Smartphones Already Won -- Laforet

[LDS]

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

The fact is good at shooting doesn't mean is also good at forecasting the market, nor that he's right.

But after all, if I were a professional photographer today, I'll do whatever I can to ensure less and less people try a DSLR. Cameras became too powerful and easy to use, and images easier to sell worldwide. Better to get rid of the competition as soon as possible, tell them phones are enough...

It wouldn't take much to create one... Another lie of the 'social society' is Wikipedia is an authoritative source

 

[K]

I disagree with the statement that cell phones are going to kill stand alone cameras. Why? Because they already have.

At this point, the culture has already changed. Any base model cell phone has a camera capable of taking the kinds of photos the vast majority of consumers want or need. This wasn't the case a few years back when some base model phones had 1-3mp cameras.

However, there will always be those people who seek higher image quality than what a cell phone can produce. They want true camera functionality. These are the people that are not interested in instantly sharing photos and who are willing to carry a dedicated device (camera) to capture high quality images. This is your photo hobbyist or person who wants more quality for their family. These folks will buy Powershots or entry level DSLR. Stand alone cameras will be around for a long, long time... Their market will shrink - but I believe the majority of that shrink has already occurred.

As to the statement about cell phones killing stand alone cameras? Will never completely kill them off. How much more will the stand alone camera market decline? In my view, it will decline by the number of people out there who want slightly higher IQ than what is currently available in cell phones, but who is compromising with the weight and having to have an additional device. I don't believe that to be a large segment at all. These are the people who will dump their dedicated cameras as soon as the cell phone reaches the quality and features they are looking for. These are people who aren't very demanding on IQ, but recognize the inferiority of cell phone photography. That is a small segment. Because you either have people who don't know or care about IQ that much who are happy with cell phones and will never buy a camera, or those who know about IQ and will likely never be satisfied with cell phone image quality.

Those few inbetweens will bail once cell phones satisfy. But as I said, cell phones currently satisfy the vast majority of people - and thus the damage has already been done for the most part.

Keep in mind one thing, whatever improvements are made to sensors for cell phones, are improvements that will be seen in larger sensors. Thus, the larger sensors will always be ahead.

The dynamic here is the acceptable quality level of the lowest end devices - cell phones. While the best keeps getting better, the worst is getting better too. And the worst eventually will reach a point where it is good enough for anything the basic user needs.

Right now, that already is the case for most people.

Let's not forget that prior to cell phone cameras - what was out there?

The majority of people were happy with the disposable cameras from the drug store. And before that, Polaroids. Sure, people had regular cameras too -and yes, they did have better image quality. But the story is the same. Most folks aren't image quality oriented. Simple as that.

If they were, 50% or more of the "pros" out there who shoot weddings and events would be out of a job. Because there is a lot of garbage out there - and a lot of "pros" only survive because the average consumer isn't a critic of photography. This was true to an extent in the film days - BUT...with film you actually had to have some skill.

But enough about IQ. Connectivity is the other factor. The reason a lot of users put up with the lower IQ, was for the convenience of not having to carry around even a pocket sized camera. And the instant sharing. Huge.

Who prints anymore? The only prints I ever see anymore are wedding and children's prints. That's about all I see on walls in homes anymore. Even that is going away. People's "home" is now facebook. People share and also keep photos there for themselves. Accessible anywhere.

I'm not some old guy, and I think not having to get film developed is huge! Yet, to the average consumer these days - the idea of having to transfer photos from one device to another is unacceptable. Even 1 step extra is too many. Too slow. Having to deal with memory cards? That is even worse. Shoot a photo, then take the card to another device like a computer. Copy it. Then from there move it to internet. Too many steps.

All that is acceptable is to take the photo on the cell phone. That's it. Most people do not even want to deal with having to upload. They let Google or Apple or whatever automatically sync their photos to the cloud. All in the background. All they do is shoot photos, and it is up on the web where they want it.

This is the short attention span, ultra lazy, gimme the shortcut, instant gratification society we live in.

That is where the medium is - the internet. So..what devices views these photos on the internet? We talking about taking photos, what about viewing them? This has a lot to do with the subject, because it plays into what is good enough. Well, most cell phones have 1080 screens. Most computer monitors have 1080 screens. I know they're moving to 4K slowly...but even then...is anyone pixel peeping? These people don't pixel peep. Only the photography nerds on this forum and others do that.

