[mecrox]

I'll jump in and mention that Apple made a tidy little business giving consumers what Steve Jobs thought they should want (and I would NEVER want): silent no-fan computers (silence trumps performance), single-button mice (simplicity trumps efficiency), long battery life at the expense of performance, and overpriced $2500 ultrabooks with the guts of a $999 Windows machine. And Unix -- because it's easier?

While I've not read this entire thread (and will no doubt repeat things already said), I'll toss in my own two cents:
The ILC mfgrs know exactly what they need to do to survive -- make pocket-sized imaging devices with virtually unlimited capabilities, but ooops, that's already been done! Smartphone photography is entirely adequate for the vast majority of individuals because the primary purpose of photography, today, is sharing -- ILCs are a decade behind in this area. The capabilities that are unique to ILCs, like super-telephoto imaging, are simply too expensive for non-professionals. And serious hobbyists (meaning we spend stupidly once in a while) simply don't represent a big enough market to sustain the kind of diverse industry we might desire. You always follow the money, and in this case, the ILC market is a distant second to smartphones and always will be.

As a result, some cherished brands will disappear or pivot. I'm showing my computer biz roots, but who here remembers Wordstar? Word Perfect? VisiCalc? All of them the best tool for the job, at the time.

Times change.

Everyone keeps saying that smartphones are entirely adequate. They are not. They are simply what is available, so people put up with the shortcomings and use them anyway. If a smartphone came with some very simple, foolproof feature which enabled real quality wide-angle or serious telephoto shooting it would catch on like wildfire and immediately be adopted by one and all. Consumers instantly know what is genuinely useful and what is not.

ILCs could occupy that space, at least for now, but for reasons best known to themselves the camera-makers have spurned the opportunity. They think distancing themselves is the best way to differentiate, so they don't "play nice" with mobile and cling to methods long ago abandoned everywhere else. In reality, they are slowly bankrupting themselves.

It's Nokia all over again. The old camera companies think it's all about the hardware. In fact, it is all about the content - hardware is merely a gateway to content. I wonder whether one or two will simply try to sell themselves to Apple or Google to avoid the inevitable.

Anyway, things could be easily improved. Good mobile apps, good comms, better file formats, a rethink of the way cameras work (the over-complicated way, for most people). There's plenty which can be done. Whether it ever will be, though ...

[Aristophanes]

Everyone keeps saying that smartphones are entirely adequate. They are not. They are simply what is available, so people put up with the shortcomings and use them anyway. If a smartphone came with some very simple, foolproof feature which enabled real quality wide-angle or serious telephoto shooting it would catch on like wildfire and immediately be adopted by one and all. Consumers instantly know what is genuinely useful and what is not.

ILCs could occupy that space, at least for now, but for reasons best known to themselves the camera-makers have spurned the opportunity. They think distancing themselves is the best way to differentiate, so they don't "play nice" with mobile and cling to methods long ago abandoned everywhere else. In reality, they are slowly bankrupting themselves.

It's Nokia all over again. The old camera companies think it's all about the hardware. In fact, it is all about the content - hardware is merely a gateway to content. I wonder whether one or two will simply try to sell themselves to Apple or Google to avoid the inevitable.

Anyway, things could be easily improved. Good mobile apps, good comms, better file formats, a rethink of the way cameras work (the over-complicated way, for most people). There's plenty which can be done. Whether it ever will be, though ...

Smartphones do panorama and stitched wide angle extremes well.

They eclipsed 80% of what was on the dedicated P&S market in terms of quality, and certainly in terms of usability.

They beat many ILCs on video.

They are not good at zoom, optics (they except within their range), low light, AF, tracking, and DR. Again, they have become as good or better than the P$S market they replaced. That's why the "tough" market and some high-end superzoom bridge cameras and specialists like the GR are all that survive.

Where smartphones excel is being the consumer's "lab" and sharing platform. ILCs have no adequate presence with these functions.

Absolutely the hardware tech has outpaced the software and mead management aspects. Look at the Olympus EMD 1 Mark2. The thing is an image stabilized, fast shooting monster. And I mean monster, as in 60 FPS with a silent shutter. It does stills at video capture speeds...for minute on end.

