New Camera/s by Christmas

philbaum · 08-23-2013, 10:48 AM

Quote:

When 43% of the market vanishes in ONE YEAR something profound WILL happen to the all of the players in the market.

From Kirk Tuck's article The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

This is the most significant article on the photographic industry that i've read in the last few years and i'm glad that others agree. I expected this year to be a victory lap year for Nikon FF with regard to them increasing their market share. I expected that FF cameras would take over a higher percentage of the DSLR sales.

Instead, Nikon share prices have dropped dramatically and even their DSLR sales are off 8 to 18% depending on the source. Doesn't matter, the FF sales are down a bit. It isn't all doom and gloom. I think the photographic market has been through a bubble experience as Kirk wrote about. The less serious photographers will move on to cell phone cameras and the next bubble in the adult electronics world; the serious photographers will get back to taking pictures and worry less about the new cameras.

As for me, I've had the best 18 months of print sales I've ever had and continue to take pictures for a live performance theater company - going on 4 years now. I don't have any compelling need to buy a FF camera and therefore have a wait and see attitude towards new products. IMO, there will always be something like DSLRs.

**Rondec** · 08-23-2013, 11:12 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by philbaum

From Kirk Tuck's article The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

This is the most significant article on the photographic industry that i've read in the last few years and i'm glad that others agree. I expected this year to be a victory lap year for Nikon FF with regard to them increasing their market share. I expected that FF cameras would take over a higher percentage of the DSLR sales.

Instead, Nikon share prices have dropped dramatically and even their DSLR sales are off 8 to 18% depending on the source. Doesn't matter, the FF sales are down a bit. It isn't all doom and gloom. I think the photographic market has been through a bubble experience as Kirk wrote about. The less serious photographers will move on to cell phone cameras and the next bubble in the adult electronics world; the serious photographers will get back to taking pictures and worry less about the new cameras.

As for me, I've had the best 18 months of print sales I've ever had and continue to take pictures for a live performance theater company - going on 4 years now. I don't have any compelling need to buy a FF camera and therefore have a wait and see attitude towards new products. IMO, there will always be something like DSLRs.

I just think you have to have a reason for someone who already has an SLR to want to upgrade -- better image quality is probably the biggest thing, but when most people are satisfied with where they are at, then it becomes a lot harder to sell them new gear.

The big improvement lately has been smaller cameras -- NEX, NX, mirrorless in general and while they may check boxes for techie folks, I just don't know that they motivate many people who are satisfied with their current SLR.

Barry Pearson · 08-23-2013, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

I just think you have to have a reason for someone who already has an SLR to want to upgrade -- better image quality is probably the biggest thing, but when most people are satisfied with where they are at, then it becomes a lot harder to sell them new gear.

The big improvement lately have been smaller cameras -- NEX, NX, mirrorless in general and while they may check boxes for techie folks, I just don't know that they motivate many people who are satisfied with their current SLR.

I wouldn't have thought that people who are satisfied with their current SLR would waste their time tracking those developments! They are out there taking photos.

I am expanding my Q mirrorless system because it is appropriate for situations where my K-5IIs isn't. That doesn't mean there is a fault with my K-5IIs - just that it was never designed as a very light, very small, unobtrusive carry-everywhere system. And it is my Q system that is my non-techie point-&-shoot camera; it is my K-5IIs that is more of a techie camera.

**Rondec** · 08-23-2013, 12:03 PM

Originally posted by Barry Pearson

I wouldn't have thought that people who are satisfied with their current SLR would waste their time tracking those developments! They are out there taking photos.

I am expanding my Q mirrorless system because it is appropriate for situations where my K-5IIs isn't. That doesn't mean there is a fault with my K-5IIs - just that it was never designed as a very light, very small, unobtrusive carry-everywhere system. And it is my Q system that is my non-techie point-&-shoot camera; it is my K-5IIs that is more of a techie camera.

May I should have phrased it differently. But I think everyone is interested in something new, if it is truly better. But if your old camera works well, then you have to have some improvement in the K3 versus the K5 II to make you want to buy one. I have purchased in the past: a K100, K10, K20, K7, K-01 and K5 (two of them), but I didn't see enough benefit to buy a K5 II over my current K5s. Sure, I take photos, but if Pentax could come up with something that felt like it offered much over my current gear, I would be all over it. What I don't want, is more megapixels, or a different camera shape or color and basically the same image.

