18 ms·

Camera sales are falling sharply

219 points by janvdberg 7y ago

avenueb 7y ago
I am sooo happy with my new Canon M100. I got tired of carrying a big SLR, this is quite a nice portable size. Phone cameras are pretty good these days, but no match for a SLR or Mirrorless with a decent lens.
Tepix 7y ago
If you look at the bigger chart further down the page you can see that the market for interchangeable lens cameras is still a lot bigger than in 2003 or even 2007. Full frame sensors are getting popular and able to fetch higher prices. Meanwhile I have a camera body that was introduced at the end of 2012 and it's working just fine for photos and Full HD videos. I'm in no rush to upgrade, my guess is i'll keep using it until 4K60P video capable interchangeable lens camera bodies become more affordable, perhaps in 2021 or so.
- Etheryte 7y ago
  This is a really interesting point I hadn't considered until now. I know a few professional photographers and they all run hardware that's 10+ years old. Even if the initial investment to get high end gear can be high, it really serves you for a long time if you take care of it well. Compare that to for example corporate IT departments where laptops are regularly scheduled to be replaced every 4-5 years.
- ageitgey 7y ago
  It's big and heavy, but the Canon 5D mkII released around 2008 still takes beautiful pictures far beyond what most non-pros would ever need. It's tough when you are competing with your decade old products.
  - thewhitetulip 7y ago
    And for some reason, decade old products are very sturdy and of high quality.
    - stiglitz 7y ago
      Survivor bias
      - thewhitetulip 7y ago
        Fair enough
- matwood 7y ago
  It's the lenses that matter. DLSR bodies have been really good for awhile.
ageitgey 7y ago
I'm a camera enthusiast and I collect some fancy/expensive old cameras and lenses. I'm the last person who you think would settle for a camera phone as a camera replacement. But they are just getting so good and they are so easy to use! I'm finding it harder and harder to justify bringing along a camera unless I'm doing special like a specific photo shoot. Obviously phone cameras are no where near as good as a 40 megapixel full frame camera with a good prime lens shooting in raw. But 99% of the time I'm just going to post a photo of my kid in Instagram and it doesn't matter. It is a tough time to be a camera maker.
- lnsru 7y ago
  I remember one businessman telling me in the very early days of digital photography something like this: people do not really care about quality, they just want to recognize their own faces in photos. These times were when digital cameras barely made couple megapixel photos. Current smartphones can do even better making digital cameras obsolete. Cycle goes on.
  - env123 7y ago
    high performance =/= high quality. There's a threshold that something is decently good enough, no point in maximising everything. The same can be said about music (320 kbps vs flac), operating systems (8gb vs 32gb), wifi (4g vs 5g). Like how greedy do you need to be, to not be content?
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      There are other driving forces, though. A typical person may not need to shoot photos at more than 2 megapixels, given a half-decent sensor underneath. But they like their 4k TV programs, and to shoot those, there need to be high-end cameras available. Then some people might want to go into business of shooting stuff that ends up viewed on 4k displays, and suddenly you have a market for semi-pro equipment. Regular people for which good enough is good enough are the ones not in a market for a camera - they use the one in their phone. Similarly with RAM. 8 GB sounds fine until you change jobs and have to use Slack. I'd argue that web developers are the drivers for more powerful hardware now. And with 5G, more and more people like to watch Netflix in decent quality on the go, so now you have to push more data through the network. Also, out of all things to pick on about the economy, this is one of the least problematic. Personally, I think companies can and should shoot for triple digit megapixels on phones, terabyte of RAM and streaming 8k videos to contact lenses. These technologies are enablers - the more power and performance you make available, the more previously impossible use cases will show up.
lawlessone 7y ago
2019 is misleading?, we're only halfway through.
- onion2k 7y ago
  We're 3/4 through.
  - the-dude 7y ago
    We're 2/3 through.
  - ginko 7y ago
    2/3
  - iamnotacrook 7y ago
    We're 247/365 through.
  - lorenzhs 7y ago
    The numbers in the first figure are "[t]hrough first 6 months of 2019"
- simias 7y ago
  It's mentioned explicitly on the graph so I don't think it's really misleading. That being said I suppose that Christmas means that you can't just double the number to extrapolate over the full year so I don't really know what to make of this datapoint.
2rsf 7y ago
> the best camera is the one you have with you https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm
adamcharnock 7y ago
I'd be interested to see the interchangeable-lens-camera stats broken down by price point. Are all the entry/mid/pro-level ranges seeing similar reductions in unit sales? I'd _imagine_ that the pro ranges wouldn't be as badly hit, whereas the average hobbyist that would have previously brought a 1000D would now just use her phone instead. I'd also imagine that unit sales are (/were) disproportionately comprised of low-end camera purchases. Regardless, a scary time to be a camera manufacturer.
- thewhitetulip 7y ago
  I read that Xiaomi is making a camera of 100MP. Source: https://www.techradar.com/in/news/xiaomi-readying-four-smartphones-with-samsungs-108mp-camera-sensor https://www.techradar.com/in/news/xiaomi-readying-four-smart...
frou_dh 7y ago
The likes of Sony aren't that much of bumbling dinosaur, considering they're already inside e.g. the iPhone camera.
gambiting 7y ago
>>Of course, by aggressively introducing newer and newer cameras with marginal improvements, companies like Fuji and Sony are finding that they might have created a headache. Yep, Sony shoot themselves in the foot with the RX100 series. Fantastic cameras, but for some reason they make a point of releasing a new model every single year with marginal improvements, but a much higher price point - so even though we are at Mk 7(?) now, the general recommendation is to just find a Mk 2 or Mk 3 model and save yourself a tonne of money compared to the latest model.
- jeswin 7y ago
  The range from 24mm to 70mm can easily be covered by phone cameras these days with their telephoto lenses - and the sensor sizes are catching up. RX100 vi and vii go up to 200mm which phones don't have yet.
  - hanklazard 7y ago
    True but with the longer lens, the RX has also gotten a smaller maximum aperture size, f/2.8-4.5 vs f/1.8-2.8 (1). I'd go with a Mark V for that reason despite the shorter focal length. 1. https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison
    - h0l0cube 7y ago
      Looking at that link, the Mark VI/VII has more stops of OIS, which is more important for point and clicks, especially when zoomed/shaky/low-light. The f-number isn't the aperture size, though it is affected by changing aperture. The values you quoted are related to the f-number at both the lowest and highest focal length.
      - hanklazard 7y ago
        Whether you value OIS is more a matter of personal opinion. I don’t need to shoot at lower shutter speeds generally, especially with these Sony sensors which are pretty great at higher ISO. Point taken on f-number and aperture not being equivalent, but that’s getting pretty picky ... f-numbers are ratios of focal length to aperture diameter and so effectively do represent aperture size. The point is the smaller f-numbers will give a more shallow depth of field, and at this point, that property is one of the few advantages that a high-end p&s camera has over a nice phone camera (yes, I know some phones are faking shallow DoP in software).
braythwayt 7y ago
These days, dedicated cameras are like supercars. There is no question that they beat the pants off a Toyota Corolla.[1] But most us us just want to drop our kids off at school and pick up groceries. And you know what? A Corolla is actually a pretty good car. And nobody[2] really cares about their daily driver’s 0-60 time or whether it set a new record at Nürburgring. — [1] Substitute your favourite boring daily driver. [2] To paraphrase Joel Spolsky, by “nobody,” we mean “Fewer than 10,000,000 people.”
- mc32 7y ago
  I’ll be one in those ten million soon as they liquidate the prices on their lenses. I’ve been eying a Sony alpha. I’m looking to move to mirrorless but don’t have a real need. My dslr is fine, but the mirrorless Sony’s are nice.
  - braythwayt 7y ago
    I myself may be one of those ten million. But I still wouldn’t bet on camera sales reversing their slide.
    - mc32 7y ago
      I agree with that. Eventually it’ll (35mm equiv) be like medium format cameras. Some people will want them (I like the perspective they bring, but I know I’d use it very little, so I won’t buy one). But for most people the modern point and shoot built in to phones are more than enough. Still I’d like to see E-mount lenses get cheap for selfish reasons.
  - hanklazard 7y ago
    I personally don't think that the lens market will drop like that. While new purchases of cameras are slowing dramatically, there are still a lot of photographers out there and so good lenses will always be in high demand. Those Sonys are really nice though. I just bought a new Fuji body and a 16mm f/1.4 macro. It's unreal what new mirrorless bodies + high-end lenses can do these days.
jeswin 7y ago
