Infographic: Camera Industry Sales Facts for 2016

[thepancakeman]

Yes, inferior quality ANYTHING tends to bug me. Don't even get me started on the fidelity of MP3's.

However, that being said, I think that photographs can be split into 2 very distinct (yet overlapping) categories. One is to capture memories. When you look at that old, worn out, family photo and remember the good times, the much of the "quality" (as in artistic quality) of the image is irrelevant. It's a memory preserved. That being said, at least being in focus, is generally a minimum requirement, but in many cases a cell phone is more than adequate.

On the other end of the spectrum is photography for artistic sake. Pretty much anything that doesn't have people tends to fall into this category. All the sudden color saturation and bokeh and a million other things become critically important, and a cell phone isn't even close.

In between are things like a memory of a sporting event. Trying to capture that action memory on a cell phone is a pretty big challenge. So while I prefer a DSLR for most anything, the reality is that I capture a lot more memories on my cell phone simply because 1) it's with me, and 2) I don't need the control or quality of a DSLR.

Bottom line, if you can capture what you are looking for on a cell phone, you probably don't need a DSLR. There will always be a place for quality photos with quality gear, at least for those that know how to use it.

 

[Mikehit]

The camera manufacturers have allowed camera phones to decimate the market for compact cameras, almost like taking a biscuit off a baby, no resistance.

I fail to see how camera manufacturers have 'allowed' camera phones to decimate the compact market. The phone is a compact camera. People first priority is to have a phone, not to have a camera and the modern phones enable them to not carry a second device. Add to this most people happy with a phone camera have only a phone camera because they don't care about image quality, only the memory it helps recall.
Camera manufacturers were powerless to stop this happening, bar becoming phone manufacturers.

 

[douglaurent]

Aside from the smartphone factor, is it a coincidence that 2012 was the last year that Canon and Nikon released exciting cameras with the 5D3 and D800, and afterwards they simply stopped the innovation and the big decline in sales came?

If you show a regular smartphone user how much fun it is to work with mirrorless cameras like the GH4, EM1, A7 series (filming through a viewfinder, reviewing through a viewfinder etc), also with articulating screen, everybody likes it. Give them a 5D4, and it feels like using a Nokia non-smartphone from the last decade. Tell them the price of a DSLR kit, and it feels like paying 2000 dollars for a 2008 Nokia phone. Nobody needs that.

Today I received the small Lumix FZ80 camera: costs 400 dollars, has 4K video and all manual controls, got a fixed lens with 60x zoom (20-1200 equivalent) and latest stabilization technology. Now that is fun to play with and a no-brainer to buy. Makes Panasonic look cool and innovative as well.

Canon on the other hand sells you expensive DSLRs and lots of lenses that don't even have any kind of stabilization, while most smartphone users have realized that that's what they need in real life and should be implemented. Canon and Nikon still act as if it was the last millennium, and as if they were alone on the market and can dictate the pace of innovation. They are responsible for their own problems.

 

[Joe M]

THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING!

Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.

What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers.
[/quote]

I would agree with this. I think a lot of the sales were to people who wouldn't normally buy a camera and got caught up in the digital revolution. I'd say that the rebel series actually ate into the P&S line too, not just phone camera. And lets face it, sooner or later you have to reach market saturation. Not everyone is going to shell out thousands for cameras and lenses and upgrade those bodies every few years. I'm just going by friends who aren't making money from photos but bought xxd cameras and maybe a few lenses. Their motivation to buy a new body is created when they accidentally drop theirs in the ocean while on vacation. Just my 2 (C$) cents.

 

[hbr]

I believe that it has been stated here before, but I think that for the average beginner and enthusiast the image quality has arrived to a point that they feel that there is no need to upgrade.

For myself my first Canon was the 8 mp XT (350D). Skipped the XTI (400D ?) and later purchased the XSI (450D). Skipped the T1I (500D ?) and later purchased the T2I (550D). I mostly upgraded for a better signal/noise performance.

Then I purchased the 6D for better image quality. I added the 7D II simply because the 6D would not auto focus at f/8. I love the image quality of the 6D and if it weren't for the lack of f/8 auto focus and needing more AF points for my style of shooting, I probably would not upgrade for several more years. Since I do not make any money from my photos, spending around $2,000 to upgrade to the 6D II is a major decision, especially for a few more MP, better AF, AF at f/8 and a few more goodies.