I do take photos, but I also track what is going on with new camera tech -- I don't really feel like the two are mutually exclusive.

bossa · 08-23-2013, 05:23 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Uluru

Only two reasons that allowed that to happen were:
a. that photography is ruled by everyday mob, or our common ignorance, which can't see the aesthetic difference between the output of a certain glass plus sensor combination.
b. current economy, that does favour cheap and small electronic gadgets produced in billions

So it is good enough, but it is not the art — it is only a convenience and a fantasy that allow everyday John and Jane dream they can become a big artist one day.
Yet the definition of art is by default seeking the unique and hard to reach heights, and open up new horizons — not to dwell in common plains.

See for example this article by Ashwin Rao, Chasing Light in the Palouse with the Pentax 645D. Many photograph posted there, even scaled down to fit the screen clearly illustrate they cannot be done with an APS-C sensor and its lens. For example this image below, go on and repeat all its characteristics, nuances and dimensions of space with the K5. Even the FF camera with sweat to come close.

You see, it is same in arts. If you can't see the difference between the JMW Turner's masterpiece and a sheet done by local competent watercolour dabbler, we can't go on forward and have a quality discussion about details that matter.

This final point of yours goes to the main issue with Photography (in that it does not require an understanding of form to actually make an image) and it is that point that allows people without Art Education to think they can buy into the manufacture of Art at the press of a button. This same issue is prevalent in the Music Industry right now and has been since the advent of digital sequencing and computer involvement (80's onward). I've been playing guitar professionally for 40 years and I have had some strange conversations with DJ's in that time where they talk about themselves as players. As an highly accomplished musician I find that offensive but I also believe it stems from a similar type of relationship people are now developing with digital cameras, Instagram being the biggest example where people become "Preset Artists" followed by Photoshop for those who like digging in deeper.

In art clubs generally, rules and regulations regarding the craft aspects of a medium are raised up to a level of importance that allows a generally accepted measurement process to be used to grade one's success within the group at becoming what the club members generally perceive to be an "Artist". This usually has nothing to do with "Art" per se as what is more generally considered as "good art" does not rely on a practitioner being a slave of formulas to achieve an artistic end. Artists tend to be more concerned with the tearing down of aesthetic, philosophical and cultural boundaries which bind and cripple us intellectually and which prevent us from really "seeing". Visual communication does not have to be rational, linear or logical, it does not have to tell a story, the main subject of a WOA usually being the WOA itself - as an object to be considered independent of function and utility and not necessarily for some internal element of the work. This is the aspect of art that many people don't appreciate, reject outright, find trivial and/or criticize.

If people were interested in becoming an artist more than a craft related photographer I believe they would find a more rewarding and on-going relationship with their work and life.

The following article brings up a few points to consider. I gleaned this link from this forum but cannot locate the OP. Thanks to the poster it was a good read.

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

**monochrome** · 08-23-2013, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by bossa

The following article brings up a few points to consider. I gleaned this link from this forum but cannot locate the OP. Thanks to the poster it was a good read.

Bossa:

Here's the Post - the discussion has been vibrant!!

bossa · 08-23-2013, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by monochrome

Bossa:

Here's the Post - the discussion has been vibrant!!

Cheers mate.

derekkite · 08-25-2013, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by philbaum

Do you have to work at being rude and offensive - or do you just come by that naturally

Aren't you aware of what's happening to the camera marketplace this year. Check out these comments by Kirk Tuck who has a much more rational view than you do - at least he's not out there trying to insult people who disagree with him.

The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

Sales of lots of things are down. Expensive cameras, especially when most folks who would be interested already have a very good one, are a luxury and in tough times won't be purchases. I have over the last while run into folks who have bought used stuff at a good price because there is so much of it, and the gains from a new bleeding edge would be marginal at best.

I think that the specialty markets are the only ones which will grow. I agree with the sentiments on full frame, although I personally am not interested in one. Someone who is looking for the capabilities of a larger sensor will buy one. I will buy, and spend far more money than is reasonable, on the stuff that I am interested in.

tjstimbo · 08-26-2013, 08:37 AM

I have two K5 bodies and a K5 IIs which I really enjoy using, my wife has a K7 and will upgrade to one of my K5 bodies soon.

I would love to see either (or both) a full frame model and a very updated K5 model that only takes photo's, I don't like to do video with an SLR, seems like a waste of time. If I want to shoot video I'll use a video camera which has more features and takes better video than the K5. Would like faster transfer speeds to memory card and computer, WiFi would be good, better AF, colour balance and more frames per second.