Does the average consumer ever notice the heinous noise levels in cell phone pictures? Not at all. Do they even know what digital noise is? NO!


So there you have it, right now - IQ is good enough for most - and the connectivity and convenience is to such an extreme lever, it is literally shoot the picture and then hit one button to share.


There isn't anything more that they can do to make cell phones any more appealing to hurt dedicated camera sales. All they can do is up the IQ which they will. But that is moot at this point.

 

[Pag]

This is good news for professional photographers. For the last ten years, competition has exploded because so many people would buy a SLR just to have a decent camera, spent a lot of time learning how to use it, then figured "Hey, if I've spent hundreds of hours learning photography and a few grands on gear, maybe I could make money off this skill!"

But now, people who aren't already hobbyists have no need to invest in a SLR since their phone meets their basic needs. Going up a level has a barrier of entry again: you must be willing to spend hundreds or thousands of dollars and many hours just for an increase in image quality. Some people will do it, of course -- some always have -- but fewer than in the last few years.

At the same time, the difference between a pro photographer and an everyday photographer will become more obvious to the uninitiated. There's a limit to how large you can realistically print a cellphone picture, small sensors are crap at bokeh, and you can't zoom a tiny lens. These are all things that are immediately obvious and that adds value to the gear a pro owns. The difference between a cellphone camera and a SLR are much larger than between an entry-level SLR and a pro-level SLR. (Admittedly, some technology could reduce that quality gap, but whatever can be used in a cellphone can also be used in a SLR)

With a reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers and a clearer separation of quality for the pros, I think the market for professionals may become much better in the long term.

 

[Act444]

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.

That's certainly what I did - and how I got started!

(except it wasn't with my phone, it was with my P&S)

 

[quod]

The fact is good at shooting doesn't mean is also good at forecasting the market, nor that he's right.

The fact that you may not be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.

 

[dswtan]

People are posting graphs and arguing statistics here, as usual, instead of looking at photos.

Topically, this was just posted today:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/02/26/top-25-mobile-photos-flickr-2014/

Enjoy! I know I did.

FWIW, I use all my cameras as often as I have them available -- phones, compacts, MILCs, DSLRs -- hell, I even used my iPad the other morning for a quick shot! (Felt ridiculous, as it should, but I needed it RIGHT THEN!)

 

[unfocused]

This is good news for professional photographers. For the last ten years, competition has exploded because so many people would buy a SLR just to have a decent camera...

...At the same time, the difference between a pro photographer and an everyday photographer will become more obvious to the uninitiated. There's a limit to how large you can realistically print a cellphone picture, small sensors are crap at bokeh, and you can't zoom a tiny lens. These are all things that are immediately obvious and that adds value to the gear a pro owns...

...With a reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers and a clearer separation of quality for the pros, I think the market for professionals may become much better in the long term.

Wow! That's a whole lot of wishful thinking. Let's break it down:

For the last ten years, competition has exploded

You are obviously too young to remember the previous 40 years or so. I have never seen a time when competition was not exploding. The supply of photographers has always far exceeded the demand for my entire life.

But, the problem is not an oversupply of photographers, the problem is the disappearance of markets. Photojournalism as a career is all but dead. Almost no one goes to a commercial portrait studio anymore. Those that remain survive on weddings, high school portraits and babies – all areas where the supply of photographers vastly exceeds the demand.

The most talented photographers working today survive largely through teaching workshops and writing. Scott Kelby may shoot a lot of professional sports, but he pays his bills with his publishing and training empire. Look at Creative Live's stable of photography instructors. Most make more money from teaching and publishing than they do from their photography.

...At the same time, the difference between a pro photographer and an everyday photographer will become more obvious to the uninitiated.

If only that were the case.

Sure, some people do see the difference, but very few are willing to pay for that difference.

There's a limit to how large you can realistically print a cellphone picture, small sensors are crap at bokeh, and you can't zoom a tiny lens. These are all things that are immediately obvious and that adds value to the gear a pro owns...

This is based on the false assumption that anyone cares about prints. Almost every picture looks great on a cellphone and quite a few look pretty good on a tablet. That's where pictures live today and that's not going to change. So, the ability to print an image in a large size is pretty much irrelevant.

I won't get into a debate about whether or not these things are "immediately obvious" other than to say that I've printed 20 x 30 images from both my 5DIII and my iPhone and, while there is a definite difference in the "look" of the images, I doubt if very many casual observers would be able to tell me which is which.