For many on this forum who have the money for the latest and greatest tech to have the best pictures they can get, My hat is off to you. Unfortunately, I am not one of them.

 

[gmrza]

Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.

What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers. Those sales are going to be higher value lower volume because the volume market, P&S's, are effectively dead. Seen over a longer time frame there is no cause for concern, just another wave, not a sinking.

I think this is something that a lot of people are missing. The early years of digital photography saw very fast development (and obsolescence) of technology. We had a combination of something new with something that was changing very fast.
There is no doubt that phone cameras are having an impact, but they are really mainly playing in the market that was served by Instamatics and Polaroid. The people who used 35mm or MF cameras in the 70s and 80s are still using DLSRs now, they are just not replacing them as quickly.
If I look at my own cameras: my EOS650 was my main camera for nearly 15 years. Then I bought a 350D which I used for a few years. That was rapidly succeeded with the start of my wife's business and purchase of a 5DII and 7D, and then a 5DIII a short while later. Purchasing a 5DIV? Maybe in a while, but no urgent need. The 5DIII was so much better than the 5DII in so many ways that the purchase was a no-brainer. The same is no longer true.

The problem for the industry is that all the camera manufacturers thought that the digital photography bubble was the new normal. It isn't.

 

[docsmith]

Look to all those who keep going on and on about the 'declining' market for cameras i call bull----. Why? Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.

^^^ This.

There was a massive boost to sales during the shift from analog to digital, but now most everyone that wants a camera has a camera. Myself included, Ahsanford included. We are sitting tight (for now) with our 5DIIIs.

But now that most everyone has a camera body (if they wanted one), the market shifts to something more sustainable, new people entering the market, people upgrading, and those who's cameras eventually break and need replaced.

The camera market is dead....long live the camera market!!

 

[Woody]

Aside from the smartphone factor, is it a coincidence that 2012 was the last year that Canon and Nikon released exciting cameras with the 5D3 and D800, and afterwards they simply stopped the innovation and the big decline in sales came?

You are shockingly ignorant.

BTW, Panasonic camera sales are dropping like a stone. Their market share for MILC in Japan is taken over by Canon and Sony. Ooops, all their innovative 4K stuff isn't helping them...

 

[chik0240]

The ship is not sinking, just slowing down.

I am still a guy who's keen on dedicated DSLR and great lens (Who isn't and will lurk here, right?). But personally, I only owned 2 bodies since my first DSLR since 2007.

I bought a 40D kit to enter the world of serious photography, and then when 5D3 was out I was on preorder of it.
Back then the 5D3 offers me the FF experience which gives my L zoom lens collection a much more practical AOV during normal shooting uses, especially during vacation (e.g. 24-105 becomes really wide angle to medium tele), and to me the spending of some $2999 on the 5D3 body is no brainer coz it gets my acceptable High ISO from 1600 in 40D to something like 12800 (occasionally 25600 also) in 5D3 which allows me to shoot indoors without flash when the situation calls, or handheld photos at night during vacation.

But then I got married and goes past age of 30, so money can't be spent in the same way as I used to (wife is more important right? :) and most importantly, to me the 5DsR is inferior to my usage (using a lot more space in the drive for raw photos, worse ISO performance), so completely didn't stir my interest, and now the 5D4 is finally out, the slight ISO improvement, global shutter and much better DR is attractive in some sense, BUT, looking at my salary and wife, I goes: when do I really NEED the better DR when I took amazing photos (ok, not comparable to the good guys out there, it's about as good as I can get) in the past 6 years with <1% cases where the lack of DR is causing trouble, so why spend another $2999 on an incremental upgrade? So the decision was I am going to wait for 5D5 or the 5D3 dies on me.

So there's the case, for people who are still unsatisfied by the phone camera, normally you owned a very capable camera already, and most purchase will be on a small, handy MLC to use in casual useage (well, most already owned that also), and those ppl who jumped into the band wagon during the market hype just to be cool have lost their hype, hence the market slow down.

 

[unfocused]

THE SHIP IS NOT SINKING!

...Camera sales are coming down from historic and unsustainable highs.

What we are doing is returning to more stable and realistic sales numbers...Seen over a longer time frame there is no cause for concern, just another wave, not a sinking.

Very true. One of the advantages of being old is that you've seen it all before. SLRs were all the rage in the late 60s and through the 70s. Pentax was the consumer SLR of choice, and there were a whole lot of other manufacturers that have either gone by the wayside or been swallowed up – Mamiya, Konica, Minolta, etc.

