Thom Hogan about "prosumers"

[saltydogstudios]

Can I sum this up: pros have the time to gain the skill to overcome equipment shortcomings. An enthusiast like myself has a day job. I don’t want to suffer a decade or more of bad photos as penance for not having the skill set to keep my children’s entire collection of childhood documentation from being blurry.

If you are retired and can pack a lunch and go practice nailing focus all afternoon, great. I own a business, have little kids, etc. and am lucky to find 5 minutes to myself on the toilet.

I do agree.

Many pros, who are very cash-strapped these days, force themselves to make do with inferior equipment.

Inferior by whose standards? Even cameras that are 5 years old are still perfectly capable. Did the pros sell off all their gear just now or did they just not upgrade?

They tell themselves that in 9 out of 10 cases, the customer wouldn't notice the flaws in the work they produce --flaws that otherwise wouldn't be there with superior equipment.

They're not entirely right, since many of them produce useless work and charge an arm and a leg for it. Many of them hate smartphones for this reason, just the same way the Uber drivers and Amazon Prime delivery drivers in the beat up car with shredded tire threads hate the rise of the autonomous vehicle.

Without prosumers, the camera manufacturers would have died a long time ago.

 

[Mark_A]

.. my personal hope is that the camera companies continue to recognize the difference, that they get even better at recognizing it and thinking through what it means for their markets and products. i mean, just on the blunt face of it: they need to sell product to women and to people under 35. if they aim to satisfy just thom's audience or dpreview's "frequent-flier" forum crew, they miss both almost entirely.

Hi Siobhan_K,

An excellent and insightful post, I agree with you 100%

Mark_A
.
A Thread Of Pics Where The Subject Is RED!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64016142

 

[SonyOB]

There is something weird going on here,
I do not like it.
People are gathering our info and relaying it to another level of power,
I do not like it.

--
Words are wind.

 

[saltydogstudios]

3. Invest in quirky, nostalgic, innovative but weird products. Fuji currently owns this space. Show people that you're willing to innovate in areas that aren't best optimized by a computer - that you're willing to invest in the photographic experience as well as producing the best optics & hi-spec'd cameras.

Super-small market there.

Perhaps the word choice of 'quirky' isn't ideal, but I think the argument saltydogstudios makes overall is spot on. Technological development alone isn't the key to creating a need in the market for a discrete camera - and that is going to me the real measure of success in the industry, make no mistake.

Sales is the real measure of success in the industry. "Make no mistake."

Who's winning here - Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh, Leica (monochrom anyone?) and yes Sony .

Who's losing - Pentax, Canon, Nikon. Have they given us anything exciting? Anything?

Totally disagree with you here. You speak like Hogan's 'prosumer', in love with niche tricks.

No, Hogan's prosumer is obsessed with incremental increases in specs that have little or no impact on photographic experience or output - and it's here that Canon and Nikon deliver.

....with weirdness like X-Trans, knobaholics, and hybrid viewfinders? See, everyone can do tech that has little or no impact.

Unfortunately it's a losing battle when the sector as a whole is having a lot of difficulty justifying its existence.

Fuji in particular have really forged a path here - I mean come on, APS-C, relatively expensive lenses and bodies - in a lot of ways it shouldn't work. The truth, however, is that the Fuji system has helped

7% of

users enjoy their practice of photography in a different way - and really helped a lot of us return to photography having historically shot film.

Because nostalgia rules? No, we are back to that super-small market.

I should clarify my statement - this was marketing advice through a gear perspective.

Car companies have auto shows where they show off their "concept cars" - it shows the sort of design innovation we can expect to see in the future. These cars are often steeped in the history of the company. It shows that you have a past, and that you're willing to take chances in the future.

Which is the sort of thing that people need to see as signals that a company is healthy so that they feel confident investing their money into that company in the future.

Fuji has done a great job at innovating while acknowledging their past. Everything from the camera styling to naming their color modes.

Sony has no legacy to speak of, so they borrowed some from Zeiss. The RX1 is a great "concept camera" that can show off their capabilities and vision. The RX1 doesn't have to sell per-se, it can serve a purpose to sell other cameras - it shows off the great sensors + great lenses + how compact Sony cameras can be.

