[normhead]

The main part in this sentence is "according flickr". That means most photos uploaded to this page is taken by iPhone. Nobody says they are good photos, or bad photos, or a simple "noise" to show parties with friends.
Also, it does not say how many cameras owners DO NOT upload their photos there. Lots of uploads from mobile devices because it is easy to do via mobile app. And a lot of more serious photographers simply have dedicated webpages, or do not upload to flickr.

Some evidence is always preferable to no evidence, you can question how evidence is collected. but that still gives you no clue to what the reality is. Evidence is always just clues.

Until the day where they say "How do I take a photo like that?" and realise that they can't get there with their phone. That's when they enter the DSLR or mirrorless market. The thing is, for most people, they just make do with what they can get out of their phones. You don't need a DSLR for 7,000 selfies.

For some people, that never happens, that they say "How do I take a photo like that?"

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-16-2017 at 08:56 AM.

[RonHendriks1966]

Meaning when people want images these days they usually turn to their phones. Most people don't even think of buying a camera.

I was twelve days on holiday. A trip from Boston, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Cape Cod and back to Boston. It really surprised me how many people don't take camera's with them anymore. It was much more then last year that al that was used was a iPhone or Samsung (and some others). Half of the camera's I did see where from Canon and then Nikon, Sony, some Olympus and Panasonic. Not a single Pentax.

[MarkJerling]

For some people, that never happens, that they say "How do I take a photo like that?"

Exactly. And most certainly not for the selfie obsessed crowd.

[normhead]

I was twelve days on holiday. A trip from Boston, Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket, Cape Cod and back to Boston. It really surprised me how many people don't take camera's with them anymore. It was much more then last year that al that was used was a iPhone or Samsung (and some others). Half of the camera's I did see where from Canon and then Nikon, Sony, some Olympus and Panasonic. Not a single Pentax.

Like my recent trip to Niagara Falls. Of the people there, maybe one in ten had a camera, most were using their cell phone.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/347383-people-more-n...ml#post4017644

Of those with cameras DSLRs, Canon and Nikon were first and second. I didn't check on bridge cameras and 4/3. One day I had Pentax day. I was going to check every camera until I found a Pentax. I gave up. I did get some nice bird shots on the way home.

There were far more people taking images of the falls with their phones than there were with cameras.

We were looking at one of our favourite images yesterday shot with a Pentax W80. We realized the only image we could get like that now would be our Q. The depth of field was about 2 feet to infinity. Try that with your K-1.

---

Last edited by normhead; 06-15-2017 at 05:51 PM.

[bobmaxja]

Here a very interesting page regarding # of photo that will be taken in 2017
1,2 trillion
Out of these only 10 % will come from digital camera(FF, DSLR , Point & Shot , mirrorless, bridge)
About 4 billions phone can take photo, the mass market dont care about tool that can take only photos.
How many new Phone with camera will be buit in 2017
Here's How Many Digital Photos Will Be Taken in 2017 - True Stories

Almost all tools(Software , application , lenses for phones) are mainly intented for that market. Do you thing Facebook, Goggle, snap chat and others care about DSLR photo . Absolutly not.

In 2016 , more than 1,36 billion smartphone was produce expecting almoust 1,5 billions in 2017. That were the money is for sensor, image processing chip, video chip, smartphone lense , cloud server, etc.
All digital camera brand are now niche market including Nikon and Canon and will stay that way forever.

[ffking]

All digital camera brand are now niche market including Nikon and Canon and will stay that way forever.

To be fair, serious cameras have historically tended to be expensive, specialist tools - most of those using a smart phone would, in the past, have either not had a camera at all or used an Instamatic or cheap compact or whatever the entry product of the day was -the important thing is that there is an upgrade path available to those who want more than a smart phone can deliver - the danger is to those who do, as prices will probably rise and innovation will slow down - particularly if competition takes out one or more players.

[mecrox]

To be fair, serious cameras have historically tended to be expensive, specialist tools - most of those using a smart phone would, in the past, have either not had a camera at all or used an Instamatic or cheap compact or whatever the entry product of the day was -the important thing is that there is an upgrade path available to those who want more than a smart phone can deliver - the danger is to those who do, as prices will probably rise and innovation will slow down - particularly if competition takes out one or more players.

Very good points, although I suspect that innovation may also figure out how to avoid wildly rising prices with, eventually, quite new kinds of "camera". That and, possibly, the rise of cheaper and cheerful photography companies in China and elsewhere. The Japanese pretty well have a monopoly at the moment with pricing to match but it's hard to think it will last.

