Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet

[ritholtz]

My phone can act as a Wi Fi hotspot. It is part of my plan.

I don't see an issue with connecting a camera to it, as I have paired several devices to the phone via Wi Fi and Bluetooth.

I don't have a Wi Fi camera to try it.

There are limits with Android. One item I have has to go through an established Wi Fi network because it can't talk to the phone directly. Apple does not have this limitation. Maybe later versions of Android can address that.

I don't think so it is integration issue with net. It just happens to be one of perks of using phone for taking pictures. Camera manufacturers can easily close this integration gap in cameras. 70D some what already does it in the sense all the pictures inside camera are available to phone interface in real time.

But it still doesn't address convenience issue where phone is going to stay with users all the time. Dedicated camera is a extra luggage to lugging around for simple users. Lot of these users are never interested in taking pictures if it is not for convenience of phone.

Alternative is making cameras more portable and implement smart phone functionality (calls and internet) as well. If I can use my camera to make calls and connect to internet, I can just leave my phone at home.

 

[tntwit]

Well, we might as well throw out all the DSLR cameras anyways. According to Phonearena, the Samsung Note 4 takes better pictures than a Canon DSLR. It's a big article on the website and a lot of people seem to be buying into it.

Of course, the Canon has a 3rd party lens, none of the shots involve dynamic subjects, they shot the Canon on full Auto but then used the RAW images and "minimally processed" them and then compared them to fully automatic, fully processed cell phone images. They also don't make it really clear where they were in the images that they were zooming in on, and gloss over the fact that DSLR have a narrow depth of field (depending on settings and typically considered an advantage)compared to a cell phone, making certain parts of the image appear soft.

These articles frustrate me because they consistently focus on the type of pictures where cell phones can compete, and ignore the types they cannot, like anything that moves in anything but bright sun light.

 

[dolina]

The question is can pros and serious enthusiasts provide sufficient market for the level of development we have come to expect? It used to be the pro bodies were updated on a ten year cycle and lenses even longer. We are likely headed in that direction again.

I guess that explains why the 7D Mark II took 5 years before it got updated. Most folks thought it'll follow a 3 year cycle.

 

[Sunnystate]

Unfortunately Canon as the market leader is to be blamed partially for the state of the affairs. They were on the right track with the classic 5D and than something unthinkable happened! They went the opposite way of the logic, basically catalyzing demise of DSLR for enthusiasts, amateurs and even in some cases prosumers. In the age of hard reality of surviving in the incredible hard competition from EASY and wonderful not to mention cheap technology, Canon started to cater only to low level professionals like small event photographers (wedding) or extremely high end and exclusive video market, this is laughable business move. They speed up the the process and give the momentum to the alternative technology. I know, I am here forever, reading those silly post, those strange people encouraging Canon to price them self out of the market and demanding futures that nobody really needs instead what everybody is looking for, statements like: just give me 12 fps and high ISO and I buy two of them, or yeah for that I will pay easy $5000-$6000 dollars LOL!!! It really may be to late to reverse this especially seeing all those new cameras coming full of unwanted gimmicks that failed to prove being desired so many times already, but than again if somebody on the position of a leader with such a leverage is unable to really lead than it deserve to sell security cameras and printers only, well maybe for some the dream will come true, and they will be able to own Canon cameras purely professional like the cinema models now, worth a medium size house and feel like a big shots pros... Unquestionable support for Canon of this forum as fascinating as it is, in the end is nothing more than a house of cards build by many eloquent Canon proponents using many clever tricks also including rather harsh elbowing and humiliation.

 

[mrzero]

The question is can pros and serious enthusiasts provide sufficient market for the level of development we have come to expect? It used to be the pro bodies were updated on a ten year cycle and lenses even longer. We are likely headed in that direction again.

I guess that explains why the 7D Mark II took 5 years before it got updated. Most folks thought it'll follow a 3 year cycle.

And yet, we get new iPhones every year or so. And, despite the fact that my iphone is now several generations outdated, Apple has continuously updated its operating system to add features that its hardware will support. Perhaps cameramakers will do the same thing.

In Laforet's article, he talked about using digital cameras as stands to hold up smartphones taking timelapses. Why aren't cameramakers putting something as simple as a software intervalometer into high end digital cameras? Once they realize that they need to start making "smartcameras," there will be a revolution in the digital photography field. I'm not talking about just dropping Android into the firmware. I'm talking about making a serious effort at integrating cameras directly with existing devices, and taking full advantage of firmware and hardware. On a $1,000+ camera, I think such things should be included.