...With a reduction in the number of would-be pro photographers and a clearer separation of quality for the pros, I think the market for professionals may become much better in the long term.

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.

 

[Tugela]

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.

If they make claims like, then sure, I am more than happy to.

 

[Tugela]

The fact is good at shooting doesn't mean is also good at forecasting the market, nor that he's right.

The fact that you may not be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.

Not really. Being a photographer doesn't mean that he isn't out of touch with photography. Certainly, suggesting that cell phones will kill of DSLRs/MILCs suggests that he is out of touch, or at best, clueless.

Does he think that he is about to replace his gear with an iPhone? I think not, but somehow he thinks we are all about to. What an idiot.

 

[dolina]

The reason why you have to push numbers is because people tend to push anecdotal evidence.

We all know how global those things are.

But thank you for posting that link.

Time was I was laughed up about image quality of smartphones.

I was able to get a passing grade in a photo contest with a smartphone photo submission.

It could have gotten a higher score if it was if the subject was a wee bit more striking.

People are posting graphs and arguing statistics here, as usual, instead of looking at photos.

Topically, this was just posted today:
http://blog.flickr.net/en/2015/02/26/top-25-mobile-photos-flickr-2014/

Enjoy! I know I did.

FWIW, I use all my cameras as often as I have them available -- phones, compacts, MILCs, DSLRs -- hell, I even used my iPad the other morning for a quick shot! (Felt ridiculous, as it should, but I needed it RIGHT THEN!)

 

[jcarapet]

TL;DR. This bro preaches truth, and I am curious how "real camera companies" respond

This article resonates with me more than I care to admit. It's a lot of thoughts to chew over, but I agree with most of them.

For the general population, the main requirement for photography equipment is to provide the lowest barrier of entry to producing the image we envisioned. This can mean portability, simplicity, or easy access to filters and facebook for instant posting. For the higher end artist, it is to have the highest quality image capturing equipment available to ensure our vision is properly preserved. For people like me in the middle, it is to have the highest quality equipment to make up for our deficiencies as an artist. ;D

The most striking thing that he mentions is the "SLR's as tripods", where he relies on the incredibly capable phones to capture the vision of what he wants. Not because it's the highest quality single image, but the camera has the features to capture what is happening the easiest.

A "camera" company will always focus on the sensor technology, justifiably so, but they will miss out on the important aspect of image processing and extra features. These are critical aspects to us as the end user. There are phones out with CPU's that are more powerful than some laptops running photoshop today. And yet camera companies like Canon are refusing to use 3rd party chips to handle image processing?

This is why I think a 2nd tier vendor like Samsung with the right marketing will dominate the SLR/camera market of the future. With 1.0 firmware, Samsung introduced a fantastically feature-rich camera (and it's about damn time somebody noticed). Then, they adjusted firmware and added a plethora of consumer friendly features because they were flexible. This is the happy medium that I hope we will see provided from camera companies in the future. Not the separation of sensor-cameras and cell cameras, but camera's with amazing sensors that will allow app developers to hack into their immense potential. Only one way to find out I guess...

P.S. I love my 5D3, and you will have to pry it from my cold dead fingers. So deal with it.

 

[wickidwombat]

I was thinking this the other day using my iPhone 6+

Vs my old 1d mk3

1dmk3 10mp 10fps decent buffer highest ISO 3200 (above that is unusable)

iPhone 6+ 8mp lots of fps ( not sure but it's fast and buffer seems crazy deep)
Don't think high ISO it matches the 1d3 but it's decent low ISO dr it kills the 1d3

Of course the 1d is able to change lenses and focuses light years faster than the iPhone but
From and iq only standpoint I think the iPhone is on a par or a bit better.

So phone cameras have come an amazing distance in a short time look at what a phone camera was like in 2008 compared to high end Dslr it wasn't even a remote comparison.

And we'll as for point and shoots? Don't really see why they still bother making them to be honest

 

[LDS]

The fact that you may not be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.

Well, I have a degree in Physics and lead an R&D department in the hardware and software market. My office hall is full of lens blanks - a nice collection -, because in this very space a lot of high-end industrial and scientific optics have been designed and developed.

Sure, my photos are far crappier than his, but I have a far better knowledge in hardware and software (and their future) than he has - because I actually design and implement it - not just use it. My income comes from such a job. And surely, I would write a much more professional bio in Wikipedia, his is written in a very amateurish way.

