The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The most amazing thing happened today...
- Thread starter Lonnie Utah
- Start date
Tim
Active member
So who will decide what is produced, mirrorless, DSLR, compact, phone camera... will market forces choose? or will tech innovation step in and mix it up?
As time and users pass on, terms like full frame will have less meaning.
Imagine a photo sensor the size of your LCD you are viewing this on and as cheap to buy. What will be the limitation then? Content.
As time and users pass on, terms like full frame will have less meaning.
Imagine a photo sensor the size of your LCD you are viewing this on and as cheap to buy. What will be the limitation then? Content.
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Or an 8x10 sensor?
Unfortunately, the above sensor is only 10MP, and as far as I know, only 2 copies exist, both owned by Mitchell Feinberg who use them instead of polaroids before shooting the image on film. But if he can make two and make them "pay for themselves", one can wonder what holds the camera industry back from making at least a sensor that is 6x6.
Bill Caulfeild-Browne
Well-known member
Re Texting - my kids and grandkids live on this addiction, so last Thanksgiving I took them all to a lodge in Algonquin Park. There are no cell towers in range, no wi-fi and no computers.
They actually had to TALK to each other and have meaningful conversations at mealtimes.
It was a very refreshing weekend!
They actually had to TALK to each other and have meaningful conversations at mealtimes.
It was a very refreshing weekend!
Arjuna
Active member
It seems like there may be a new option coming: LargeSense: LargeSense LLC :: LS911
Personally I think the move to using cellphone instead of cameras is one due to most people only use their shots as digital images on the web today and two sorry to say the overly inflated prices camera companies are charging for their glass today. $3k for a 70-200mm f2.8 OEM zoom imho is just insane. I for one would never pay that for this lens no matter how good or bad it is when I can get a 80-200mm f2.8 hs Minolta for 1/3 the price. $15k for a 500mm f4 is just absurd ......... especially in the current worlds economy. For $6K I can get a Minolta 600mm f4 in pristine shape.
As long as this trend to higher and higher priced glass (and bodies in some cases) continues more and more casual photographers will move further and further away from cameras and towards smart phones as they keep getting better and better and lower in price.
The shrinking camera sales worldwide is just a result of these two trends. IMO camera companies are shooting themselves in the foot raising prices. Look at my 70-400mm 4 years ago or so I bought mine new on a Sony Christmas sale for $995 from B&H...... now the new 70-400mm is over $2k,,,,,, Really????? Twice the price in 4 short years???? I would not by this lens for that price.
As long as this trend to higher and higher priced glass (and bodies in some cases) continues more and more casual photographers will move further and further away from cameras and towards smart phones as they keep getting better and better and lower in price.
The shrinking camera sales worldwide is just a result of these two trends. IMO camera companies are shooting themselves in the foot raising prices. Look at my 70-400mm 4 years ago or so I bought mine new on a Sony Christmas sale for $995 from B&H...... now the new 70-400mm is over $2k,,,,,, Really????? Twice the price in 4 short years???? I would not by this lens for that price.
If photography becomes more niche as indicated by the continuing drop in sales across all markets (P&S, entry-level DSLR, prosumer DSLR, pro DSLR), then prices will have to go up further to support the remaining products they do sell.
alajuela
Active member
+1 and also there will be an increased time between innovated products (not talking about incremental upgrades)
Might give us enough time to really get to know our equipment. :watch:
Thanks
Phil
Or there is option #2 continue to raise the prices to support your existing cost and go out of business due to pricing yourself out of the market.
Option 3 is to reduce production and facilities to a level to support the demand and price your product for a reasonable amount of profit that the average person does not feel strapped in purchasing... the pro market will not keep one company afloat none the less 6-7companies. They need the beginners and the mom and pops and the serious amateurs to get the sort of volume they need to be profitable at their current levels. The prices are scaring most of them away just like it did the high end shotguns, custom bamboo rods, etc.... these markets are still out there but in a greatly reduced state. Without customers they will all go belly up .....
To be honest if I hadn't been doing this since the early 60's and am so deeply invested in this activity and working currently as a product photographer I wouldn't take $3k+ and spend it on a body and another $5-6K for 3 to 4 lenses for it. No friggin way... I would snap away with a iPhone post them on the net and invest that money in area's it could make money for me instead of depreciating and always having the feeling I needed to upgrade to another body or lens to get marginal if any improvements in final IQ. Its a obsession not a passion for many who often have more money than sense.... we see their posts all the time all over the web.
I wonder just how many of us 50 years and older would be doing this if we faced the kind of costs todays starting out photographers face to be able to play.
Ben Rubinstein
Active member
I doubt when you include film and developing costs that for anything but a casual amateur it would be that much different. Just the costs of learning alone...
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Longer product cycles would be excellent. The Nikon F6, which is manufactured at the breathtaking rate of 100 units per year, still sells at a moderate $2,500 or thereabouts. I don't know if Nikon makes a profit from it, but it has been in production for 10 years and is still an excellent camera, whatever way I see it.
Just today, I shot a buffalo race (yes, there is such a thing), using 2 cameras for 80% of the shots: a D300 and a D2Xs. I can't think of a single reason why a newer camera would have give me better photos
Last edited:
Now THAT I'd like to see. Any chance you might post one or two in the Nikon images thread, Jorgen?
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
Hi Guy. Can you tell me what lenses did you use to achieve this performance with the A77 II ?