Nikon and Canon? They've made great lenses which is great - they could do more. Doing "more" proves you're not scrambling, that you have the resources to try something new. The X-Pro3's lack of screen signaled that Fuji was willing to do things that weren't just numbers driven - that they were willing to sell to a specific photographer and people will respond to that with more brand loyalty.

Where are Nikon and Canon's "concept cameras?" - they just produce slightly sub-par cameras without showing us their vision for the future & that lack of vision & leadership in the industry hurts their brand.

--
"Wait let me comb my hair and put on a tie."
Blog: http://sodium.nyc/blog/
Sometimes I take photos: https://www.instagram.com/sodiumstudio/

 

[PieterB]

Pro have the tools to get a job done.

If that is a five years old camera and the client is happy, that camera is the right tool, even if it is an old camera.

They are running a business and a camera is like a hammer for a carpenter. If they can do that business with said camera, why buy a newer and shinier toy?

 

[tbcass]

How can you be so sure of yourself when talking about millions of people you don't even know?

I look at data and trends from their buying habits and where companies do/don't invest.

People who say stuff like "smartphones are dying too" and "cameras will rise again" are just spouting their hopes and dreams as facts and figures.

Back up this statement;

"Smartphone users are never coming back."

If even one smartphone user who gave up their dedicated camera comes back then your statement is wrong. I suspect that there will be a lot of them returning to dedicated cameras even if most do not.

 

[Howard V]

"Ask not what your camera can do for you, rather ask what you can do with your camera!"

That's good!

It is?

"Can I do 4k video with it?"

"Can I do pixel shift with it?"

"Can I do HDR with it?"

"Can I do Eye AF with it?"

"Can I do 60 MP with it?"

So what?

Yes, that’s the point.

 

[mayfair_magpie]

Anyone who uses the word "prosumer" deserves a good slap

 

[sportyaccordy]

How can you be so sure of yourself when talking about millions of people you don't even know?

I look at data and trends from their buying habits and where companies do/don't invest.

People who say stuff like "smartphones are dying too" and "cameras will rise again" are just spouting their hopes and dreams as facts and figures.

Back up this statement;

"Smartphone users are never coming back."

If even one smartphone user who gave up their dedicated camera comes back then your statement is wrong. I suspect that there will be a lot of them returning to dedicated cameras even if most do not.

OK, most smartphone users are never coming back.

DPR gearheads keep going back to their comfort blankets of technical superiority and versatility. None of that matters to the typical smartphone shooter- at least not enough to make them materially interested in dedicated cameras.

Plus to add to that phones keep getting better in ways that actually matter to them, while dedicated cameras don't, and frankly can't. So the idea that camera companies can turn the tides is just false hope. All they have is us.

FWIW there are plenty of young people still into cameras. Look no further than all the popular Youtube camera channels. I am a relatively young gear head. So it's not like everything is totally dead. We probably just won't see 20 million ILCs sold in a year again, which is fine.

 

[TN Args]

3. Invest in quirky, nostalgic, innovative but weird products. Fuji currently owns this space. Show people that you're willing to innovate in areas that aren't best optimized by a computer - that you're willing to invest in the photographic experience as well as producing the best optics & hi-spec'd cameras.

Super-small market there.

Perhaps the word choice of 'quirky' isn't ideal, but I think the argument saltydogstudios makes overall is spot on. Technological development alone isn't the key to creating a need in the market for a discrete camera - and that is going to me the real measure of success in the industry, make no mistake.

Sales is the real measure of success in the industry. "Make no mistake."

Who's winning here - Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh, Leica (monochrom anyone?) and yes Sony .

Who's losing - Pentax, Canon, Nikon. Have they given us anything exciting? Anything?

Totally disagree with you here. You speak like Hogan's 'prosumer', in love with niche tricks.

No, Hogan's prosumer is obsessed with incremental increases in specs that have little or no impact on photographic experience or output - and it's here that Canon and Nikon deliver.

