Is the camera industry in recession?

[stevesurf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hope that this is not the case. What is your opinion?

 

I'm gathering some data for the impact of higher density imager use in the smartphone industry having a negative effect on multiple industries. Here is an interesting thread, taken from CIPA (Camera Industry Product Association); original data here.

 

 

 

 

Here is another article on mirror less sales up and all other segments falling, but the industry in decline.

 

Another possibility is that a unique brand like Leica may actually benefit as the number of competitors reduces if this trend continues.

 

I'm hoping that consumers realize that smartphones cannot replace digital cameras, but can complement them, just as in the professional physical security industry we cannot rely primarily on smartphone images and video for forensic evidence.

 

I am very interested in this forum member opinions; thanks in advance.

[Jeff S]

Some commentary on the industry from Michael at LuLa and Roger at lensrentals.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Guest Mr. B]

I teach photography in high school and in the past few years more and more students use either their phone or their IPads to take photographs. Many still have various DSLR's but more and more the younger students don't want to be bothered carrying larger cameras. I also have a few student that like to use their dad's older film cameras to see what using film is like, but most don't thick with them. I will be courous to see what the next few years brings.

Mr. B

[stevesurf]

Some commentary on the industry from Michael at LuLa and Roger at lensrentals.

 

Jeff

 

That is a great article on disruptive technology in the photographic industry, thanks Jeff. It's interesting to see the original F3AF and the hybrid Kodak/Nikon digital imaging system.

 

I teach photography in high school and in the past few years more and more students use either their phone or their IPads to take photographs. Many still have various DSLR's but more and more the younger students don't want to be bothered carrying larger cameras. I also have a few student that like to use their dad's older film cameras to see what using film is like, but most don't thick with them. I will be courous to see what the next few years brings.

Mr. B

 

Today's education perspective is especially interesting; I too am seeing a few younger family members learning photography through film, and one even just had a successful exhibition of large format photography at the ICP in NYC. Thanks and I hope you keep us posted, Mr B of your students' evolving opinions.

[madNbad]

Eight Track and cassette tape replace the LP record until the compact disc comes along but wait, it's being replaced by digital downloads. Look how many camera shops have closed in the last decade while the number of photographs uploaded to social media has exploded in the same time. Compact cameras, watches, hand held GPS, even appointment books are all gradually being replaced by a single device. If the drive is toward a better mirrorless camera then why is the Ricoh GXR falling by the wayside? Good design, a willingness to explore new territory and the ability to have the consumer believe they need the product is how a manufacturer will survive. With changing attitudes about what is needed to "just take some pictures" the camera manufactures have their work cut out for them. In the early 1960s the death of the rangefinder was at hand, are we seeing the end of the SLR?

[stevesurf]

If the drive is toward a better mirrorless camera then why is the Ricoh GXR falling by the wayside?

 

I believe mirrorless cameras are increasing sales, but since the overall market seems to be decreasing (I don't know the geo sales trends), it has to be incredibly difficult for Ricoh's digital imaging division to invest so much while companies like Samsung, Sony and Panasonic can leverage the profitability from other divisions.

 

 

 

With changing attitudes about what is needed to "just take some pictures" the camera manufactures have their work cut out for them. In the early 1960s the death of the rangefinder was at hand, are we seeing the end of the SLR?

 

It will be interesting if mirrorless swaps market share with SLRs, but I believe there is too large a consumer "inertia" in the Americas to see this happening for quite awhile. Then again, it may be driven by profitability, numbers and which global region will offer these to a manufacturer. Thanks for the insights.

[Guest Mr. B]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Mirrorless cameras have their place of course, but they are slower to focus compared to a DSLR. If a photographer is serious about sports photography the mirrorless camera is not the best choice.

Mr. B

[imants]

mirror less, or schmirroless cameras who cares augmented reality will run sports for the near future the ".........

[kdriceman]

A couple of observations - a lot of people who would otherwise have purchased a new DSLR (or even mirrorless) are finding that they rarely use their their older version because their smart phone works just fine for their thousands of snapshots. We don't feel compelled to break out the wallet for a new DSLR.