Tim

nixcamic · 08-26-2013, 10:11 PM

I will never understand this obsession with removing video from SLRs. The option to take video doesn't make it any worse at taking pictures, and I personally like having the option available to me. I'm already carrying around a heavy SLR, why would I want to carry either a small video camera with a crappy lens/sensor or a large heavy video camera with a good lens/sensor, in addition to the perfectly functional camera I already have with me?

If y'all don't like it just don't move the dial to the picture of the little movie camera.

TomE · 08-26-2013, 10:33 PM

Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive, while maintaining the same IQ!

Waratah · 08-27-2013, 01:30 AM

Originally posted by ennacac

Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive, while maintaining the same IQ!

Or not have buttons that get bumped every now and then.

Kunzite · 08-27-2013, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by ennacac

Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive

Nope, it wouldn't. At most you'll remove a button, or a mode dial position. And lots of potential customers

**Rondec** · 08-27-2013, 03:40 AM

Originally posted by ennacac

Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive, while maintaining the same IQ!

It wouldn't change a thing, just irritate folks. All of the CMOS sensors out now are capable of producing video, so it is just a software issue (which Pentax already has). Can you imagine if Pentax released to versions of the K5 II, one with video enabled and without, but the camera equal sized and costing the same? It's a free feature, just like scene modes or filters -- once they are developed, it basically costs nothing to activate them on a camera.

Pentax has to sell cameras against the competition and when all of them (even entry level cameras) have video, to disable it on a camera, would be to kill that particular camera.

Fogel70 · 08-27-2013, 03:53 AM

Even Leica is proud to offer video and LV on new M-mount cameras.

08-23-2013, 11:12 AM - 1 Like	#197
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by philbaum From Kirk Tuck's article The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%? This is the most significant article on the photographic industry that i've read in the last few years and i'm glad that others agree. I expected this year to be a victory lap year for Nikon FF with regard to them increasing their market share. I expected that FF cameras would take over a higher percentage of the DSLR sales. Instead, Nikon share prices have dropped dramatically and even their DSLR sales are off 8 to 18% depending on the source. Doesn't matter, the FF sales are down a bit. It isn't all doom and gloom. I think the photographic market has been through a bubble experience as Kirk wrote about. The less serious photographers will move on to cell phone cameras and the next bubble in the adult electronics world; the serious photographers will get back to taking pictures and worry less about the new cameras. As for me, I've had the best 18 months of print sales I've ever had and continue to take pictures for a live performance theater company - going on 4 years now. I don't have any compelling need to buy a FF camera and therefore have a wait and see attitude towards new products. IMO, there will always be something like DSLRs. I just think you have to have a reason for someone who already has an SLR to want to upgrade -- better image quality is probably the biggest thing, but when most people are satisfied with where they are at, then it becomes a lot harder to sell them new gear. The big improvement lately has been smaller cameras -- NEX, NX, mirrorless in general and while they may check boxes for techie folks, I just don't know that they motivate many people who are satisfied with their current SLR. Last edited by Rondec; 08-23-2013 at 11:58 AM.

08-23-2013, 05:23 PM - 1 Like	#200
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Become and Artist? Originally posted by Uluru Only two reasons that allowed that to happen were: a. that photography is ruled by everyday mob, or our common ignorance, which can't see the aesthetic difference between the output of a certain glass plus sensor combination. b. current economy, that does favour cheap and small electronic gadgets produced in billions So it is good enough, but it is not the art — it is only a convenience and a fantasy that allow everyday John and Jane dream they can become a big artist one day. Yet the definition of art is by default seeking the unique and hard to reach heights, and open up new horizons — not to dwell in common plains. See for example this article by Ashwin Rao, Chasing Light in the Palouse with the Pentax 645D. Many photograph posted there, even scaled down to fit the screen clearly illustrate they cannot be done with an APS-C sensor and its lens. For example this image below, go on and repeat all its characteristics, nuances and dimensions of space with the K5. Even the FF camera with sweat to come close. You see, it is same in arts. If you can't see the difference between the JMW Turner's masterpiece and a sheet done by local competent watercolour dabbler, we can't go on forward and have a quality discussion about details that matter. This final point of yours goes to the main issue with Photography (in that it does not require an understanding of form to actually make an image) and it is that point that allows people without Art Education to think they can buy into the manufacture of Art at the press of a button. This same issue is prevalent in the Music Industry right now and has been since the advent of digital sequencing and computer involvement (80's onward). I've been playing guitar professionally for 40 years and I have had some strange conversations with DJ's in that time where they talk about themselves as players. As an highly accomplished musician I find that offensive but I also believe it stems from a similar type of relationship people are now developing with digital cameras, Instagram being the biggest example where people become "Preset Artists" followed by Photoshop for those who like digging in deeper. In art clubs generally, rules and regulations regarding the craft aspects of a medium are raised up to a level of importance that allows a generally accepted measurement process to be used to grade one's success within the group at becoming what the club members generally perceive to be an "Artist". This usually has nothing to do with "Art" per se as what is more generally considered as "good art" does not rely on a practitioner being a slave of formulas to achieve an artistic end. Artists tend to be more concerned with the tearing down of aesthetic, philosophical and cultural boundaries which bind and cripple us intellectually and which prevent us from really "seeing". Visual communication does not have to be rational, linear or logical, it does not have to tell a story, the main subject of a WOA usually being the WOA itself - as an object to be considered independent of function and utility and not necessarily for some internal element of the work. This is the aspect of art that many people don't appreciate, reject outright, find trivial and/or criticize. If people were interested in becoming an artist more than a craft related photographer I believe they would find a more rewarding and on-going relationship with their work and life. The following article brings up a few points to consider. I gleaned this link from this forum but cannot locate the OP. Thanks to the poster it was a good read. The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%?