I bought my first smartphone because I wanted to sync it with my laptop. I bought the 6D so I could use the wifi to get pics on my iphone and get them to social media ASAP. When people see me do that, they say, I wish my camera did that. The point-and-shoot I bought my wife has the same capability but she can't figure it out without me. If Canon made that kind of thing easy and quick on a smart camera, I think they'd keep people buying cameras. It may not stop the shrinking market, but it would certainly slow the losses.

 

[unfocused]

"The key is that the software on those smartphones, and the social media platforms and instant connection to the web – ARE BETTER and cannot be overcome by camera companies that fail to integrate software within their camera bodies going forward."

What is it about "key" that people can't understand.

Remember this discussion:

This presentation was made at PMA recently by Heino Hilbig of Mayflower Concepts, a management consulting firm.
http://youtu.be/bfCJDIf-NeA

Here I go again...all major camera manufacturers (Nikon, Sony and Canon) have done a horrendous job incorporating new usability and communication technologies into their higher end cameras.

The entire world can navigate through their phone menus, focus their pictures, switch settings, etc. etc. with the simple swipe of a finger. Yet, Canon produces only one advanced amateur camera (70D) with a touch screen on it.

Try communicating with the internet (uploading images to even professional sites like Adobe Cloud) with a DSLR. Good luck. And, don't even get me started on the lack of basic editing software on cameras that are dedicated to photography as compared to multifunction devices like tablets and smart phones.

And, if you don't think those things are needed by professionals, you obviously don't understand the competitive world many professionals live in.

It's embarrassing that a professional carrying around a $4,000 camera can't scroll through his or her pictures, pick two or three, do some quick edits and upload them for client access on a shared site, when anybody with a smart phone can do it within seconds.

For many professionals, delivering the best looking pictures simply doesn't cut it when the clients have already posted some fuzzy, out-of-focus iPhone shot on their website and Facebook page. Being first does count in business and Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc., are failing us miserably in that regard.

The irony is the technology is neither new nor expensive. It is here, they just refuse to provide it to their customers. Laforet and Mr. Hilbig are correct, and I would add that smartphones have won because camera manufacturers have collectively refused to move into 21st century communications.

 

[jeffa4444]

I concur I use my Canon 6D regularly with my iphone mainly as the remote release but also to upload photos to the cloud I can then do basic edits in Lightroom on my iPad or Macbook Pro.

Dolina - The averaged SLR sales figures were 8M from when the Canon AE-1 came out with Olympic years always being higher and the year after Olympics lower. Lens sales were weaker than modern numbers.

If our family is average my wife only takes pictures on her cell phone as does my son, my daughter uses her cell phone but also regularly uses her CSC camera which she has two lenses. I use my cell phone more as a "recording device" and take photographs with my Canons or my Olympus OM-D E-M10 and have multiple lenses for both, I also print up to A3 my family do not.

Smart phone sales have peaked also as have tablets which actually declined in 2014, GoPro sales are another factor they sold 5.3M cameras in 2013 and a similar number in 2014 but sales are slowing partly through saturation and partially through competition. The high end DSLR market which is a tiny percentage of DSLR sales actually grew in 2014 and is predicted to grow in 2015 its the Rebel end which has declined.

 

[gsealy]

I have friends that come to stay with me in Arizona when it gets cold up north. They asked "Why would you spend $3K on a camera when a mobile phone takes pictures just fine?" For them a picture is a picture is a picture and they don't know anything about photography. Nothing. If you mention f stop, noise, and so on, then their eyes gloss over and they walk away. The pictures they take are of dogs, flowers, children, and friends at birthday parties. Most people are right there in that space. Yes, they and anybody else do not need a $3K camera to do that.

But there always comes a time when people take photographs and then compare their efforts to what a professional or highly skilled amateur can do. There is a difference in what they see. And then they start to ask questions, like why are their photographs so much better? At that point they suddenly become disenchanted with their mobile phone camera. It seems like an inferior machine. The photographs that were once great are now embarrassing. Hello, DSLR.

 

[Maiaibing]

The high end DSLR market which is a tiny percentage of DSLR sales actually grew in 2014 and is predicted to grow in 2015 its the Rebel end which has declined.