Meanwhile Nikon and Canon just kept plugging away, playing the long game. When the consumer SLR market collapsed, they were well-positioned as the cameras of choice for professionals.

Of course, there were a lot more professionals around then.

Still, the fact is that both companies have seen this all before and are well-positioned to weather the current downturn, which is, in fact, a return to historical demand.

I fail to see how camera manufacturers have 'allowed' camera phones to decimate the compact market...Add to this most people happy with a phone camera have only a phone camera because they don't care about image quality, only the memory it helps recall.

Camera manufacturers were powerless to stop this happening, bar becoming phone manufacturers.

To the extent that all camera manufacturers were painfully slow to understand the importance of internet connectivity, they certainly contributed to the market's collapse. We will never know if a larger portion of the point-and-shoot market could have been salvaged if manufacturers had gotten their sh*t together with wireless connectivity and a easy-to-use interface for sharing photos over the web (something they still haven't gotten right, although they are slowly getting closer.)

To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.

I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.

 

[Talys]

To the extent that all camera manufacturers were painfully slow to understand the importance of internet connectivity, they certainly contributed to the market's collapse. We will never know if a larger portion of the point-and-shoot market could have been salvaged if manufacturers had gotten their sh*t together with wireless connectivity and a easy-to-use interface for sharing photos over the web (something they still haven't gotten right, although they are slowly getting closer.)

I don't think it would have mattered. Most people own smartphones, and nearly all smartphones have two-thirds of what you need for a point and shoot -- a screen and a processor. Plus, most smartphones have internet capabilities and wifi. Adding a small sensor and lens is pretty easy, and since the camera sensor is a product differentiator and a way to stratify products, it makes sense to spend R&D to improve optics.

Unless camera makers had decided to make smartphones, it really wouldn't have mattered what they did, IMHO. I think that the truth is, most people don't want to have to charge and carry two devices, and it's easier to give up some picture quality/capacity than it is to give up, well, the ability to make calls, send messages and email, and play angry birds.

Besides, except for the flash, top tier cell phones have cameras that are as good as mid-range point-and-shoots, which is to say, they can take great pictures in ideal situations, and acceptable vacation photos -- particularly of people and places -- in most situations.

And all the social media stuff puts the cell phone over the top. After all, nobody imagines blogging about sushi from your camera.

To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.

I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.

Of course cell phone camera users care about the quality of their pictures. But the vast improvements in cell phone cameras that you describe has only occurred because they had a lot of room to grow. Blackberry cameras were pretty horrible. As cell phones matured, better optics was something premium buyers would pay for. It's much, much harder to take today's $300 point-and-shoot and say, "let's make it take better pictures, and sell it for $400" -- because frankly the picture from the $300 point and shoot is as good or better tha most of its target market cares about.

On the other hand, what cell phone camera users often don't care about is a lot of stuff that differentiates SLR (and enthusiast mirrorless) hobbyists: The ability to reach out and take a photo of wildlife or sports at a long range, as if you were close. Blurring the background while keeping the subject in focus. Crafting a studio or stage with lighting and backdrops to photograph a model or product to make it look the best that it can be. Taking a pictures of the moon. Enjoying taking a hundred pictures to get one great one. Expecting a camera that can shoot a thousand shots on a battery. Post-photography processing. Desiring technical perfection, like color accuracy, eliminating chromatic aberration, and having distortion-free pictures.

All of these things, with today's technology and our understanding of lenses and light, require fairly bulky pieces, because what makes a lot of it possible is series of concave and convex lenses that can move back and forth, and a controllable aperture. Can it be superseded by some future tech that could fit in the space of a human iris? Of course, but there's nothing foreseeable.

 

[Mikehit]

To the extent that all camera manufacturers were painfully slow to understand the importance of internet connectivity, they certainly contributed to the market's collapse. We will never know if a larger portion of the point-and-shoot market could have been salvaged if manufacturers had gotten their sh*t together with wireless connectivity and a easy-to-use interface for sharing photos over the web (something they still haven't gotten right, although they are slowly getting closer.)

I still don't think a camera with internet connectivity would have solved the problem - the point is people's priorities are phone first and camera a distant second. A standalone camera is bulky, it is a second thing to carry. if you asked anyone 'would you prefer to take a camera or a phone' how many would say 'camera'?
The phone so both so a camera cannot compete.