2019 holiday shopping season is just coming up - that's when a lot of camera sales and discounts happen. For Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC), new models get announced round about this time and I assume many people would wait for updated models. While I wouldn't be worried about ILC sales yet, compacts are an entirely different story. Phone cameras now have wide angle and telephoto lenses, PDAF sensors, depth sensing, better AI, and have powerful CPUs easily capable of high-fps 4K. Sensor sizes are approaching parity to high-end 1"-sensor compacts like RX100 and LX100 with Samsung Isocell GW1 (1/1.7" sensor) and Isocell Bright HMX (1/1.33" sensor). There will be fewer reasons to buy these in a couple of years. Low/mid-tier compacts have long been surpassed by phones. In fact, mid-tier compacts from 2010-2012 fare better than those of today. Back then, these compacts (Canon G12, Nikon P7x00, Olympus Stylus-1, Pansonic LX5 etc) used to have 1/1.7" sensors (with a sensible 10-12MP resolution) and now we have tiny 1/2.3" sensors with 20MP due to the megapixel wars. This market is really dead now. Super-zoom, small-sensor cameras like Sony RX10 and Nikon P1000 will not be challenged by Smartphones soon. But they are also kinda niche.
- sundvor 7y ago
  I have a mobile computer aka phone with a ToF sensor built in - the Samsung S10 5G. The Live Focus mode is a bit hit and miss, but like with any piece of equipment you learn to work with it - and the results can be astounding. The quality compared to the S10+ (I got a free upgrade to the 5G from that) which doesn't have the LIDAR like sensor is quite remarkable. I believe it's the same setup as the Note 10+. I've had a world class pro photographer comment with some disbelief on the quality of shots that are attainable from this.
  - nolok 7y ago
    The upgrade in live focus on Samsung phone from one generation to the next is scary good. I did s7 edge, s9+ And now s10+ and it moved from cool toy needing a lot of work to “almost there”. The original on s7 had only one lens to work with so you had to wait during your shot while it took several at different focus.
- m463 7y ago
bluedino 7y ago
I thought that YouTubers buying cameras would bump these numbers up a bit. Most cameras have the option to shoot video now.
- gumby 7y ago
  Their phones do too so then calculation is the same.
- Synaesthesia 7y ago
  A cheap webcam will surely suffice for most of them.
  - bluedino 7y ago
    "Everyone" shoots in 4K now and bad video quality is a good way to basically push viewers away.
    - Synaesthesia 7y ago
      My iPhone 6S does 4K in great quality with a really cheap camera. (As a part)
- maeln 7y ago
  YouTubers is a niche market thought. They represent a extremely small fraction of the whole market. And a lot of them don't need a DLSR camera and are just contempt with a good webcam (typically the gaming youtubers/twitch and all).
simias 7y ago
I think the comparison with the server market isn't completely accurate. When companies decided to go with Intel+Linux over Sun's mainframes, they actually did go through a decision process. They weighted the pros and the cons of each solution. With cameras it's arguably much worse. Most people these days (especially those with enough disposable income to consider buying a dedicated camera) already own a smartphone. Camera makers see smartphones as competition but probably not so much the other way around. Apple and Samsung try to get better and better cameras because they compete with each other, they don't really care about Fuji or Canon. Camera makers are in the tough situation of having to sell a camera to people who already have one "for free". And they have to convince a crowd that now mostly consume images in low-res on a small screen. Good luck. With smartphone cameras becoming so good and the software letting anybody take good-looking (if heavily post-processed) pictures, I don't see how they could ever recover. Sun might have been able to win the fight on the server side by competing on price and features, I don't see how camera makers can ever hope to regain the lost market share. It's a completely one-sided competition. My girlfriend is a professional photographer. She owns a bunch of high-end cameras. They vastly outperform our smartphones' cameras, especially in low-light scenarios or while photographing fast-moving or far-away objects for instance (with the right optics of course). But if you just want to make low-res, mundane pictures for Instagram the difference is really not significant. My cheap-o Nokia 6.1 does the job just fine and it's much easier to operate than most pro cameras.
Finnucane 7y ago
I have a Nikon D850 (in addition to a number of vintage film cameras). It's a pretty nice camera. Even when I bought it, I thought that it would do everything I wanted out of a digital camera, and as long as it continued to work, I'd never really have a compelling reason to upgrade.
- overcast 7y ago
  The D850 is not even two years old yet, and is still cutting edge in that price range (I use it daily).
gumby 7y ago
I use a non-phone compact camera — I shot with it all day Monday. Why? Well for much less than a phone I can buy something shockproof and waterproof (I was rafting) that can be operated with gloves on and has a multi day battery life (great for long trips in the back country). I replaced the strap with a paracord leash so I can tie it to myself or my equipment. But that’s a niche application and a camera like that lasts for years. I don’t see a future for those manufacturers either, which will be a problem for me(GoPro-style cameras haven’t caught up). And frankly though the sensor and lens are better than a phone, I’d still rather shoot on the phone.
- theelous3 7y ago
  I have a 10 year old webcam, a oneplus 5t, and a nice cannon eos with a few good lenses. Aside from the phone camera, they are all useless to me. I mountain bike, so none of those are good for capturing that, nor are they convenient or rugged enough to use as a camera midway through a run on some beautiful peak. Just bought a flagship gopro. It essentially fills all the gaps. I can use it as a webcam, I can use it for mountain biking, I can bring it everywhere and record 4k60fps, take photos, etc. Phone + gopro seems to be the best way to go for anyone not looking to do niche photography, like extreme macro, long exposure sky stuff, professional large prints. Ruggedized mini cameras like gopros are a pretty big factor in killing off dslrs. There are countless professionals on youtube making high quality stuff with nothing but phones and gopros.
oh_sigh 7y ago
Even with nicer glass in dedicated cameras, they will likely never have the software features that phone cameras do. Like "night shot" on Android for example. I'd love to see something like Android auto for cameras, because camera companies traditionally suck at software. Let me buy a box of glass and a sensor from Sony or Nikon, but it interconnect with my phone for any brains it needs.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  Sony actually did this with the PlayMemories stuff - the Alpha cameras run on Linux with an Android subsystem that allows for "apps". However they completely and utterly botched the implementation - no way for third parties to write apps on their own, and their own apps were all pay-only. So they took it out in the latest Alpha 7 series - and with it, unfortunately, also the jailbreak ability which means one cannot unlock the video recording length any more.
- lm28469 7y ago
  > Like "night shot" New sensors have amazing iso ranges, with a sony A7s you don't need magic AI/ML shenanigans to make it look good. Android night mode is amazing but it won't produce images you'll share outside of instagram, and even then the image quality takes a hit, it's more like a good security camera than a proper camera. https://gizmodo.com/night-shooting-with-the-a7s-mark-ii-damn-technology-i-1740829026 https://gizmodo.com/night-shooting-with-the-a7s-mark-ii-damn...
kbutler 7y ago
Standalone cameras lack the killer feature of availability. "The best camera is the one you have with you." Every potential camera owner already has a smartphone. This means the standalone camera purchase has to compete with the existing smartphone ("free"/marginal cost zero) and an upgraded smartphone with a better camera (already desired future purchase, so nearly "free"), and for the existing photography hobbyist - the previously purchased DSLR (also "free").
- sgt 7y ago
  I would recommend the Fuji X100's for this reason. They are very good cameras, yet compact enough to fit in your pocket or in a backpack with ease.
  - subpixel 7y ago
    I have an X100F and I can assure you it is not pocketable. I really wish it were, but it's not.
    - sgt 7y ago
      I suppose which pocket and the size. I've been putting into a jacket pocket.
  - josephdviviano 7y ago
    You mean the Ricoh GR :)
growlist 7y ago
For me it's when images are printed at A4, A3 upwards that the benefit of a good lens+decent-sized sensor combo becomes obvious. But how many people do that?
whitehouse3 7y ago
My wife and I rented a full-frame mirrorless from the local camera store some months ago because she wanted nice pictures of our first puppy. As it turns out, this experience went much like a take-home test drive for a luxury car. After a few days, we returned the camera to the rental desk then walked ten feet and bought an identical unit. We paid $3500 for the privilege with no regrets (so far). I forgot pictures can look so good: high resolution, pleasing background blur, and most important it's just a camera. It doesn't have reddit, or HN, or email, or pinterest. It sits about the house where we can grab it quickly. It goes in the day pack on hikes. It blows every other webcam out of the water. And it has smarts to compete with our current-gen iPhones, which we increasingly tuck away to combat distraction. Fast autofocus and face-recognition are lifesavers and often outperform the phones. It's like photography on easy mode. Which it should be considering the sticker price. I get that the best camera is the one you have with you. But we carry our phones less and our camera more. It's silly and sad that we can't exercise more self-control. But from our privileged perspective, a dedicated camera was a great investment in our quality of life.
- roland35 7y ago
  Congrats on your purchase, I wish I went with mirrorless when we bought our DSLR camera back around the birth of our first child! I thought I would want access to all the available lenses and accessories for an established product. But my photographer friend was right - mirrorless are better for amateurs and have one huge benefit: they can record video much more easily since they can focus and record at the same time.
