Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet

[DRR]

I think Laforet made a huge miscalculation, which is apparent if you read no further than paragraph 3.

"Smartphones already won."

The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.

Sure, there's some overlap. Point and shoots are a dying breed in large part because of smartphone cameras because the image quality is comparable and the size is smaller, and you always have it with you. Laforet has a point here. But that's where it ends.

The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides, does not mean it's taking anything away from the other markets. It just means that there's smartphone camera growth. The Apple comparison he makes with Pro apps actually proves my point better than his. Pro apps stay constant even through the explosive growth of App store "consumer" apps. It did not precipitously fall - if pro apps had been at war with consumer apps, it would have. It did not fall because those are two different, distinct markets. No one is using a 99 cent app versus Final Cut Pro. No one is using a free iOS app instead of color grading with a pro app. They are two distinct markets that exist independently of each other.

You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.

This is in part because he's not adjusting for the number of photos taken either. Yes, smartphone photos are becoming more and more dominant versus still camera photos if you look at percentages. But when you realize that the number of photos taken overall has increased exponentially, you'll realize that no one is ditching their higher end kit for a smartphone. Some people are taking thousands of photos a year with their phone, where previously they had taken none. There's no death to the still camera because smartphones are not at war with the still camera. They're at war with "not-having-a-camera-with-you." That battle they have absolutely won.

 

[Rudeofus]

And that's why he's wrong. We should also "amateurs" - what it really means.

Non professional photographers take images for very different reasons. And not all of them - and probably just a small part of them, although very visible due to the hype sorrounding "social media" today - require "instant connectivity".

You think that social media were a short fad that won't go anywhere? Welcome to the year 2015! Look at the member count of facebook versus ALL photography related forums together, then please stop preaching about "probably just a small part of them". In case you missed it: Facebook Users Are Uploading 350 Million New Photos Each Day, and that was 2013 ...

You cannot simply assume growth in one market means the death of another.

[...]

The assumption here is that the smartphone camera market, and the stills camera market, are somehow competing. They're not. They're vastly different markets and to say one has "won" over the other is absurd.

It may sound absurd to you, but it's right there happening. People around me who were never seen without their DSLR suddenly snap around with smart phones, while their DSLR collects dust at home. You did read the postings that DSLR sales are hurting badly, and have so for a few years, yes?

 

[old-pr-pix]

... There's no death to the still camera because smartphones are not at war with the still camera. They're at war with "not-having-a-camera-with-you." That battle they have absolutely won.

But, that is exactly part of the death spiral. Why bother to take a "real" camera if you are not specifically planning to take photos. Then, when unexpected opportunity arises, any shots wind-up taken with your smartphone since it's there. If the images are "good enough" you are less inclined to even think about bringing a camera. For that matter, why have the "real camera?" Most of our family friends have made that transition.

Just look at any major retailer to see how far camera sales have fallen. How many feet of display space are they willing to dedicate to cameras vs. what they had just two years ago? How prominent is the display? The local Target used to have ~40 feet of display right at the front of their electronics section - lots of brands of both P&S and DSLR. Now they have about 5 feet way off to the side. Great clearance deals on some DSLR's and lenses though. We are talking about consumers here, not enthusiasts and pros.

The local pro camera shop (where I go to play with the Pentax 645Z that I keep trying to justify!) has recently started selling GoPros and drones and having a lot more classes being taught by pro photogs. Both the store and their pro teachers are moving toward different revenue sources in efforts to sustain themselves. At least they aren't selling smartphones (yet!).

 

[old-pr-pix]

...The growth of smartphone photography and the connectivity it provides...

Not to worry, the U.S. government has just addressed the "connectivity" part. The FCC has voted to take over control of the Internet in their move toward "Net Neutrality."

The major DSLR providers can relax now, the FCC will screw it up so badly that no one will be able to upload their photos without a serious per picture charge tax. That will kill off discourage all those smartphone toting 'togs Facebooking their way to the future. :-\

Do you think that's the solution?

 

[Pag]

Who says there will be any reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers? As I said the supply has always far outstripped the demand. There is no evidence that will change. As for the "clearer separation of quality" again, that's in the eye of the beholder and there is nothing to suggest that the average customer is going to suddenly become either more perceptive or willing to pay for the difference in quality.

I think there might be fewer would-be pros because there will be a higher barrier of entry. Amateurs won't have a SLR if all they use is their cellphone, and they won't know how to use one. That doesn't mean there won't be more would-be pros than is needed, just that the ratio may go from 5-to-1 to 2-to-1.

As for the difference in quality, I'm not talking about slight differences in sharpness and dynamic range, but about real differences in what the picture shows and what it can be used for.

• Size: If you want an advertisement billboard, you can't use a cellphone picture because it will look like crap. If you're a portrait photographer, you could offer 60" prints that will blow out of the water anything a cellphone can output.
• Bokeh: Everything is in focus in a cellphone photo, so you can't have bokeh. If a client wants a picture with a blurred background, then a camera will a large sensor must be used.
• Zoom: Cellphones have a prime wide-angle lens. If you want pictures of something distant, like sports or animals, then you need a camera with decently-sized lens. Again, gear makes a difference here.

