• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

The future of traditional camera

future photography camera

  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 31 August 2017 - 09:35 AM

Clearly they show the trend. The article matches my subjective perception.

 

http://www.diyphotog...lrs-mirrorless/

 

 

Article rises also the question - Camera are only for old people? 

During my holiday in the Netherlands I have visited several museums, exhibitions and outdoor events. I sow only two camera photographers below 45 years. The rest were mostly 60 + 

PS I was with smartphone. 

 

 

What do you think?

 

https://photographyl...e-camera-market

 

https://photographyl...ril-2017-update

 

http://www.sansmirro...-to-ponder.html



#2 photonius

photonius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 03 September 2017 - 11:13 AM

Perhaps not the best statistics, but what I found with a quick search:

 

https://photographyl...a-sales-volumes

 

It's just coming down to the levels before the digital boom. The market is saturated now. I have all the lenses I need, the body is a couple of years old, but fine. And yes, there was a huge market in compact digital P&S before the smartphone came along, which is now dead apart from niches that the smartphone can't cover.


  • wim, miro and Brightcolours like this

#3 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 04 September 2017 - 08:10 AM

The relevant statement is:

 

Aside from professionals, a younger generation isn’t generally interested in cameras. They prefer using their smartphones for taking photos. This is not the case only when taking snapshots, but even at the point when they actually get interested in photography.

 

And I think it holds true. With a correction: yes, young people tend to use smartphones also for "serious" photography - or, better, what they call "serious". Sure, there are a few kinds of photos that can be seriously done with a well-equipped smartphone. Unfortunately, the massive success of smartphones will make people unaware about the other, many kinds of photos that can't be done with a smartphone (I'm thinking of shallow DoF, just as a single example). Many of those that will be somewhat aware will try to compensate with massive post-processing.

 

Not that I'm worried - the niche of photographers with a camera body will be always served by manufacturers. It's that, as the older generation fade away, the niche will get smaller. Some manufacturers will disappear and prices will stay high - or, let's say, higher than one might want. Amen.

 

The biggest problem might be a cultural one: the inability of people to evaluate good photography from mass photography.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#4 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,785 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 04 September 2017 - 10:22 AM

 

 

The biggest problem might be a cultural one: the inability of people to evaluate good photography from mass photography.

Not just that. Very often, some person who is impressed by an image I have made, they do not think that it has to do with the camera/lens/talent used, but they ask if it is "photoshopped".

 

So they do recognize "quality differences" between photos, but think that it is all the accomplishment of computers and instagram filters.



#5 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 04 September 2017 - 11:04 AM

Not just that. Very often, some person who is impressed by an image I have made, they do not think that it has to do with the camera/lens/talent used, but they ask if it is "photoshopped".

 

So they do recognize "quality differences" between photos, but think that it is all the accomplishment of computers and instagram filters.

 

Yes. The cultural problem in this field is huge, and covers many aspects. In the end it has to do with the subversion of the process: instead of studying, caring for the composition, wait for the light, etc: shoot more or less randomly, and then fix everything with a software application. A clear sign are more and more ads about tools that entirely remove distracting backgrounds, etc...


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#6 photonius

photonius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 296 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 09:55 PM

Maybe we are approaching the next disruptive technology, i.e. virtual reality/CGI.  Who cares about a real picture, put yourself anywhere in the world with software (if you want a selfie), or create your own landscape and wildlife. All from your armchair.

 

Regarding the smartphone crowd. When I think back to my high-school days (film), there were really maybe only 3 people that took photography seriously with dSLR, and some extra lenses. Some had cameras with a 50mm lens to take snapshots, some a P&S, some nothing. So, dSLRs were and are, I think, always a more limited market.

The smartphone probably gives people that couldn't be bothered with a camera before, now an easy opportunity to take pictures, since they have a smartphone anyway. And the simple P&S crowd is happy with a smartphone as well.



#7 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 04 September 2017 - 10:10 PM

Maybe we are approaching the next disruptive technology, i.e. virtual reality/CGI.  Who cares about a real picture, put yourself anywhere in the world with software (if you want a selfie), or create your own landscape and wildlife. All from your armchair.

 

Today afternoon I was thinking of the same thing: after all, you just need a 3d scanner for your body; the software for the rendering in any pose already exists. It's just a matter of price dropping to make it viable for mass customers. And at that point the decoupling of "photography" from reality will be complete.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#8 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 05 September 2017 - 08:21 AM

Thanks for all replay. The picture is clear, the market is on moving. There are losers and winners.