Do you believe everybody sustaining an argument does it just because he or she truly believes it? How naive... There are often big commercial interests in pushing one or another. And exactly because his future depends on this market, he has a big interest to try to push those arguments that ensure his advantages, not somebody's else. An increasing number of photographers able to produce images with a quality once the realm of very expensive professional products and workflows is a threat. As some media already demostrated, could be cheaper to buy images from a local photographer than sending your own expensive ones.
Convincing people they not need a versatile system like a DSLR, but a selfie-oriented device is enough for them, may ensure less competition in the future.

Also, as many people working in the media industry, he has the "strange" idea that actual fashions will last forever, just to tell you tomorrow that there's a new fashion - which of course will last "forever" too.

Only time will tell if social media will last, and if their business model is sustainable in the long run (how long some can keep on losing money is yet to see). Are they too a bubble doomed to deflate?

Anyway, having cameras software strongly tied to very proprietary services which may go out of business looks a bit silly to me. I understand some users may have a *real* need of instant or near instant publication, others look to me just pushed to that model for commercial reason, not real needs.

Anwyway, it's a bit ironic to see his blog is sponsored by Canon...

 

[LDS]

You are obviously too young to remember the previous 40 years or so. I have never seen a time when competition was not exploding. The supply of photographers has always far exceeded the demand for my entire life.

The difference is today reach of *each* photographer. In the old days, how large was a market for a photographer? Unless you were able to sell your images to some large and well known agencies, your work had good chances to be limited to a restricted area, and competition was also restricted to photographer working in that area and the large agencies covering that area. The entry barrier, both financial and technical, was much higher.

Also, archives were much difficult to search. Today you can sell your image worlwide easily, and that means that each photographer has any other photographer as a competitor. Sure, those working on "events" mostly, which are local in nature, still have some "natural protection", but if you create different type of images, you get a far, far larger competition today. And even for "local events" the chances a non professional photographer able to get a good shot and publish it, are far higher than years ago.

 

[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...

You actually base high end DSLR users work and equipment based on this forum?!?!?!

You should have your doctor check your humor levels...

 

[Rudeofus]

Does he think that he is about to replace his gear with an iPhone? I think not, but somehow he thinks we are all about to. What an idiot.

No he doesn't, and with some reading comprehension you would agree that he never made that point. In fact he specifically pointed out several times and with highlighting, that smart phones won't reach a point where they can fully replace a professional camera.

His claims can be summed up as "amateurs value connectivity more than image quality", "DSLR makers were asleep when that trend became apparent" and "it's not sure whether DSLR makers can continue a business model that was so far financed by amateurs".

His article suggests another interpretation, aimed directly at photography related forums: there is a lot of talk about megapixels, dynamic range, high iso noise, corner to corner sharpness and lens bokeh. The camera market, however, cared about neither of these issues, but is/was decided by a separate issue (connectivity) that was rarely covered in discussions here and elsewhere. Yes, that hurts. :'(

 

[jeffa4444]

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.

I dont have a Wikipedia entry BUT I do have 35 years in the Motion Picture rental business and over 15 years in the professional stills & amatuer business. Vincent Laforet is being deliberately provocative in the same way Jim Jannard was when he launched Red Cameras. Trust me if Vincent Laforet was to shoot all his future work on an iPhone he would soon be out of work and he knows it. Agencies dictate minimum requirements, studios & broadcasters dictate miniumum requirements NOT Vincent. Neflix will ONLY allow originally shot 4K for its premium 4K service that removes ALL smart phones period and even some high end motion picture digital cameras.
My entire professional life has been about improving image quality and that encompasses many things not simply the camera and its CMOS chip. For the masses smartphones may well be fine and thats their decision, but accepting the status quo is not my style and history teaches me at least that Smartphones will have their day in the sun until the next best thing comes along.
Recently a film about Turner later life has been released can you imagine telling Turner water colors are no longer acceptable you can only use oils and you can only use oils from three companies, Apple, Google & Microsoft Im sure he would tell you go poke it. Creativity is not about the medium but the user Vicent is wrong to narrow it to Smartphones.

 

[blanddragon]

I still do not get why we call them 'Smartphones'. No one using them seems smart. The 'Smartphones' are not very intuitive and touch screen interfaces are buggy, prone to damage from very little impact. They are always smeared with human goo of some type.

