[stoppingdown]

Couldn't agree more.

We’ve seen some cameras with very technically impressive specifications, but I worry that they’re not always capabilities that many photographers really need. Moving forward, I speculate that more user-friendly specifications might mean more to customers. Easier to use interfaces, a compact and lightweight body for enhanced portability, or some other specifications might be more important.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-ceo-kazuto-yamaki-claims-companies-are-missing-out-on-making-affordable-cameras/

[mike]

I think he has a point. Having just got back from vacation visiting the Scandanavian countries I rarely saw someone else with an ILC. 20 years ago I would see a lot of them. Sure, smart phone cameras have gotten better. However, I still wonder if the ILC camera was simpler, less expensive, and most importantly was an extension of our smart phones would more people be using them?

It doesn't even need to be an ILC. It could just be P&S that offers more shooting options than using your smart phone camera. Like better image quality in any condition and a zoom lens.

Most importantly if the images can just magically appear (a well-designed Bluetooth) on their phone's image browser, and they could scroll through them and immediately post on social media or text them to a friend. And this worked as simple and as fast as viewing images after taking them on your phone.

I for one can't see my GF using my cameras. But I could see her using a P&S like I mentioned above if it integrated seamlessly with her phone.

[stoppingdown]

The marketing relationship with smartphones is very complex and not being an expert in marketing, nor a particular fan of smartphones, my thoughts on the topic would not be relevant.

I can comment as an advanced amateur. When the a6700 was introduced, I commented here that it was an excellent camera, but I wasn't overly attracted by it because I mostly needed a simpler model to replace the a6000, obsolete under many points of view, first of all poor EVF e and lack of in-sensor stabilisation. Working with three camera bodies, one of which is devoted to landscape, IA autofocusing and many other advanced features weren't a primary need for me.

One year later I bought the a6700 because there are no new APS-C models, nor rumours about them for the incoming months and I really wanted to get rid of the a6000 (which I'll only regret for the light weight). I anticipated the buy of a few months because the past week I had the chance of going to a place with excellent birding spots and I wanted to test IA AF for birds (the a6600 seems to be good for mammals only).

The expense sequence for my a6000/a6300/a6600/a6700 is 450€/930€/1240€/1570€ — this is not a sustainable trend for me. I confess that, being in the verge of completing a financial transaction that will bring a good deal of cash into my pocket, I've also evaluated the A7Cr, but definitely 3000€+ for a camera is too much for me, independently of the budget (furthermore I was erroneously supposing that certain features of the A7Cr weren't present in the a6700, instead they are). Less expensive models aren't an option: the a6100 has still the bad EVF of the a6000 and the a6400 lacks stabilisation. The a6100 with good EVF, even without stabilisation, at the same price would almost certainly been my choice, otherwise.

The next camera body to phase out is the a6300, whose only defect is the lack of stabilisation. I'm seeing I'm buying a new camera every three years, but the a6300 could last more. But how much will cost an alpha APS-C camera in 2027/2028?

[mike]

The marketing relationship with smartphones is very complex and not being an expert in marketing, nor a particular fan of smartphones, my thoughts on the topic would not be relevant.

At some point you need to be happy with what you have and just enjoy the art of photography. I think all the cameras over the last several years are quite good and the technology is relatively stable. Skip a generation or two and move out getting a new camera to every 5 years or so. 

I am interested in your thought with smartphones. I'm not a smartphone fan either and rarely use it for pics. Occasionally, something is so special that I take my phone out just to take a pic so I can text it to someone. Which only happened once on vacation. Nonetheless!

I do believe this idea could have some potential to boost overall camera sales, or at least create another niche. I know I'm repeating myself,,,, but I can see people using a real camera again if it was an extension of their smart phones. By that I mean they can wear the camera around their neck and never even take their smartphone out of their bag. Then whenever they want, like when taking a coffee break, they can review and share images from their phone. Another plus is their phone battery won't drain so fast.

I even think it would be nice if my cameras did that. Even if it's only a lower res jpeg. Then at the end of the day I can pull my phone out and easily send some images to friends that are halfway around the world. My oly is supposed to have some way to connect to my phone/pc via bt, I tried but it was more of a joke and I instantly gave up.

[stoppingdown]

At some point you need to be happy with what you have and just enjoy the art of photography. I think all the cameras over the last several years are quite good and the technology is relatively stable. Skip a generation or two and move out getting a new camera to every 5 years or so.

Correct. The a6000 had to be replaced because it was not mature. The a6300 will last much longer. It could even last (almost) forever if it had IBIS, or if I still had the (bad) SEL1670Z which at least had stabilisation.

Occasionally, something is so special that I take my phone out just to take a pic so I can text it to someone. Which only happened once on vacation. Nonetheless! ... etc ...

My relationship with taking photos and my smartphone in short: I hardly know how to shoot with it! And in any case I can just do basic shooting, I don't know how controls work. Basically I do that only when I'm around with no cameras and there's e.g. a tourist post with some information about a monument or a map with trails. As you pointed out, quick sharing it's the basic idea with a smartphone, but I never do quick sharing. My workflow indeed is quite slow and related to postprocessing with the laptop.

[Klaus]

The big headache is attracting young people to "real" cameras.

You won't really catch the selfie gang. So I sort of understand that the manufacturers aren't overly keen on introducing smaller cameras.

I reckon Panasonic is really confused by all the criticism around the S9 - which is a small camera that has been demanded in forums for years.

You probably have to select a "topic". I think OM Systems did it right with "Outdoor" for instance - they've got a point there. Fuji's topic is "retro".
Panasonic was "video" for years - until Sony overtook them. I suppose Canon/Nikon are about "sports". With only Sony being a true jack of all trades and master of everything.

[mike]

The big headache is attracting young people to "real" cameras.

You won't really catch the selfie gang. So I sort of understand that the manufacturers aren't overly keen on introducing smaller cameras.

That's the million dollar/euro question. How to attract youngsters.

I've never understood the selfie gang. A friend was just in Spain, and her caption would say where she was at, but all you would see in the pics is a selfie of her and her daughter. They were subject of every picture she took. BTW, she's nearing 60 years old. It isn't just a young person thing.

[stoppingdown]

I've never understood the selfie gang.

Me neither. Consider that I've probably taken no more than a dozen pictures of myself in my life, a third being used for bios at conferences or such (for instance the one I'm using as avatar, that is quite old at this time — almost twenty years!).

[Klaus]

That's other thing I don't understand with selfies - who actually wants to watch them other than the person who took them?

Maybe I'm just weird - I prefer people in person rather than in a photo. And I must watch oneself in a bathroom mirror every morning - that's plenty enough already.

[thxbb12]

Maybe I'm just weird - I prefer people in person rather than in a photo. And I must watch myself in a bathroom mirror every morning - that's plenty enough already.

Ahahahaha, very well said!!

Given our interest in actual photography I think we are not very representative of the masses.
I hate selfies and I don't understand why most people, regardless of age, seem to enjoy taking them so much.

Mind you, my wife always wants us to take pictures of ourselves, but at least she values the inclusion of as much background as possible. Therefore, I use of a tripod (or drone) to include a large part of the scenery around us.

To me, this selfie fad is not very different from people taking pictures of their breakfast and posting them on FB or Instagram.

I feel the world is going more and more in the direction of what's depicted in the movie Idiocracy unfortunately...