So Olympus comes up with this technical beast, but their software on any platform has ZERO capacity to gather such output and organize or analyze it. You require a special Lightroom-only plug-in to use its pixel shift image option, and the same for HDR. Its a $2,000 camera requiring an Adobe subscription and hours and hours of sorting images. The price point plus costly third party reliance can only hurt sales.

The third party reliance the industry the camera industry needs is apps that can handle those tasks on a par with the mobile OS where pretty much all the major software investment has gone in the photographic realm. That's where the capital is and where the dedicated camera makers need to go. To get the soccer mom back they need robust RAW processor add-ons as plug0in to Apple's Photos (and Google's) and native or partnered same for mobile OS.

---------- Post added 08-28-17 at 09:52 AM ----------

Didnt alter one setting AND what lens did they use?...

Normally those guys do a good job,HOWEVER it must have been...."what are we guna do this week?nothing new to review!"

Regardless, they performed a pretty decent, objective sample with SOOC JPEGs using third party judges and similar set-ups across systems.

I consider it a fair analysis.

[surfar]

I consider it a fair analysis.

I consider it the most useless YT ive watched on the subject of photography, it provided ZERO.

Definitely a "fair analysis" of a waist of time...

[Larrymc]

I consider it the most useless YT ive watched on the subject of photography, it provided ZERO.

Definitely a "fair analysis" of a waist of time...

Amen to that!

[monochrome]

Oh dear. Preemptive De-Viewing time. Again.

Amazing how many discussions are ruined by the same 3 members.

[Rondec]

I don't think there are easy answers. If there were, one of the ILC companies would have jumped on them and the rest would be emulating them. A lot of the stuff mentioned in this thread has already been tried in a mixture of forms. I think looking at Samsung's demise is particularly instructive, as they had a nice integrated platform, highly specified gear, and had really developed a nice lens line up for the NX cameras. The only problem was that they didn't ever seem to catch on in the marketplace.

From Pentax's standpoint, I think they are wise to be a little conservative right now. Make sure that each of their cameras stands out with regard to build and features compared to similarly priced cameras in the market place. Release another entry level (small) camera for the 400 to 450 price range. Eliminate weaknesses -- particularly attempt to improve auto focus tracking and video codecs. Make their version of Silky Pix a better experience to use. Do a little more with the Q line -- it was a bigger seller in Asia than some of their current cameras, continue with that development.

Probably the biggest thing is figuring out ways to advertise their gear. The pentax photo gallery has just been left to languish. There are all sorts of ways to get their gear out and let people know what they offer. People just aren't going to buy what they have never heard of and can't see.

I think Pentax is still in a good position. They make cameras that photographers like to use. There is still amazing value for money with cameras like the K-1. They just need to figure out how to let people know what they do offer.

[luftfluss]

I think Pentax is still in a good position. They make cameras that photographers like to use. There is still amazing value for money with cameras like the K-1. They just need to figure out how to let people know what they do offer.

My concern wrt to this sentiment is that I feel the number of photographers* is decreasing relative to the number of gadgetheads* who just swoon over the latest camera tech but their interest seems to be more in the having than in the using (creatively).

* by these terms I mean photographers as folks who live in the photographic world as much as they can, whereas gadgetheads are more like tourists.

[Fcsnt54]

Didnt alter one setting AND what lens did they use?...



Normally those guys do a good job,HOWEVER it must have been...."what are we guna do this week?nothing new to review!"

So they did a blind test, straight out of camera to print, and asked people on their opinion. Straight across the board. He did mention that pentax has better raw files. Should it matter that he didnt alter any setting or picked the kit lens, when thats what most people do? Its subjective anyway and shows the "quality" of pentax's kit lens if you use that excuse.

[mee]

My concern wrt to this sentiment is that I feel the number of photographers* is decreasing relative to the number of gadgetheads* who just swoon over the latest camera tech but their interest seems to be more in the having than in the using (creatively).

* by these terms I mean photographers as folks who live in the photographic world as much as they can, whereas gadgetheads are more like tourists.

