: "Finally, in 2017 we see our first increase this decade with 25 million units. This is barely over 8% increase, but at least the number stopped dropping." That's pretty good news. I don't see DSLRs and such disappearing. Even if they rather lag in development vs smartphone brains (if an iPhone X can recognize you, what might happen if the power in that chip and software were put to use in auto focus?).

People love photos, be they snapshots, strictly utilitarian images like a photo of a book page, or images printed by pros for sale. I don't see that changing, and basically while the lineup of equipment varies a bit, it's still pro stuff, hardcore amateurs, casual amateurs, snapshooters, and so on; a very wide variety of users. I am in a camera club of all old people, and we've run a class for iPhone shooters, who happily join our club, and have even won in some competitions. The entries don't say which camera shot what, and judges don't care. And many of them are buying DSLRs and mirrorless cameras as they reach the limits of what their phone can do. I think things look pretty good.

 

[Alexander.Of.Oz]

Here you go: http://www.warstrike.org/2016/02/comparing-cameras-nikon-d7100-vs-iphone.html

It was actually the D7100, but the comparison still holds (and it wasn't my only test). The iPhone must be making up in software processing what it lacks in sensor area. Or Apple's getting the best parts available. But regardless, the differences are slight. Final image quality favors the iPhone. Initial image quality (before RAW adjustments) favors the D7100.

Oh, I thought you had some lab testing to back up your claim.

That you haven't actually posted both images unadjusted, and at full resolution to really see the massive fine detail differences, amongst the many other differences is not really helping your assertion here.

That you have decided to strip all exif data from the images doesn't help you either, we can't see what you applied in editing to make the iPhone image appear better at this size and resolution. I could potentially take the same image on my 6D and my iPhone 8+, editing the 8+ image to make it appear better too for delivery at this size and resolution.

The physics of things say otherwise to your claims. It is impossible for a smaller sensor to out-resolve a larger sensor as it has smaller photosites that can't possibly capture as much light, detail, etc... Ignoring the better quality of glass on a DSLR as compared to a mobile phone.

 

[Apple fanboy]

What consumers? I don't get the reference. 4k HDTVs and now HDR are pushing the other ones outta the stores, and Netflix is hyping 4k and HDR content like crazy. The consumers I know want higher quality video. And better cameras in smartphones are a big selling point. So somebody out there is interested in better quality, both in the content they consume that is created by others, and in tools for creating better content, whether they be phone tools or cameras or lenses. I even know a wedding photog who lost jobs cuz he was doing 4k video. But maybe I misunderstood.

And one of the points of the OP was that 2017 WAS different, that sales are coming UP: "Finally, in 2017 we see our first increase this decade with 25 million units. This is barely over 8% increase, but at least the number stopped dropping." That's pretty good news. I don't see DSLRs and such disappearing. Even if they rather lag in development vs smartphone brains (if an iPhone X can recognize you, what might happen if the power in that chip and software were put to use in auto focus?).

People love photos, be they snapshots, strictly utilitarian images like a photo of a book page, or images printed by pros for sale. I don't see that changing, and basically while the lineup of equipment varies a bit, it's still pro stuff, hardcore amateurs, casual amateurs, snapshooters, and so on; a very wide variety of users. I am in a camera club of all old people, and we've run a class for iPhone shooters, who happily join our club, and have even won in some competitions. The entries don't say which camera shot what, and judges don't care. And many of them are buying DSLRs and mirrorless cameras as they reach the limits of what their phone can do. I think things look pretty good.

By consumers I mean people who go to a concert and record on their iPhone or iPad. Who wants to watch that horrible grainy footage?
Or the rise of youtubers shooting terrible quality video and then compressed by YouTube.
Or even watching movies on an iPhone rather than a TV.

I'm not one of them btw. I take photos on a pro camera.

 

[maflynn]

By consumers I mean people who go to a concert and record on their iPhone or iPad. Who wants to watch that horrible grainy footage?

I don't think that's a fair comment to say that people who use smart phones must settle for horrible grainy footage.

Its true that smartphone's major weakness is the sensor size which translate in poor low light photography, but I find people are now capturing moments in their lives that they never did before. People tended to bring cameras to events, or trips, but now more then anything they're capturing life moments that would have been missed and those images are not horrible grainy footage.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I don't think that's a fair comment to say that people who use smart phones must settle for horrible grainy footage.