The action camera segment had slight peak. Drone camera also. Both started from almost zero.

Intelligent robot used nature videography is also interesting segment. The traditional camera seems to be segment for older people. Today they are singing the same songs as large format camera and film shooters in the past.

 

I would like to finish with Darwin phrase

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.



#9 you2

you2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 999 posts

Posted 06 September 2017 - 10:11 AM

Not sure why one has to 'evaluate good photography' from the mass photography. People should gravitate towards what appeal to them. 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest problem might be a cultural one: the inability of people to evaluate good photography from mass photography.



#10 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,785 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 06 September 2017 - 10:23 AM

Sure, they always will. There will always be good, and bad taste too. In every part of life, not just photography.



#11 stoppingdown

stoppingdown

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 547 posts
  • LocationGenoa / Milan, Italy

Posted 06 September 2017 - 03:16 PM

People should gravitate towards what appeal to them.

 

People are free to do that, of course. But good and bad aren't defined by the majority.  That's why they have to be distinguished.


stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm ƒ/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm ƒ/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm ƒ/2.8, Samyang 8mm ƒ/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm ƒ/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.

#12 miro

miro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 437 posts
  • LocationI am here

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:03 AM

 Empty message please delete



#13 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:02 AM

I was not taking part in this thread because I don't have much insight into possible futures - my crystal ball is in service. But I see things like this Sony RX10 IV as a possibility - instead of massive gear collections.

 

https://photorumors....mera-announced/

 

The slow mo is amazing and I'd be curious how good Sony became with AF-C and tracking. I think for 90% of the situation a holiday photographer can face, this machine will deliver results where other photogs are still busy with preparing the right gear. No offense.



#14 mike

mike

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:42 PM

Lot's of valid points. We tend to be a "craze" driven society. Around the early to mid 2000's it seemed a lot of people who were never into photography were all of a sudden buying cameras like the 20d and many other people were buying point and shoots. To reiterate, these were people who were never really into photography before. 

 

On top of that, the technology has really matured. Until my old gear grew legs, I hadn't felt the need to upgrade. Whereas, early on I was. To me mirrorless was just a curiosity that intrigued me, but I wasn't going to make an investment into it. My current cameras were doing just fine.

 

Now, for most people who were just p&s users and millennials, the cell phone cameras are plenty. You get instant gratification, you can share immediately, you don't need a home computer (something else which is going away), and they don't print their photos (not much ruckus on photo printers anymore either). So why not? I was just on vacation in CDMX and all my GF used was her smartphone.  In fact, I rarely saw an SLR or Mirrorless, even at very touristy sites like Teotihuacan Pyramids.

 

#15 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 13 September 2017 - 09:30 PM

I'm not disagreeing, I just like to put some other thoughts to it:
 
 

Lot's of valid points. ...To reiterate, these were people who were never really into photography before.

 
Don't think that way. Photography until then was dealing with kind of complicated stuff, paying loads of money for prints which were "never the way I saw it" - lack of technique, sure. But if not a lot people were in photography, how would Kodak have sold millions of film rolls per year? Only for the pros?
 

Now, for most people who were just p&s users and millennials, the cell phone cameras are plenty. You get instant gratification, you can share immediately, you don't need a home computer (something else which is going away), and they don't print their photos (not much ruckus on photo printers anymore either). So why not? I was just on vacation in CDMX and all my GF used was her smartphone.  In fact, I rarely saw an SLR or Mirrorless, even at very touristy sites like Teotihuacan Pyramids.


Even here: Availability of complex, yet easy to handle technique makes it so easy to try a picture until I'm happy. Selfies, food porn, party shots, weddings with thousands of pictures are pretty cheap to make and so a lot of people get into it. First taste is with a smartphone. People do print, but the send their own postcards these days, their own invitations, menus, photobooks to look at pictures offline, whatever - labs have business. Posters are so much less complicated to do, 8 × 10" prints? no problem, black and white or color. Photography has become more approachable, more affordable for people who want to express themselves and feel unfit to draw or paint.

 

We should not become defenders or lawyers of photo industry - it's the way it is, it has become more easy to snap a memory and tell others - but to create a picture worth looking at is still the same fight, learning, work, effort and patience. I think the joy of watching a great picture, drawn, painted or printed will remain.