....with weirdness like X-Trans, knobaholics, and hybrid viewfinders? See, everyone can do tech that has little or no impact.

Unfortunately it's a losing battle when the sector as a whole is having a lot of difficulty justifying its existence.

Fuji in particular have really forged a path here - I mean come on, APS-C, relatively expensive lenses and bodies - in a lot of ways it shouldn't work. The truth, however, is that the Fuji system has helped

7% of

users enjoy their practice of photography in a different way - and really helped a lot of us return to photography having historically shot film.

Because nostalgia rules? No, we are back to that super-small market.

I should clarify my statement - this was marketing advice through a gear perspective.

Car companies have auto shows where they show off their "concept cars" - it shows the sort of design innovation we can expect to see in the future. These cars are often steeped in the history of the company. It shows that you have a past, and that you're willing to take chances in the future.

Which is the sort of thing that people need to see as signals that a company is healthy so that they feel confident investing their money into that company in the future.

Fuji has done a great job at innovating while acknowledging their past. Everything from the camera styling to naming their color modes.

Sony has no legacy to speak of, so they borrowed some from Zeiss. The RX1 is a great "concept camera" that can show off their capabilities and vision. The RX1 doesn't have to sell per-se, it can serve a purpose to sell other cameras - it shows off the great sensors + great lenses + how compact Sony cameras can be.

Nikon and Canon? They've made great lenses which is great - they could do more. Doing "more" proves you're not scrambling, that you have the resources to try something new. The X-Pro3's lack of screen signaled that Fuji was willing to do things that weren't just numbers driven - that they were willing to sell to a specific photographer and people will respond to that with more brand loyalty.

Where are Nikon and Canon's "concept cameras?" - they just produce slightly sub-par cameras without showing us their vision for the future & that lack of vision & leadership in the industry hurts their brand.

You make good points, and I appreciate innovation (although I disagree that Canon lacks in this area, other than quirky oddities that attract a small market share).

Four Thirds was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Kodak -- oh), Micro Four Thirds (and the invention of mirrorless) was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Panasonic, hello big market share -- oh), hybrid viewfinders were innovative (hello Fuji, hello less than 1% market share with this innovation included), so it is not in itself a path to big loyalty and market growth.

From July 2019:

"Here is the latest camera global market share:

• Canon 40.5 % (+ 3.9)
• Nikon 19.1 % (- 2.7)
• Sony 17.7 % (- 0.7)
• Fujifilm: 5.1 % (+ 1.3)
• Olympus: 2.8 % (+ 0.1)"

Why was Canon up 3.9% not down 10%?

cheers

 

[saltydogstudios]

3. Invest in quirky, nostalgic, innovative but weird products. Fuji currently owns this space. Show people that you're willing to innovate in areas that aren't best optimized by a computer - that you're willing to invest in the photographic experience as well as producing the best optics & hi-spec'd cameras.

Super-small market there.

Perhaps the word choice of 'quirky' isn't ideal, but I think the argument saltydogstudios makes overall is spot on. Technological development alone isn't the key to creating a need in the market for a discrete camera - and that is going to me the real measure of success in the industry, make no mistake.

Sales is the real measure of success in the industry. "Make no mistake."

Who's winning here - Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh, Leica (monochrom anyone?) and yes Sony .

Who's losing - Pentax, Canon, Nikon. Have they given us anything exciting? Anything?

Totally disagree with you here. You speak like Hogan's 'prosumer', in love with niche tricks.

No, Hogan's prosumer is obsessed with incremental increases in specs that have little or no impact on photographic experience or output - and it's here that Canon and Nikon deliver.

....with weirdness like X-Trans, knobaholics, and hybrid viewfinders? See, everyone can do tech that has little or no impact.

Unfortunately it's a losing battle when the sector as a whole is having a lot of difficulty justifying its existence.

Fuji in particular have really forged a path here - I mean come on, APS-C, relatively expensive lenses and bodies - in a lot of ways it shouldn't work. The truth, however, is that the Fuji system has helped

7% of

users enjoy their practice of photography in a different way - and really helped a lot of us return to photography having historically shot film.

