Do camera companies need to go the way of watch companies to survive...pandering to collectors?

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Not really: I don't see a lot of people wearing cameras as fashion statements. Especially cameras which might cause neck problems to the delicate necks of fashion models.

Watches-as-status-symbols are still sold big time, I think Rolex still produces 1 million watches a year...

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

Cell phones are replacing compact cameras, not DSLRs, so not sure why you'd ask that in a DSLR forum. And no, they don't have to become jewelry; they just have to figure out how to make cameras that people want to buy.

- Dennis

Well, no offense to their workmanship, they are great and they made great instrument, but truth is that they pretty much sit still and let grass grow under their feet. There is little if any innovation. And that come a time that fancy Swiss watch that cost a million would not be much different vs a cheapo Timex. Well at least Timex give us something new. And that's what the like of Swatch, Casio and Seiko did ...

So take this Nikon Df. its more a repackaging of their current components in a new skin, that's it. Can't Nikon give us true innovation ( as they did in the Nikon 1 ). And even the packaging they did so lousy. branching out with niche product is not exactly bad business, but one have to do it right and I am not sure if Nikon had do it right with the Df

If Nikon did this a year or two ago as a D700 replacement and beat Fuji to the retro thing it would have been quite an achievement. I smell a bit of desperation and it is a shame.

Dennis said:

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

Cell phones are replacing compact cameras, not DSLRs, so not sure why you'd ask that in a DSLR forum. And no, they don't have to become jewelry; they just have to figure out how to make cameras that people want to buy.

- Dennis

Click to expand...

Though not going off a cliff like compact sales did, the whole interchangeable lens camera market (DSLRs, mirrorless) is currently declining too. To deal with this, camera makers are exploring more niches and trying to get the people who are still buying to move up to models that give the manufacturers more profitable margins.

kenwj said:

If Nikon did this a year or two ago as a D700 replacement and beat Fuji to the retro thing it would have been quite an achievement. I smell a bit of desperation and it is a shame.

Click to expand...

Desperation or simply imitation of a successful strategy?

If they didn't do this, they might end up being far more desperate.

TurboElephant said:

Not really: I don't see a lot of people wearing cameras as fashion statements. Especially cameras which might cause neck problems to the delicate necks of fashion models.

Click to expand...

Hipsters buy things because they are cool and retro. They buy things to be different. Maybe it's just that you don't see any hipsters where you live.

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

Well it works for Leica ...............

But seriously mainstream cameras are unlikely to go the way of jewellery because in our celebrity culture image is everything. The typical user of a DSLR is middle aged, balding and wears bad clothes - not really an image that many want to buy into, regardless of how cool the manufacturers try and make the product look.

TurboElephant said:

Not really: I don't see a lot of people wearing cameras as fashion statements. Especially cameras which might cause neck problems to the delicate necks of fashion models.

Watches-as-status-symbols are still sold big time, I think Rolex still produces 1 million watches a year...

Click to expand...

Ah, but watches have to be recognisable to work as a status symbol. I guess this is why Rolex is so popular even though serious watch aficionados might regard them as mass produced bling.

After all if you were to wear an Audemars Piguet, Chopard, or Jaeger-LeCoultre who would even know what it was?

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

I'd agree camera companies need to aim higher as lower end users either stop using their products or are happy with those they already own but I don't think they need to go the way of jewelry to nearly the same extent as watchs.

The obvious difference for me is that expensive camera's offer a greater degree of functionality over cheap ones compared to expensive watches over cheap ones. This means that style alone is a relatively smaller part of the appeal, its still an issue of course but even with something like the Df your looking at clear differences in functionality than alterntives Nikon sales.

You look at the camera industry as a whole and Nikon/Canon are the ones making the vast majority of the profits and the Df is really the first camera(well besides those limated run S rangefinders) either has released where style is a selling point.

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

Well, maybe not just carrying around your neck, more to flash around. The classic Minox was mostly an expensive fashion gadget, not really a camera for spies (Leicas were far more popular).

In a way some cameras have been fashion statements a long time, just like certain cars.

Some camera bearers use them even today as statements of class, wealth, and opulence: being part of a select group — why otherwise should there be gold-plated editions of almost every brand of camera, if not every model (I know of Nikon, Hasselblad, Pentax, Minox, straight off hand)!

Why would there otherwise be Leica-versions of Panasonic, Ferrari versions of Hasselblad, Hasselblad versions of NEX, and so on, and on. And a lot of Leicas are first, and foremost, a statement of wealth. There have even been diamond-studded compacts for those with too much money!

Essentially there special versions add nothing to the camera's performance, but does a lot to its styling, and jewelry is a lot, if not all, about style!

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

The contemporary DSLR style still has a strong resemblance to the Nikon F4, which was introduced all they way back in 1988, when many hipsters may not have even been born. I can see that younger purchasers might want something distinctive, something other than their father’s camera. The DF is based on a design from 1977 and is quite similar to cameras even older, and so is something that granddad might have carried. As most of us know, grandparents are cooler than parents: my father is always astonished that I dress like his father, even though I never met my grandfather.

