Digital Cameras have become unnecessary for most users

[WiltshireMoonraker59]

I don't agree with this at all, digital cameras are in fact becoming more popular again thanks to generation Z influenzers who have discovered digital cameras from the 90's and realising that they can get better and more organic photos from a proper camera rather than a mobile phone. I will never, never, never use a mobile phone to replace a proper camera, whether it be a compact, bridge, m43, APS-C or FF, you just can't beat a proper camera for ergonomics or for user experience. Digital cameras are far from unnecessary

 

[crashpc]

Generic/average phone cameras still are not that good. You either get poor image quality, or talking $1000-1500 phone. A phone that some people need for different things, a phone that doesn't handle all that well, a phone you are likely to drop or bend in the pocket. People are aware of this, and so many people still choose a camera.

Yes digital cameras are rather unnecessary, but so is a nice car, bottle of wine, 4k minitor, good headphones and much more. We worked for this comfort. Not that it is a goal, but hell it is justified to get, and so market is alive.

 

[tbcass]

I don't agree with this at all, digital cameras are in fact becoming more popular again thanks to generation Z influenzers who have discovered digital cameras from the 90's and realising that they can get better and more organic photos from a proper camera rather than a mobile phone. I will never, never, never use a mobile phone to replace a proper camera, whether it be a compact, bridge, m43, APS-C or FF, you just can't beat a proper camera for ergonomics or for user experience. Digital cameras are far from unnecessary

People who are satisfied with using a smartphone for photography will never understand that.

 

[sybersitizen]

I don't agree with this at all, digital cameras are in fact becoming more popular again thanks to generation Z influenzers who have discovered digital cameras from the 90's and realising that they can get better and more organic photos from a proper camera rather than a mobile phone. I will never, never, never use a mobile phone to replace a proper camera, whether it be a compact, bridge, m43, APS-C or FF, you just can't beat a proper camera for ergonomics or for user experience. Digital cameras are far from unnecessary

Did you miss the part about most users? Most users use a smartphone rather than a dedicated camera of any kind. It's so obvious that this thread itself is unnecessary.

 

[TestTube]

I could be out of touch, but are there posts on forums here or anywhere, or articles in photography tech journalism, or any bloggers, or YouTubers that are denying that phones have replaced cameras for most people?

 

[crashpc]

There are digital cameras implemented in phones. Digital cameras of any type were unnecessary for most people from the begining. These didn't become unnecessary.

 

[robgendreau]

And yet, the camera manufacturers come out with profits.

AFAIK, ILC sales are still higher than they were before digital hit. So I'd say ILC sales are slowly falling back to the normal we knew when film was all we had.

It'll be interesting to see where we're heading, I'm optimistic, and anyway, the current selection of cameras aren't too bad.

Good luck and good light.

Well, they've been declining since smartphones started eating their lunch as the cameras in those got better; 2012 was about an iPhone 5, and you can see the impact here: https://www.statista.com/statistics...-with-an-interchangeable-lens-by-destination/

Still, looks like it's plateaued maybe. And note that you're right; historically they were always behind snapshooting cameras. Whether camera companies can adjust, not sure, but it feels like they'll emphasize the high end.

 

[Impulses]

There are no more $500 cameras, and the fixed lens compact cameras are few and far between.

There are: https://www.foto-leistenschneider.d...iQE9W26EHKw1d-ahAL6zV7aSUntObfTEaAuSdEALw_wcB

Is that new? Still seems to be priced at $750 in the US (backordered at most places), and going for as much as $400 used (often more). The cheapest RX100 model actually in stock at B&H is $1K, although there's some 1" compacts from Canon and Pana for $400-700, not many at all tho... The only time I see younger people looking for dedicated cameras is when they need the extra reach over what most phones offer (eg for concerts).

I think Marty is mostly right, the market is contracting largely back to a pro & enthusiast niche... That's why manufacturers keep talking up new markets like creators, they're grasping for any new user segment. I still think there's potential for more sales to come from people upgrading from phones, but camera companies have been terrible at communicating why anyone should do that over the last 10 years so I don't expect it to change over the next 10.