Because nostalgia rules? No, we are back to that super-small market.

I should clarify my statement - this was marketing advice through a gear perspective.

Car companies have auto shows where they show off their "concept cars" - it shows the sort of design innovation we can expect to see in the future. These cars are often steeped in the history of the company. It shows that you have a past, and that you're willing to take chances in the future.

Which is the sort of thing that people need to see as signals that a company is healthy so that they feel confident investing their money into that company in the future.

Fuji has done a great job at innovating while acknowledging their past. Everything from the camera styling to naming their color modes.

Sony has no legacy to speak of, so they borrowed some from Zeiss. The RX1 is a great "concept camera" that can show off their capabilities and vision. The RX1 doesn't have to sell per-se, it can serve a purpose to sell other cameras - it shows off the great sensors + great lenses + how compact Sony cameras can be.

Nikon and Canon? They've made great lenses which is great - they could do more. Doing "more" proves you're not scrambling, that you have the resources to try something new. The X-Pro3's lack of screen signaled that Fuji was willing to do things that weren't just numbers driven - that they were willing to sell to a specific photographer and people will respond to that with more brand loyalty.

Where are Nikon and Canon's "concept cameras?" - they just produce slightly sub-par cameras without showing us their vision for the future & that lack of vision & leadership in the industry hurts their brand.

You make good points, and I appreciate innovation (although I disagree that Canon lacks in this area, other than quirky oddities that attract a small market share).

Four Thirds was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Kodak -- oh), Micro Four Thirds (and the invention of mirrorless) was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Panasonic, hello big market share -- oh), hybrid viewfinders were innovative (hello Fuji, hello less than 1% market share with this innovation included), so it is not in itself a path to big loyalty and market growth.

From July 2019:

"Here is the latest camera global market share:

• Canon 40.5 % (+ 3.9)
• Nikon 19.1 % (- 2.7)
• Sony 17.7 % (- 0.7)
• Fujifilm: 5.1 % (+ 1.3)
• Olympus: 2.8 % (+ 0.1)"

Why was Canon up 3.9% not down 10%?

cheers

A shrinking market usually hurts the niche players more than the dominant players.

The guy who bought Canon last year is more likely to buy Canon this year, but with fewer dollars go go around, the dominant player gains market share just because there are fewer Fuji or Olympus buyers in the pool of total buyers.

Let's look at everyone else.

Sony and Nikon are basically tied for 2nd place - so why is Nikon down so much more than Sony?

Why are Fuji and Olympus up?

--
"Wait let me comb my hair and put on a tie."
Blog: http://sodium.nyc/blog/
Sometimes I take photos: https://www.instagram.com/sodiumstudio/

 

[thomaslux]

3. Invest in quirky, nostalgic, innovative but weird products. Fuji currently owns this space. Show people that you're willing to innovate in areas that aren't best optimized by a computer - that you're willing to invest in the photographic experience as well as producing the best optics & hi-spec'd cameras.

Super-small market there.

Perhaps the word choice of 'quirky' isn't ideal, but I think the argument saltydogstudios makes overall is spot on. Technological development alone isn't the key to creating a need in the market for a discrete camera - and that is going to me the real measure of success in the industry, make no mistake.

Sales is the real measure of success in the industry. "Make no mistake."

Who's winning here - Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh, Leica (monochrom anyone?) and yes Sony .

Who's losing - Pentax, Canon, Nikon. Have they given us anything exciting? Anything?

Totally disagree with you here. You speak like Hogan's 'prosumer', in love with niche tricks.

No, Hogan's prosumer is obsessed with incremental increases in specs that have little or no impact on photographic experience or output - and it's here that Canon and Nikon deliver.

....with weirdness like X-Trans, knobaholics, and hybrid viewfinders? See, everyone can do tech that has little or no impact.

Unfortunately it's a losing battle when the sector as a whole is having a lot of difficulty justifying its existence.

Fuji in particular have really forged a path here - I mean come on, APS-C, relatively expensive lenses and bodies - in a lot of ways it shouldn't work. The truth, however, is that the Fuji system has helped

7% of

users enjoy their practice of photography in a different way - and really helped a lot of us return to photography having historically shot film.