08-26-2013, 08:37 AM	#204
tjstimbo Forum Member Join Date: Apr 2013 Location: Daventry Posts: 84	Photo's Only I have two K5 bodies and a K5 IIs which I really enjoy using, my wife has a K7 and will upgrade to one of my K5 bodies soon. I would love to see either (or both) a full frame model and a very updated K5 model that only takes photo's, I don't like to do video with an SLR, seems like a waste of time. If I want to shoot video I'll use a video camera which has more features and takes better video than the K5. Would like faster transfer speeds to memory card and computer, WiFi would be good, better AF, colour balance and more frames per second. Tim

08-27-2013, 01:56 AM	#208
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by ennacac Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive Nope, it wouldn't. At most you'll remove a button, or a mode dial position. And lots of potential customers Last edited by Kunzite; 08-27-2013 at 02:40 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Beginner's Woe's with new Camera	Stevizzy	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	25	10-29-2012 08:10 AM
Photokina 2012: Leica presents its new S medium format camera	jogiba	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	5	09-21-2012 01:45 AM
Machinery Dividing by Zero: Mama's New Ride	Sailor	Post Your Photos!	29	02-04-2012 11:29 AM
Misc A New Christmas Camera . . . . .	Sailor	Post Your Photos!	18	01-01-2011 06:52 AM
Pentax's Third new camera..... New Distribution Channel	interested_observer	Pentax News and Rumors	50	09-30-2010 12:23 PM

08-23-2013, 10:48 AM	#196
philbaum Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Port Townsend, Washington State, USA Posts: 3,659	Quote: When 43% of the market vanishes in ONE YEAR something profound WILL happen to the all of the players in the market. From Kirk Tuck's article The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%? This is the most significant article on the photographic industry that i've read in the last few years and i'm glad that others agree. I expected this year to be a victory lap year for Nikon FF with regard to them increasing their market share. I expected that FF cameras would take over a higher percentage of the DSLR sales. Instead, Nikon share prices have dropped dramatically and even their DSLR sales are off 8 to 18% depending on the source. Doesn't matter, the FF sales are down a bit. It isn't all doom and gloom. I think the photographic market has been through a bubble experience as Kirk wrote about. The less serious photographers will move on to cell phone cameras and the next bubble in the adult electronics world; the serious photographers will get back to taking pictures and worry less about the new cameras. As for me, I've had the best 18 months of print sales I've ever had and continue to take pictures for a live performance theater company - going on 4 years now. I don't have any compelling need to buy a FF camera and therefore have a wait and see attitude towards new products. IMO, there will always be something like DSLRs.

08-23-2013, 11:50 AM	#198
Barry Pearson Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2013 Location: Stockport Posts: 964	Originally posted by Rondec I just think you have to have a reason for someone who already has an SLR to want to upgrade -- better image quality is probably the biggest thing, but when most people are satisfied with where they are at, then it becomes a lot harder to sell them new gear. The big improvement lately have been smaller cameras -- NEX, NX, mirrorless in general and while they may check boxes for techie folks, I just don't know that they motivate many people who are satisfied with their current SLR. I wouldn't have thought that people who are satisfied with their current SLR would waste their time tracking those developments! They are out there taking photos. I am expanding my Q mirrorless system because it is appropriate for situations where my K-5IIs isn't. That doesn't mean there is a fault with my K-5IIs - just that it was never designed as a very light, very small, unobtrusive carry-everywhere system. And it is my Q system that is my non-techie point-&-shoot camera; it is my K-5IIs that is more of a techie camera.

