[cxdoo]

How about the effects of video?

As someone who uses the gear mostly to take photos/videos of my kids, I don't see anything in current developments that would tempt me to replace my 4 years old Panasonic HDC-TM700.
Yes K5II can take videos, yes maybe they are better than Panasonic ones, no I can't tell the difference for what I use it for, and finally and most important, I can just hand Panasonic to a person (or a child, like my 4 year old) and have them rolling. Using a DSLR, zooming, changing aperture or whatever, we don't want any of that. Plus we don't want that kilo of fragile equipment in unreliable hands.
Now that I wrote it, I think most people feel that way about photo cameras too.

---------- Post added 8th Aug 2014 at 16:00 ----------

Also, correlation between my child and camera age is probably significant when discussing the dynamics of people purchasing photo/video equipment.

[RonHendriks1966]

How about the effects of video?

I guess for some it means buying a camera instead of videocam, so the introduction of video in dslr and mirrorless probably gave it some sales. Problem is that mostly missing AF during video makes it a little hard to work with for amateurs. Pentax never was good in it so I think we can forget about the professional market for now.

[monochrome]

That means it's not going to become a main stream feature until Apple allows it to happen on their devices. It certainly can be done on a lot of Android devices now and there are more Android devices. But until Apple does it, it's just not cool enough.

As I understand it Pentax has had extensive discussions with Apple that ended up being fruitless. I think the Q system with integrated, contextual Eye-Fi Menu and easy device sync is pretty darn good for now. My wife does half her sharing from her Q and half from her phone - the distinction is Q is when she's sharing a really nice landscape or portrait; her phone is for an activity snapshot.

For 1* and 2* jpeg's auto syncing with an Eye-Fi Mobi is fast and easy. You only set it up once anyway!! Adding effects (Instagram is all about adding effects) either in camera or on a new photo in the device Folder is no big deal.

Eye-Fi Pro which let's you send RAW's to the Eye-Fi cloud site and to a computer on Wi-Fi networks is an entirely different paradigm - yes, it is a multi-step set up process done on multiple devices and platforms, but the objective isn't to share on social media.

Users who are intolerant of the extra step - they just want Instagram to be the turnkey photo app - aren't going to be swayed by an easier linking system.

[RonHendriks1966]

Nikon published lowered forecasts today, in fact undershooting by quite a lot.

I don't think Ricoh is hurting that much. I think the medium format camera business is much less affected by these sorts of things and the 645Z is doing well, by all accounts. In addition, Ricoh hasn't over produced and over shipped cameras like Canon and Nikon (and like Olympus did in the past). That sort of thing leads to deep discounting in the long run and can really hurt revenue.

Looking at that financial report I guess that Nikon again produced more camera's then they sold. To over optimistic about the market as a whole and the cut they could have of it. So they lost marketshare in a declining market. About the heavy competition, well they do it themselves. The new Nikon 1 S2 costs 459 euro with lens while you can buy the Nikon 1 S1 for 179 euro with the same lens. Overstocking makes camera's from a year old going out for a very cheap price. That is what Olympus did in the past and partly stil does. The PEN E-P5 with lens is 799 euro and the PEN E-P3 with lens is 399 euro.

I wonder what Ricoh think. They bought Pentax at the top of the market, a few months before "peak camera" of 2012. The landscape must look very different now and they may even rue the day, but in truth Ricoh are no different from Canon and Nikon in the "not invented here" stakes. Look at the ill-fated FluCard - no wifi here, thank you, we're off-shoring the lot to a third party and good luck with than one, customers. I guess one possibility is that edgy investors at Canon and Nikon might force some changes, particularly at Nikon which is much the more vulnerable.

Well I don't think that stakeholders of Ricoh are very much interested in de Imaging part. It is to small to make a difference and to odd as a product in the rest of the B2B company that Ricoh is. On the other hand it needs to be profatable to be on the charts I guess.

One thing that I think is odd and also don't agree with is that Ricoh Imaging doesn't have any photographers on their paylist. It's like Ferrari and no testdrivers. Connecting with your end users is something that Ricoh could do a lot better and I think that cameramakers who know to connect with their crowd will have a better chance in surviving.