Because nostalgia rules? No, we are back to that super-small market.

I was actually going to address this but the whole 'knobaholics' thing made me decide to skip it and save myself some time - enjoy your chosen camera system

Spoilsport Every niche has its notch, that's why my chosen system sells even less than yours. ;-)

Hahaha!

I have had these debates before but with people less good-humoured than yourself, so I'm trying to practice the art of the graceful withdrawal more often these days

 

[J A C S]

In reference to color I say they are equal depending on the opinion of the photographer and type of photography.

If there is a dependence, then they are not equal after all? What happened to the complexity of the "color thing"?

Are you baiting me or something? What you are saying makes no sense and what I said is not at all contradictory to my previous statements. What you are doing is conflating personal preference, which is totally subjective, to something being better in an absolute technical and logical sense which I totally object to. Because we have a different idea of the meaning of "better color" no further discussion between us can be constructive.

Whatever.

 

[justmeMN]

Anyone who uses the word "prosumer" deserves a good slap

Canon uses the term "advanced-amateur".

 

[TN Args]

3. Invest in quirky, nostalgic, innovative but weird products. Fuji currently owns this space. Show people that you're willing to innovate in areas that aren't best optimized by a computer - that you're willing to invest in the photographic experience as well as producing the best optics & hi-spec'd cameras.

Super-small market there.

Perhaps the word choice of 'quirky' isn't ideal, but I think the argument saltydogstudios makes overall is spot on. Technological development alone isn't the key to creating a need in the market for a discrete camera - and that is going to me the real measure of success in the industry, make no mistake.

Sales is the real measure of success in the industry. "Make no mistake."

Who's winning here - Fuji, Sigma, Ricoh, Leica (monochrom anyone?) and yes Sony .

Who's losing - Pentax, Canon, Nikon. Have they given us anything exciting? Anything?

Totally disagree with you here. You speak like Hogan's 'prosumer', in love with niche tricks.

No, Hogan's prosumer is obsessed with incremental increases in specs that have little or no impact on photographic experience or output - and it's here that Canon and Nikon deliver.

....with weirdness like X-Trans, knobaholics, and hybrid viewfinders? See, everyone can do tech that has little or no impact.

Unfortunately it's a losing battle when the sector as a whole is having a lot of difficulty justifying its existence.

Fuji in particular have really forged a path here - I mean come on, APS-C, relatively expensive lenses and bodies - in a lot of ways it shouldn't work. The truth, however, is that the Fuji system has helped

7% of

users enjoy their practice of photography in a different way - and really helped a lot of us return to photography having historically shot film.

Because nostalgia rules? No, we are back to that super-small market.

I should clarify my statement - this was marketing advice through a gear perspective.

Car companies have auto shows where they show off their "concept cars" - it shows the sort of design innovation we can expect to see in the future. These cars are often steeped in the history of the company. It shows that you have a past, and that you're willing to take chances in the future.

Which is the sort of thing that people need to see as signals that a company is healthy so that they feel confident investing their money into that company in the future.

Fuji has done a great job at innovating while acknowledging their past. Everything from the camera styling to naming their color modes.

Sony has no legacy to speak of, so they borrowed some from Zeiss. The RX1 is a great "concept camera" that can show off their capabilities and vision. The RX1 doesn't have to sell per-se, it can serve a purpose to sell other cameras - it shows off the great sensors + great lenses + how compact Sony cameras can be.

Nikon and Canon? They've made great lenses which is great - they could do more. Doing "more" proves you're not scrambling, that you have the resources to try something new. The X-Pro3's lack of screen signaled that Fuji was willing to do things that weren't just numbers driven - that they were willing to sell to a specific photographer and people will respond to that with more brand loyalty.

Where are Nikon and Canon's "concept cameras?" - they just produce slightly sub-par cameras without showing us their vision for the future & that lack of vision & leadership in the industry hurts their brand.

You make good points, and I appreciate innovation (although I disagree that Canon lacks in this area, other than quirky oddities that attract a small market share).