Please share from where you have numbers to support this. We are many who a very interested. Thank you.

 

[Maiaibing]

I have friends that come to stay with me in Arizona when it gets cold up north. They asked "Why would you spend $3K on a camera when a mobile phone takes pictures just fine?" For them a picture is a picture is a picture and they don't know anything about photography. Nothing. If you mention f stop, noise, and so on, then their eyes gloss over and they walk away. The pictures they take are of dogs, flowers, children, and friends at birthday parties.

Hmmmm. Based on what is posted on photo sites such as CR and dpreview cats and brick walls seem to rank extremely high amongst DSLR shooters...

 

[Pookie]

I have friends that come to stay with me in Arizona when it gets cold up north. They asked "Why would you spend $3K on a camera when a mobile phone takes pictures just fine?" For them a picture is a picture is a picture and they don't know anything about photography. Nothing. If you mention f stop, noise, and so on, then their eyes gloss over and they walk away. The pictures they take are of dogs, flowers, children, and friends at birthday parties.

Hmmmm. Based on what is posted on photo sites such as CR and dpreview cats and brick walls seem to rank extremely high amongst DSLR shooters...

You actually base high end DSLR users work and equipment based on this forum?!?!?! That explains a lot of the logic and rationalization behind the sales forecasts of DSLR's posted here in this thread. This site is ripe with hobbyist, amateur and newbie views of photography. Based on that criteria an expert here has over 5k post and lists equipment like badges of honor... this qualifies them to give advice on DR, the newest equipment, give dubious advice and speak for the "pro" environment. None of which has any basis in reality.

 

[Tugela]

.
"This is bold prediction, but it’s clear to me that over the next several years, the standalone still camera will disappear from the hands of everyone – with the exception of a few high end professionals."

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2015/02/24/prediction-the-age-of-the-standalone-still-camera-is-coming-to-and-end-for-all-but-pros/

People who believe that are the same people who believed that Instamatics would kill SLRs back in the day. It didn't happen then and it won't happen now.

All cell phones are doing is replacing the Instamatic market, which itself was replaced by point and shoots in the interim.

The problem with stupid people, such as the writer of that blog, is that they only look at what is happening in the last few years and not at the whole history of photography. There have been a great number of "cell phone" type cameras for the masses that have come and gone, but high end cameras are still with us, and they are there because they have performance capabilities that the common cameras of the day do not.

 

[Tugela]

For the masses he is correct, for serious hobby photographers or pros he is completely wrong and the article fails in a number of ways.
Part of the "hobby" is the kit itself I doubt hobby photographers drual over smartphone camera specs. Then there is the lens limitations, exposure limitations and depth of field limitations not even forgetting the sensor limitations.

Predictions like these have been made before and they went like so. Radio will kill newspapers, cinema will kill radio, TV will kill cinema and the internet will kill TV BUT in every instance including tablets of stone the use has got up not down. Im not saying smartphones have not detroyed the point & shoot market they have, but whilst DSLR sales have come off their 2009 / 2010 peak they are still well above the historical average and lens sales are definately up. Yes I think some of the companies will fail likely Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung etc. in th longer term but then again there is only a handfull of smartphone makers as well and there sales far exceed cameras who would have though we would see the demise of Nokia for instance. I actually hate the limitations of smartphones.

For the duration of my lifetime Im sure DSLRs will be around after all you can still buy film albeit niche and B&W film has actually made a small comeback.

I think it is more likely that companies such as Canon and Nikon will fade than the others. The advantage that Sony and Samsung have over the others is that they can leverage technology developed for other applications into the market and in a tech arms race will likely win over single focus companies as a result. Nikon in particular will be vulnerable to this. There is no way they can beat either Sony or Samsung in a tech arms race.

Samsung and to a lesser extent Sony will use the high end camera market to test their technological advances with the ultimate goal of having that trickle down to the more lucrative cell phone market. Canon and Nikon cannot do that, they are going to have to make their money up front and not indirectly like the other two, and given enough time they will eventually lose that battle.

 

[LDS]

Like say the personal computer, it appears people are going beyond the 3 year upgrade cycle and those buying are first time owners. Those who already have a personal computer are buying a tablet/smartphone instead.

The tablet market already stalled as people turned towards PCs again (see for example http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/05/global_fondling_on_the_down/). Anyway, expect most of new "tablets" to be much more alike laptops (keyboards, pen input) than the previous generation.