 

Also, and I am finding this to be the case for me, we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with the technology. I have not upgraded my DSLR in 4 years because, although the latest models are better, faster, more features, wifi, deliver higher ISO... etc... The end result, the image is just not that much better for 90% of my shots. I recently purchased and used (for 30 days) a Fuji XT1 as a potential replacement for my NEX 6. It is a very nice, usable, well built camera with great image quality, but at the end of the day, the images were no better than the Nex6 images and it came with a $1,300 price tag (excluding lenses). I sent it back... I suspect there are many others like me that are finding that although the latest and greatest are often improvements, they don't really improve the resulting image that much.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited April 13, 2014 by kdriceman

[luigi bertolotti]

The evolution of camera industry is surely a very interesting and worth to scrutiny phenomenon for people who, professionaly, do study megatrends in economy; by sure, we are into a trend of DEEP changes, and one of my ideas is that it is driven by the fundamental shift from PRINTED (be it on paper or magazines - daylypapers) to MONITOR , a trend in which also the video is acquiring a role of its own (*) : I heard from a friend, a pro who is inside the biz of photo agencies, that is impressive to see the number of pros who ,on several distribution channels, do dedicate a growing part of their work to phone-taken images, and also the growing number of professional photographers who consider, and find markets for, video recording as an integral part of their job, in which the classical actors of "film production" (montage, mxinig, audio specialists...) are completely out of. All of this has a significant impact on industry... a complex phenomenon which is of little interest for the typical photo-amateurs, who, imho, will continue (in the current generation, at least) on the classic path to enjoy to have their current "private images" (only the SHARING of them is in deep change) : but of course, the trend in industry has an impact on our choices in terms of gear.

 

(*) as a side note... many of us Leicistes, me included, do find unuseful the video function of M... but if Leica implemented it, I think is just for the reason that, rightly, they do scrutinize with attention megatrends.

Edited April 13, 2014 by luigi bertolotti

[stevesurf]

A couple of observations - a lot of people who would otherwise have purchased a new DSLR (or even mirrorless) are finding that they rarely use their their older version because their smart phone works just fine for their thousands of snapshots. We don't feel compelled to break out the wallet for a new DSLR.

 

Also, and I am finding this to be the case for me, we are reaching a point of diminishing returns with the technology. I have not upgraded my DSLR in 4 years because, although the latest models are better, faster, more features, wifi, deliver higher ISO... etc... The end result, the image is just not that much better for 90% of my shots. I recently purchased and used (for 30 days) a Fuji XT1 as a potential replacement for my NEX 6. It is a very nice, usable, well built camera with great image quality, but at the end of the day, the images were no better than the Nex6 images and it came with a $1,300 price tag (excluding lenses). I sent it back... I suspect there are many others like me that are finding that although the latest and greatest are often improvements, they don't really improve the resulting image that much.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Two excellent points, again the "disruptive" smartphone doing a minimal job of the camera function.

 

The "diminishing returns" aspect is definitely ongoing these days and upgrades seem to be more for the serious amateur or professional. For the consumer, perhaps the camera solution providers have not considered a smartphone OS platform in the cameras where full social media APPs can share the images they just took.

 

The evolution of camera industry is surely a very interesting and worth to scrutiny phenomenon for people who, professionaly, do study megatrends in economy; by sure, we are into a trend of DEEP changes, and one of my ideas is that it is driven by the fundamental shift from PRINTED (be it on paper or magazines - daylypapers) to MONITOR , a trend in which also the video is acquiring a role of its own (*) : I heard from a friend, a pro who is inside the biz of photo agencies, that is impressive to see the number of pros who ,on several distribution channels, do dedicate a growing part of their work to phone-taken images, and also the growing number of professional photographers who consider, and find markets for, video recording as an integral part of their job, in which the classical actors of "film production" (montage, mxinig, audio specialists...) are completely out of. All of this has a significant impact on industry... a complex phenomenon which is of little interest for the typical photo-amateurs, who, imho, will continue (in the current generation, at least) on the classic path to enjoy to have their current "private images" (only the SHARING of them is in deep change) : but of course, the trend in industry has an impact on our choices in terms of gear.

 

(*) as a side note... many of us Leicistes, me included, do find unuseful the video function of M... but if Leica implemented it, I think is just for the reason that, rightly, they do scrutinize with attention megatrends.