 

[sybersitizen]

I don't agree with this at all, digital cameras are in fact becoming more popular again thanks to generation Z influenzers who have discovered digital cameras from the 90's and realising that they can get better and more organic photos from a proper camera rather than a mobile phone. I will never, never, never use a mobile phone to replace a proper camera, whether it be a compact, bridge, m43, APS-C or FF, you just can't beat a proper camera for ergonomics or for user experience. Digital cameras are far from unnecessary

Did you miss the part about most users? Most users use a smartphone rather than a dedicated camera of any kind. It's so obvious that this thread itself is unnecessary.

There are digital cameras implemented in phones. Digital cameras of any type were unnecessary for most people from the begining. These didn't become unnecessary.

The subject line is arguably incorrect. But disagreeing with the content is pointless. (And starting a thread about something we all know in the first place was also rather pointless.)

 

[Impulses]

And yet I still think there's hope.

Professional photographers will always require professional equipment. A certain amount of demanding hobbyists will still buy the best gear around, regardless of whether it really makes much difference to the photos they actually take.

But what about the more casual hobbyists - the sector most affected by the rise of the smartphone?

The mobile phone industry is also facing a slowdown The latest model iPhone didn't sell as well as previous versions. People seem less and less willing to just blindly update every year or two for marginal gain (hmmm, sound familiar?) - especially at the prices top-of-the-range phones are going for these days.

There seems to be a growing (if currently a bit of a fringe) interest in tangible things people can touch and feel over anonymous digital perfection. In the UK this year, vinyl records outsold CDs for the first time. Film photography still has a niche interest. Witness the growth of the steampunk hobby.

Digital cameras will never reach the heights of 10-15 years ago. Those days are gone. But I can believe there is the prospect of growing interest among the younger generations. But camera companies may need to aim for something with the appeal of a Leica, the compactness of an RX100 and the retro style of a Pen-F, all for the price of a Panasonic GX80.

So a mini X100 for half the price? Heh, to most camera companies that will sound like cutting off their nose to spite their face... I dunno if that is gonna happen anytime soon, but I do think there's potential for fixed lens compacts to grow in popularity if marketed right, they've always been a niche within a niche, and for compact ILCs to capture some smartphone users who are tired of minimal gains after any given upgrade (or who actually wanna shoot longer, wider, etc.).

Most really compact ILCs have been marketed as cut rate entry level models rather than as something anyone would want instead of higher end models... But there's loads of people that would be interested in the former and not the latter if it wasn't served in such a half assed way.

 

[Impulses]

Marty, you have done a nice job of summarizing the trends we are all familiar with.

You omitted one of the most important trends. Hardly anyone prints any photographs anymore. Only a handful of us actually own and use 13", 17" or larger dedicated photo printers. There is really little use for anything beyond cellphone quality and even that is overkill for the 2-3 mpix equivalent website uploads for online display. The vast majority of camera/lens sales are due to the gearheads who really have no use for that expensive gear. I don't think there is any doubt that camera/lens sales will continue to decline.

Has that been any different in the past? As far as I remember, printing has always been expensive (still can't believe I once bought a dye sublimation printer - though the prints out of it have not lost color in almost 30 years ). Not many folks have been printing large format (A3 and up) and many found out that printing 10x15 or 13x18 at home is a lot more expensive than bringing it to the supermarket.

What has changed is that people less often even print 10x15 as many have their phone, PC or TV to view holiday pictures.

Heh, I imagine you're talking about a large format dye sub printer... I'm "only" 40 and I'm surprised at how much I've enjoyed messing around with the Instax printers and with Canon's Selphy 4x6 dye sub model line... For <25¢ a print for the latter it's rather convenient and way preferable to mail ordering or taking a trip to the pharmacy etc. I imagine I'm in the minority tho, I'd still go online for anything larger and I do indeed look at photos more on 10-65" displays than what I print.

 

[Impulses]

My daughter and I take long trips 2 or 3 times a year. I carry one or two DSLR and extra lenses, she carries a Google Pixel phone. Some situations such as very low light she can get better photos than I can, and sunsets straight out of the phone are better than what I can do with a lot of post processing. However the files from a smartphone don't offer much ability to adjust in post processing and if you do very much cropping there isn't much detail left. I'll stick with my DSLR. If a DSLR did the image processing in-camera that a smartphone does, there might be a lot more people interested in them.