[eddie1960]

To be fair, serious cameras have historically tended to be expensive, specialist tools - most of those using a smart phone would, in the past, have either not had a camera at all or used an Instamatic or cheap compact or whatever the entry product of the day was -the important thing is that there is an upgrade path available to those who want more than a smart phone can deliver - the danger is to those who do, as prices will probably rise and innovation will slow down - particularly if competition takes out one or more players.

exactly, this is almost the exact post i was about to write. When i started with an slr camera little pocket 110 and larger 126 cameras were massively popular acceptable images mostly, not even close to what a good cell phone is capable of now really. but particularly w 110 small enough that you would have it with you without it being too cumbersome. but I got far better pics out of my base level Zenit in 73 (and later spotmatic etc etc) than any of those cameras could capture

In fact, I am hugely impressed with what I can get out of the Samsung S7 I recently upgraded to. but I almost always carry at least one camera with me (usually my xpro with the 18MM - it's what's in my bag of stuff today in fact)

[GlassJunkie]

exactly, this is almost the exact post i was about to write. When i started with an slr camera little pocket 110 and larger 126 cameras were massively popular acceptable images mostly, not even close to what a good cell phone is capable of now really. but particularly w 110 small enough that you would have it with you without it being too cumbersome. but I got far better pics out of my base level Zenit in 73 (and later spotmatic etc etc) than any of those cameras could capture

In fact, I am hugely impressed with what I can get out of the Samsung S7 I recently upgraded to. but I almost always carry at least one camera with me (usually my xpro with the 18MM - it's what's in my bag of stuff today in fact)

This year I sold a fully outfitted LX7 Lumix, the Moto Z Force camera is fine for Social media, warranty repair pics, barcode reading, rock concert (where cams are banned), etc. Add the Hasselblad add-on, poof, no more Lumix needed...

For those of us that shoot for a living/compensation, rest assured that the millions of terabytes of phone pics on stock photo sites take no value. Interestingly enough, clients send a "snappy" and say "Can you do a REAL one of these, with these changes?". I love a client using a web snappy as a way to ask for a setting (with a different animal), a sky shot with a different location/ cloud span, a framing, but with a different city/ building, etc. Speeds up the process. Folks will also send a pic and say "Absolutely nothing like this, but...", another peach...

[eddie1960]

This year I sold a fully outfitted LX7 Lumix, the Moto Z Force camera is fine for Social media, warranty repair pics, barcode reading, rock concert (where cams are banned), etc. Add the Hasselblad add-on, poof, no more Lumix needed...

For those of us that shoot for a living/compensation, rest assured that the millions of terabytes of phone pics on stock photo sites take no value. Interestingly enough, clients send a "snappy" and say "Can you do a REAL one of these, with these changes?". I love a client using a web snappy as a way to ask for a setting (with a different animal), a sky shot with a different location/ cloud span, a framing, but with a different city/ building, etc. Speeds up the process. Folks will also send a pic and say "Absolutely nothing like this, but...", another peach...

ha exactly always value in your talents its not the gear specifically its the user

[Uluru]

ha exactly always value in your talents its not the gear specifically its the user

That is simply not true. That is such a dangerous, haphazard myth perpetrated by digital fake Avedons like that boy Kim-what's-his-name, and other boys. There is no substitute for quality, unless the client is the 3rd rate pizza shop that does not care how the images will look in flyers, or on their 3rd rate website because their audience is blind and drunk anyway.

Smartphones can be used by a client, or an art director, to tell, roughly, what they want to do. Smartphones are also useful to develop digital sketches and ideas, in a manner "snap, snap, ok this, then we do that.. snap snap … then this detail .. snap .. then we need a portrait here .. then series of scenes with senior executives, then we need to photograph the production process and major products, from this angle ..." etc.

Once details are established, you show off you gear, that is capable of things, or you are history — because the art board is approved, contract is signed off, and there is no change to the concepts! If a photographer has no suitable lenses, or equipment, or a camera, or light setup, then hasta la vista baby, because the concept does not change! Talent can extend the value of the equipment within the determined parameters, but if lenses used are 3rd rate Japanese beer glass, as most lenses today are, then a fine art director can see that. Such 'photographer' can use that stuff to take snaps of his kids, but no way I would allow that for a corporate or PR portrait.