  - mschuster91 7y ago
    If you're going from mirror-based to mirrorless and stay with the manufacturer, there's always adapters meaning you can continue to use your existing lens collection without losing functionality such as auto-focus or stabilizers. Switching manufacturers is a different beast however and you'll likely be limited to manual focus and a gimbal/in-sensor for stabilization.
  - Dork1234 7y ago
    Some Canon cameras (80D, 90D, 7D), have on dual pixel CMOS focus points that work in video mode. It is clear things are moving to mirrorless, but I feel we are still in the transition period for lens and focus technology. For certain type of photography either manual or traditional cross type focus points work best still. I think the biggest benefit of mirrorless cameras for amateurs is size and weight, the best camera is the one you have on you.
neallindsay 7y ago
According to that chart, interchangeable-lens cameras are holding steady. The 2019 entry is only for the first half of the year, so we can't draw any conclusions there (most camera sales come in the second half). Other than that it looks like interchangeable-lens cameras had a peak around 2012, but are still up a bit from a decade ago. Probably smartphones are eating in to a certain kind of enthusiast market, but big glass and big sensors can give you things that are just optically impossible in the form-factor of a phone. If only camera manufacturers can do good smartphone integration, I think they have a bright future. Point-and-shoots are toast for sure though and I doubt anyone is surprised.
- dr_zoidberg 7y ago
  I read earlier this year that one of the "super camera" phones (can't remember which one) was using a 1/1.7" sensor sitting at the bottom of the phone (instead of the back), perpendicular to the motherboard. That sensor is the same size that my old canon g12 had back in the day some 8 years ago. So yeah, phone cameras are replacing compact cameras because they're hiding one inside them! However, it has now become a question of physics, and large lenses getting in lots of light into focus over the sensor, and it being large enough that can catch all of those "scarce" photons, specially for low light photography. And the 1/1.7" sensor is about as large as you can fit inside a phone, which is why they're all moving to having multi-lens cameras and computational photography (with AI, DSP, etc). I now own an olympus mirrorless, and it's a fantastic piece of equipment with a superb sensor (both in size and technology), interchangeable lenses, and the image stabilization system on body gives it the ability to stabilize _any_ lens I use with it (here's a mean look to Nikon and Canon that place IS inside the lenses instead of the body, to charge premium for the feature). Can't see a phone fitting all those features, because they require physical size and or mechanisms taht wouldn't fit in our pockets.
Yuval_Halevi 7y ago
It's simple Once everyone has a camera in their phone buying an extra camera feel unnecessary like the past. A good way for companies like Canon to not fall apart will be by creating complementary products for smartphones to improve the image qualities.
cwal37 7y ago
I actually fell down a small film camera hole recently. I almost never dig out my old DSLR anymore, but I'd always admired Kodak Kodachrome photos[1]. While reading something about the film I saw a reference to fujifilm velvia[2]. Not the same, but also a color reversal film and nice for nature/landscape photography which I enjoy. This led me to purchasing a Canon EOS 3. You can find one for only a couple hundred bucks, they work with EF lenses, are pretty solid in design/construction, and have quite a few features I didn't expect from a film camera that first started production at the tail end of the 90s. Now I take the EOS 3 out specifically and only with a prime 35mm lens. The more methodical way I think about taking pictures is a nice contrast to taking a whole bunch of shots with smartphone or DSLR and then heavily curating afterwards. I just wanted a different feeling from taking photos and it's been quite fulfilling in that respect. Although breaking the habit of looking down at the back of the camera has been quite difficult. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chicagos-rail-yards-1940s/571924/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chica... [2] https://www.flickr.com/groups/29949065@N00 https://www.flickr.com/groups/29949065@N00
- mauvehaus 7y ago
  Those photos from The Atlantic are phenomenal; thank you for the link! I would love to know how he got #14 [0]. Slide film (as you're no doubt aware) has relatively little exposure latitude compared to print film, meaning it's a hell of a trick to get both the inside of the tower and the trains in the yard outside exposed properly. You can see the issue pretty often in real-estate photos. Photos featuring the inside of the house with a window usually have the window way blown out because there's so much more light outside than inside. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chicagos-rail-yards-1940s/571924/#img14 https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chica...
  - cwal37 7y ago
    Glad you liked them! They're in the Library of Congress, so you can get high quality digital copies from their website for free[0]. Yeah, the shots are really great and well beyond my personal ability for sure, particularly given the less advanced metering options he would have been working working with. Great learning examples though. [0] https://www.loc.gov/photos/?fa=contributor:delano,+jack%7Clocation:illinois%7Clocation:chicago%7Conline-format:image&sb=date https://www.loc.gov/photos/?fa=contributor:delano,+jack%7Clo...
heavymark 7y ago
Well I think the title means to say point and shoot (built In lens) cameras falling sharply. Interchangeable camera sales are on the rise, which of course makes perfect sense.
- lunchables 7y ago
  According to the first graph they appear to have peaked in 2012 and dropping ever since: 2011: 16 2012: 20 <--- peak 2013: 17 2014: 14 2015: 13 2016: 12 2017: 12 2018: 4 (annualized rate of 8)
  - dougmany 7y ago
    I remember reading about how google searches reflected mood. One example they gave was people search for cameras when they are happy with their life. I wonder if in 2012 people were in a happier place.
    - lunchables 7y ago
      I think 2012 was around the time when smartphone cameras got really, really good. There was a tipping point where people stopped needing point and shoots and it looks like further down the line that might even have impacted DSLR sales, maybe.
      - josephdviviano 7y ago
        You can also see a massive jump leading up to 2012. Right now camera sales are still well above the basal rate established during the 70s, 80s, 90s. The camera isn't dead, it's just not being purchased by people who don't want to learn how to use them.
ubermonkey 7y ago
For LOTS of people who only care about casual snapshots, yeah, the current crop of iPhone and nicer Android cameras are sufficient. But the gap between those cameras and, say, my full-frame Sony is still enormous. If you care about photography, you buy a real camera. It's just that most people don't care about photography.
overcast 7y ago
The best camera is ALWAYS going to be the one you have on you, which is why the camera phone will always win hands down for convenience. However, no amount of magic is going to change physics when it comes to comparing one to a full frame camera. Particularly in low light performance, and anything further than a few feet away from you. I absolutely could not do my job without my D850 or equivalent, in the lighting conditions I'm often in.
- jswrenn 7y ago
  > Particularly in low light performance, and anything further than a few feet away from you. I am not a professional photographer, but for urbex, I find that my Pixel 2XL has basically replaced my LUMIX DMC-FZ300. Sure, the LUMIX could produce higher-quality low-light images, but shooting on a tripod for a long exposure shot is often impractical or impossible. The Pixel's Night Sight [1] mode is really good. I desperately wish I had a full frame camera with the computational chops of my smartphone! [1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark-on-pixel.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark...
  - overcast 7y ago
    A modern full frame sensor will give you that. But if you're happy with the Pixel, use it!
rb808 7y ago
I've always had DSLRs. My most recent vacation I barely used it and took 99% of all photos with my phone, so much more convenient and the quality is great. The main thing I'd like to work on is getting more video. Videos of people especially are much deeper emotional response, I just wish I took more of my children when they were smaller, and relatives when they were still alive. Hearing someone speak adds something that photo's really dont capture. The main problem with video (apart from getting people to talk on camera) is storing and managing all the data. Its probably too hard for most people, even worse than keeping all the many thousands of photos.
nobrains 7y ago
Does anyone know of a good dedicated full-frame camera, which also has smartphone-camera features, like WiFi (to instantly transfer photos), backup photos (even if not in original quality) to google photos, remotely empty sd-card, instant sharing of photos with friends, etc. I am looking for the above, to not have to "manage" yet another device, and dedicated cameras do need some management, especially when back from a trip, so transfer photos, share photos, empty memory, etc.
- eropple 7y ago
  I can't think of any serious camera that automatically archives to Google Photos or even sends them to people, but cameras like the Panasonic Lumix series (G9, GH4, GH5) have wifi for both transferring photos and for remote control. I assume their full-frame S1 does as well, though I've never looked at it. (My sideline is video, and three S1's would give me pause.)
  - newshophours 7y ago