Smartphones sales are still strong, partly due to bigger screen sizes available (one of the reason of the declining tablet sales), and partly because contracts ensure more upgrades compared to tablets. Also the "status symbol" factor works better with phones than everything else.

It is true upgrade cycles for PCs are now longer, after all right now they are enough powerful for most use for more years than before. But more capable SSDs and 4K+ monitors may have an impact in creating demands for upgrades. Also, as long as some applications kill the 32 bit versions, and Windows 10 becomes available, some older PCs may need to get upgraded.

 

[SwnSng]

I don't know. Another way to look at it is...that you now have millions more people interested in taking Photographs. If you compare the people taking photographs 20-30 years ago with everyone doing it now (in any form) I'm sure the number is an order of magnitude greater maybe even 2 orders.

That means out of this ever growing smart phone instagram population of photographers there are going to be a % of those who want to take it more seriously. How is that a bad thing, sure profits have been down mostly because of the dead point and shoot business that smart phones have cornered but all the major Camera makers need to do now is separate themselves to Phone cameras in quality and you will have an ocean of potential customers in the near future.

 

[LDS]

I'll agree with his premise

"The key is that the software on those smartphones, and the social media platforms and instant connection to the web – ARE BETTER and cannot be overcome by camera companies that fail to integrate software within their camera bodies going forward."

First, nobody ever wonder if the "social media platforms" will be still here and so strong, say, ten years from now? Or they will get out of fashion and some new toy will take their place? Nobody worried about how much standalone cameras will be replaced by drone-mounted ones??

Software is better? A dedicated device will always perform better - it will have the proper ergonomics designed for a given task, and its processor will be dedicated to the task, without having to fulfill the needs of other applications running concurrently.

Also, beware of the PR of those said platforms. To stay afloat, they are in a desperate needs that their users products keep on feeding contents to them for free. The day users products get tired of feeding such platforms for free, those platforms have a big problem. Thereby they need to ensure you believe you have to feed such platforms as much as you can, even if you have very little reasons to do so.

Frankly, I feel no need to have a camera connected with such platforms. Just because I need to review my photos on a decent monitor much bigger than 5"-6", properly calibrated, adjust then if needed, and only then publish them. After all my CF cards store much more GB than those allowed monthly by my phone contract.
Also I prefer to save battery charge to use it to actually take photos, instead of wasting it keeping a wifi/mobile connection alive.

 

[jeffa4444]

For the masses he is correct, for serious hobby photographers or pros he is completely wrong and the article fails in a number of ways.
Part of the "hobby" is the kit itself I doubt hobby photographers drual over smartphone camera specs. Then there is the lens limitations, exposure limitations and depth of field limitations not even forgetting the sensor limitations.

Predictions like these have been made before and they went like so. Radio will kill newspapers, cinema will kill radio, TV will kill cinema and the internet will kill TV BUT in every instance including tablets of stone the use has got up not down. Im not saying smartphones have not detroyed the point & shoot market they have, but whilst DSLR sales have come off their 2009 / 2010 peak they are still well above the historical average and lens sales are definately up. Yes I think some of the companies will fail likely Panasonic, Olympus, Samsung etc. in th longer term but then again there is only a handfull of smartphone makers as well and there sales far exceed cameras who would have though we would see the demise of Nokia for instance. I actually hate the limitations of smartphones.

For the duration of my lifetime Im sure DSLRs will be around after all you can still buy film albeit niche and B&W film has actually made a small comeback.

I think it is more likely that companies such as Canon and Nikon will fade than the others. The advantage that Sony and Samsung have over the others is that they can leverage technology developed for other applications into the market and in a tech arms race will likely win over single focus companies as a result. Nikon in particular will be vulnerable to this. There is no way they can beat either Sony or Samsung in a tech arms race.

Samsung and to a lesser extent Sony will use the high end camera market to test their technological advances with the ultimate goal of having that trickle down to the more lucrative cell phone market. Canon and Nikon cannot do that, they are going to have to make their money up front and not indirectly like the other two, and given enough time they will eventually lose that battle.

You may have a point with Nikon but not Canon, Canon just purchased Axis security camera business for $ 2.5BN, have their printer business, semiconductor lithography, ophthalmic equipment, digital radiography equipment and mixed reality. They are also moving into automotive cmos sensor assemblies.