[Aristophanes]

maybe the camera sales also was like a bubble, way too big and it has now come down to normal levels. Of course companies will complain, as they were getting used to the big bucks.
And the cameras these days are just producing excellent pictures, there is no need in upgrading every year or every other year.
And cameras are not like phones, you have to pay the full price at the counter. How many people would get a new phone every year or every other year if it didn't come with a subscription, and they had to pay it full right there, right now. Not nearly as many as they do now.

The photo industry took off into a digital Golden Age because photography using superior equipment became more accessible and the cost to purchase and develop film went into cameras and lenses instead. It was a massive shift in capital and consumer spending. What Kodak lost Canon and Nikon gained. not a bubble; a capital shift. Creative destruction.

Now the consumer has invested in the good stuff, killed P&S with the smartphone, and probably wonder why their DSLR does not talk to their iPad. The iPad does not need the DSLR, but the DSLR now really, really needs the iPad.

The Japanese camera manufacturers are at least 48 months in denial about that shift. They keep thinking people will increase the purchases of FF cameras and this will spur PC sales in kind. Uh-uh. Instead people are stalling purchases of DSLRs until they catch up with the non-PC user base which is growing phenomenally faster than both PC and camera sales. When I say DSLR I capture the entire higher-end, dedicated camera market, including touch P&Ss, DSLRs, mirrorless, etc.

BTW most of the world pays full price for their phones. Only US/Canada really subsidize phones with plans.

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 10:42 AM ----------

How about the effects of video?

There are both the casual consumer and higher end productions to consider, ie the erosion of the handcam market and the penetration of DSLR's as serious tools. Also are the DSLR-like cams (C100) that will fully hybridize popular functions down to the top end of the pro-DSLR market, driving sales there. Maybe not huge volume, but good margins.
.

GoPro and smartphones destroyed the dedicated videocam market in less than 36 months. It has been a phenomenal collapse, even more than the P&S market.

Like P&S the market will not go away entirely but it will be structured less as a consumer device and more as a specialized niche which is where GoPro excels (though I suspect their growth curve is flattening somewhat as the gonzo crowd has mostly anted up already).

The Fuji X-series has sold less than expected. I have been told by a major chain they actually sell only OK. One of the persistent complaints about the Fuji line is lousy video.

The Japanese have a blind spot in linking engineering to consumer use. Fuji apparently does not do video well because they see that as another company's business. They do not see their company as "doing video". Pentax/Ricoh has largely been seen the same way. Take the Ricoh GR. not good video. but video is best accomplished using wider angle lenses as the GoPro success attests. So Ricoh puts out a relatively wide angle mirrorless pocket camera with a killer lens almost perfectly designed for video...yet video is poorly executed even though the sensor itself is very capable. Classic missed opportunity. Why? Because Ricoh/Pentax DNA is not that of a videocam maker. These companies have real problems re-purposing because some 62 year-old marketing guy is still in charge.

[Rondec]

You can still turn a profit in a declining market, you just have to make sure not to make more cameras than you sell. The worst thing in the world is for Nikon to be selling D5300s (or whatever their current just above entry SLR camera is) against discounted D5100 and D5200s.

Connectivity on SLRs will always be a little clunky as compared to phones and tablets. On the other hand, looking at the photo of the guy trying to use a tablet to shoot sports, those ergonomics suck. I can't imagine trying to stabilize such a contraption.

[ruggiex]

As I understand it Pentax has had extensive discussions with Apple that ended up being fruitless. I think the Q system with integrated, contextual Eye-Fi Menu and easy device sync is pretty darn good for now. My wife does half her sharing from her Q and half from her phone - the distinction is Q is when she's sharing a really nice landscape or portrait; her phone is for an activity snapshot.

For 1* and 2* jpeg's auto syncing with an Eye-Fi Mobi is fast and easy. You only set it up once anyway!! Adding effects (Instagram is all about adding effects) either in camera or on a new photo in the device Folder is no big deal.

Eye-Fi Pro which let's you send RAW's to the Eye-Fi cloud site and to a computer on Wi-Fi networks is an entirely different paradigm - yes, it is a multi-step set up process done on multiple devices and platforms, but the objective isn't to share on social media.

Users who are intolerant of the extra step - they just want Instagram to be the turnkey photo app - aren't going to be swayed by an easier linking system.

