[Nesster]

UPDATE 1-Canon cuts profit forecast on first annual drop in high-end camera sales | Reuters

Japan's Canon Corp cut its operating profit outlook for the second quarter in a row, below analysts' estimates, warning that sales of its signature high-end cameras will fall this year for the first time since their launch in 2003.

The world's largest camera maker said it now sees global economic gloom squeezing sales of its digital interchangeable-lens cameras to 8 million through December from 8.2 million last year. Demand from camera buffs will stay weak in Europe, and fail to recover as quickly in China as Canon had expected.

While the company's point-and-shoot digital camera sales have been hit in recent years as consumers increasingly use smartphones to take casual shots, the high-margin interchangeable-lens format favoured by professional photographers and enthusiasts has seen growth every year up to 2012, company officials said.

Despite a rebound in operating profit for July-September from a weak quarter a year earlier, Canon lowered its full-year operating profit forecast to 360 billion yen ($3.70 billion). That compares with an average of 378.5 billion yen based on 23 analysts' estimates according to Thomson Reuters Starmine.

"Until recently, interchangeable-lens sales' growth was close to double figures even when the economy was bad. But now people are postponing consumption of luxury items such as cameras," Chief Financial Officer Toshizo Tanaka said during a briefing in Tokyo, adding that consumers had become more sensitive to price.

In July, predicting a pickup in China in the second half of the year, the company forecast operating profit would be 380 billion yen, compared with 324 billion yen for 2012. Tanaka said protracted gloom in Europe was half of the reason for the downward revision.

Canon said it now sees sales of the digital interchangeable-lens format coming in 11 percent below its previous forecast of 9 million cameras, issued in July.

[Rondec]

The issues with phones as cameras (pretty far afield from the initial discussion, but whatever) are that they have pretty poor dynamic range and that they often have sub-optimal optics. Dynamic range is getting better, although it has a fairly precipitous drop off above base iso, but I don't know how you improve optics without making the phone less portable and less ergonomic as a phone.

[Nesster]

Of Personal Computers and Cameras | Gearophile | Thom Hogan Thom Hogan has some interesting things to say...

Sitting through Apple's big product roll-out yesterday I had a lot of thoughts beyond what Apple was announcing. One thought was "two industries as I knew them are now marginalized and dying."

Personal computer sales growth and camera sales growth are now tracking downward, with no end in sight. The problem is that they're being marginalized from below by convergent products (tablets and smartphones, respectively) while the industries haven't yet found a new hook to hang their development on. Both PCs and cameras are deep into incremental updating, and both see fewer and lower benefits from the increments. You can buy a faster PC today than yesterday, one with more core CPUs even, but does that help you write memos and emails or browse the Web faster? It really doesn't speed up most people's spreadsheets, contact lists, or other software they use regularly, either. Likewise, you can buy a camera with more megapixels and lower noise today than yesterday, but does that really help you create images for friends, your Facebook page, or your Web site? Even if you have a printer and dabble at prints, does a 36mp camera really net you better prints from your desktop inkjet than a 24mp one?

-snip-

[Helios 1984]

Until about 18 montsh ago, I had General Electric A950 refurb that I paid 40$ on newegg.ca. I'll give credit to this thing, it never let me down in 3 years and is still working. I was using this small camera to take pictures of items I was selling on ebay. At first I was taking pictures, then I made a lightbox and purchased a EL cheapo chinese trpod. I was impressed by the huge difference it did and thought dSLR hummm ? Few months later I was the owner of a Canon 350D and a Manfrotto tripod, and since that moment I sell more stuff because my pictures are better.

So many path that lead us to better photographic equipments hehe

[jsherman999]

Of Personal Computers and Cameras | Gearophile | Thom Hogan Thom Hogan has some interesting things to say...

There is something to this. In each case in those examples it's a situation where 'good enough' smaller, cheaper technology supplants the better tech above it - because it turns out most people never really needed that better tech in the first place, they only bought it because there was no alternative.