Try GfK for insights into the photography market they publish regular reports.

 

[LDS]

And yet, we get new iPhones every year or so. And, despite the fact that my iphone is now several generations outdated, Apple has continuously updated its operating system to add features that its hardware will support.

Phones employ a generic processor, which makes them easier to reprogram. Often, the software is a generation or two behind the hardware, that's why sometimes some features are added later, when the software catches up.

Cameras use processor(s) designed for image taking, but less flexible. But wow many phones are as fast as a camera in processing images? It's like having a powerful, dedicated GPUs, or not...

In Laforet's article, he talked about using digital cameras as stands to hold up smartphones taking timelapses. Why aren't cameramakers putting something as simple as a software intervalometer into high end digital cameras?

Because of the lucrative accessories market If they can sell you a $10 accessory at $130, they are very happy. Now the new 5Ds have such a software AFAIK (and Magic Lantern as well, AFAIK), after all, cheap Chinese clones are actively killing that market. Same for connectivity, wifi adapters have been available for years, but at crazy prices. Just beware, an always connected camera with a vulnerable OS running on it is at risk too...

I'm not talking about just dropping Android into the firmware.

This would be a very silly move. The last thing you want, is a generic OS designed to handle different tasks, and not a "real time" one also (a "real time" OS is one designed to handle time sensitive tasks). It would just take more memory, more CPU, more battery power with littler or no advantages. And the last thing I want, is a camera which could become riddled with malware as well...

 

[unfocused]

Here is the CIPA forecast for 2015 along with the history going back several years. Taking several decades of film camera users and converting them to digital resulted in the huge bubble in the 2010-2013 timeframe. Likewise, there is a similar bubble in lens shipments - except it lags by about two years. Some points I see...
1) Market saturation is certainly occurring. The question is how low will it go?
2) The camera industry has seen this kind of downturn before and the big players survived. In fact, they seemed to be able to deal with shipments of 3.5 million as a nominal level (although many would say with minimal R&D at those points).
3) The impact of smart phones is most seen in the P&S arena (full CIPA report is at http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr1000.pdf )
4) I like to think smartphones are great for image capture... perhaps not so good for photography.
5) Anyone who has watched prints coming off a minilab film printer can attest to the fact high image quality is not demanded by the masses. As fast as possible 4x6 prints with most of the faces recognizable is what is desired and "good enough" for many people. Today's expectation is instant sharing of blurry image captures.
6) The smartphone is also the photo album - it's almost 4x6 inch print sized and holds thousands of images. It's easy to pass around and share. DSLR's not so much!

The question is can pros and serious enthusiasts provide sufficient market for the level of development we have come to expect? It used to be the pro bodies were updated on a ten year cycle and lenses even longer. We are likely headed in that direction again.

There is a lot of truth to what you say. However, one point that Laforet and the Mayflower Concepts speaker are making, and which I agree with, is that because camera manufacturers have fallen behind the curve on usability, their customers are paying a premium in inconvenience due to a lack of features that are readily available on smart phones. In most cases, there is no excuse for that.

Perhaps the manufacturers can all get by for a few more years without integrating core convenience and connectivity features into enthusiast and professional cameras, but how long can that go on? Sooner or later the "I don't need wi-fi...I don't need touch screen...I don't need to instantly edit and upload photos from my phone" crowd will die out and we have several generations of potential camera customers who find DSLRs laughably antiquated.

Yes, I agree that demand is cyclical and we are at the tail end of the rapid growth prompted by the digital camera revolution. But the key difference is that in all other cycles, persons who moved up from basic cameras to more sophisticated cameras generally gained convenience along the way, or there were significant quality incentives (printing one's own photos was inconvenient, yes, but the reward was sufficient to overcome that inconvenience). The mistake I think manufacturers are making today is that they are penalizing upgraders by removing or rejecting common features that consumers have come to expect and there isn't enough of a reward to offset that inconvenience.

 

[distant.star]

The problem with stupid people, such as the writer of that blog, is that they only look at what is happening in the last few years and not at the whole history of photography. There have been a great number of "cell phone" type cameras for the masses that have come and gone, but high end cameras are still with us, and they are there because they have performance capabilities that the common cameras of the day do not.

You sure you want to call Vincent Laforet "stupid"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Laforet

Show me your Wikipedia entry.