[Aristophanes]

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.

Yes, Yes Yes!

The ILC systems missed the entrenchment of photography in the information superhighway facilitated by connectivity and processing apps that improve file management and post-processing as well as creativity and near-instant commentary and feedback.

This is called--in marketing terms--friction. And the ILC market is all about friction, from basing their RAW processing on proprietary formats including embedded lens profiles that require a 10 year-old Silkypix derivative software on a CD-ROM or a costly Adobe subscription with a staggering "hobby" learning curve. The time to get an ILC photo t "market" compared to the new standard of the smartphone is massive now, and qualitative differences between the two mediums have been closing. The ILC response? K-1 and D750...which actually make the ILC problem worse with massive file sizes and even further isolation from the dominant viewing and processing platforms. The increase the consumer workload for file management and sharing, putting even more reliance on a stagnant and even shrinking installed PC base.

It's like hitching your evolutionary success to dinosaurs. A large part of it is due to the traditional insularity of Japanese Inc. It is reflected in their marketing standings as they lost nearly 40% of their gross revenues and diversified earnings from not "getting" the P&S decimation. Share prices and corporate viability are all questionable. And now that consumption pattern is moving up the for chain making it extremely hard for ILC makers to get a toehold at all in the consumer's eye. They can get the shot like never before, but they cannot process nor distribute it effectively for overall market tastes. The industry is in real danger of losing 3-4 players in the next decade if they cannot get their act together.

[reh321]

Yes, Yes Yes!

The ILC systems missed the entrenchment of photography in the information superhighway facilitated by connectivity and processing apps that improve file management and post-processing as well as creativity and near-instant commentary and feedback.

This is called--in marketing terms--friction. And the ILC market is all about friction, from basing their RAW processing on proprietary formats including embedded lens profiles that require a 10 year-old Silkypix derivative software on a CD-ROM or a costly Adobe subscription with a staggering "hobby" learning curve. The time to get an ILC photo t "market" compared to the new standard of the smartphone is massive now, and qualitative differences between the two mediums have been closing. The ILC response? K-1 and D750...which actually make the ILC problem worse with massive file sizes and even further isolation from the dominant viewing and processing platforms. The increase the consumer workload for file management and sharing, putting even more reliance on a stagnant and even shrinking installed PC base.

It's like hitching your evolutionary success to dinosaurs. A large part of it is due to the traditional insularity of Japanese Inc. It is reflected in their marketing standings as they lost nearly 40% of their gross revenues and diversified earnings from not "getting" the P&S decimation. Share prices and corporate viability are all questionable. And now that consumption pattern is moving up the for chain making it extremely hard for ILC makers to get a toehold at all in the consumer's eye. They can get the shot like never before, but they cannot process nor distribute it effectively for overall market tastes. The industry is in real danger of losing 3-4 players in the next decade if they cannot get their act together.

You've changed your tune, but now at least you almost make sense. Before you were talking about changing ILC's to address this market; now you're talking about making a completely different product. What you say about insularity seems to be basically true - but I'm not convinced that a comparable non-insular company would have done any "better" {when is the last time you used a GE or Phillips cell phone?}

So, let's look at cell phones. There have been a lot of cell phone manufacturers over the years, but the ones I can think of were in either radios or consumer goods before cell phones ever existed. They had the in-house knowledge needed to design, manufacture, and market this new product. Pentax had none of that. The only practical way for them to become involved would have required that they purchase some other company that did have the required experience.

[reh321]

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..

Do we know that this phenomenon exists?? I have a K-30; I set settings once and then use it. K-mount lenses give me more options, and controls on top/back give me more control, but otherwise it is no more bother than a smart phone would be. I believe those who obsess over settings are a small minority of ILC users, just as those who sit around waiting for the next body release are.

[MarkJerling]

Here's the situation:



I very much doubt there a large number of those phone shooters who want or need a DSLR. Compact cameras are dying. DSLR sales is, all things considered, pretty steady.

[cfraz]

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.

I don't have a problem with the ideas that ILC manufacturers should do more to integrate their products with mobile computing platforms (notwithstanding the fact that from what I've seen and tried, mobile platforms offer a much less efficient user interface for content creation and cost much more than my PC [admittedly I take the build from parts and use free software route which is abnormal]).

But I just don't see this huge market some are dreaming of eagerly waiting to jump into the ILC world if only they could instantly edit their raws on a 5 inch screen and post immediately. Finally: a quality 3 X 4 inch picture of my cat on facegram! I think the true barrier here is not the software, but the ILC form factor. "Wait, you mean I need another lens to get good pictures of birds, and it costs $1800? I just spent $700 on a lens to take pictures of people and another $800 on a closeup lens! I'll need special bag for all this stuff, too, won't I."

No, in my view, the limitation in this huge consumer ILC market we're talking about is not the outdated and mobile device averse software of current ILC's (as nice as it would be to have that integration), but rather the necessity to buy thousands of dollars worth of lenses to get the most out of an ILC, the inconvenience of carrying a big bag of gear around with you, and fiddling with the lenses just to shoot a picture.