I think of my own experience with audio. I have a couple midrange AV receivers in my home, some OK 5.1 speaker setups, and I have my iphone for portable music and a very good-sounding SoundFreaq bluetooth speaker in my home office for streaming... but I think I may have had better pure audio equipment back when I was a penniless college student (read: after the internet was in use, but before Apple made anything but computers )

I had a nice stereo receiver, tape deck, CD, turntable, equalizer, and some sweet Paradigm speakers I really had to save up for - and I bought those things because I couldn't buy anything cheaper that gave me anything close to that performance. Now, I can buy these other devices that give me good enough sound, and I'm happy.

Same thing seems to be happening with PCs and MILCs/DSLRs - the tablet/phone aren't as capable as PCs, but they're more than good enough for most users. Phone cameras aren't a match in IQ or performance as MILC/DSLR, but they're good enough.

Good enough is the enemy of good.

.

[MarkJerling]

I think of my own experience with audio. I have a couple midrange AV receivers in my home, some OK 5.1 speaker setups, and I have my iphone for portable music and a very good-sounding SoundFreaq bluetooth speaker in my home office for streaming... but I think I may have had better pure audio equipment back when I was a penniless college student (read: after the internet was in use, but before Apple made anything but computers )

.

Interesting observation. Certainly, you need to spend a fair amount of money on a good DAC to get decent audio out of an iPod and speaker setup.Plus, you'll need good speakers too. Which brings me to the issue of digital audio vs analogue audio you touch on. A friend of mine stores his CD's digitally, but not in mp3 or mp4 - he stores the original size. Through a good DAC (digital to analogue converter) and really good speakers, that sounds quite good. When he plugs the iphone or ipad into the system, and plays music files from there, it sounds cheap and nasty. For background music, ok, but if you want to listen to music, then something better's needed. I still have a very good analogue setup for playing records (which are making a major comeback on the market) and because there's no DAC what you put in is what you get out, providing the amp and speakers and leads (and and and) are up to scratch.

The same thing occurs with cameras. When you want an "ok" photo, the phone camera will generally do. If you want a really good quality photo, then a dslr seems to be the logical choice.

Same thing with computers. If all you do is surf the web, or write an e-mail, then the tablet will do. If you need to work with large 3-d graphics files as I need to do for my work, then a tablet is no better than a digital picture frame. It simply will not do the job, no matter how "good" a tablet it is. The makers of the software I use only last year released a Mac version, so up to now I've not even had the choice to go away from Windows. So, subsequently I use a Windows phone and a Windows PC. The same therefore applies. If average will do, then you're correct. But, if you need better, you will end up having to get the specialised equipment.

Same with cars. Try winning a Grand Prix with a Prius. Same with bicycles. Try cycling the Tour de France on an ordinary bike. Same with any consumer product I can think of.

Good enough is the enemy of good.

.

So, on reflection, I need to, respectfully, disagree. Good enough may be OK for some uses, but certainly not for those who appreciate or need quality for their work or otherwise.

[jsherman999]

So, on reflection, I need to, respectfully, disagree. Good enough may be OK for some uses, but certainly not for those who appreciate or need quality for their work or otherwise.

I think in "Good Enough is the enemy of Good" applies the context of what's going to succeed as a product, though, or even what's going be available in the consumer market in years to come.

If 'good enough' causes the bottom to fall out of the PC market for example, choice will go down, cheap and plentiful boards and components may become fewer and more expensive. The folks who were buying 'good' because there was no alternative to them were supporting the folks who really knew what they were buying and needed 'good'.

When the 'good enough' buyers abandon a 'good' market, it's not subsidized by volume any more.... and could change, or go away.

.

[Winder]

I think "good enough" is awesome!

It mean fewer people with high end lenses, and more people with super-soft, super-slow, super zooms.....

It means more people with Rebels who don't understand why my images look so much better.

It means more people who will insist APS-C or M4/3 is "good enough" and fewer people shooting FF or MF.

[MarkJerling]

I think in "Good Enough is the enemy of Good" applies the context of what's going to succeed as a product, though, or even what's going be available in the consumer market in years to come.

If 'good enough' causes the bottom to fall out of the PC market for example, choice will go down, cheap and plentiful boards and components may become fewer and more expensive. The folks who were buying 'good' because there was no alternative to them were supporting the folks who really knew what they were buying and needed 'good'.