Its true that smartphone's major weakness is the sensor size which translate in poor low light photography, but I find people are now capturing moments in their lives that they never did before. People tended to bring cameras to events, or trips, but now more then anything they're capturing life moments that would have been missed and those images are not horrible grainy footage.

In good light the smartphone images are okay. But how often do you see people out using them miles from the stage or in a bar when the lighting is terrible? Quite often.

 

[maflynn]

But how often do you see people out using them miles from the stage or in a bar when the lighting is terrible?

Consider this; Would those same people take a camera to a concert, or bar if smarthphones didn't exist? I don't think they would. So while I agree with you in low light a camera is a better product, in real life, many of those situations would not be a feasible option and so again a grainy image is better then no image.

 

[Precision Gem]

(does quick search) There's what? 4? 5? dedicated camera stores in NYC? That's a city of 8 million people. I'm not surprised that they're busy.

If you think any camera costing a few hundred dollars is better than an iPhone, then you need to upgrade your phone. I bought a D7200 2 years ago (to replace my D50) for shooting miniatures in a studio. I returned it because my iPhone 6S, with a RAW app, beat it. My wife stopped using her small Canon digicam as soon as we upgraded to the 6S. And the 6S is an OLD Apple model.

Sure, there are use cases where a DX-format Nikon would be OK. But the lowest-end Nikon that was still worth MY money was the D750, because it uses a full-frame sensor, and has low-light performance that beats my iPhone.

Again... The best selling camera at my local shop is the D850. There's a waiting list, and they get snapped up so fast that the staff doesn't have any time to learn how to use them. The high-end is what's selling right now.

Clearly, you have never been to NYC. There are 4 or 5 camera stores just in the Times Square area alone!

I have an iPhone X, so at this time there really is no upgrade available. As shown with the pictures I posted on this thread, the iPhone X is no match for a micro 4/3 Olympus camera, much less a D750. It's no match for my Panasonic Lumix point and shoot with it's long reaching zoom lens.
[doublepost=1520352205][/doublepost]

Consider this; Would those same people take a camera to a concert, or bar if smarthphones didn't exist? I don't think they would. So while I agree with you in low light a camera is a better product, in real life, many of those situations would not be a feasible option and so again a grainy image is better then no image.

The reality is, smart phone camera's take the place of the Kodak Instamatic 110 of the 1970's. Simple to use, fit in your pocket, point an shoot. These camera's were all over the place and appealed to the masses who were interested in taking 'snap shots' at birthday parties, Disney Land etc. The were never used by serious photographers.

Today, 99% of the photos taken with a smart phone are these same types of snap shots but with a whole bunch of selfies mixed in. For this, the smart phone camera is perfect, plus you almost always have it with you.

To claim it can take the place of a DSLR or other serious camera is ridiculous.

 

[maflynn]

To claim it can take the place of a DSLR or other serious camera is ridiculous.

Consider the fact that many consumers started embracing the use of DLSRs a few years ago, and the idea of a smartphone replacing it, is not as ridiculious as you think - at least in terms of consumers.

 

[Precision Gem]

Consider the fact that many consumers started embracing the use of DLSRs a few years ago, and the idea of a smartphone replacing it, is not as ridiculious as you think - at least in terms of consumers.

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.


So here is the same light set up... On the Left iPhone X, Olympus E-M1, Nikon D750. All photos taken RAW.

http://www.precisiongem.com/Downloads/Compare.png

 

[Apple fanboy]

Consider this; Would those same people take a camera to a concert, or bar if smarthphones didn't exist? I don't think they would. So while I agree with you in low light a camera is a better product, in real life, many of those situations would not be a feasible option and so again a grainy image is better then no image.

Depends on what you plan to do with the grainy image. I'm not much of an iPhone snapper. But if you are looking to share what you are doing having an iPhone with you is handy.

 

[Precision Gem]

I think it all depends on how you value your experience.

For some, texting on the iPhone during dinner has replaced conversation at the dinner table.
Sexting has replaced intercourse.
I'm guessing for Maflynn, watching a movie on his iPhone has replaced a 65" OLED display and a surround sound system, since the iPhone X now has stereo speakers on it.
Watching a live concert on Periscope is just as good as being there in person.

 

[maflynn]

I don't understand the point you are trying to make.