Thanks a lot
Luis
I don't disagree with you but the beginners and mom 'n pops ships have sailed - they're not buying standalone single-purpose cameras any more. This is why most companies are focusing on speciality prosumer markets, cameras like the A7 series, RX100, and D810. What we would consider a reasonable amount of per-purchase profit will be much less than what the companies will accept in a declining, niche market. It's going to look more like Leica and a lot less like P&S.
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
The 70-200 ZA 2.8 SSM2 I think it is
Guy Mancuso
Administrator, Instructor
Jorgen Udvang
Subscriber Member
There are truckloads of irony embedded into this. Sony, one of the leading manufacturers of digital p&s cameras, is also one of the leading suppliers of high quality camera phones, the very product that pushes the mainstream p&s towards the cliff. Luckily, some of those companies that really know how to make good niche products are still around and hopefully, the big masters like Nikon and Canon will find back to that concept. It's unfortunate that some threw in the towel along the way. A Contax N36 would indeed have been a sweet camera...
"I wonder just how many of us 50 years and older would be doing this if we faced the kind of costs todays starting out photographers face to be able to play?"
This is a fascinating question Jim.
It is with-in memory that I choked at the price of a F5, and $1,200 for the follow up F6 was "outrageous". Conversely, I made a huge leap into digital with a 3.2 meg Canon D30, and a 16 meg Kodak Proback for my V camera that cost 10X as much as the F6. However, had I not made good money using those digital cameras, and had I not been able to charge fat digital capture fees in place of film, processing, and scanning costs, in no way would I have paid those prices. The shift of print media to digital reproduction was swift and made all that possible.
It's clear that two aspects of modern, everyday photography have altered the landscape forever.
The taking experience and the showing experience became instant (Dr. Land would have approved). The genius that first thought to put a camera in a cell phone 1) made taking pictures instant and ubiquitous because the phone by necessity was always with you, and 2) it was already directly linked to the new media of sharing and expressing emerging on the web. The whole "print" step was skipped. Take picture, up-load, everyone sees picture … even Grandma and Grandpa.
The camera companies made their biggest mistake by not making their cameras directly link to the web when their quality was still better on the web. Now it is too little, to late … and still not as direct. The public doesn't see the need, or a compelling difference for more than what their cell phone will do, and sure as hell won't carry another device just to take pictures.
BTW, as former adman, I see some of the most deeply moving, highly connective advertising for cell phone photography that focuses on individual creativity and integration into one's lifestyle, and nothing even remotely as compelling from any camera company … who tends to focus on complex tech talk which the vast majority of consumers could not care less about.
The ONLY hope we can have is that cell phones unlock some of those consumer's desire to do more than what their smart device is able to do. If I were doing the marketing for Nikon, Canon etc. I would suggest they band together and exploit that possibility in a united manner. Which will happen when Ben & Jerry's is served in Hades.
- Marc
This is a fascinating question Jim.
It is with-in memory that I choked at the price of a F5, and $1,200 for the follow up F6 was "outrageous". Conversely, I made a huge leap into digital with a 3.2 meg Canon D30, and a 16 meg Kodak Proback for my V camera that cost 10X as much as the F6. However, had I not made good money using those digital cameras, and had I not been able to charge fat digital capture fees in place of film, processing, and scanning costs, in no way would I have paid those prices. The shift of print media to digital reproduction was swift and made all that possible.
It's clear that two aspects of modern, everyday photography have altered the landscape forever.
The taking experience and the showing experience became instant (Dr. Land would have approved). The genius that first thought to put a camera in a cell phone 1) made taking pictures instant and ubiquitous because the phone by necessity was always with you, and 2) it was already directly linked to the new media of sharing and expressing emerging on the web. The whole "print" step was skipped. Take picture, up-load, everyone sees picture … even Grandma and Grandpa.
The camera companies made their biggest mistake by not making their cameras directly link to the web when their quality was still better on the web. Now it is too little, to late … and still not as direct. The public doesn't see the need, or a compelling difference for more than what their cell phone will do, and sure as hell won't carry another device just to take pictures.
BTW, as former adman, I see some of the most deeply moving, highly connective advertising for cell phone photography that focuses on individual creativity and integration into one's lifestyle, and nothing even remotely as compelling from any camera company … who tends to focus on complex tech talk which the vast majority of consumers could not care less about.
The ONLY hope we can have is that cell phones unlock some of those consumer's desire to do more than what their smart device is able to do. If I were doing the marketing for Nikon, Canon etc. I would suggest they band together and exploit that possibility in a united manner. Which will happen when Ben & Jerry's is served in Hades.
- Marc
there might be a bright side or two. there is a much expanded interest in viewing and making images; bound to promote some creativity
those who want the quick and easy product now have a way to get it , but that only differentiates the quick product even more from the more studied work and separates the less serious photographers from the more serious
in today's market, i'm sure the camera makers go where the money is and that is the volume product, but that is the most competitive market as well. hopefully still leaves room for the development of the kind of gear we are interested in as a specialty market.
those who want the quick and easy product now have a way to get it , but that only differentiates the quick product even more from the more studied work and separates the less serious photographers from the more serious
in today's market, i'm sure the camera makers go where the money is and that is the volume product, but that is the most competitive market as well. hopefully still leaves room for the development of the kind of gear we are interested in as a specialty market.