When the 'good enough' buyers abandon a 'good' market, it's not subsidized by volume any more.... and could change, or go away.

.

Oh, I see what you mean. But with better technology becoming cheaper, perhaps we'll find "good enough" becomes better. Or, you could be right, and "good enough" becomes the new great. Aaaarrgghhh.

[jsherman999]

Oh, I see what you mean. But with better technology becoming cheaper, perhaps we'll find "good enough" becomes better. Or, you could be right, and "good enough" becomes the new great. Aaaarrgghhh.

Yeah, that's exactly it, and that's what I was talking about with audio. I hear kids talking about how 'great' some bluetooth speaker is, raving about it, and I can hear end-->end that the entire sound system is worse than my old, used NAD receiver, basic CD player and Paradigm speakers were. The bluetooth setup is far more convenient, though, when you think of the size and wireless connectivity to the huge available library, so the trade-off is probably worth it to 95% of folks (including me.) Good Enough has become the new Good, Good has become the new Great.

Of course, maybe I'm looking at that wrong. Maybe I shouldn't be comparing bluetooth/streaming users to NAD listeners of yesteryear, maybe I should be comparing them to cassette-boombox listeners of yesteryear - in which case the audio quality has gone up. But it's a mix, a lot of the folks who bought stereo systems have knowingly taken a step back in audio quality and have been willing to do so because of the other benefits.

With camera users, it's the same way. A high % of DSLR shooters are leaving their DSLRs at home because of their always-there smartphone camera, and have no illusions about IQ being even remotely comparable. And we're just OK with it. One step forward, 1.2 steps back.

Looking at Bears, iphone 4s

.

[philbaum]

Just catching up to this thread - very interesting with the financial results from Canon and Nikon. Also the analysis from Hogan indicating a downward spiral in customer demand for various reasons

I think we're in the middle of a "perfect storm" for photography. Besides reasons already given, I suspect that the compensation for photographic services/employment is on a downward trend. So let me tell you the things that make me suspicious:

A. A long-time professional, but still too young to retire, photographer in my area has dropped out of the profession and taken a job driving a bus. (i know this is not significant but when you hear other things as well, my mind starts wondering if there is a linkage)

B. At one of the shops i display and sell photos at, i used to compete with other artists, usually painters and photographers, for display months. I just completed a run of 2 months, and was just asked to do the remaining 2 months before the end of the year. One of the reasons given is that other artists have not asked for the display time recently (and aren't selling when they do) I'm also seeing a rapid turnover in artists at one of the co-op galleries i visit on a regular basis which makes me think that sales are not very good.

C. Costco Photos in the USA, will you let you pick an art or sports or graphic image from one of their galleries and print that on a Canvas for you at the same price they will print one of your own images. I've seen the galleries you can choose from and these seem to be very good images. The net effect of this kind of mass marketing is to tend to drive the prices of all 2 dimensional printed artwork down to a low level, IMO. Its like they are giving away the image for free and these prints are not "made in China".

D. There was a report earlier this year that one national newspaper was laying off all its photographers and plans to use stock photos and independents.

So my point is: i think that the compensation for professionals (which i'm not altho i do sell a few) is probably down and that is also not helping to keep the industry up. (my proof is thin - i admit - if anyone has more solid information - it would be interesting to know)

[falconeye]

Of course, maybe I'm looking at that wrong. Maybe I shouldn't be comparing bluetooth/streaming users to NAD listeners of yesteryear, maybe I should be comparing them to cassette-boombox listeners of yesteryear

IMHO, that misses the point.

I think the much more relevant evolution is a shift of occupation or obsession. I look at society as a kind of conscious being which turns its awareness to a few things at a time. Things I call its current obsessions.

In the 70s, it was hifi, now called high end audio. In the 80s, it was PCs, in the 90s, it was the internet, in the 00s, the iPod/iPhones/digital cameras and in the 10s, seems to be social media.

Every technology good enough developed during an obsession remains great afterwards, even if stripped down to the bare minimum. Except for a few enthusiasts continuing the former obsession as an individual hobby.