Four Thirds was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Kodak -- oh), Micro Four Thirds (and the invention of mirrorless) was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Panasonic, hello big market share -- oh), hybrid viewfinders were innovative (hello Fuji, hello less than 1% market share with this innovation included), so it is not in itself a path to big loyalty and market growth.

From July 2019:

"Here is the latest camera global market share:

• Canon 40.5 % (+ 3.9)
• Nikon 19.1 % (- 2.7)
• Sony 17.7 % (- 0.7)
• Fujifilm: 5.1 % (+ 1.3)
• Olympus: 2.8 % (+ 0.1)"

Why was Canon up 3.9% not down 10%?

cheers

A shrinking market usually hurts the niche players more than the dominant players.

The guy who bought Canon last year is more likely to buy Canon this year, but with fewer dollars go go around, the dominant player gains market share just because there are fewer Fuji or Olympus buyers in the pool of total buyers.

Let's look at everyone else.

Sony and Nikon are basically tied for 2nd place - so why is Nikon down so much more than Sony?

Why are Fuji and Olympus up?

I think you are making my point: that quirky innovation is unrelated to market success and 'winning'. It's all about a bunch of other factors. I don't care what they are, but they don't seem to revolve around obvious innovative concepts.

If they did, then Fuji, with a long list of innovations since 2002-2005 to 2018, should have long passed Stagnant Canon, instead of only reaching 3.8%. Which then increased +1.3% to 5.1% in 2018-19, when Fuji innovation was at a record low, just incremental improvements. Maybe that's what works?

 

[MHshooter]

Have to be able to distinguish between what's a feature and what might be a true benefit. Like PS, it's loaded with stuff a photog may never use or need, but features are used to sell.

 

[RickBuddy]

He's pitching that garbage, and people eat it up.

And because if it he misses a big portion of the market: serious amateurs who don't fall for the latest gimmicks and review rages.

You may now return to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pixel. I have photos to shoot.

Rick

 

[saltydogstudios]

You make good points, and I appreciate innovation (although I disagree that Canon lacks in this area, other than quirky oddities that attract a small market share).

Four Thirds was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Kodak -- oh), Micro Four Thirds (and the invention of mirrorless) was innovative (hello Olympus, hello Panasonic, hello big market share -- oh), hybrid viewfinders were innovative (hello Fuji, hello less than 1% market share with this innovation included), so it is not in itself a path to big loyalty and market growth.

From July 2019:

"Here is the latest camera global market share:

• Canon 40.5 % (+ 3.9)
• Nikon 19.1 % (- 2.7)
• Sony 17.7 % (- 0.7)
• Fujifilm: 5.1 % (+ 1.3)
• Olympus: 2.8 % (+ 0.1)"

Why was Canon up 3.9% not down 10%?

cheers

A shrinking market usually hurts the niche players more than the dominant players.

The guy who bought Canon last year is more likely to buy Canon this year, but with fewer dollars go go around, the dominant player gains market share just because there are fewer Fuji or Olympus buyers in the pool of total buyers.

Let's look at everyone else.

Sony and Nikon are basically tied for 2nd place - so why is Nikon down so much more than Sony?

Why are Fuji and Olympus up?

I think you are making my point: that quirky innovation is unrelated to market success and 'winning'. It's all about a bunch of other factors. I don't care what they are, but they don't seem to revolve around obvious innovative concepts.

If they did, then Fuji, with a long list of innovations since 2002-2005 to 2018, should have long passed Stagnant Canon, instead of only reaching 3.8%. Which then increased +1.3% to 5.1% in 2018-19, when Fuji innovation was at a record low, just incremental improvements. Maybe that's what works?

If you really want to discuss marketing we can take this conversation offline - a gear forum isn't the best place for this.

Fuji has had a long list of innovations - some of them winners, some of them less so. They didn't always manage to capitalize on those innovations. Jordan and That Other Guy's video of the Fuji S5 Pro demonstrate this perfectly.

Innovation isn't the only driver of market success.