Working with Apple is always an uphill battle with very little chance of success, they only ever want you to work FOR them... </rant>

I really despise the fact that EyeFi pro is completely capable of mobi's simplified setup with mobile devices yet they want to sell it to you as two different products. </rant>

Users who find phone photos good enough have less incentive to learn the extra setup step even if it might be as simple as punching in an extra digit once. I think it pretty much would take the user to feel that they can actually get better photos with another camera first before they are willing to invest the time to steer away from their normal workflow and take those extra steps. I'm sure your wife is a step above the main stream in terms of photographic knowledge though.

[RonHendriks1966]

You can still turn a profit in a declining market, you just have to make sure not to make more cameras than you sell. The worst thing in the world is for Nikon to be selling D5300s (or whatever their current just above entry SLR camera is) against discounted D5100 and D5200s.

Actually they do:

http://www.cameranu.nl/nl/c642/digitale-cameras/nikon/spiegelreflex-camera?t=f&f=eyJwcmljZSI6WzMzOSwiOTk5Il19

Body only:
D7100 949 euro
D7000 699 euro
D5300 697 euro
D5200 519 euro
D5100 369 euro
D3300 499 euro
D3200 339 euro
D3100 349 euro (only found with kitlens)
D90 479 euro (amazing but stil available)

[Clavius]

This is always a fascinating topic. Fact is that the camera market is in turbulent waters right now. But photography is far from doomed. Such turbulent waters have been seen many times before.

My gut feeling is that we're seeing a combination of many things. The global economy has been struggling for a while. That means all luxury goods automatically struggle. Secondly, there was a giant spur in DSLR sales right before that economic crisis, so people don't tend to upgrade. And third, more then ever, the smartphone camera is good enough for internet. And last, but not least, what are we supposed to do with our pics besides uploading them to Facebook?

All that doesn't take away the fact that people are going to want to attach better/other optics on their cameras. That has always been the primary reason for upgrading to an ILC. Moreover, the size of the cellphonecamera optics alone will always restrict its usage in prints.

I see a bright future for cameras that shine in places where cellphones will not improve their performance any time soon. The A7s is one such example. The pictures one of my friends recently took at a reception with his A7s are fantastic. It felt quite at home in such a dimly lit atmosphere. Especially in such an environment the cellphone IQ really is abysmal, and everybody sees that. That same friend takes all kinds of really cool shots during casual outtings in the evenings and posts them instantly on Facebook. The quality difference between those and cellphones in dark surroundings are so obvious that even the biggest photography n00bs comment on it. Image what sports photographers could do with a DSLR with that A7s sensor in it?

But one thing that's missing the most is a viable way to display our super-high-IQ images. What do camera manufactures suppose we should to do with those pictures? Print them on those ugly canvasses, completely nerfing the resolution? Cellphones are more then good enough for that. And the current digital picture frames are laughable devices. If you can still find any. Currently I have some of my work printed on very large (2m) plexi sheets by a company in Germany. The resolution is fantastic. When people see them in my house they stand still to stare at them for a while, taking time to take in all the tiny details. It's like pixel-peeping an entire frame all at once. But they cost 230 euros a pop! (So glad I ran out of space.) Most consumers are not crazy/stupid enought to do that. That's all the camera industry is lacking, imho, something to actually do with the pics besides uploading them to social media. I'd give my left leg for a very high resolution monochrome digital picture frame of ~1,5 meters wide? Maybe E-ink? I don't know. As long as it really shows that extra quality that larger format higher mp cameras with decent optics provide us.

[LFLee]

I'm more optimistic. Looking at how Ricoh/Pentax able to keep releasing the Q series cameras.

I suspect there is a regional factor in selling type of cameras.

I hope the slowing down of dslr sales also means we can keep shooting film a little longer... : )

Just like PC...just when they get so good and so cheap, people start buying tablets instead of PC. Sigh.

[reeftool]

I'll throw in my 2 cents here based mostly on my own observations as an old guy who has been taking pictures for decades. I bought my first SLR in 1972 a short time before our first daughter was born. I was already a little more serious about photography as I was shooting with a 35mm Minolta Hi-matic C and shooting mostly Kodachrome. With a new baby on the way, I put a Miranda Sensorex II with a 50/1.8 lens on layaway at our local camera store. I soon added a flash and a 2x TC. At that time, there were lots of choices. Pentax was at the top in those days along with Nikon and Minolta. You had Canon, Olympus, Konica, Yashica, Chinon, Miranda, Fuji, and I could go on with over a dozen lesser SLR's. As the years went by, they all slowly dropped away. Some went out of business, some merged despite a lot of people buying SLR's who had moved up to a better camera. I can remember taking my kids to Busch Gardens in the early 80's and there were hundreds of SLR's and most of them were Pentax. I had changed to Pentax in the mid 70's.