However that subsection of photographers are the ones that largely have kept camera makers afloat and give other photographers good deals (on their formerly used gear once they upgrade). They should be considered an asset to the community rather than a hindrance.


I mean a pro photog likely is going to buy a couple high end bodies, a few high end lenses, and then wear them out over many many years.. only replacing when they either fail or are so outdated that it warrants an upgrade to their business' goals.


Yet enthusiasts and hobbyists are more prone to upgrading for features or even just to have the most up-to-date technology, much more frequently at that.


How many momtogs and dadtogs bought an entry level DSLR kit in the past 5+ years simply to photograph their kid's sports, music, or dance events? They provided Canikony with a lot of cash on technology already developed from higher tier models. The upshot, for the manufacturers, is in a percentage of these photographers 'catching the bug' and buying higher end lenses and bodies over time. Thus becoming either enthusiasts or professional..


Together, I see these groups form the photography market and benefit one another..


We should be welcoming anyone who shows interest in photography. Plus, for the person who finds photography more artistic, it allows them to stand out more if there is a larger 'sea' of these so called 'gadgetheads.' So there is plenty of room for everyone.

[camyum]

...
How many momtogs and dadtogs bought an entry level DSLR kit in the past 5+ years simply to photograph their kid's sports, music, or dance events? They provided Canikony with a lot of cash on technology already developed from higher tier models. The upshot, for the manufacturers, is in a percentage of these photographers 'catching the bug' and buying higher end lenses and bodies over time. Thus becoming either enthusiasts or professional..

We should be welcoming anyone who shows interest in photography.

a thousand likes for your post.

really, i mean it.


Since i started to look out of the window a bit what other people use... man... how often did I see some teenies run around with top tier models???
...?
...actually often enough.

its only a few weeks ago, i saw a girl maybe 14-16 years old, running around with a Nikon D800...
Also people of whom you wouldnt think that they may own pro-photo gear, actually do!

Talking with an absolutely non-pro about photography, he told me that he bought a D4 not so long ago and is fascinated about its high ISO capabilites...??
I asked him, why he bought such a high priced model(it was on the market for only a few months at that time) and he answered something like
"When i give away more than 1500 Euro for photography gear, I can also make the jump and spend app. 5000 ... why not? I shot film before and already own a few Nikon lenses, so its easy."
there are enough wealthy people who will buy into photography easy as cake... and those people dont mine coal with bare hands(a bit PC-incorrect i know), i mean they are pretty educated as well.
And for an educated person its a thing of only some hours to get a not very detailed, but a closer look at all the cams available on the market.

What are those people looking for?

If they know how photography once was done(135), they will most likely search for a "full frame" if they dont care about 1000 up or down.
Fast burst framerates... every high-schooler can estimate that with a "fast and long burst" the chances rise that you may catch the coolest moment ever...
Autofocus... i dont want to explain to the fullest, why people want exact and lightnin fast autofocus. But its just like that.
they may want to do video from time to time.

So what will people like that buy?

right... smartphones
or (not very often but often enough) top-tier gear.

and yes it was said before.... some smartphones can do all that. thats the reason, why they get sold.


and as long as some makers or the industry as a whole make excuses on production costs and beat abouth the bush with their innovations...

- instead of bulk buyin the right parts...(why the *** do they still produce compacts with sensors smaller than 1:1.7" ??) -

..., people will keep leaving(the not so serious) photography gear for top-smartphones and never think about it again. or buy a "big whacker" that vegitates in some locker, when they get tired of carryin around the weight.

I know, today i will dream about all those Canon 5D IV bodies, that got bought as a present for someone and rot in some cellar. how many will it be?
1 5d, 2 5d, 3 5d, 4 5d, 5 5d, 6 5d................ chrr.... chrr.. snore... ZZZ-Zzzz-ZZzzz-hngGGggh-Ppbhww- zZZzzzZZ

[luftfluss]

However that subsection of photographers are the ones that largely have kept camera makers afloat and give other photographers good deals (on their formerly used gear once they upgrade). They should be considered an asset to the community rather than a hindrance.