But there'd be just as many die-hards asking "why do I need this?", "are these even real photos?", "can I buy a camera without video/AI?"... Never gonna convert those users, the trick for manufacturers that wanna stay relevant is how they invest in that kinda processing and sell the need for a dedicated camera to a new generation without completely scaring off their current buyers. Maybe they really just need to wait until the market burns down and then a lucky few get to start fresh...

I shoot with my Pixel just as much as my ILCs, and have for the last 5-6 years since the first one came out and made that processing a lot more seamless than it ever was on Google's previous line (Nexus), and I fully recognize that for a lot of things the phone is "good enough"... But for a lot of other things it's still woefully inadequate, it's possible those are things that only interest a select few, but concert photography, wildlife, UWA/architecture, and decent portraits without a bunch of algorithm errors to the DoF don't seem that niche to me.

Camera manufacturers have just been terrible at stressing all the ways in which a camera still has a place, and at actually leveraging a phone in a smart way that makes using a camera more enjoyable. My phone works better with my car, my house lights, my home entertainment, my security cameras, and even my desktop PC than what how it works with my dedicated camera.

 

[Impulses]

Generic/average phone cameras still are not that good. You either get poor image quality, or talking $1000-1500 phone.

That's not true at all tbh, a Pixel 6a costs all of $450 (currently on sale for $337) and it's main module is as good as that of a lot of flagship phones, the processing is probably the best there is... The only thing midrange phones miss out on are the extra modules, the UWA might be worse or there might not be a tele at all, or vice versa... You really don't need to spend $1,000 on a phone to get good IQ out of the main ~24-26mm module that most people use the vast majority of the time tho.

A phone that some people need for different things, a phone that doesn't handle all that well, a phone you are likely to drop or bend in the pocket. People are aware of this, and so many people still choose a camera.

None of that is an issue for most people <50 tbh.

Yes digital cameras are rather unnecessary, but so is a nice car, bottle of wine, 4k minitor, good headphones and much more. We worked for this comfort. Not that it is a goal, but hell it is justified to get, and so market is alive.

Agreed, the real question is how the market survives, hifi audio went thru a pretty ugly transition and even tho it survived I don't really care for the shape that market took over the last few decades... I'd hope the camera industry can make it in a different way, since it involves more professionals and creators alike.

 

[Norm Bates]

I don't agree with this at all, digital cameras are in fact becoming more popular again thanks to generation Z influenzers who have discovered digital cameras from the 90's and realising that they can get better and more organic photos from a proper camera rather than a mobile phone. I will never, never, never use a mobile phone to replace a proper camera, whether it be a compact, bridge, m43, APS-C or FF, you just can't beat a proper camera for ergonomics or for user experience. Digital cameras are far from unnecessary

And in your opinion, what is the reason for the continued decline in digital camera sales over the past few years? What do you attribute that to?

“Total shipments of digital cameras declined by 4.2% in 2022 to 8 million units, according to data from CIPA, Japan's Camera & Imaging Products Association.Mar 3, 2023”

Another: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/charting-the-smartphone-effect-camera-market/

Can you blame the decline of digital camera sales, and the rise of smartphones for the ordinary photo taker of memories. Or some other reason.
Who still uses dedicated cameras and lenses? Pros and Pixel Peeper photo hobbyists.

Sadly, it will eventually come to an end like the dinosaurs.. unless kept alive by the hanger ons. JMHO.

 

[henricoo]

I think the market has been saturated nowadays, almost everybody has a smartphone that can take decent (when you do not pixel peep) 10+ MP "everything sharp" (small sensor) shots that fulfill the needs for most of us. Your smartphone is always everywhere with you, we panic when we unintended leave it home... Everybody nowadays is a photographer and a video-shooter.

A relative small amount of people want better and more artistic pics and for those there are more expensive, advanced and bulkier cameras available with extremely high performing lenses. But also here the progress in IQ slows down. My 2010 digital camera outperformed my 2005 cam by far, my now 5 years old 36 MP FF camera still stands IQ-wise with all the expensive modern stuff I can buy these days. No reason to replace it as long as it is working well. The shrinking sales of high end cameras also has to do with this. Only a small amount of people renew their cameras frequently because they are professionals or wealthy enthusiasts. You know; the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys...