    I love my Panasonic M43 cameras, but the wifi experience with them is miserable. The android app looks like something from 2010, and performs worse. I've tried it with every permutation of four android phones and three Panasonic bodies (GX85, G85, G95) and every combination performs miserably.
    - eropple 7y ago
      Dunno about the G/GX series, but I use it regularly with my GH4 (my primary camera) and it's just fine for me. My only real complaint is that I can't use it and an HDMI out to a recorder, for some reason.
- nelsonic 7y ago
  Depends if a flip ("selfie") screen is important to you or not and whether you favour compactness or price. Sony A7 Series (Mirrorless Full Frame) has everything you need/want and much more. Even the first generation body will not let you down. If you have the spare cash, get the 3rd Gen body as it has more advanced autofocus and low-light capabilities. Depending on which program you use on your computer, you can configure it to automatically download the photos from the camera and wipe the SD card when connected via USB cable (wifi is usually quite slow to transfer large files especially video).
holografix 7y ago
You can get a Sony a6600 for a reasonable price given what it does. Photos with a cheap, albeit fast lens, will be vastly superior to an iPhone
mtw 7y ago
I was skeptical about smartphones taking over. There's little though that dedicated cameras can do that smartphones can't. The Huawei P30 Pro, like many others such as Samsung Note 10, have an impressive zoom and low-light. It takes super wide shots. It blurs portraits, similar to expensive portrait lenses. It's also very responsive. And it can stack photos to improve sharpness and textures, a feature that no DSLR or mirrorless can't do currently. I have trouble thinking what dedicated cameras can do currently that smartphones won't do in a couple of years.
patientplatypus 7y ago
The economy is turning. High end cameras are a luxury good and one of the first consumer purchases to take a hit.
acomjean 7y ago
We got a new point and shoot, when my partner lamented that when looking through her pictures the ones take with her phone weren't looking as good as the ones taken with a small point a shoot. Especially when looking on a larger screen. It was true. The extra effort makes better photos, plus the zoom for framing is nice. For the here and now, phones are way more convent and the cameras are quite good.
nradov 7y ago
I hope at least a couple companies will continue making dedicated compact cameras suitable for underwater photography with a waterproof housing. Cell phones don't really work for that use case: we need cameras with mechanical button controls.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
subpixel 7y ago
I bought a $2500 mirrorless aps-c when my kid was born. The images and the video were amazing but I returned it within 30 days b/c there was zero chance I was going to be able to carry it around and have it when I wanted it on hand and ready. So I downgraded to a $1500+ mirrorless aps-c with a single, non-removable lens - my goal was maximum image quality, minimum size. But even that camera is a giant pain and I haven't used it in months. This is saying nothing about the work involved in shooting RAW and converting everything, using a new piece of software you have to buy. When the new iPhone comes out, I'm buying a used XS. If you can't beat em, join em.
criddell 7y ago
> I would be bereft without my Leica SL, and it would limit my ability to create images of a certain type. Leica, at least there is a loyal following of dedicated customers, but ones such as Nikon and Canon, are particularly vulnerable in the near future. I think camera's like Om's Leica are appealing largely for reasons other than the image produced. For the same reasons one might choose to wear an expensive mechanical watch to tell the time, one might choose a Leica for their camera.
graeme 7y ago
Anyone have a recommendation for a small, decent camera, OR one with a good carrying case you can strap to a belt that doesn't look awful? I used such a camera on my travels years back and loved being able to instantly capture any moment in high quality. It was even faster than a smartphone, and it had a decent looking leather case with a magnetic lid. I tried getting one small enough to put in a pocket but I couldn't find one small/good enough. I know carrying one on my belt looks ridiculously, but I'm hoping to make it just passable enough that I could carry it everywhere.
- lisper 7y ago
  I absolutely love my Panasonic DMC-ZS60. For me it's the perfect blend of features and quality vs weight and volume. It doesn't quite fit in a pocket, but fits comfortably in a neoprene case on my belt. Some sample shots: http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/422.html http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/422.html http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/496.html http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/496.html
- zokier 7y ago
  RX100 series from Sony is generally pretty well received and definitely matches the "small and decent" criteria.
turc1656 7y ago
My wife takes a LOT of photos. She's not an amateur photographer or anything like that. She's just always wanted to have photos of people (particularly our children), events, etc. for memories. Even she doesn't care too much about the quality boost of photos vs modern smartphones. She used a dedicated camera up until recently. We always had semi-expensive high end point and shoot cameras for their simplicity, ease of use, and transportability. Now that she has the Google Pixel, all bets are off. Not only has she not used the very nice point and shoot we had been using for most photos, but she completely stopped even bringing it anywhere! She absolutely loves the Pixel's portrait mode and HDR features. And it's hard to argue with. They look stunning and you pretty much never have to even change a setting on the phone - nearly every single thing is automatic and they look utterly fantastic. So fantastic that I installed a ported version of the Gcam app to my non-Pixel Android and wow - what an improvement. The camera world is quickly on its way to becoming a hobbyist-only endeavor. I see no reason to buy a standalone camera anymore. On a similar note - does anyone anywhere buy standalone music players anymore? Hell, do they even sell them? I can't imagine all but a few die-hards buying them when every smartphone now comes with significant storage and most have expandable slots as well. And that's for people that even have mp3s. Most just stream everything now (spotify, youtube, etc.).
- jimhefferon 7y ago
  > does anyone anywhere buy standalone music players anymore? I like it for exercising. Much lighter than my phone and more square than flat, so more compact.
sangd 7y ago
I'm into the photo quality and I often carry a Sony camera, I prefer my RX100 better than an interchangeable one because of the size. But a few months ago I got my Pixel 3a and I am very amazed with its RAW photos. The JPEG ones look good on the phone, but acceptable on a large screen, probably too much processing/filtering. The video quality is decent because it doesn't feel as smooth as an iPhone even though it claims to have IS. The photo RAW is quite surprising, it gives me a lot more detail when editing for a 12MP camera. Overall, there's no good reason to bring a separate camera unless I'm going for a photoshoot.
supernova87a 7y ago
The reason I still bring a DSLR on trips is that the image quality is so much better than any phone's camera. And by image quality, I mean things that you really start to notice if you zoom in or want to print something up, like: -- chromatic aberration -- pixel noise -- resolution (and not just pixel count) You just can't beat a large sensor gathering lots of light for the noise and resolution, and almost any lenses are an improvement over a phone's. Yes, the best camera is the one you have with you. But while that's good enough for photos that are just throwaways, when you have something you really want to capture at high quality, bring the DSLR (or mirrorless) with you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
simonw 7y ago
I just got back from a four week trip around Madagascar with a Canon DSLR (a pretty basic consumer EOS model but we took some /really/ nice lenses, including a 100-400mm telephoto). One thing I really enjoyed was the duality of having a DSLR with a good zoom combined with a iPhone XS. No need to swap lenses: the iPhone takes great wide angle, landscape and close-up photos while the DSLR covers the all-important lemurs-in-a-tree. Surprisingly one of the things I missed most with the DSLR was Live Photos, which are fantastic for wildlife. My dream DSLR would run Android. I want all of the niceties of modern phone cameras, but with the ability to strap on absurdly good lenses. I'm surprised Canon and Nikon don't seem to have done this yet. Lemur photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nOhNuJ3sX/ https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nOhNuJ3sX/
droithomme 7y ago
Modern phones are digital cameras but not included in these numbers. Article title should perhaps be "sales of digital cameras which don't include critical phone feature are falling sharply", but perhaps that gives it away since they do address this issue further along in the article.
callmeal 7y ago
This is such a lopsided disposable-society view of things. Has anyone considered the fact that perhaps more cameras are not being bought because the market is saturated? Take me for example: I have an Elan 7e, a 40D and a panasonic mirrorless. They all do the things I want to do well. Both the canons have been repaired at least twice (shutter replaced), the panasonic has been holding steady. My sister is still using the Rebel II because that's good enough for her needs. Do businesses really expect growth to never taper off? I suppose if you engineer your products to have a finite life and then fail it could work. The Japanese manufacturers have something to learn from American industry.
paulcole 7y ago
I just don't take or have any interest in photos. Too many hours of interminable family slide nights and standing around in the hot sun waiting for my dad to fiddle with his camera. Never again.
pbuzbee 7y ago