If you're that negative about the photography market, then you should just leave the business. No sense continuing if you think things are already bad and only becoming worse. Yeah, photography as a commodity is dying. You must find a way to make your offer stand out as a uniquely desirable service if you want to succeed.

 

[ChristopherMarkPerez]

I'm not sure Laforet took the idea far enough.

To me it's not a matter of whether in the future still cameras will sell in the kinds of volume they do today.

To me it's a fundamental question of how images are and will be distributed and consumed. In short, what will images "mean" to those who look at them? Where will they go to look? What technologies will be offered in response to market demands?

With 1.8 BILLION images a day uploaded to the 'net what is the "purpose" of an image? In the age of the "selfie" who will look? What "need" will there be to pay for someone to monkey a camera when the art director in the back room can and does today! do a quicker, better job of it?

Whatever the answer(s), the still camera/imaging market will shrink. Yet, as the advent of dry plate silver halide recording media failed to fully kill oil painting (pro or amateur), the cultural narcissism currently fueled by highly integrated imaging systems will not fully kill the desire or use for still cameras.

 

[distant.star]

.
I like the way you think. Especially like the "highly integrated imaging systems."

I'm not sure Laforet took the idea far enough.

To me it's not a matter of whether in the future still cameras will sell in the kinds of volume they do today.

To me it's a fundamental question of how images are and will be distributed and consumed. In short, what will images "mean" to those who look at them? Where will they go to look? What technologies will be offered in response to market demands?

With 1.8 BILLION images a day uploaded to the 'net what is the "purpose" of an image? In the age of the "selfie" who will look? What "need" will there be to pay for someone to monkey a camera when the art director in the back room can and does today! do a quicker, better job of it?

Whatever the answer(s), the still camera/imaging market will shrink. Yet, as the advent of dry plate silver halide recording media failed to fully kill oil painting (pro or amateur), the cultural narcissism currently fueled by highly integrated imaging systems will not fully kill the desire or use for still cameras.

 

[9VIII]

There's always the things that a phone camera physically can't do.
Sports and wildlife.
Lowlight
Macro
Bokeh

I honestly don't think the enthusiast market is going to shrink, but we've all known that the P&S market was dead a long time ago, so that's just stating the obvious.

 

[Maiaibing]

I honestly don't think the enthusiast market is going to shrink

DSLR market did not only shrink - it imploded over the last years... The only question is if and when will the abject decline will stop? Canon thought it would correct itself in 2013 and again in 2014. Still Canon faced a double digit sales drop 2012-13 and 2013-14.

That's the reality of the DSLR market.

 

[old-pr-pix]

Repeated from State of the Industry 2014 thread...
"... mirrorless (or non-reflex in CIPA terms) shipments were stable while DSLR shipments dropped 24% in 2014. One out of four interchangeable lens cameras shipped is now mirrorless. (MILC - 3.3 million vs. DSLR - 10.5 million)

The CIPA forecast is for a further decline in shipments of all ILC in 2015 down to ~13 million units.

Another interesting statistic from CIPA is that the percentage of female buyers of build-in lens cameras has fallen significantly while the percentage of female buyers of interchangeable lens cameras has risen by 4-1/2 times since 2005. Female buyers still only account for 18% of ILC sales (up from only 4%). I wonder if that is enough to lead to a pink 5DIV? "

 

[jeffa4444]

Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.
Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.

I love my iPhone the apps have changed our lives but as a camera it sucks (actually the keyboard also sucks compared to the Blackberry) but I understand for millions its good enough. Millions watch badly set-up TVs, poorly set-up sound and have no dress sense that doesn't stop others striving to do better.

 

[YuengLinger]

Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.
Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.

I love my iPhone the apps have changed our lives but as a camera it sucks (actually the keyboard also sucks compared to the Blackberry) but I understand for millions its good enough. Millions watch badly set-up TVs, poorly set-up sound and have no dress sense that doesn't stop others striving to do better.

+1

The rest of you all need to get out and take some pictures. ???

 

[Rudeofus]

Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.

Analog SLR cameras weren't replaced/upgraded in such short cycles as DSLRs, therefore that 20 year average is pretty pointless. You might as well post the 1000 year average and declare last year's numbers as "spectacularly high".

Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.

Good luck finding anybody voluntarily looking at your holiday/rock concert/airshow pics from last week. Or month. Remember: it's 2015, and it's not cameras or images, but willing eye balls that are scarce these days ...

 

[jeffa4444]

Take a deep breath and look at the 20 year average for SLR / DSLR sales its 8.8M not the peak seen in 2011 / 2012 of 21M. We are seeing a market correction personally I think the majority of Smartphone pictures are crap and Laforet is welcome to them.

Analog SLR cameras weren't replaced/upgraded in such short cycles as DSLRs, therefore that 20 year average is pretty pointless. You might as well post the 1000 year average and declare last year's numbers as "spectacularly high".

Good luck when you go on that safari to Africa that cost you thousands of dollars and you use your Smartphone, good luck when you go to an airshow and use your Smartphone, good luck at the race-track and good luck at rock concerts when your more than three rows back.