[mecrox]

Here's the situation:



I very much doubt there a large number of those phone shooters who want or need a DSLR. Compact cameras are dying. DSLR sales is, all things considered, pretty steady.

The question has never been how to attract people who don't want a dedicated camera in the first place. It's how best not to lose existing users.by slowly slipping too far behind how folks live and play today rather than in say 2005. Smartphones took out the compact market quickly. But I'm not sure the camera companies anticipated that smartphones would soon move above compacts and start eating their way up the chain so aggressively. But they have, and the question is why. Saying that's because all those recent or soon-to-be ex-camera users were never really proper photographers to begin with and too dim to work a camera is pretty lazy. (I'm not suggesting you or others on this thread are saying that but the attitude is certainly out there.)

Perhaps there are other reasons, such as video, ease of use, clever software proggies, mobile convenience, antisocial media etc, etc. Attending to these won't magically bring back gazillions of old compact users, but it might preserve the market among those who aren't the dedicated high-enders. That's probably 70-80 per cent of the current camera market. if that goes, then chances are it will be curtains for most of the companies.

There are still a lot of things out there a smartphone either can't do at all or can't do well. Why are so many people prepared to pass up on them? If Ricoh issued a really really good, flexible app for mobile, said their aim was the best RAW support for mobile OS with lens data built-in and said there were looking for a superior successor to jpeg which also yielded great video, for example, most folks would probably be delighted. It would mean that Ricoh have confidence in the future.

[MarkJerling]

The question has never been how to attract people who don't want a dedicated in the first place. They've already dropped the hint: they don't want one. The question is how best not to lose existing users.by slowly slipping too far behind how folks live and play today rather than in say 2005 or 1995. Smartphones took out the compact market quickly. But I'm not sure the camera companies anticipated that smartphones would soon move above compacts and start eating their way up the chain so aggressively. But they have, and the question is why. Saying that's because all those now ex-camera users were never really proper photographers to begin with and too dim to work a camera is pretty lazy. (I'm not suggesting you or others on this thread are saying that but the attitude is certainly out there.)

Perhaps there are other reasons, such as video, ease of use, software, mobile convenience, etc, etc. These are things camera companies could address if they so wished. They won't magically bring back gazillions of old compact users, but they might preserve their market among those who aren't the dedicated high-enders. That's probably 70-80 per cent of the current camera market. There are still a lot of things out there a smartphone either can't do at all or can't do well. Why are so many people prepared to pass up on them?

I think that those people who bought compacts now all own phones that can do admirably well what their compact could do and so much more, whether that be photo or video. At the same time, I do know quite a few people who have never before owned an SLR or a DSLR who have recently bought DSLRs. I don't have a clue where the answer lies, but lets face, the SLR / DSLR market has always been a pretty specialised one. But, like many specialist things it's unlikely to be surpassed very easily by something completely different in order to perform the same task.

[johnmflores]

But I just don't see this huge market some are dreaming of eagerly waiting to jump into the ILC world if only they could instantly edit their raws on a 5 inch screen and post immediately. Finally: a quality 3 X 4 inch picture of my cat on facegram! I think the true barrier here is not the software, but the ILC form factor. "Wait, you mean I need another lens to get good pictures of birds, and it costs $1800? I just spent $700 on a lens to take pictures of people and another $800 on a closeup lens! I'll need special bag for all this stuff, too, won't I."

The opportunity lies where smartphones still struggle, i.e., dimly lit restaurants, school concerts and performances, youth sports, etc... A 1" sensor camera that can do an appreciably better job than a phone in those situations and that is tightly integrated into smartphones for realtime sharing would find a market.

Motorola is almost there with their Hasselblad branded Motomod. It's a camera module that attaches to the phone. It offers zoom capabilities but is unfortunately based on a phone-sized sensor that still struggles in low light. I have no idea how many they have sold.

Red is developing something as well to use with their recently announced smartphone; their module may even include interchangeable lenses.

I don't think that traditional camera makers will be able to break out of their boxes with truly transformative products. There will be neat ideas like the Olympus Air but execution will be lacking.

[Nicolas06]

So it is the opposite of what you earlier wrote. Camera companies are making higher end products more affordable, it is good for the consumer.

highend/lowend is relative to the line-up, not the actual features offered. Camera, are electronic consumer devices that basically become more and more powerfull for less and less money overtime.

Lower end models in the line-up get many of the features of the previous top of the line: the newer sensor, better high iso, the better AF (even if that one goes slower). Look what a D5500 does for example or an A6000... It can be argued that Sony really targetted new market for them going more highend in their lineup for mirrorless. But the latest camera of Canikon are targetting the same people as before. They are not suddenly asking 15K€ for their FF flagship and they didn't start an MF lineup.

On the contrary, it can be argued that the middle level pro camera D850 now does everything well enough and there no more reason to go the top of the line D5. If anything people have less reasons to get the flagship.