The users of 'Smartphones' seem to always be lusting for the next iFruit XXX model before the current one stops providing functioning.

Plus I see most users, under 30, never speaking into the 'phone' part of the thing. I have called my children on many occasions and been scolded when I should have just 'sent a text'. As if the social exercise of using language that does not include emoticons or etymology is somehow offensive.

As we are mostly a poser society now, I will continue as I always do. Not worried what someone thinks of me as they are too busy wondering what someone thinks of them. YMMV

 

[quod]

The fact that you may not be good at shooting doesn't mean that "[you] are good at forecasting the market, nor that [you] are right. He is a professional photographer and cinematographer. His livelihood comes from this market that he is prognosticating about. Others have made the same general argument, so he's not alone in his thinking. I'm going out on a limb here, but I think he knows more than you about the state of the industry, and where the industry is heading, than you do.

Well, I have a degree in Physics and lead an R&D department in the hardware and software market. My office hall is full of lens blanks - a nice collection -, because in this very space a lot of high-end industrial and scientific optics have been designed and developed.

Sure, my photos are far crappier than his, but I have a far better knowledge in hardware and software (and their future) than he has - because I actually design and implement it - not just use it. My income comes from such a job. And surely, I would write a much more professional bio in Wikipedia, his is written in a very amateurish way.

Do you believe everybody sustaining an argument does it just because he or she truly believes it? How naive... There are often big commercial interests in pushing one or another. And exactly because his future depends on this market, he has a big interest to try to push those arguments that ensure his advantages, not somebody's else. An increasing number of photographers able to produce images with a quality once the realm of very expensive professional products and workflows is a threat. As some media already demostrated, could be cheaper to buy images from a local photographer than sending your own expensive ones.
Convincing people they not need a versatile system like a DSLR, but a selfie-oriented device is enough for them, may ensure less competition in the future.

Also, as many people working in the media industry, he has the "strange" idea that actual fashions will last forever, just to tell you tomorrow that there's a new fashion - which of course will last "forever" too.

Only time will tell if social media will last, and if their business model is sustainable in the long run (how long some can keep on losing money is yet to see). Are they too a bubble doomed to deflate?

Anyway, having cameras software strongly tied to very proprietary services which may go out of business looks a bit silly to me. I understand some users may have a *real* need of instant or near instant publication, others look to me just pushed to that model for commercial reason, not real needs.

Anwyway, it's a bit ironic to see his blog is sponsored by Canon...

Blah blah blah... Do you have a point other than to point out how smart you think you are relative to the rest of us? That is a fallacious and failing argument by the way.

 

[LDS]

His claims can be summed up as "amateurs value connectivity more than image quality"

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". While there amateurs who value image quality a lot. We all agree that P&S market is already doomed - but even here you can find people needing a small, light camera yet versatile and delivering high image quality. A niche market, probably, but not a so small niche. But people approaching DSLR and their systems? Sure, there is the "gear collector" for whom the "feature set" printed on the box is of paramount importance. But those really interested in photographic art and technique, and looking for quality and versatility? Why their cameras shoud be turned into smartphones wannabe, when what you need while shooting is less distractions? Do you really need in-camera notifications of how many likes and retweets your last photo got? Do you shoot just to please your ego, or do you have other reasons?

Even among professional there could be some who could value today connectivity much more then image quality i.e. paparazzi and sport/photojpurnalists, while others don't.

If that was his thought, well, he's using "amateurs" in the negative meaning many "pros" use. But is this really the target market, or maybe some camera maker has a better understanding of their market and what user really want? While user feedback is important to design a product, following only user feedback is not really the way to design a good product. Apple has been successful in the past years exaclty because was able to find good designs most users would have never thought about. When Canon asked Colani a new design for camera bodies, he delivered a new ergonomic design that became the de-facto industry standard, still in use today. Would users have ever asked for that? I really doubt it. Probably, they would have asked for some bells and whistles, thinking "out of the box" is something much more difficult, and it's not usually achieved just chasing fashions.

And sometimes fashion is wrong. On my previous smartphones (I got my first one in 2002... - said it was the future, people wandered how could I use such a large phone...) I could answer a call pressing a single button, while not even looking at the device. Now most buttons went way, and answering a call requires - a swipe, and a "touch" - and of course you have to look at the phone. Of course, calling/answering is now out of fashion. You should just take images and upload them.

PS: I know I can answer with a single button press on a bluetooth device - just I don't wear one all the time...