You also need a catalog of products - a vision - for people to buy into. And deep enough pockets to drive both advertising and innovation. Which is why I'm saying that Nikon and Canon signaling that they don't have the innovation chops is what's worrying customers.

It wasn't until the 2010's that Fuji took their sensor innovation mojo and married it to a lens mount that they could call their own.

So pre 2010's - Fuji made amazing lenses for Hasselblad and others. They made interesting sensors, but put them in Nikon cameras. It wasn't until the X100 that they realized - OH we can do both. Micro Four Thirds had launched in 2008 - and Fuji realized that they can take their long history of lens design and long history of sensor design and find a niche of photographers who care about what's at the forefront.

Which meant that they got to 5% from basically zero. You say 5% like it's a bad thing. Who else has done that? You're looking at Sony, Micro Four Thirds and Fuji.

Nikon and Canon have both failed to bring a new lens mount to that market share. The APS-C EOS M? No. The Nikon1? No. Sony is an absolute monster in terms of constant innovation in both cameras and lenses, so no wonder they enjoy the market share they have.

The innovation of the X100 hybrid viewfinder gave Fuji the confidence to produce the X-Trans sensor and the X-Mount.

I would say going from 0% to 5% in a decade is a huge accomplishment.

If Canon goes from 40 to 41% market share or 39% market share - that's not interesting.

Fuji going from 0% to 5% is worth talking about. And of course Sony who had no legacy lens mount, and introduced an APS-C mirrorless mount but took that lead and just ran with it. Sure you could count the Sony A, but they borrowed that from Minolta - no real history to live up to. Same with their flash systems.

I would say that - yes Sony, and Fuji seized the future and at the same time kept enough of a foot in their past. Nikon and Canon basically ignored this whole period of innovation and the most interesting thing they did was - what the Niknon Df? or the Nikon1 system?

--
"Wait let me comb my hair and put on a tie."
Blog: http://sodium.nyc/blog/
Sometimes I take photos: https://www.instagram.com/sodiumstudio/

 

[New Day Rising]

How can you be so sure of yourself when talking about millions of people you don't even know?

I look at data and trends from their buying habits and where companies do/don't invest.

People who say stuff like "smartphones are dying too" and "cameras will rise again" are just spouting their hopes and dreams as facts and figures.

Back up this statement;

"Smartphone users are never coming back."

If even one smartphone user who gave up their dedicated camera comes back then your statement is wrong. I suspect that there will be a lot of them returning to dedicated cameras even if most do not.

Leaving aside the issue of whether you should take a comment like this quite so literally... Who are these people you expect to be returning?

Are you talking about people who were once hobby ILC or perhaps enthusiast level compact users who gave up their cameras in preference for phones? I am curious why you think there would be many of them.

I assume you are not talking about people who bought a DSLR and a kit lens once but never really got serious and then just drifted to phones because they were easier and/or more convenient. They don't care that much about IQ and aren't returning - they were never really "here" anyway.

I assume you don't mean people who used to take snapshots on P&S compacts - they just have the new and (for them) much improved version of that.

Of course, before you go all literal again, I don't mean that the odd person may not "return", but they are going to be few and far between.

The main thing is that I'm just not sure folks like yourself and The Davinator appreciate how little most people care about things like ultimate IQ and dynamic range. Other than a relative handful of enthusiasts like the members here (and only some of them anyway) most people will choose ease and convenience every day of the week.

--
You're such an inspiration for the ways
That I'll never ever choose to be

 

[PieterB]

With the exception of the friends whose hobbby is photography, most of my friends who actually have cameras never use them anymore.

None of them like the hassle of dragging along a camera. So their older d-slr remains in a dusty drawer.

Most of my nephews either don't own a recent camera or never use them anyway.

One niece has a camera and uses it from time to time.

Some of my pupils in school bought cameras and they use them often. They are hobbyists. Most don't have a camera.

Their reasoning is simple. They never have prints made, they exclusively or nearly exclusively share their pictures on social media and the quality is more than sufficient for their usage. Most of them don't have a single large print in their houses.

So a real camera may be a better tool for hobbyist for most people it is overkill.