 

Great summary: print to monitor. Also fascinating behavior; it shows how the professional adapts to trends around them and even incorporates the tool into their work in a different way than what the smartphone mfr intended. Good to see image quality and creative reproduction will be part of "private images." I for one think we're expected to overshare in social media where it does not necessarily benefit us (excepting professional forums like this).

[sfage]

I think a lot of people are beginning to realize that cameras are a zero-gain endless money pit. Are they "really" getting better every year?

[luigi bertolotti]

I think a lot of people are beginning to realize that cameras are a zero-gain endless money pit. Are they "really" getting better every year?

 

Yes... the Mpixel race is at a sort of end (consumers can be charmed by MP... but get annoyed in managing single files of lot of MB...) ... AF is always AF... 40-50.000 ISO are a lot... ; the (relatively) new factor is that advanced amateurs no more see FF DSLR as a sort of final goal to aspire.

 

And frankly, I am happy to feel intimately outside of this sort of bulge ... I used a Leica in the last 35 years, and still use one to take my pictures... it works for me, period.

[Berth]

Money pit? Of course.

 

Zero gain? No, photography has been a wonderful fulfilling hobby since I was a schoolboy, 55 years is a good run.

[algrove]

Yes and so is the world.

[sfage]

"If I just had *another* $2,000 to spend on a camera, my life would be so much better".

[AlanG]

The cameras in cell phones will evolve to include many features of more "advanced cameras"... interchangeable lenses, eye level viewfinder, grips, larger batteries, underwater cases, external flashes, video support devices, etc. Some of this has already started.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited April 13, 2014 by AlanG

[AlanG]

Another cell phone device - gimbal for smooth video. And of course GoPro sales are through the roof.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[erl]

I recently purchased and used (for 30 days) a Fuji XT1 as a potential replacement for my NEX 6. It is a very nice, usable, well built camera with great image quality, but at the end of the day, the images were no better than the Nex6 images and it came with a $1,300 price tag (excluding lenses). I sent it back... I suspect there are many others like me that are finding that although the latest and greatest are often improvements, they don't really improve the resulting image that much.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Could somebody please explain how this technique (is it unique to the USA?) works! Surely buying something, using it for 30 days, then sending it back because you don't like it, seems to have an end disadvantage for someone. Is it the poor retailer, or the next buyer that has to wear the 'damage' of the now used goods? I would have thought a considered investigation of the desired equipment, maybe including hiring before buying would be more prudent, and honest.

 

I acknowledge there is a level of criticism in my post, but there is a genuine interest in how it really works and who really pays for the mistake.

 

Is this practice contributing to the alleged camera recession?

Edited April 14, 2014 by erl

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[stevesurf]

Could somebody please explain how this technique (is it unique to the USA?) works! Surely buying something, using it for 30 days, then sending it back because you don't like it, seems to have an end disadvantage for someone. Is it the poor retailer, or the next buyer that has to wear the 'damage' of the now used goods? I would have thought a considered investigation of the desired equipment, maybe including hiring before buying would be more prudent, and honest.

 

I acknowledge there is a level of criticism in my post, but there is a genuine interest in how it really works and who really pays for the mistake.

 

Is this practice contributing to the alleged camera recession?

 

As an employee of a manufacturer in an industrial industry, we really strive to get a match with customer needs and product features. However, reverse logistics can either create a negative impact whether a company has a lenient or tightened return policy.

 

Personally, I believe we all wind up paying for the customer that "shops" the stores and has no hesitancy to return an expensive item within their own decision process. There are a few studies that show a more trusting return policy helps sales and vice versa:

 

Return Policies Directly Impact Sales

 

Here's an interesting quote/source:

A return can be a future sale. Consumers are known to change their minds, and today’s consumers believe that they’re entitled to do so. When they do return a product, whatever the reason, the ease of the return process and how they are treated have a huge impact on repeat sales.

 

Many retailers have recognized this reality and have adjusted their returns policies to be hassle free. Some retailers even encourage returns and have made return shipments as simple as possible. Customer and brand loyalty contribute directly to the top line, and data from customer returns can help inform this strategy.

 

“A reverse logistics strategy is much more than simply figuring out how to be more efficient in shipping and processing returns and cutting costs,” concludes Dollase. “Today it’s about driving top line sales and long-term brand loyalty through a more holistic view.”

Improving reverse logistics with a returns management strategy