To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.

I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.

I didn't explain myself very well. When I said most phone photographers don't care about quality, I mean they don't care enough to spend £400 on a DSLR and then have to carry it round. I am sure if you offered DSLR quality they would over the moon but laws of physics deny us that opportunity and after that it is all about which compromise you prefer.
Even then I would take some issue with your response because I have known people who literally cannot see the difference in quality between the cameraphone image and the DSLR image because they only look at pictures as thumbnails on social media. Discussion on this forum are within a self-selecting group who care enough about image making. And the excellent photos we see taken with cameraphones are from people who take the time to use the camera within its limitations and most people (I would say a majority) don't. in that respect I still stand by my assertion that for most cameraphone users, image quality is secondary to capturing the memory. I wasn't being snotty or supercilious, just making an observation.

 

[SteveM]

Despite having 3 dslr's, I like the compact camera for its extra quality over the camera phone and its obvious portability.....I have 2 A3 prints on the wall from a compact camera. However, after having 4 compact cameras in a little over 2 years (both Canon and Nikon), none of them lasting for >5000 shutter actuations I've given up with them and now use a camera phone. This market could have survived a little better had they managed to produce reliable cameras (from my personal experience).
The dslr market will eventually bottom out, but they do need to get beyond the seeming expectation that the majority of revenue comes from existing users upgrading from the mk l to the mkll to the mklll to the MklV.......cameras are too good to bother upgrading regularly anymore and useful features are thin on the ground.
Most companies I am aware of 'hunt' new customers for growth.
I was in 2 large tourist areas over the weekend and out of the couple of thousand people I saw I counted 4 dslr's. All 4 in the hands of the over 50's. Is this the future of the dslr?

 

[Mr. Shakes]

I'm not worried about R&D drying up, it finds its own path. With the rise of the Surveillance State, there will be plenty of new toys needed, much of that developed technology will find its way into new DSLR's.

 

[hendrik-sg]

i started photography at age 35 with a ixus 65 i think, film was not practical for me and by 2004 HDD space was cheap enough to store pictures on the computer and backup them regulary.

after an excursion into the video world, with a camcorder and very unhandy AVCHD Data i was inspired by a friends 400d which was a serious, real camera with great ergonomics. After a weekend with a rented 50d i not even gave it back and loved it, got several expensive lenses and accessories. My wive one day upgraded the Ixus to a S110, which was a big step forward, mainly for it's fantastic image stabilisation, little bigger sensor and brighter lens. It replaced the camcorder as well.

For the holiday trip of my life (before our child was born) i wanted the better low light capabilities of FF and bought a 5dii as a compromise, even when i knew that i did not like it's AF performance and it's noticable slower speed than the 50d. I already then knew that i would replace it by a 5diii as soon as possible. After this trip the 50d was replaced then by a 1.4x converter fo my telezoom.

Now whith the 5d3, if i can not get the pic, it's maybe my fault not the camera's. What should i buy next? maybe paying for lessons to improving my artistic skills would be the best investment.

or some lenses?

- a 24-70 2.8 IS would give me 1 stop of low light capability in a zoom lens
- a 35 1.4 lens would be nice
- a 85mm lens i do not have....
- a big white would be wonderful for the gearhead in my

but all of this is bulky equipment which not helps if it's at home in the bag. Normally i go out with the "small" bag, it takes camera and 2 more items, 1 more lens and flash or 2 lenses.

If i could afford one more special trip, to Arctis maybe, with birding and polar bear opportunity, then maybe a crop body with f8 capability, or a big white would have to be bought.

Or for luxury, a 5d4, which is better but very expensive, because the market situaltion killed the resale value of my 5d3

and one important point which i did not read so far..... :

Some years ago, it was assumed that good lenses would keep their values. This is no longer true, and will be less true the more dslr's are replaced by phones or are sitting at home. Today, the release of new lens versions kills the old ones... a 24-70 2.8? a 70-200 2.8 IS, a 100-400, a 35 1.4, they all lost 1/2 of their value. So i am much more cautios now, buying expensive lenses. I must buy them as a luxury consumer article, which i buy and never see the money again.

Next point is just coolness. 5 years ago it was cool to have a cool camera. Today it's consedered old fashioned and bulky, one has a cool phone. A big camera is again what it always was: A workhorse for professionals and enthusiasts, who go out for taking pics as a main motivation. Everything else is done by the phone.