I mean a pro photog likely is going to buy a couple high end bodies, a few high end lenses, and then wear them out over many many years.. only replacing when they either fail or are so outdated that it warrants an upgrade to their business' goals.


Yet enthusiasts and hobbyists are more prone to upgrading for features or even just to have the most up-to-date technology, much more frequently at that.


How many momtogs and dadtogs bought an entry level DSLR kit in the past 5+ years simply to photograph their kid's sports, music, or dance events? They provided Canikony with a lot of cash on technology already developed from higher tier models. The upshot, for the manufacturers, is in a percentage of these photographers 'catching the bug' and buying higher end lenses and bodies over time. Thus becoming either enthusiasts or professional..


Together, I see these groups form the photography market and benefit one another..


We should be welcoming anyone who shows interest in photography. Plus, for the person who finds photography more artistic, it allows them to stand out more if there is a larger 'sea' of these so called 'gadgetheads.' So there is plenty of room for everyone.

Hmm, you took this in a different direction than I intended, probably my fault for lacking concision

My "concern" is that companies may stop creating cameras that are a tactile and functional delight for photographers - cameras that practically beg to be used because the simple act of photographing with them is pleasing, regardless of the outcome - in favor of machines that are mega-specified and take fine pictures but don't seem to offer much tactile encouragement. I've read a number of people express this sentiment about the Sony A7, for example.

Of course, this is highly subjective on my part (feel is a big part of my enjoyment of photography), but I've used a dozen cameras from half a dozen brands and none of them feel let's go quite like my K-5 II.

[reh321]

There is no "natural market for DSLRs". There's a segmented market of niche users, some of whom are soccer moms, some serious prosumers, and others highly paid professionals, all International as is photography.

The Instamatic crowd never encroached on the SLR or RF crowd much in film days, but now, with global population at 9 billion and aggregate wealth never greater, ILC and especially DSLR sales are declining and nowhere near the historical trends of household item ownership one would expect.

What has shifted is how we process and share images, and the ILC gang have missed that zeitgeist hugely. They cannot get the media they create to the viewing audience readily or affordably. The friction for the soccer mom AND the professional to get their output to any audience is substantially higher for the ILC user than for the smartphone user. In the film days processions and sharing were agnostic of camera model for the most part, with the most involved being the slide show, or dreaded home movie. Pros and grandmas both had shoeboxes of prints.

So the ILCs put out a superior optical image, right when screen technology for viewers is peaking, and they STILL cannot get their media onto the same devices or labs, as thencasual smartphone shooter. The smartphone shooter has multiples more control over creative application and processing and a chasm of greater opportunity for sharing digital media to digital platforms over the ILC.

No, No, No!

I was required to take a marketing course as a part of my MBA. At the time it seemed like a waste of time, because everything seemed so obvious, but you are such a perfect example of someone not displaying the sense I had thought was common. Like many others here, you are concentrating on technology - but that is not where the market is. The market has certain needs and certain resources {usually mostly money}. The market we are talking about wants quick access to reasonably good pictures; they are also impressed by terms such as "space age" and "modern", which is why many of them did switch to SLR's in the waning days of the film era {sometimes using "Auto" mode and taking film to one-hour lab} - previously I listed five in particular I knew who did that, including my mother, and then were amongst the first to go digital because 3MP-5MP was adequate for them. This market has now gone hook-line-and-sinker to smart phones, and they aren't coming back to ILC's despite their dalliance there 1985-2005.

However, there is a natural market for ILC's. It consists of persons who want what ILC's provide, who value quality, and are willing to spend the time and effort to get that quality. I don't know how large that market is - I don't know how many companies it can support - but brands like Pentax need to go after them.

[Rondec]

Camera companies want to sell gear and honestly, if they are selling entry level cameras, odds are that the most they will sell to accompany a camera like that would be a 50mm f1.8. Odds are even that if there is a telephoto sold that it will be a Tamron or Sigma. But those are really the majority of folks who are replacing their smart phone cameras with an entry level ILC.

