[miro]

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


 

http://www.diyphotography.net/camera-sal...irrorless/

 

 

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


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


PS I was with smartphone. 

 

 

What do you think?


 

https://photographylife.com/a-few-though...era-market

 

https://photographylife.com/camera-marke...017-update

 

http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/more...onder.html

[Guest]

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

 

https://photographylife.com/is-there-rea...es-volumes

 

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

[stoppingdown]

The relevant statement is:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Brightcolours]

 

 

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

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

 

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

[stoppingdown]

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

 

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

 

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

[Guest]

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

 

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

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

[stoppingdown]

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

 

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

[miro]

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

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

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

 

I would like to finish with Darwin phrase

<span style="font-size:10.5pt;">It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change.
</span>

[Guest]

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

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

[Brightcolours]

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