The baby boomers discovered photography but that caused a big problem. SLR's were not disposable cameras and once somebody saved up and bought one, it became "the camera". Spending $300 on a camera in the late 70's and early 80's was a big investment! After the initial purpose and a lens or 2, the investment was made and after a big boom in sales, the marked matured and one by one, well know camera manufacturers began to fall away. Another big spike came in the late 80's - 90's with the auto focus cameras. People had a reason to buy a camera before the old one broke and a great crop of 35mm P&S cameras with zoom AF lenses was a huge cash cow for a while. It was good while it lasted but a new thing called digital came along which ended that cycle and set the stage for another one. Some companies didn't pick up on digital soon enough and established camera makers had competition from electronics companies jumping into the digital camera business and some more old names dropped away.

The next cycle was the affordable DSLR. When prices dropped to under $1000, more and more people began to put away film and buy DSLR's. Problem is, the same thing is happening all over again. There were the big "boom" years when everybody bought DSLR's but now they have them. Most of those customers aren't big "enthusiasts" who are going to wear a camera out in a years time but will keep them for several years. Heck, I shoot a lot, several thousand a year, and I plan on keeping my K5 until it breaks. The market has matured once again. There will always be a few new customers buying their first DSLR and a few replacing an old one but the big boom is over and the public isn't likely going to be buying DSLR's in the millions the way they were 5 years ago. The old time survivors like Pentax, Canon, Nikon, and Olympus should have seen this coming as it's happened in cycles before. Lets face it, there's really nothing on the market that will make the casual shooter throw away what he/she has and go out and buy a new camera. The enthusiast who has to buy the newest gear doesn't help because they sell their old gear on Ebay or trade in at places like KEH where people can buy darn good used gear at 1/2 price or better sometimes.

This is just my thoughts on the issue. I'll also add that I don't think adding video to DSLR's is going to create another boom in sales. I've only shot video once with my K5 and that was just to see if it worked. It will generate a few sales but the big boom in video right now is with kids using small cameras like the Go-Pro and even phones. The company that I think is doing things right is Sigma by offering high quality, reasonably priced lenses to the huge market of people who have bought DSLR's in the past 10 years.

[RonHendriks1966]

My gut feeling is that we're seeing a combination of many things. The global economy has been struggling for a while. That means all luxury goods automatically struggle. Secondly, there was a giant spur in DSLR sales right before that economic crisis, so people don't tend to upgrade. And third, more then ever, the smartphone camera is good enough for internet. And last, but not least, what are we supposed to do with our pics besides uploading them to Facebook?

But one thing that's missing the most is a viable way to display our super-high-IQ images. What do camera manufactures suppose we should to do with those pictures? Print them on those ugly canvasses, completely nerfing the resolution? Cellphones are more then good enough for that. And the current digital picture frames are laughable devices. If you can still find any. Currently I have some of my work printed on very large (2m) plexi sheets by a company in Germany. The resolution is fantastic. When people see them in my house they stand still to stare at them for a while, taking time to take in all the tiny details. It's like pixel-peeping an entire frame all at once. But they cost 230 euros a pop! (So glad I ran out of space.) Most consumers are not crazy/stupid enought to do that. That's all the camera industry is lacking, imho, something to actually do with the pics besides uploading them to social media. I'd give my left leg for a very high resolution monochrome digital picture frame of ~1,5 meters wide? Maybe E-ink? I don't know. As long as it really shows that extra quality that larger format higher mp cameras with decent optics provide us.

Today in one of our newspapers, NRC Next an article about the trouble that National Geographic magazine is in. It has becoming hard to sell images and that is the core bussiness for the magazine.

You can't reed it for free and in Dutch, so just the first paragraph.
http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/augustus/06/hoe-kan-het-blad-van-deze-fotos-overleven-1407192

The last 10 years we made way to many images.....we don't need to take any new images for the rest of the century..... Luckily we still do take images.