 

[hbr]

A little rambling here:

The advantages of the smart phones over the traditional cameras are many for the average person, but they do have limitations. Even without getting into the phone market, I think some creative and far sighted engineers could produce tiny cameras that could capitalize on these limitations and come up with some innovative ideas and possibly replace the current point and shoot market with something that is compact, very easy to use and simple.

Most of the people that I know that take pictures with their smart phones and/or entry level DSLRs with kit lenses do not want to learn photography. They simply want to take nice pictures. They don't want to know about RAW files vs JPGs, shutter speeds, aperture values, iso, depth of field, etc. They simply want to point the camera and take their pictures.

The point and shoot cameras are really miniature full featured cameras with all the knobs and menu selections that go along with them. Now that touchscreens are becoming popular many of these knobs, etc could be replaced by touch functions. Same thing with the picture style choices. For example: suppose I want to take a picture of my child or dog running. Select an icon that indicates movement. Have a slider for faster or slower and another slider for darker or brighter, etc. Include a 80D style AF system along with touch focus. Have tiny interchangeable lenses. You could, in more expensive versions, include RAW capabilities. The key here is simplicity and lower cost, not necessarily a mini, full featured DSLRs.

How many people that purchase Rebels with kit lenses to only photograph their kids, pets and families, ever take the camera off the Automatic settings?

My daughter went on a once in a lifetime Alaska cruise and I begged her to take along some of my expensive gear, but she declined and took all her pictures with her iPad. The photos were just fie for her, even if the whale was just a tiny speck in the picture.

On of the funniest things that I have seen was when I visited Cades Cove in the Great Smokies National Park. I would see several people in a minivan with the side doors open and people sticking out of the sun roof all shooting pictures of a bear or deer over 100 yards away with their smart phones. Cell phones sticking out of every window.

 

[tcmatthews]

Also, just today on PP:
https://petapixel.com/2017/03/02/another-big-camera-store-fails-many-closing/

The article thoughtfully wades into a lot of industry realities: online businesses not charging sales tax, everyone price checks things in real time in the store, MAP rules, informal 'but it's kinda formal if you want the sale' rebating, etc.

But the article reads like a ship captain who is exasperated at headwinds slowing him down while his ship is sinking for reasons unrelated to wind. All of the author's reasons would explain difficult business conditions in a flat market, but when the industry is absolutely cratering, do those reasons even matter anymore?

Surely this entire article could have been these two lines:

"Camera sales are down 81% from 7 years ago due to the rise of cell phone photography + social media. Camera stores are closing because the dedicated camera market is disintegrating."

I don't mean to be callous -- I think camera stores are awesome, but it seems like they ought to be shaking their fists at iPhone users a lot more than large online resellers or tough corporate pricing rules.

- A

Nearly every store on that list failed because of a failed business model. As soon as cameras became electronics devices camera companies started selling them as electronics. So they failed because they were not able to move their merchandise fast enough. This is the same reason Circuit City failed. It sounds like the only way this latest store could have stayed in business is through internet sells.

That brings up a fact that we should all realize cameras and lenses are what the retail goods sector calls Hard Goods. Most Hard Goods have low profit margins. Hard Goods often end up as retail store loss leaders. Big retailers will sell the items at a lost to bring in customers to buy higher margin products. Now that cameras are electronics they also have rapid depreciation as soon as a new model is released. This is why most of the big electronics retailers went out of business. Print like clothes or printer ink is a Soft Goods. They have high profit margins. It sounds like these camera retailers needed to fine more Soft Goods to replace their failing print business. If they fail to diversify into other areas it is impossible to stay in business selling only cameras unless you have extremely high volume.

Ritz failed because of poor merchandizing (stupid high prices) and an over reliance on print services. I remember going the the Ritz store at the Galleria Mall in Houston. It was filled with accessories and newly introduce digital cameras. (This was a long time ago digitial cameras were just now becoming a thing.) I could not believe the prices for their prints. At the time we took everything to Fox Photo to get developed. Ritz was 100-200% more expensive. The camera selection was worst than the local Best Buy and Walmart. They were also priced like luxury goods almost all of them point and shoot. I did not see any SLRs. I would guess they were all over MSRP as well. Best Buy had them beat on merchandising and on price by a huge margin. I left wondering how in the hell they stayed in business.