After spending a couple thousand dollars on photography equipment, I've realized that I usually prefer photos taken with my phone. If I photograph the same scene with my phone (Nexus 5X, an old phone!) and my DSLR (Canon 80D, usually with a decent prime), I'll like the one my phone took better. The color and contrast on its photos are much better than on pictures from the DSLR. Do the DSLR photos look better at the pixel level? Sure, but I rarely need that level of detail. Could I edit the DSLR photo to get the same color/contrast? Yes, but that takes a lot of time when you have 500+ photos from a vacation. The DSLR really only wins out if I want to zoom in for the shot. Then the DSLR wins in a landslide. So now my personal rule is: if I don't need to zoom, just use my phone. And it's been nice not having to drag the heavy DSLR around everywhere I go.
- _Codemonkeyism 7y ago
  (as a hobby photographer) I went to Norway to hike 680km. Agonizing for weeks if I should take my DSLR and lenses. Took only a OnePlus6T with Google camera, Open Camera and PhotoMap. I'm happy with the results and the 2kg less in the backpack.
- rconti 7y ago
  One thing I've found myself doing is replicating phone pictures with my high-end pocket camera or mirrorless, when traveling. I might take a snap with my cell phone and be like HOLY CRAP that looks amazing.. then do the same shot on my camera, it looks like crap. But when I get home to my 5k display, the phone pic looks like an oil painting compared to the mirrorless or even point and shoot (rx-100) shot. The screen is just so damn bad on every digital camera I've ever owned, that I need the iphone screen to compose and realize how good the shot will be if i take it with a real camera.
gtycomb 7y ago
This Labor day weekend I took my old Nikon D600 DSLR on a visit to a State Forest nearby. Usually I go with no camera, I like to have my hands free to look around while my family takes snaps with iPhones which is enough. However back at home this week we are all still looking at the pictures from the D600 and struck by the picture quality -- the details of how they capture light, interesting compositions on a good standard wide to zoom lens, etc. I'd say that the weight of the camera is not a bother if I have to carry a camera at all.
bt848 7y ago
How many cameras did they think the world would buy? Digital went through a rapid period of technological improvement but it has slowed. My Olympus m43 body is an amazing camera about which I have few complaints. A new camera would need to be radically superior before I would spend the money. Before that I was planning on just keeping my Nikon D70 forever, but it was stolen. My father shot a Canon AE-1 for decades, until film finally became too hard to find. I don't think just being on a treadmill of buying new cameras was common in the film era.
localhost 7y ago
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is how amazingly good the metering is in phones. Perhaps it's the vastly greater compute power available on phones that makes this possible, and I find that my Pixel 2 XL does metering better than any DSLR or P&S camera that I've owned. Tricky lighting situations like shooting partially into sunrise on Haleakala were nailed by my Pixel 2 XL. Another thing is how much better the displays are on phones for proofing photos. My RX100vi's display (my most recent camera) pales in comparison.
ekianjo 7y ago
One of the main issues of the DSLR market (that I follow closely) is that new models tend to be more expensive than previous models in the same category. Compared to about every other field in technology, it feels counter-intuitive: everything should be getting cheaper and better over time, as most components are electronic by nature. I suspect this is another reason why DSLR sales stalled.
Wistar 7y ago
"Can you imagine listening to the stories of old people's photos 50 years from now? How terrible that experience is going to be?" https://youtu.be/uSh5voSUhrs https://youtu.be/uSh5voSUhrs
epx 7y ago
I sold my DSLR because I seldom used it, and mirrorless is the thing of the future. But they are currently too expensive, and you can't even find mirrorless for sale in some markets (e.g. Brazil). But a good camera is irreplaceble, I plan to buy one next year, abroad if necessary. The mirrorless market should have settled a bit till then.
rongenre 7y ago
I'd love to own a full-featured digital camera (and I've bought a bunch over the past couple decades), but unless I enroll in a class to learn to use it well and get in the habit of using it I'm pretty sure it'll collect dust. Maybe my next vacation.
vparikh 7y ago
There are two main reasons for this: 1. 95% of the people use their cameras for output to the web (i.e., instagram, pintrest, etc.) And email links to them, or actually email the picture itself when they share them. In this case, you don't really need a high end camera such as a DSLR or a Mirrorless. That doesn't mean you can't benefit, its just that the reason you are taking the picture isn't worth to learn how to use a camera properly. For these people their crappy cell phone lens based phone is good enough. 2. Has any body looked at the used DSLRs available? Go over to KEH and take a look. You can get a Nikon D300 in excellent condition for less than $300 with a 180 day warranty!!! Want a pro body? You can get a Nikon D3s in excellent condition for $1100 with a 180 day warranty. That D300 just 4 years ago was $1900 and that D3s was going for well over $6000 around the same time. Why on earth would anyone go and buy a new camera these days? The camera companies did this to themselves by releasing a new camera every 12-16 months for the past decade. I predict that those companies that can survive this downturn will have huge success down the road. People will realise how much a real camera offers in quality, capability and options. And then the market will return.
inetsee 7y ago
I have thought for a long time that the best (and most cost effective) way to improve the quality of your pictures is to reduce camera shake. You could spend $1000 or much more on a new camera with a bunch more megapixels, or you could spend $100 or less on a tripod, or a monopod, and get sharper pictures with the camera you have. This advice works for a DSLR or a smartphone.
donniefitz2 7y ago
I think some of this slowdown is due to reaching "peak sensor". Much of the frenzy back in 2007-2012 was due to big advancements in sensor technology, namely, low-light performance. But now, my Fuji X100, which came out in 2011 still shoots great images, even in low light. And my Fuji X-H1 will be very adequate for the next 5-8 years. As camera sensors became better, the need to replace them with the next model diminished. Much of what camera makers are now producing are features on top of already great sensor technology. I don't think most consumers care about these additional features.
vondur 7y ago
I keep thinking that how great would it be if Apple and/or Google could make the software for a nice SLR/Mirroless camera where you can take excellent photos 90% of the time on auto, and still have the ability to go full manual for the other times. Cell phone cameras are good because of the software that runs them. The software on most cameras, not so much.
josephdviviano 7y ago
The thing I find really confusing about this is that people are regularly blowing ~$1000 on smartphones with decent cameras. My phone cost $200 and has a laughable camera. If I spent $800 every 2 years (I suspect the mean replacement rate) on camera equipment I would quickly have a really incredible setup... I don't even need to because for a one-time price of $800 I could get a better setup than the very best smartphone around.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Balanceinfinity 7y ago
It's all about the glass. If you're taking a picture of your latte from 6 inches for display on a camera, it really doesn't matter. But if you want a picture of your son's soccer game that you can show on a TV or laptop, and where you can bring his image up and crop it without loss of resolution....it's all about the glass. Phones will never be able to do real photography at a distance because they won't ever invest in the kind of glass necessary. Nikon has great glass (as does cannon, etc). If you want great glass at a great price - try Lumix. They have a deal with Leica for some of their cameras - great price and great glass. https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/DC-LX100M2.html#start=1&cgid=lumix-point-and-shoot-cameras https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/DC...
- Terretta 7y ago
  You sure it’s not all about the ratio of photons to sensor size?
  - Balanceinfinity 7y ago
    Fair point - yes, but only to a certain extent. "There is no denying that a decent image resolution is quintessential to achieve professional results, but it would be misleading to trust in the resolution as the sole indicator for a camera’s quality." http://www.exclusivearchitecture.com/?page_id=657 http://www.exclusivearchitecture.com/?page_id=657
    - Terretta 7y ago
      Not resolution so much as size of the pits that pick up photons.
- x2f10 7y ago
  Can you link some example photography captures using the linked camera? I browsed some reviews (first 2-3 that popped up on Google) and I'm not impressed. I feel my iPhone XS produces similar output.
kumarvvr 7y ago
I wish there was a good, cheap, fully programmable / hackable camera. There is a lot of digital capture work that I need to do, that requires a fully controllable camera. For example, I want to build a faster photocopier, using a camera frame, dual camera setup, real-time Image processing unit and a fast laser printer. However, almost all the cameras in the market are either feature deficit (point and shoot cameras that use CHDK, etc) or are in-accessible to me. I would love to use a Nikon DSLR, completely control it, grab pictures in real-time, process and print them. Sadly, no such options now. A decent photocopier costs about 130,000 in India. A Nikon D3000 or equivalent, with an 18-55 lens costs about 30,000. A decent laser printer costs about 14,000. A DIY frame, about 10,000. So with an overall cost of about 60,000 I can build myself a much better and faster photo copier.