The swoopy black plastic look has gotten passé. I own two metal cameras that look like they are made of plastic, and to modern youth, such inauthenticity is anathema, no matter what utility black-coated compound-curved metal may have. Metal ought to look like metal. If a dial changes shutter speed, then should it not have shutter speed markings? Same with aperture and ISO. Try arguing all you want with youth, you will usually get nowhere with them — they will be willing to take two steps backwards for the opportunity to take one step forward in their own direction. Aesthetics has an importance beyond mere utility, although ideally these two should be joined together harmoniously. The new designs are cool; the existing designs may have been cool in their day, but that day has past. But maybe 40 years from now they will be introducing cool retro-style holo-cameras that resemble the classic Nikon D800.

I live in a rather big city and there's plenty of hipsters or hipster look-a-likes here but I seldom see one with a camera.

OK I saw one in the supermarket last week with a Fuji camera I think but he looked like was a professional so he had a reason to wear a camera around his neck. I'll ask if I see him again.

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches.....

Click to expand...

Quite an accurate assessment. We all talk about how the smart phone is eating at the sales of low-end point & shoots. The smart phone's very useful as a camera, so I see this as an extremely positive trend.

But the future of timekeepers, that's a bit harder one. The watch has had a place as one of man's few personal decorations, as well as one of the woman's most prominent ones. That cultural heritage comes from way back. Is it time to let it go? For some, perhaps. Is a watch still a way to make strong statements of personal principles? Yes, which is why it'll linger.

Member said:

The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

Cool is a rather disparaging description, as it sort of inherently implies shallowness, no? Perhaps there are better words for it.

I'd say that the 'ye olde' styling, in the case of Df, can work on two levels. First, it's immediately familiar and warm and fuzzy for the long-time photographers. Second, it's a statement about technology, progress, and critical or non-critical observation of them.

The marketing message, however, couldn't quite decide which party was watching. For those who know SLR and DSLR history, the teasers hinted at a bit too much compared to what was going to be on the table, while all along the aim was simply to make photography look desirable and accessible, to reassure people that this camera wouldn't expect too much learning and technical wizardry from you.

The styling evokes emotions, but mostly, the emotions of the keen hobbyists are decidedly cast aside by virtue of the pricing. That is why I would see the Df as a good product for a select audience of, well, why not keen hobbyists with ample means, but mostly, flashy dabblers.

Let's hope the Nikon will at least partly remain the Nikon it was when I bought the D70. They took the D100, made some upgrades, made some downgrades, but dropped the price so an avid dreamer could pick it up and start a new hobby. People respected that. I'm not sure the same people will respect Nikon for the Df.

TurboElephant said:

I live in a rather big city and there's plenty of hipsters or hipster look-a-likes here but I seldom see one with a camera.

Click to expand...

There are plenty of hipsters in my city, and they tend to use iPhone cameras. When they carry a larger camera it often is an antique film camera — which looks rather silly, especially if they are trying to capture photos in dimly lit areas that would challenge a modern camera — or a big DSLR — which looks faintly ridiculous if it dwarfs their slight frame. There is a very good reason for the micro 4/3rds cameras — good quality and small size.

Reminds me of the old days when I was a member of a camera club. The big, older guys were usually ex-military and carried medium format cameras. Skinny kids such as myself carried 35 mm cameras.

I go to a lot of art galleries, and hipsters are usually present. If photographs are exhibited in a gallery — and they rarely are — the photos weren’t taken with a digital camera.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

Mark Scott Abeln said:

Daniel Lauring said:

Most kid's don't have watches anymore. They can get the time on their cell phones. Likewise, less and less have cameras because of those same cell phones. The cheap utilitarian watch market is nearly dead. There isn't money in more accurate watches. The money is in the design. Cool jewelry to be worn on the wrist. Are cameras becoming cool jewelry to be worn around the neck?

Click to expand...

The contemporary DSLR style still has a strong resemblance to the Nikon F4, which was introduced all they way back in 1988, when many hipsters may not have even been born. I can see that younger purchasers might want something distinctive, something other than their father’s camera. The DF is based on a design from 1977 and is quite similar to cameras even older, and so is something that granddad might have carried. As most of us know, grandparents are cooler than parents: my father is always astonished that I dress like his father, even though I never met my grandfather.

Click to expand...

A good point, and I think a rather valid one. My father had a silver grey Canon EOS300. It looked plastic, as it certainly was. Somehow, I gravitated towards the D70 rather than Canon's contemporary counterpart so aptly called the 300D. The Nikon felt more utilitarian, more honest. Later, I bought an F3 to get full frame. )

Mark S Abeln said:

The swoopy black plastic look has gotten passé.....

Click to expand...

Yes. The problem is, obviously, where to go next? What fundamental changes can you make into the design and form of a DSLR that people would think it's right? Going back is only ever going to work for a time.

Modern versions of classics seem ubiquitous. The Mini Cooper, the VW Beetle, The Fiat 500, not to mention motorcycles where the classics are designed to make you feel like the Fonz or the slightly-tough-but-respected village bobby. Does anyone know where we're going? Could the Apple generation give us the Braun of our times? )

The lack of technical ingenuity is covered in a fashionable way with the retro design. :-(