Who buys D850s and D5s? A few sports photographers and a lot of wealthy amateurs who dream of being Ansel Adams or whoever the hot photographer is currently. Those folks are the ones who will get LBA and GBA and will keep the rest of us going.

[mecrox]

No, No, No!

I was required to take a marketing course as a part of my MBA. At the time it seemed like a waste of time, because everything seemed so obvious, but you are such a perfect example of someone not displaying the sense I had thought was common. Like many others here, you are concentrating on technology - but that is not where the market is. The market has certain needs and certain resources {usually mostly money}. The market we are talking about wants quick access to reasonably good pictures; they are also impressed by terms such as "space age" and "modern", which is why many of them did switch to SLR's in the waning days of the film era {sometimes using "Auto" mode and taking film to one-hour lab} - previously I listed five in particular I knew who did that, including my mother, and then were amongst the first to go digital because 3MP-5MP was adequate for them. This market has now gone hook-line-and-sinker to smart phones, and they aren't coming back to ILC's despite their dalliance there 1985-2005.

However, there is a natural market for ILC's. It consists of persons who want what ILC's provide, who value quality, and are willing to spend the time and effort to get that quality. I don't know how large that market is - I don't know how many companies it can support - but brands like Pentax need to go after them.

The question left hanging is how much time and effort people actually do want to spend on their ILC. Clearly, for a few people, the amount is almost unlimited. They are either professionals or they are dedicated enough to want to become really adept at the craft, so they put in the hours, the practice, the learning. But how many people is that? I'd not be sure it is all that many people at all.

Back in the days of film, cameras were generally much simpler and the vast majority of users sent off their film to be developed, perhaps by a Kodachrome Lab if they were a little more serious about it. Very few people developed their own films. In the digital era, a big burden of in effect running your own lab has been put upon every single user unless fairly basic jpeg parameters are acceptable. RAW is predicated on a full-on computer, a decent and often costly software programme, storage and all the rest. In addition, just setting up the camera has become really quite complicated for a lot of people. Look at the kerfuffle on many different forums about what settings to use for tracking AF, often because the camera-makers don't explain it beyond a few bald comments in a pdf manual.

At issue is how many people this state of affairs is driving away from ILCs and towards smartphones, although if cameras were a little more simple to use and played more nicely with modern computing habits (i.e. mobile) those people would still splash out for an ILC. The camera-makers must still assume there are a lot of people in that bracket, because they still make millions of less expensive ILCs every year of the KS2/K70, D3xxx/D5xxx or Rebel kind. If one is looking at "serious" users then perhaps most of those are on FF which probably doesn't account for more than 10-15 per cent of the ILC market.

Thing is, if all the camera-makers decided to appeal only to the top 10-15 per cent of their users, then nearly all of them would exit the business fairly swiftly. Not enough users to go round - and no longer any ramp for newer or simply less well-off users to get on to and then over time upgrade. To me, it's more a case of how to do both, i.e. retain the top users but also retain the users lower down the scale, the ones spending say 400-1000 notes on camera kit. Maybe this does mean playing a lot nicer with the way folks live today - what Tom Hogan always calls "workflow". The high-end folks aren't going anywhere else but the middle- and lower-end ones easily might.

[mee]

Hmm, you took this in a different direction than I intended, probably my fault for lacking concision

My "concern" is that companies may stop creating cameras that are a tactile and functional delight for photographers - cameras that practically beg to be used because the simple act of photographing with them is pleasing, regardless of the outcome - in favor of machines that are mega-specified and take fine pictures but don't seem to offer much tactile encouragement. I've read a number of people express this sentiment about the Sony A7, for example.

Of course, this is highly subjective on my part (feel is a big part of my enjoyment of photography), but I've used a dozen cameras from half a dozen brands and none of them feel let's go quite like my K-5 II.

Oh I see what you're saying. Yes, the Sony's feel that way to me.. they have the ergonomic refinement of a brick.


And the K-5 II had the same effect on me as it did you.. I upgraded from K-x to K-30 to K-5 II. Once I held the K-5 II it was impressive. I remember noting how well it felt.. my thoughts were along the lines of 'now THIS is a photographic tool' haha..