219 points by janvdberg 7y ago

I am sooo happy with my new Canon M100. I got tired of carrying a big SLR, this is quite a nice portable size. Phone cameras are pretty good these days, but no match for a SLR or Mirrorless with a decent lens.

Tepix 7y ago

If you look at the bigger chart further down the page you can see that the market for interchangeable lens cameras is still a lot bigger than in 2003 or even 2007. Full frame sensors are getting popular and able to fetch higher prices. Meanwhile I have a camera body that was introduced at the end of 2012 and it's working just fine for photos and Full HD videos. I'm in no rush to upgrade, my guess is i'll keep using it until 4K60P video capable interchangeable lens camera bodies become more affordable, perhaps in 2021 or so.

Etheryte 7y ago
This is a really interesting point I hadn't considered until now. I know a few professional photographers and they all run hardware that's 10+ years old. Even if the initial investment to get high end gear can be high, it really serves you for a long time if you take care of it well. Compare that to for example corporate IT departments where laptops are regularly scheduled to be replaced every 4-5 years.
ageitgey 7y ago
It's big and heavy, but the Canon 5D mkII released around 2008 still takes beautiful pictures far beyond what most non-pros would ever need. It's tough when you are competing with your decade old products.
- thewhitetulip 7y ago
  And for some reason, decade old products are very sturdy and of high quality.
  - stiglitz 7y ago
    Survivor bias
    - thewhitetulip 7y ago
      Fair enough
matwood 7y ago
It's the lenses that matter. DLSR bodies have been really good for awhile.

ageitgey 7y ago

I'm a camera enthusiast and I collect some fancy/expensive old cameras and lenses. I'm the last person who you think would settle for a camera phone as a camera replacement. But they are just getting so good and they are so easy to use! I'm finding it harder and harder to justify bringing along a camera unless I'm doing special like a specific photo shoot. Obviously phone cameras are no where near as good as a 40 megapixel full frame camera with a good prime lens shooting in raw. But 99% of the time I'm just going to post a photo of my kid in Instagram and it doesn't matter. It is a tough time to be a camera maker.