Good luck finding anybody voluntarily looking at your holiday/rock concert/airshow pics from last week. Or month. Remember: it's 2015, and it's not cameras or images, but willing eye balls that are scarce these days ...

Actually my photographs get looked at regularly that is one of the benefits of being a member of a photography club they are judged by independent experts and twice annually the club holds gallery weekends for the local community to view members photographs entered into competitions. I also regularly post to Flickr and get judged so your last point in factually incorrect.

 

[Rudeofus]

Actually my photographs get looked at regularly that is one of the benefits of being a member of a photography club they are judged by independent experts and twice annually the club holds gallery weekends for the local community to view members photographs entered into competitions. I also regularly post to Flickr and get judged so your last point in factually incorrect.

And you think that applies to the images of the majority of entry level photo amateurs, i.e. those who bought the majority of DSLRs (both in numbers and in value) five years ago?

Then go and compare your standard of success ("some dedicated people looked at my images after I promised I'd look at theirs", "I have my own photo stream on one of the world's largest write-only-memory sites") with what was considered success twenty or thirty years ago ("people pester me for photos of last month's event", "friends/family watch slides from last summer", "friends/family have my prints hanging in their homes"). Like it or not - you involuntarily just made my point.

 

[jeffa4444]

Actually my photographs get looked at regularly that is one of the benefits of being a member of a photography club they are judged by independent experts and twice annually the club holds gallery weekends for the local community to view members photographs entered into competitions. I also regularly post to Flickr and get judged so your last point in factually incorrect.

And you think that applies to the images of the majority of entry level photo amateurs, i.e. those who bought the majority of DSLRs (both in numbers and in value) five years ago?


Then go and compare your standard of success ("some dedicated people looked at my images after I promised I'd look at theirs", "I have my own photo stream on one of the world's largest write-only-memory sites") with what was considered success twenty or thirty years ago ("people pester me for photos of last month's event", "friends/family watch slides from last summer", "friends/family have my prints hanging in their homes"). Like it or not - you involuntarily just made my point.

I think your being rather idiotic. Before smartphones the vast majority of photographs were prints made at the local chemist or photography store shown to the family & friends and put away in a cupboard. Some where shown at camera clubs etc.
Now they get sent to friends via Facebook or Twitter etc but there still consumable just as before, sure smartphones mean more get taken daily but that doesnt make Smartphones somehow better its just different. The vast majority of smartphone photography is not very good whereas many people using a DSLR are making a decision to shoot photographs in a more considered & controlled manner its like comparing crayons and oils.

 

[dolina]

I would like to see how sales of the 1D, 5D, 7D, 6D,and xxD compared to those of the Rebels.

For all we know sales of single and double digit bodies stayed stable and only the Rebels suffered.

I think only specialised point and shoots will end up surviving. Like say those with superzooms, water proofing and large sensors.

Canon bought that CCTV company while Nikon bought a a retinal imaging firm.

Good to see these companies diversifying in a market they know is shrinking.

Still cameras will be the domain of pros and enthusiasts who wants to go beyond smartphone photography.

 

[jeffa4444]

This GfK report has something to say!

http://www.gfk.com/Documents/The%20Evolving%20Landscape%20Of%20Photography%20-%20Digital.pdf

 

[old-pr-pix]

The interesting comment from the GfK report is that a high percentage of young adults is basically unaware of compact system cameras. The numbers they quote are 37% in Germany and 54% in UK of 18-24 year-olds are basically unaware. They pose this as a challenge to manufacturers to "educate" these potential customers. In other words, convince them they need larger, heavier equipment that costs much more money to get higher quality photos that will be more difficult to post to Facebook. Tough task!

 

[Ozarker]

Well, here's how I look at it: I don't think any cell phone can be purchased without a camera embedded in it, can it? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think so. While I am sure there are many people who consider the camera on their phone when making that purchase there are many of us who couldn't care less about the camera feature on the phone, or the texting feature for that matter. The phone is just there and is on every single phone offered under every single plan. To say that the smart phone is somehow a competitor to the DSLR isn't exactly true. If phones were not "free" for signing a two year contract, many people would not be upgrading so often. Heck, some cell companies even offer to buy out your contract from one company to join their new plan.

The DSLR market is quite different. A person that purchases a DSLR is actually making an effort to go out and buy a DSLR. There is no "plan" incentive, no contract, no free DSLR for signing up with Adobe or anything like that.

I have a smart phone. So does the wife. So does our 20 something daughter. Between us all I do not think more than 20 photos have been taken with those phones in the nearly two years we've had them. Then again, we all have trouble making duck faces and don't post photos of ourselves every couple of hours on FaceBook. I suspect that there are millions who get the smart phones that only use the phone feature. They just are not buyers of the camera phone. They just want a phone.

I don't think the smart phone is going to destroy the DSLR in the future. That's just me. I could be right. I could be wrong. It doesn't matter to me either way. Something tells me that if some company offered a free DSLR every two years to sign up with their service ( Adobe? Flicker? Photobucket? Facebook? ViewBug? Google?... APARENT sales would skyrocket. Having to pay for a product for a special purpose is quite different from being given a device with no special purpose for free.