08-23-2013, 12:03 PM	#199
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by Barry Pearson I wouldn't have thought that people who are satisfied with their current SLR would waste their time tracking those developments! They are out there taking photos. I am expanding my Q mirrorless system because it is appropriate for situations where my K-5IIs isn't. That doesn't mean there is a fault with my K-5IIs - just that it was never designed as a very light, very small, unobtrusive carry-everywhere system. And it is my Q system that is my non-techie point-&-shoot camera; it is my K-5IIs that is more of a techie camera. May I should have phrased it differently. But I think everyone is interested in something new, if it is truly better. But if your old camera works well, then you have to have some improvement in the K3 versus the K5 II to make you want to buy one. I have purchased in the past: a K100, K10, K20, K7, K-01 and K5 (two of them), but I didn't see enough benefit to buy a K5 II over my current K5s. Sure, I take photos, but if Pentax could come up with something that felt like it offered much over my current gear, I would be all over it. What I don't want, is more megapixels, or a different camera shape or color and basically the same image. I do take photos, but I also track what is going on with new camera tech -- I don't really feel like the two are mutually exclusive.

08-23-2013, 05:55 PM	#201
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Originally posted by bossa The following article brings up a few points to consider. I gleaned this link from this forum but cannot locate the OP. Thanks to the poster it was a good read. Bossa: Here's the Post - the discussion has been vibrant!!

08-23-2013, 06:22 PM	#202
bossa Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Adelaide Posts: 4,546	Originally posted by monochrome Bossa: Here's the Post - the discussion has been vibrant!! Cheers mate.

08-25-2013, 09:46 PM	#203
derekkite Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Nelson B.C. Posts: 3,782	Originally posted by philbaum Do you have to work at being rude and offensive - or do you just come by that naturally Aren't you aware of what's happening to the camera marketplace this year. Check out these comments by Kirk Tuck who has a much more rational view than you do - at least he's not out there trying to insult people who disagree with him. The Visual Science Lab / Kirk Tuck: Has the bubble burst? Is that why camera sales in N. America are down by 43%? Sales of lots of things are down. Expensive cameras, especially when most folks who would be interested already have a very good one, are a luxury and in tough times won't be purchases. I have over the last while run into folks who have bought used stuff at a good price because there is so much of it, and the gains from a new bleeding edge would be marginal at best. I think that the specialty markets are the only ones which will grow. I agree with the sentiments on full frame, although I personally am not interested in one. Someone who is looking for the capabilities of a larger sensor will buy one. I will buy, and spend far more money than is reasonable, on the stuff that I am interested in.

08-26-2013, 10:11 PM	#205
nixcamic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Guatemala Posts: 354	I will never understand this obsession with removing video from SLRs. The option to take video doesn't make it any worse at taking pictures, and I personally like having the option available to me. I'm already carrying around a heavy SLR, why would I want to carry either a small video camera with a crappy lens/sensor or a large heavy video camera with a good lens/sensor, in addition to the perfectly functional camera I already have with me? If y'all don't like it just don't move the dial to the picture of the little movie camera.

08-26-2013, 10:33 PM	#206
TomE Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 299	Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive, while maintaining the same IQ!

08-27-2013, 01:30 AM	#207
Waratah Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Photos: Albums Posts: 81	Originally posted by ennacac Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive, while maintaining the same IQ! Or not have buttons that get bumped every now and then.

08-27-2013, 03:40 AM	#209
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by ennacac Possibly the DSLR without video would be lighter, more compact and less expensive, while maintaining the same IQ! It wouldn't change a thing, just irritate folks. All of the CMOS sensors out now are capable of producing video, so it is just a software issue (which Pentax already has). Can you imagine if Pentax released to versions of the K5 II, one with video enabled and without, but the camera equal sized and costing the same? It's a free feature, just like scene modes or filters -- once they are developed, it basically costs nothing to activate them on a camera. Pentax has to sell cameras against the competition and when all of them (even entry level cameras) have video, to disable it on a camera, would be to kill that particular camera.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-27-2013, 03:53 AM	#210
Fogel70 Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Stockholm, Sweden Photos: Albums Posts: 3,062	Even Leica is proud to offer video and LV on new M-mount cameras.