lnsru 7y ago
I remember one businessman telling me in the very early days of digital photography something like this: people do not really care about quality, they just want to recognize their own faces in photos. These times were when digital cameras barely made couple megapixel photos. Current smartphones can do even better making digital cameras obsolete. Cycle goes on.
- env123 7y ago
  high performance =/= high quality. There's a threshold that something is decently good enough, no point in maximising everything. The same can be said about music (320 kbps vs flac), operating systems (8gb vs 32gb), wifi (4g vs 5g). Like how greedy do you need to be, to not be content?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    There are other driving forces, though. A typical person may not need to shoot photos at more than 2 megapixels, given a half-decent sensor underneath. But they like their 4k TV programs, and to shoot those, there need to be high-end cameras available. Then some people might want to go into business of shooting stuff that ends up viewed on 4k displays, and suddenly you have a market for semi-pro equipment. Regular people for which good enough is good enough are the ones not in a market for a camera - they use the one in their phone. Similarly with RAM. 8 GB sounds fine until you change jobs and have to use Slack. I'd argue that web developers are the drivers for more powerful hardware now. And with 5G, more and more people like to watch Netflix in decent quality on the go, so now you have to push more data through the network. Also, out of all things to pick on about the economy, this is one of the least problematic. Personally, I think companies can and should shoot for triple digit megapixels on phones, terabyte of RAM and streaming 8k videos to contact lenses. These technologies are enablers - the more power and performance you make available, the more previously impossible use cases will show up.

lawlessone 7y ago

2019 is misleading?, we're only halfway through.

onion2k 7y ago
We're 3/4 through.
- the-dude 7y ago
  We're 2/3 through.
- ginko 7y ago
  2/3
- iamnotacrook 7y ago
  We're 247/365 through.
- lorenzhs 7y ago
  The numbers in the first figure are "[t]hrough first 6 months of 2019"
simias 7y ago
It's mentioned explicitly on the graph so I don't think it's really misleading. That being said I suppose that Christmas means that you can't just double the number to extrapolate over the full year so I don't really know what to make of this datapoint.

2rsf 7y ago

> the best camera is the one you have with you https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

adamcharnock 7y ago

I'd be interested to see the interchangeable-lens-camera stats broken down by price point. Are all the entry/mid/pro-level ranges seeing similar reductions in unit sales? I'd _imagine_ that the pro ranges wouldn't be as badly hit, whereas the average hobbyist that would have previously brought a 1000D would now just use her phone instead. I'd also imagine that unit sales are (/were) disproportionately comprised of low-end camera purchases. Regardless, a scary time to be a camera manufacturer.

thewhitetulip 7y ago
I read that Xiaomi is making a camera of 100MP. Source: https://www.techradar.com/in/news/xiaomi-readying-four-smartphones-with-samsungs-108mp-camera-sensor https://www.techradar.com/in/news/xiaomi-readying-four-smart...

frou_dh 7y ago

The likes of Sony aren't that much of bumbling dinosaur, considering they're already inside e.g. the iPhone camera.

gambiting 7y ago

>>Of course, by aggressively introducing newer and newer cameras with marginal improvements, companies like Fuji and Sony are finding that they might have created a headache. Yep, Sony shoot themselves in the foot with the RX100 series. Fantastic cameras, but for some reason they make a point of releasing a new model every single year with marginal improvements, but a much higher price point - so even though we are at Mk 7(?) now, the general recommendation is to just find a Mk 2 or Mk 3 model and save yourself a tonne of money compared to the latest model.

jeswin 7y ago
The range from 24mm to 70mm can easily be covered by phone cameras these days with their telephoto lenses - and the sensor sizes are catching up. RX100 vi and vii go up to 200mm which phones don't have yet.
- hanklazard 7y ago
  True but with the longer lens, the RX has also gotten a smaller maximum aperture size, f/2.8-4.5 vs f/1.8-2.8 (1). I'd go with a Mark V for that reason despite the shorter focal length. 1. https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison
  - h0l0cube 7y ago
    Looking at that link, the Mark VI/VII has more stops of OIS, which is more important for point and clicks, especially when zoomed/shaky/low-light. The f-number isn't the aperture size, though it is affected by changing aperture. The values you quoted are related to the f-number at both the lowest and highest focal length.
    - hanklazard 7y ago
      Whether you value OIS is more a matter of personal opinion. I don’t need to shoot at lower shutter speeds generally, especially with these Sony sensors which are pretty great at higher ISO. Point taken on f-number and aperture not being equivalent, but that’s getting pretty picky ... f-numbers are ratios of focal length to aperture diameter and so effectively do represent aperture size. The point is the smaller f-numbers will give a more shallow depth of field, and at this point, that property is one of the few advantages that a high-end p&s camera has over a nice phone camera (yes, I know some phones are faking shallow DoP in software).

braythwayt 7y ago

These days, dedicated cameras are like supercars. There is no question that they beat the pants off a Toyota Corolla.[1] But most us us just want to drop our kids off at school and pick up groceries. And you know what? A Corolla is actually a pretty good car. And nobody[2] really cares about their daily driver’s 0-60 time or whether it set a new record at Nürburgring. — [1] Substitute your favourite boring daily driver. [2] To paraphrase Joel Spolsky, by “nobody,” we mean “Fewer than 10,000,000 people.”

mc32 7y ago
I’ll be one in those ten million soon as they liquidate the prices on their lenses. I’ve been eying a Sony alpha. I’m looking to move to mirrorless but don’t have a real need. My dslr is fine, but the mirrorless Sony’s are nice.
- braythwayt 7y ago
  I myself may be one of those ten million. But I still wouldn’t bet on camera sales reversing their slide.
  - mc32 7y ago
    I agree with that. Eventually it’ll (35mm equiv) be like medium format cameras. Some people will want them (I like the perspective they bring, but I know I’d use it very little, so I won’t buy one). But for most people the modern point and shoot built in to phones are more than enough. Still I’d like to see E-mount lenses get cheap for selfish reasons.
- hanklazard 7y ago
  I personally don't think that the lens market will drop like that. While new purchases of cameras are slowing dramatically, there are still a lot of photographers out there and so good lenses will always be in high demand. Those Sonys are really nice though. I just bought a new Fuji body and a 16mm f/1.4 macro. It's unreal what new mirrorless bodies + high-end lenses can do these days.

jeswin 7y ago

2019 holiday shopping season is just coming up - that's when a lot of camera sales and discounts happen. For Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC), new models get announced round about this time and I assume many people would wait for updated models. While I wouldn't be worried about ILC sales yet, compacts are an entirely different story. Phone cameras now have wide angle and telephoto lenses, PDAF sensors, depth sensing, better AI, and have powerful CPUs easily capable of high-fps 4K. Sensor sizes are approaching parity to high-end 1"-sensor compacts like RX100 and LX100 with Samsung Isocell GW1 (1/1.7" sensor) and Isocell Bright HMX (1/1.33" sensor). There will be fewer reasons to buy these in a couple of years. Low/mid-tier compacts have long been surpassed by phones. In fact, mid-tier compacts from 2010-2012 fare better than those of today. Back then, these compacts (Canon G12, Nikon P7x00, Olympus Stylus-1, Pansonic LX5 etc) used to have 1/1.7" sensors (with a sensible 10-12MP resolution) and now we have tiny 1/2.3" sensors with 20MP due to the megapixel wars. This market is really dead now. Super-zoom, small-sensor cameras like Sony RX10 and Nikon P1000 will not be challenged by Smartphones soon. But they are also kinda niche.