#16 mike

mike

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 13 September 2017 - 11:18 PM

I'm not disagreeing, I just like to put some other thoughts to it:

 
Don't think that way. Photography until then was dealing with kind of complicated stuff, paying loads of money for prints which were "never the way I saw it" - lack of technique, sure. But if not a lot people were in photography, how would Kodak have sold millions of film rolls per year? Only for the pros?

 

Hmmm, I didn't mean to come off that way or sound negative! I think it's great that many people are into photography! It creates competition, innovation, keeps prices down, and great new talent keeps emerging. However, there was definitely an SLR boom in the early 2k's (at least in the USA). Many of the people I know who jumped into the DSLRs back then have more or less moved on. At least their enthusiasm has waned.

 

 


Even here: Availability of complex, yet easy to handle technique makes it so easy to try a picture until I'm happy. Selfies, food porn, party shots, weddings with thousands of pictures are pretty cheap to make and so a lot of people get into it. First taste is with a smartphone. People do print, but the send their own postcards these days, their own invitations, menus, photobooks to look at pictures offline, whatever - labs have business. Posters are so much less complicated to do, 8 × 10" prints? no problem, black and white or color. Photography has become more approachable, more affordable for people who want to express themselves and feel unfit to draw or paint.

 

We should not become defenders or lawyers of photo industry - it's the way it is, it has become more easy to snap a memory and tell others - but to create a picture worth looking at is still the same fight, learning, work, effort and patience. I think the joy of watching a great picture, drawn, painted or printed will remain.

 

I totally agree about the accessibility and affordability of photography. At the pyramids EVERYONE had their smartphones out taking pictures. That's not an exaggeration!

 

It sounds like some things are different in Switzerland. I can't even think of full fledge camera store where I live (~1 million people metro). Most, sadly, are gone. There's a handful of fine print shops. There's one shop I use for prized photos. Otherwise I just go to a kiosk at the local Walgreens, still fine quality. My GF kids (HS through 25) and their friends are constantly taking pictures. But never print.

 

I must admit I'm guilty about doing that too nowadays. I tend to put my vacation photos in albums on Facebook and only print what I may want to hang on the wall. It saddens me sometimes that I can't, easily, do that with trips I made a long time ago.Worse is my ex wife was a scrapbooker and took all the old albums:(



#17 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 September 2017 - 12:43 AM

Hmmmm, I got my 15th photobook back from my printer company, next to a couple of others I made as presents. It's funny, these kind of things are still very special and although costly, they became affordable. So I just like to exclude myself from the persons who never print (I wouldn't be so sure about that, though  ;) )

 

As a side not I once heard Zack Arias talking about these Fuji Instax printers, just to give his models a (tiny) print for free - wasn't that the excitement we had with Polaroid? I'm also thinking about getting one for these occasions, but I admit, I like the books better than a small sheet.

 

No city here is one Million inhabitants, but we do still have nice photo dealers with quite a selection.  :D



#18 mike

mike

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 71 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:57 AM

Hmmmm, I got my 15th photobook back from my printer company,

 

No city here is one Million inhabitants, but we do still have nice photo dealers with quite a selection.  :D

 

Pardon my ignorance, but what's a photobook? Who prints them, publishers or photo labs? 

 

When it comes to population I should put things in perspective. The state I'm in has 8 times the area of the whole country of Switzerland. Yet, it has 1/4th the population. The town I'm in is 490km^2 and has 550k population. By Metro I mean all the adjacent/adjoining towns and unincorporated areas. 

 

BTW, I rented an apartment, third story of a house, for a month about 15 years ago in Thun. What a great place you get to live in!



#19 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,719 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 14 September 2017 - 08:10 AM

A Photobook might be a "coffee table book". It's something like this: https://www.bookfact...k-premium-flat/

 

My usual size is 30 × 30 cm (11.8" × 11.8"), so a double page is 30 × 60 and looks pretty impressive. After I'm done with the layout, be it book or calendar, I can use the same pictures and layouts as well for smaller products. Last time it took less than 6 days to gte two books and 20 big posters.

 

Over the years I started to think about how pictures could work together - but I still like to take the first one from Edinburgh (which was from Apple and pretty expensive for what it is). Oh, not trure: The first one I had to as a bookbinder to make it from HQ laser prints, which were scanned films and edited. That was a lot work to do, but these days I'm ready to send it within 4 hours - given, the pics are rated and "edited to taste". Which I do anyway..

 

 

It's true: A picture is a picture once you can hang it on a wall or look at it in a book.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de