I think that the actual camera market is returning back to normal late 80 - 90s state before the explosion of digital. At that time we used disposable cameras for most things. We only brought out the real camera for important stuff. Cell phones have replaced the disposable cameras for most people. And they only need a real camera for the important stuff. For my aunt a high quality point and shoot has replaced her DSLR. This is why I think at some point point-and-shoot, and enthusiast cameras market will stabilize. There will always be DSLR or interchangeable lens camera in general for pro users. The only problem is enthusiast like myself may find ourselves priced out of the shrinking market.

 

[Old Sarge]

I think this is something that a lot of people are missing. The early years of digital photography saw very fast development (and obsolescence) of technology. We had a combination of something new with something that was changing very fast.
There is no doubt that phone cameras are having an impact, but they are really mainly playing in the market that was served by Instamatics and Polaroid. The people who used 35mm or MF cameras in the 70s and 80s are still using DLSRs now, they are just not replacing them as quickly.

I think you are exactly right. During my film days a camera body would last a long time. When I got back to taking pictures (and doing darkroom work), shortly after my son was born, I had a single body (Mamiya Sekor) and a couple of lenses which lasted for fifteen years or more. Replaced with a AE-1 and A-1 which lasted several years. Then a couple of F1 bodies and a few lenses. During all that time I also played with some MF bodies (Mostly Bronica). But to get better quality didn't necessarily mean I needed a new camera, I would just change "sensors" which we called film.

Now cameras are released with better IQ on a regular basis because it takes new bodies to handle the improvement. This caused a spike in sales but I never believed it could be sustained. Phones are, IMHO, used primarily by those who used to by 110's and put them in their pocket or purse. Those who have an interest in photography are still buying DSLR's, and many will buy mirrorless just like we would buy rangefinder cameras.

I agree with those who say the ship isn't sinking. It is just changing.

 

[bholliman]

To say that most cell phone camera users don't care about quality is ridiculous. The fact is that the quality of cell phone cameras has improved at a far faster pace than dedicated digital cameras and one reason so many people now use their cell phones is that the pictures that can be produced can, under the right conditions and in the right hands, easily rival those of a DSLR. If you know anyone under 35 you know they are pretty darn skilled at taking photos with cell phones.

I get that people on this forum love to look down their noses at cell phone photographers, but the fact is that there are one heck of a lot of talented photographers out there relying on cell phones.

I didn't explain myself very well. When I said most phone photographers don't care about quality, I mean they don't care enough to spend £400 on a DSLR and then have to carry it round. I am sure if you offered DSLR quality they would over the moon but laws of physics deny us that opportunity and after that it is all about which compromise you prefer.
Even then I would take some issue with your response because I have known people who literally cannot see the difference in quality between the cameraphone image and the DSLR image because they only look at pictures as thumbnails on social media. Discussion on this forum are within a self-selecting group who care enough about image making. And the excellent photos we see taken with cameraphones are from people who take the time to use the camera within its limitations and most people (I would say a majority) don't. in that respect I still stand by my assertion that for most cameraphone users, image quality is secondary to capturing the memory. I wasn't being snotty or supercilious, just making an observation.

+1 From my experience and personal network, I would agree that most cameraphone users are more interested in capturing the moment/a memory than image quality. Sure, they don't want blurry or under/overexposed pictures, but they are happy if the pictures are "good enough" to share on social media.

My brother is an active cameraphone photographer and he often gives me a hard time for lugging around my heavy photo equipment (including my M5 and 22/2!) when I have a cell phone camera in my pocket. I've shown him side-by-side comparisons of the technically much better images from my cameras side-by-side against a phone image and his response is that the phone image is "good enough" and to him the differences are insignificant. To me the differences are huge (subject isolation, sharper, better color accuracy, etc., etc. but our expectations are very different.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Couple brief points...
=> I've read in electronics journal that roughly 50% of the cost of smartphones is related to photo/video capabilities. They are P&S cameras.
=> People forget that smartphones are also both the library/catalog for photos and the display. Passing around ones phone to display a photo is common... how often do we pass around our dSLR's to show photos from our catalog?
=> Instant gratification is key. Put photo on Facebook/Instagram and have friends respond in seconds is what's expected. Who cares if the focus is off or it's all in shadow from backlight... the half-life is only 2 seconds anyway.
=> Before the digital bubble 4.5 million units was a great year for ILCS shipments. A return to similar level is not out of the question.