A good art director can even make very specific demands; a phtog comes with 70-200 to do shooting, he can be dismissed asap, because the desired look cannot be made by such a setup — sorry, too much compression, and lack of details, look is all too similar to 1 million other shots seen online; I demand 75mm Cron or 90mm macro. 70-200 may be good for soccer mums and their kids, or for boys stepping up from their kit lenses into another cheap kit, but not for certain clients and purposes. Sorry.

I can see all that and more; I worked as an art director for a major national agency, and I know exactly when I see the file, I can understand everything about the photographer and his or her limits, cliches, stereotypes and capabilities. It takes some 25+ years of hard professional work, and staring at work of world's best professionals in advertising and photography, but it is possible.

[BigMackCam]

If a photographer has no suitable lenses, or equipment, or a camera, or light setup, then hasta la vista baby, because the concept does not change! Talent can extend the value of the equipment within the determined parameters, but if lenses used are 3rd rate Japanese beer glass, as most lenses today are, then a fine art director can see that. Such 'photographer' can use that stuff to take snaps of his kids, but no way I would allow that for a corporate or PR portrait.

A good art director can even make very specific demands; a phtog comes with 70-200 to do shooting, he can be dismissed asap, because the desired look cannot be made by such a setup — sorry, too much compression, and lack of details, look is all too similar to 1 million other shots seen online; I demand 75mm Cron or 90mm macro. 70-200 may be good for soccer mums and their kids, or for boys stepping up from their kit lenses into another cheap kit, but not for certain clients and purposes. Sorry.

Given the above, I find it bizarre that there are so many successful, internationally-renowned photographers using exactly the sort of lenses you dismiss. Either they, or you, have got it wrong. Perhaps Erik Madigan Heck should upgrade from his beaten-up "3rd rate Japanese beer glass" Canon 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5. I wonder how his auction at Sotheby's last month went...

I can see all that and more; I worked as an art director for a major national agency, and I know exactly when I see the file, I can understand everything about the photographer and his or her limits, cliches, stereotypes and capabilities. It takes some 25+ years of hard professional work, and staring at work of world's best professionals in advertising and photography, but it is possible.

It must be wonderful to have gained such experience and not lose a sense of humility along the way.

Of course, it's just possible that what you see - like anyone else with any level of skill - is subjective. Informed, perhaps - but entirely subjective. Ah, what do I know? Back to my beer glass lenses...

[Mistral75]

(...)

It must be wonderful to have gained such experience and not lose a sense of humility along the way.

(...)

Priceless .

[gatorguy]

That is simply not true. That is such a dangerous, haphazard myth perpetrated by digital fake Avedons like that boy Kim-what's-his-name, and other boys. There is no substitute for quality, unless the client is the 3rd rate pizza shop that does not care how the images will look in flyers, or on their 3rd rate website because their audience is blind and drunk anyway.

A good art director can even make very specific demands; a phtog comes with 70-200 to do shooting, he can be dismissed asap, because the desired look cannot be made by such a setup — sorry, too much compression, and lack of details, look is all too similar to 1 million other shots seen online; I demand 75mm Cron or 90mm macro. 70-200 may be good for soccer mums and their kids, or for boys stepping up from their kit lenses into another cheap kit, but not for certain clients and purposes. Sorry.

I can see all that and more; I worked as an art director for a major national agency, and I know exactly when I see the file, I can understand everything about the photographer and his or her limits, cliches, stereotypes and capabilities. It takes some 25+ years of hard professional work, and staring at work of world's best professionals in advertising and photography, but it is possible.

There's a very long path from the photographers lens to the image your client presents to his audience. What the photog captured will not likely be identical to the final image view due to printing limitations, various file changes and embellishment, limitations of the viewers screen, etc.

So yes you may demand a certain picture taken by a certain lens and specific camera and maybe for good technical reasons IF that photo was for the photos sake. The image presented to the client will not likely be that picture as shot will it? As an art director you would not be doing your job properly is you didn't insist on massaging the captured image to the clients tastes/requirements.

So if the image gets modified anyway (and in my limited experience it nearly always is in commercial use) then the gear used for capturing it is perhaps not as point critical as you might generally consider it to be, with talent and experience carrying more weight?

Personally from this not-an-art-director POV, but with some years of experience in the production of large commercial advertising pieces sent to me by art directors, decent gear in the hands of a great photog seems to deliver better results than great gear in the hands of a decent photographer. You seem to be selling the photographers skill short and supposing the gear you view as best is what a great image requires.

[biz-engineer]

Not a single Pentax.

You were the only one with a yellow K-01 but you forgot to count yourself.