[monochrome]

I think it pretty much would take the user to feel that they can actually get better photos with another camera first before they are willing to invest the time to steer away from their normal workflow and take those extra steps. I'm sure your wife is a step above the main stream in terms of photographic knowledge though.

Before they decide they CAN get better photos they have to WANT TO GET better photos, and I think most younger users don't care.

My son doesn't care. My daughters have become quite adept at getting really nice exposures from an iPhone as long as they stay within a certain composition band (basically extreme DoF in good light). My wife is equally aware of photo quality but she writes a daily topical blog illustrated with 50 years of her photographs (most are scans of old prints) and something like 100 years prior of inherited prints.

Some years ago I received a new stock, closeout price Optio A40 and a very nice K2DMD in the mail on the same day. When I opened the K2DMD my wife whined (literally whined), "Boy, I'd sure like to get a neat new camera, too." Of course I just handed her the unopened box.

That compact camera has a nice 1/1.7" sensor, and it STILL produces very nice images. It often rides around in a clutch bag when even the Q/02 is too big, which makes this little story germane to the OP's topic.

[Aristophanes]

Before they decide they CAN get better photos they have to WANT TO GET better photos, and I think most younger users don't care.

My son doesn't care. My daughters have become quite adept at getting really nice exposures from an iPhone as long as they stay within a certain composition band (basically extreme DoF in good light). My wife is equally aware of photo quality but she writes a daily topical blog illustrated with 50 years of her photographs (most are scans of old prints) and something like 100 years prior of inherited prints.

Some years ago I received a new stock, closeout price Optio A40 and a very nice K2DMD in the mail on the same day. When I opened the K2DMD my wife whined (literally whined), "Boy, I'd sure like to get a neat new camera, too." Of course I just handed her the unopened box.

That compact camera has a nice 1/1.7" sensor, and it STILL produces very nice images. It often rides around in a clutch bag when even the Q/02 is too big, which makes this little story germane to the OP's topic.

Same argument as was made for the P&S. Yet better cameras still sold. Same companies as today.

There is a continuum of camera based on qualityrice ratios. Applies to most hard chattel manufactured products.

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 11:50 AM ----------

Connectivity on SLRs will always be a little clunky as compared to phones and tablets. On the other hand, looking at the photo of the guy trying to use a tablet to shoot sports, those ergonomics suck. I can't imagine trying to stabilize such a contraption.

Not what I meant.

Right now a DSLR sale means someone has a PC to post process.

Now we have to assume there is no PC to do post; it will be a mobile OS device as the main platform for post-processing AND distribution AND viewing.

The market for PC-based (including Macs) photography has also stalled. Working with Apple will not work because they will not facilitate a camera maker taking away the primacy of their camera. The issue i mostly Wi-Fi and RAW editing. By not readily facilitating SD card and RAW on tablets Apple has hamstrung the hardware-to-hardware assumptions of Japanese manufacturers. And it is not just Apple. Samsung cameras lead the way in connectivity.

High-end camera sales have staled for numerous reasons, but they cannot move forward on a profitable replacement cycle until this problem is solved. And that solution will also have to include video.

[Rondec]

Same argument as was made for the P&S. Yet better cameras still sold. Same companies as today.

There is a continuum of camera based on qualityrice ratios. Applies to most hard chattel manufactured products.

---------- Post added 08-08-14 at 11:50 AM ----------



Not what I meant.

Right now a DSLR sale means someone has a PC to post process.

Now we have to assume there is no PC to do post; it will be a mobile OS device as the main platform for post-processing AND distribution AND viewing.

The market for PC-based (including Macs) photography has also stalled. Working with Apple will not work because they will not facilitate a camera maker taking away the primacy of their camera. The issue i mostly Wi-Fi and RAW editing. By not readily facilitating SD card and RAW on tablets Apple has hamstrung the hardware-to-hardware assumptions of Japanese manufacturers. And it is not just Apple. Samsung cameras lead the way in connectivity.

High-end camera sales have staled for numerous reasons, but they cannot move forward on a profitable replacement cycle until this problem is solved. And that solution will also have to include video.

I understand. Although a decent amount of editing can be done in-camera with filters or out of camera on a tablet with free apps like Snapseed. That's probably plenty for most folks. I won't give up editing on my PC, but that's just me.