My point is that for a period of times, may non-professionals/non-prosumers opted for DSLRs given the price point of inexpensive DSLRs from Nikon and Canon. This was a few years ago, it seemed like every new parent rushed out to get a DSLR to capture as much as possible. Now, its my opinion that many of them forgo the use of DSLRs and just use the smartphone, partly because 20 somethings having babies are more accustomed with the smartphones and don't see the value in DSLR when most of them don't print out the images.

To summarize, DSLR take better pictures, but for many consumers they're happy with the smartphone and don't see the need to buy DSLRs. The erosion of sales is going to continue (though there has been an uptick). I have no proof of this, its just my opinion based on what I see when I go to public places, i.e., parks, disney, museums, etc.

Depends on what you plan to do with the grainy image. I'm not much of an iPhone snapper. But if you are looking to share what you are doing having an iPhone with you is handy.

Agreed, and I suspect most people who use smartphones for photography upload the images to social media.

 

[Apple fanboy]

My point is that for a period of times, may non-professionals/non-prosumers opted for DSLRs given the price point of inexpensive DSLRs from Nikon and Canon. This was a few years ago, it seemed like every new parent rushed out to get a DSLR to capture as much as possible. Now, its my opinion that many of them forgo the use of DSLRs and just use the smartphone, partly because 20 somethings having babies are more accustomed with the smartphones and don't see the value in DSLR when most of them don't print out the images.

To summarize, DSLR take better pictures, but for many consumers they're happy with the smartphone and don't see the need to buy DSLRs. The erosion of sales is going to continue (though there has been an uptick). I have no proof of this, its just my opinion based on what I see when I go to public places, i.e., parks, disney, museums, etc.


Agreed, and I suspect most people who use smartphones for photography upload the images to social media.

I wish I'd bought a DSLR when my daughter was born. I didn't get into photography until much later.
Back then I had a poor quality film camera and didn't know what I was doing.
My phone at the time was a Nokia 3310, so the camera wasn't really an option!

 

[mollyc]

Now, its my opinion that many of them forgo the use of DSLRs and just use the smartphone, partly because 20 somethings having babies are more accustomed with the smartphones and don't see the value in DSLR when most of them don't print out the images.

Agreed, and I suspect most people who use smartphones for photography upload the images to social media.

I wish I'd bought a DSLR when my daughter was born. I didn't get into photography until much later.
Back then I had a poor quality film camera and didn't know what I was doing.
My phone at the time was a Nokia 3310, so the camera wasn't really an option!

I think you underestimate the momtographer (and dadtographer). I am on several photography forums dominated by women, and more and more keep entering the industry. Do all make it as pros? No, of course not....but they are all buying gear and learning.

 

[Apple fanboy]

I think you underestimate the momtographer (and dadtographer). I am on several photography forums dominated by women, and more and more keep entering the industry. Do all make it as pros? No, of course not....but they are all buying gear and learning.

There's always people buying gear! Four days working at The Photography Show next weekend will testify to that!

 

[Krevnik]

I agree, and to some degree, the high end professional cameras will continue to exist. I do think however as people use their smart phones more and more, we'll start seeing a consolidation of the camera makers

If consolidation happens, it's going to mostly be larger players cannibalizing the smaller players to get tech to keep the other larger players at bay. As for now, they all seem too busy scrambling to find a niche in the form of modern ILCs and high end compacts.

Having the digital compact sub-market shrink is probably the best case scenario this market could have hoped for, really. The real question is if the bump in 2017 is the start of a change of direction for ILC sales or not. And what factors played into the peak at 2012, and in what ways.

Consider the fact that many consumers started embracing the use of DLSRs a few years ago, and the idea of a smartphone replacing it, is not as ridiculious as you think - at least in terms of consumers.

Which is a bit of a weird argument though, when looking at the aggregate data. The digital compact market has been decimated over the last 7 years. Meanwhile, the bump that ILCs got was much smaller. At least in aggregate, the vast majority went straight from digital compacts to smartphones (on the order of 8:1 when looking at the data). I'm not discounting that what you say wasn't a factor, but with the way you bring it up multiple times in the thread, it feels like you are giving it more weight than it actually carries. Of course, data here sucks, but we also have a maturing digital high-end camera market where the pace of innovation has been slowing down, and upgrade cycles growing longer. So it's hard to say exactly what accounts for the 2012 peak, and the 2017 "recovery" in the ILC side of things, but I don't think folks going from digital compacts to DSLRs, and then smartphones will have as much long-term impact on the market as you appear to suggest.