Me myself use both my smartphones and my DSLR's in different situations side by side. No competition, just supplemental. No need to buy something new soon, satisfied with the gear I own. The digital tsunami since the 2000's has declined rapidly and flattens down now, that's the reality for manufacturers. Some will leave the market, some will stay. In fact all the photographic gear over thousand euros are a niche now.

 

[joslocum]

There will always be a niche market for just about everything so long as it is profitable for the brand.

Heck, there are people who would love to buy a new 8-Track tape player but there's just not enough people to make it profitable.

The sale of Smart Watches now easily exceeds the number of mechanical watches sold each year, but many watch brands are still alive and doing well like Rolex, Omega, etc.

 

[Impulses]

There will always be a niche market for just about everything so long as it is profitable for the brand.

Heck, there are people who would love to buy a new 8-Track tape player but there's just not enough people to make it profitable.

The sale of Smart Watches now easily exceeds the number of mechanical watches sold each year, but many watch brands are still alive and doing well like Rolex, Omega, etc.

Do they really? I think that's a bit of apples and oranges tbh, maybe I'm biased but I think there's more overlap between $450-1,500 phones and $500-2,500 cameras than in the watch analogy... The average smartwatch is prolly something in the $100-250 range, and the luxury mechanical watch market might thrive well above that (AFAIK, I imagine most people just don't wear cheap watches anymore)...

My question is genuine btw, feel free to educate me... I've only owned two decent Victorinox/SAK watches in my lifetime, I was quite fond of the second one since it was all titanium and super light... But over the last 9 years I've not worn a watch at all or I've worn one of three different $200-300 Android Wear smartwatches. Using a Pixel right now which finally seems about as smooth and long lasting as I wished my previous Moto & ASUS watches had been...

Somehow I've ended up buying a bunch of traditional bands for each of them, heh, usually after figuring out a way to adapt them. Maybe there's more parallels to the camera market after all... I'm 40 FWIW and while I never owned an 8-track I do now have about as much vinyl as my parents had in the 70-80s, which is to say I'm prolly an outlier in between generations, heh.

 

[Norm Bates]

There will always be a niche market for just about everything so long as it is profitable for the brand.

Heck, there are people who would love to buy a new 8-Track tape player but there's just not enough people to make it profitable.

The sale of Smart Watches now easily exceeds the number of mechanical watches sold each year, but many watch brands are still alive and doing well like Rolex, Omega, etc.

Do they really? I think that's a bit of apples and oranges tbh, maybe I'm biased but I think there's more overlap between $450-1,500 phones and $500-2,500 cameras than in the watch analogy... The average smartwatch is prolly something in the $100-250 range, and the luxury mechanical watch market might thrive well above that (AFAIK, I imagine most people just don't wear cheap watches anymore)...

My question is genuine btw, feel free to educate me... I've only owned two decent Victorinox/SAK watches in my lifetime, I was quite fond of the second one since it was all titanium and super light... But over the last 9 years I've not worn a watch at all or I've worn one of three different $200-300 Android Wear smartwatches. Using a Pixel right now which finally seems about as smooth and long lasting as I wished my previous Moto & ASUS watches had been...

Somehow I've ended up buying a bunch of traditional bands for each of them, heh, usually after figuring out a way to adapt them. Maybe there's more parallels to the camera market after all... I'm 40 FWIW and while I never owned an 8-track I do now have about as much vinyl as my parents had in the 70-80s, which is to say I'm prolly an outlier in between generations, heh.

You have GAS. it’s a first world problem. Consumption of cameras, cars, watches, audio, and firearms. That’s why sites like this exist. And why we are here. Way to much time, and way too much discretionary money

 

[Impulses]

There will always be a niche market for just about everything so long as it is profitable for the brand.

Heck, there are people who would love to buy a new 8-Track tape player but there's just not enough people to make it profitable.

The sale of Smart Watches now easily exceeds the number of mechanical watches sold each year, but many watch brands are still alive and doing well like Rolex, Omega, etc.

Do they really? I think that's a bit of apples and oranges tbh, maybe I'm biased but I think there's more overlap between $450-1,500 phones and $500-2,500 cameras than in the watch analogy... The average smartwatch is prolly something in the $100-250 range, and the luxury mechanical watch market might thrive well above that (AFAIK, I imagine most people just don't wear cheap watches anymore)...