[Nicolas06]

The question has never been how to attract people who don't want a dedicated camera in the first place. It's how best not to lose existing users.by slowly slipping too far behind how folks live and play today rather than in say 2005. Smartphones took out the compact market quickly. But I'm not sure the camera companies anticipated that smartphones would soon move above compacts and start eating their way up the chain so aggressively. But they have, and the question is why. Saying that's because all those recent or soon-to-be ex-camera users were never really proper photographers to begin with and too dim to work a camera is pretty lazy. (I'm not suggesting you or others on this thread are saying that but the attitude is certainly out there.)

Perhaps there are other reasons, such as video, ease of use, clever software proggies, mobile convenience, antisocial media etc, etc. Attending to these won't magically bring back gazillions of old compact users, but it might preserve the market among those who aren't the dedicated high-enders. That's probably 70-80 per cent of the current camera market. if that goes, then chances are it will be curtains for most of the companies.

There are still a lot of things out there a smartphone either can't do at all or can't do well. Why are so many people prepared to pass up on them? If Ricoh issued a really really good, flexible app for mobile, said their aim was the best RAW support for mobile OS with lens data built-in and said there were looking for a superior successor to jpeg which also yielded great video, for example, most folks would probably be delighted. It would mean that Ricoh have confidence in the future.

You still want to see the smartphone as inferior to take photos. And by many aspects they are. As they are also far superior to take photos (and videos and doing many other things) by many aspet too.

I agree that quality is still on the ILC side and the zooming capability is still not that nice on phones, but this may change and a good part of the quality we get from ILC like perfect border sharpness at f/1.4, 45MP images or pixels shifts are not really visible in the final product outside of few very specialized uses.

It could be very well that in 10 years, the next product that will be successor of a smartphone will do everything better than a K1 even with high end lenses bundled to it and keep a small form factor and do that for €300. It may be that the only ILC that would remain would be a few MF bodies and that even pro would not buy anything looking like current DSLRs.

If the goal is to take photos the only question is if the gear is good enough. if the response is yes, then there no reason to get more.

[Kunzite]

It could be very well that in 10 years, the next product that will be successor of a smartphone will do everything better than a K1 even with high end lenses bundled to it and keep a small form factor and do that for €300.

No, it can't. Because physics.

[johnmflores]

No, it can't. Because physics.

Here's the First 81-Megapixel Photo by the Light L16 16-Camera Camera

[Kunzite]

That's not even close, and it's not a smartphone.

[Nicolas06]

I know, this, that, I - you. hm? what do you want to say exactly?

Fact is, you mistake the average for the norm.

It is better to have the actual real average that is good statistic indicator if not perfect than the nothingness you provide as backup for your reasoning.

Fact is that smartphones sales do not grow that much anymore and that price per unit is decreasing; This directly affect sales. And the reason for that is obvious: there almost no visible difference for most people between a €800 phone that just out, the last year phone still on sale for €400-500 and the mid level for €200-300.

What I stated was about people wealthy enough to even think about buyin into a photographic hobby.

The key word here is "buying into". Most people I know interrested in photography got basic entry level gear and were thinking that quite lot of money for something useless for daily life and used as pure hobby. The thing is the entry level gear is anyway quite capable and is not the limiting factor the quality of photos produced and we all know it.

Reaility is there almost no link between the price put in the gear, the amount of time with the hobby and the quality of the result. Many here spend a lot and take quite few photos while other have the most basic gear and take photos everyday.

We may not like it, but a guy on instagram posting photos often with quite a few follower may be more invested personnally (not in money terms) in photographers than many gear head that are invested into gear. Not photography.

For sure, there are people that keep their mobiles a bit longer. but thats NOT the consumer-mass-norm.

It is. It defined what is manufactured, sold in shops and so on. The big share of the money is not made on on the flagship model anymore and the new war is in the 200-300€ segment.

Thats an average of statistic evaluations where people that really earn nearly nothing also play a role in its calculation, this doesnt get into account of the issue.

A good share of wealthy people become wealthy because they spend smarter, not because they spend a lot on getting the new nearly identical version of the a given gadget every year while the previous one is still working fine. And things like phone are cheap enough so that anybody can get the high end version if they feel like it.

I have seen it many time. The boss goes to work with a basic car and has a basic smartphone. But he goes to visit the world while in vacations and brought a second flat as investment for retirement and started to rent it. The newcomer is so happy to finally have a salary that he get a mortage for an expensive car and get the latest iphone. Money lost as soon as it is spent.

This is because the poor want to show to others that he is in fact rich. The weathly guy is past that in the maslov pyramid and do not spend based on what other would think of it. He would buy the best phone every year if he is into that but if not, he simply doesn't care. Because that's not important for him.

[johnmflores]

That's not even close, and it's not a smartphone.

There's little to stop that technology from making the the leap to smartphones eventually. Someone like Motorola will license it for use in a Motomod. Or Samsung will buy it outright and incorporate it into a phone if they think it will boost sales. And it's proof that the physics of a single lens + single sensor isn't the only way to take a photo.