Personally, I think it is a good thing. I don't want my hobby (photography) to be the current society's obsession. I cannot await where this era ends, everybody uses his smartphone to take "great" photos and leaves true photography to the ones who pursue it as a personal hobby or profession. But of course, interest then will be much smaller, forums be much smaller, vendors downsizing or vanishing.

[Christine Tham]

I like the obsession shift theory.

I remember ten years ago being really into home theatre. Before long, we have spent $100k ($12k for a projector, $25k for speakers etc. etc.). It's all still there, and yes we still enjoy it very much but thing have moved on. People now watch movies on their phones and tablets.

But a lot of people who bought home theatre never bother calibrating it properly and never really experienced the potential. Sure, they had the equipment, but the reality is that the end result was not much better than a cheap setup.

Same thing with cameras. The DSLR craze is nearing the end, and a lot of DSLR owners never really learnt how to use their cameras, and now discovering the photos they were taking were no better than phone cameras.

Those that did will continue to enjoy the benefits of the high end (in AV, photography, whatever). But it will be an enthusiast thing, not mainstream.

Part of the shift is caused by a greater need for mobility. For years, I could not enjoy my $100k investment in home theatre because I was in a job that required me to be travelling regularly - so I ended up watching movies in planes and hotel rooms, and listening to music on an mp3 player.

Same thing with DSLRs. I can't imagine lugging a heavy camera around with me anymore, and will never ever buy a DSLR again.

The GFC and continuing financial crisis is also impacting everything. For some of us, the days of year end bonuses that are hundreds of thousands of dollars are gone. I am not likely to be spending $100k on a whim these days.

[philbaum]

Yep - obsession sounds about right - but a global obsession. with the internet, obsessions can travel from continent to continent pretty quickly.

Went to a class several years ago where the speaker talked about "you are what you experienced at age 6 or 7". So the first example was someone who was 6 or 7 during the 1930's depression would value frugal behaviors, etc. Listened to an interview yesterday to someone who's been studying the behavior of young people who are using today's electronic media. A typical teenage girl will receive 4 or 5 phone calls or text messages per hour and not view it as any kind of distraction to her current task. A young man reported he spends many hours a day communicating on internet forums, but is uncomfortable - and avoids situations where he has to discuss things face to face.

My point being that its going to be very hard for older people to predict what the younger generations will value in terms of cameras, their free time, etc. Sony's lucky in the sense that they're backing many technologies.

[jsherman999]

IMHO, that misses the point.

I think the much more relevant evolution is a shift of occupation or obsession. I look at society as a kind of conscious being which turns its awareness to a few things at a time. Things I call its current obsessions.

In the 70s, it was hifi, now called high end audio. In the 80s, it was PCs, in the 90s, it was the internet, in the 00s, the iPod/iPhones/digital cameras and in the 10s, seems to be social media.

The changing technology drives that to a large extent, it's not just a meme-whimsy. If PCs were available at the same capability and cost in the 70's, we may never have seen a high-end audio craze in the first place, as the consumers' money and mindshare would have been split and Pcs would have probably won out then. Almost a Substitute Good idea, in a way.

Personally, I think it is a good thing. I don't want my hobby (photography) to be the current society's obsession. I cannot await where this era ends, everybody uses his smartphone to take "great" photos and leaves true photography to the ones who pursue it as a personal hobby or profession. But of course, interest then will be much smaller, forums be much smaller, vendors downsizing or vanishing.

I kind of agree... as long as that paring down doesn't result in less choice and higher costs in my chosen hobby (photography.) I'll sacrifice a feeling of exclusivity for mass-market price subsidization any day, given the choice.

Of course, we don't have a choice, we need to take what the market deems worthy, and live with that. It's most likely going to be beneficial overall and losing choices in one area will expand them in another. I enjoy my current audio choices in a different way than my college audio options - and maybe, overall, a tad more. If I want to include AV receivers, and be willing to spend a bit more on the speakers, it may be that I actually have far more choices than before anyway for equivalent-quality midrange audio. Maybe photography will shake out the same way in the end.


.