My question is genuine btw, feel free to educate me... I've only owned two decent Victorinox/SAK watches in my lifetime, I was quite fond of the second one since it was all titanium and super light... But over the last 9 years I've not worn a watch at all or I've worn one of three different $200-300 Android Wear smartwatches. Using a Pixel right now which finally seems about as smooth and long lasting as I wished my previous Moto & ASUS watches had been...

Somehow I've ended up buying a bunch of traditional bands for each of them, heh, usually after figuring out a way to adapt them. Maybe there's more parallels to the camera market after all... I'm 40 FWIW and while I never owned an 8-track I do now have about as much vinyl as my parents had in the 70-80s, which is to say I'm prolly an outlier in between generations, heh.

You have GAS. it’s a first world problem. Consumption of cameras, cars, watches, audio, and firearms.

Hah, probably to an extent, I think the community aspect of some of those hobbies probably encourages it... I wasn't interested in vinyl until I started frequenting high end headphone/audio boards (tho a certain favorite artist spurred it too), and I wouldn't be nearly as intrigued by camera gear w/o the discussion around here... Although it was reviews and talk of UWAs at Cameralabs and Ken Rockwell's site, of all places, that 1st drew me in.

One of my mechanical watches was a gift tho, and the bands are just a fashion/personal thing. I think it's still gonna a blow to the market when DPR disappears tbh, but being a niche market I guess a centralized / authoritative source might not be totally essential, even if it lends itself to more successful sleazy marketing. The DPR buying guides for instance where a good source to point out to any newcomer to the hobby...

The DPR comments sections on the other hand and certain parts of the forums probably scared as many newcomers as they welcomed, so who knows.

 

[Norm Bates]

There will always be a niche market for just about everything so long as it is profitable for the brand.

Heck, there are people who would love to buy a new 8-Track tape player but there's just not enough people to make it profitable.

The sale of Smart Watches now easily exceeds the number of mechanical watches sold each year, but many watch brands are still alive and doing well like Rolex, Omega, etc.

Do they really? I think that's a bit of apples and oranges tbh, maybe I'm biased but I think there's more overlap between $450-1,500 phones and $500-2,500 cameras than in the watch analogy... The average smartwatch is prolly something in the $100-250 range, and the luxury mechanical watch market might thrive well above that (AFAIK, I imagine most people just don't wear cheap watches anymore)...

My question is genuine btw, feel free to educate me... I've only owned two decent Victorinox/SAK watches in my lifetime, I was quite fond of the second one since it was all titanium and super light... But over the last 9 years I've not worn a watch at all or I've worn one of three different $200-300 Android Wear smartwatches. Using a Pixel right now which finally seems about as smooth and long lasting as I wished my previous Moto & ASUS watches had been...

Somehow I've ended up buying a bunch of traditional bands for each of them, heh, usually after figuring out a way to adapt them. Maybe there's more parallels to the camera market after all... I'm 40 FWIW and while I never owned an 8-track I do now have about as much vinyl as my parents had in the 70-80s, which is to say I'm prolly an outlier in between generations, heh.

You have GAS. it’s a first world problem. Consumption of cameras, cars, watches, audio, and firearms.

Hah, probably to an extent, I think the community aspect of some of those hobbies probably encourages it... I wasn't interested in vinyl until I started frequenting high end headphone/audio boards (tho a certain favorite artist spurred it too), and I wouldn't be nearly as intrigued by camera gear w/o the discussion around here... Although it was reviews and talk of UWAs at Cameralabs and Ken Rockwell's site, of all places, that 1st drew me in.

One of my mechanical watches was a gift tho, and the bands are just a fashion/personal thing. I think it's still gonna a blow to the market when DPR disappears tbh, but being a niche market I guess a centralized / authoritative source might not be totally essential, even if it lends itself to more successful sleazy marketing. The DPR buying guides for instance where a good source to point out to any newcomer to the hobby...

The DPR comments sections on the other hand and certain parts of the forums probably scared as many newcomers as they welcomed, so who knows.

Back to vinyl? You can get past the “snap, crackle, and pop”? Have you jumped on the “tubed audio gear sounds better” bandwagon yet? Are you a tube roller? That’s the next step. The idea is that analogue sound more natural, and warmer than digital recording. Been there, done that too. Sort of like people ditching digital capture and going back to film.