sundvor 7y ago
I have a mobile computer aka phone with a ToF sensor built in - the Samsung S10 5G. The Live Focus mode is a bit hit and miss, but like with any piece of equipment you learn to work with it - and the results can be astounding. The quality compared to the S10+ (I got a free upgrade to the 5G from that) which doesn't have the LIDAR like sensor is quite remarkable. I believe it's the same setup as the Note 10+. I've had a world class pro photographer comment with some disbelief on the quality of shots that are attainable from this.
- nolok 7y ago
  The upgrade in live focus on Samsung phone from one generation to the next is scary good. I did s7 edge, s9+ And now s10+ and it moved from cool toy needing a lot of work to “almost there”. The original on s7 had only one lens to work with so you had to wait during your shot while it took several at different focus.
m463 7y ago

bluedino 7y ago

I thought that YouTubers buying cameras would bump these numbers up a bit. Most cameras have the option to shoot video now.

gumby 7y ago
Their phones do too so then calculation is the same.
Synaesthesia 7y ago
A cheap webcam will surely suffice for most of them.
- bluedino 7y ago
  "Everyone" shoots in 4K now and bad video quality is a good way to basically push viewers away.
  - Synaesthesia 7y ago
    My iPhone 6S does 4K in great quality with a really cheap camera. (As a part)
maeln 7y ago
YouTubers is a niche market thought. They represent a extremely small fraction of the whole market. And a lot of them don't need a DLSR camera and are just contempt with a good webcam (typically the gaming youtubers/twitch and all).

simias 7y ago

I think the comparison with the server market isn't completely accurate. When companies decided to go with Intel+Linux over Sun's mainframes, they actually did go through a decision process. They weighted the pros and the cons of each solution. With cameras it's arguably much worse. Most people these days (especially those with enough disposable income to consider buying a dedicated camera) already own a smartphone. Camera makers see smartphones as competition but probably not so much the other way around. Apple and Samsung try to get better and better cameras because they compete with each other, they don't really care about Fuji or Canon. Camera makers are in the tough situation of having to sell a camera to people who already have one "for free". And they have to convince a crowd that now mostly consume images in low-res on a small screen. Good luck. With smartphone cameras becoming so good and the software letting anybody take good-looking (if heavily post-processed) pictures, I don't see how they could ever recover. Sun might have been able to win the fight on the server side by competing on price and features, I don't see how camera makers can ever hope to regain the lost market share. It's a completely one-sided competition. My girlfriend is a professional photographer. She owns a bunch of high-end cameras. They vastly outperform our smartphones' cameras, especially in low-light scenarios or while photographing fast-moving or far-away objects for instance (with the right optics of course). But if you just want to make low-res, mundane pictures for Instagram the difference is really not significant. My cheap-o Nokia 6.1 does the job just fine and it's much easier to operate than most pro cameras.

Finnucane 7y ago

I have a Nikon D850 (in addition to a number of vintage film cameras). It's a pretty nice camera. Even when I bought it, I thought that it would do everything I wanted out of a digital camera, and as long as it continued to work, I'd never really have a compelling reason to upgrade.

overcast 7y ago
The D850 is not even two years old yet, and is still cutting edge in that price range (I use it daily).

gumby 7y ago

I use a non-phone compact camera — I shot with it all day Monday. Why? Well for much less than a phone I can buy something shockproof and waterproof (I was rafting) that can be operated with gloves on and has a multi day battery life (great for long trips in the back country). I replaced the strap with a paracord leash so I can tie it to myself or my equipment. But that’s a niche application and a camera like that lasts for years. I don’t see a future for those manufacturers either, which will be a problem for me(GoPro-style cameras haven’t caught up). And frankly though the sensor and lens are better than a phone, I’d still rather shoot on the phone.

theelous3 7y ago
I have a 10 year old webcam, a oneplus 5t, and a nice cannon eos with a few good lenses. Aside from the phone camera, they are all useless to me. I mountain bike, so none of those are good for capturing that, nor are they convenient or rugged enough to use as a camera midway through a run on some beautiful peak. Just bought a flagship gopro. It essentially fills all the gaps. I can use it as a webcam, I can use it for mountain biking, I can bring it everywhere and record 4k60fps, take photos, etc. Phone + gopro seems to be the best way to go for anyone not looking to do niche photography, like extreme macro, long exposure sky stuff, professional large prints. Ruggedized mini cameras like gopros are a pretty big factor in killing off dslrs. There are countless professionals on youtube making high quality stuff with nothing but phones and gopros.

oh_sigh 7y ago

Even with nicer glass in dedicated cameras, they will likely never have the software features that phone cameras do. Like "night shot" on Android for example. I'd love to see something like Android auto for cameras, because camera companies traditionally suck at software. Let me buy a box of glass and a sensor from Sony or Nikon, but it interconnect with my phone for any brains it needs.

mschuster91 7y ago
Sony actually did this with the PlayMemories stuff - the Alpha cameras run on Linux with an Android subsystem that allows for "apps". However they completely and utterly botched the implementation - no way for third parties to write apps on their own, and their own apps were all pay-only. So they took it out in the latest Alpha 7 series - and with it, unfortunately, also the jailbreak ability which means one cannot unlock the video recording length any more.
lm28469 7y ago
> Like "night shot" New sensors have amazing iso ranges, with a sony A7s you don't need magic AI/ML shenanigans to make it look good. Android night mode is amazing but it won't produce images you'll share outside of instagram, and even then the image quality takes a hit, it's more like a good security camera than a proper camera. https://gizmodo.com/night-shooting-with-the-a7s-mark-ii-damn-technology-i-1740829026 https://gizmodo.com/night-shooting-with-the-a7s-mark-ii-damn...

kbutler 7y ago

Standalone cameras lack the killer feature of availability. "The best camera is the one you have with you." Every potential camera owner already has a smartphone. This means the standalone camera purchase has to compete with the existing smartphone ("free"/marginal cost zero) and an upgraded smartphone with a better camera (already desired future purchase, so nearly "free"), and for the existing photography hobbyist - the previously purchased DSLR (also "free").

sgt 7y ago
I would recommend the Fuji X100's for this reason. They are very good cameras, yet compact enough to fit in your pocket or in a backpack with ease.
- subpixel 7y ago
  I have an X100F and I can assure you it is not pocketable. I really wish it were, but it's not.
  - sgt 7y ago
    I suppose which pocket and the size. I've been putting into a jacket pocket.
- josephdviviano 7y ago
  You mean the Ricoh GR :)

growlist 7y ago

For me it's when images are printed at A4, A3 upwards that the benefit of a good lens+decent-sized sensor combo becomes obvious. But how many people do that?

whitehouse3 7y ago

My wife and I rented a full-frame mirrorless from the local camera store some months ago because she wanted nice pictures of our first puppy. As it turns out, this experience went much like a take-home test drive for a luxury car. After a few days, we returned the camera to the rental desk then walked ten feet and bought an identical unit. We paid $3500 for the privilege with no regrets (so far). I forgot pictures can look so good: high resolution, pleasing background blur, and most important it's just a camera. It doesn't have reddit, or HN, or email, or pinterest. It sits about the house where we can grab it quickly. It goes in the day pack on hikes. It blows every other webcam out of the water. And it has smarts to compete with our current-gen iPhones, which we increasingly tuck away to combat distraction. Fast autofocus and face-recognition are lifesavers and often outperform the phones. It's like photography on easy mode. Which it should be considering the sticker price. I get that the best camera is the one you have with you. But we carry our phones less and our camera more. It's silly and sad that we can't exercise more self-control. But from our privileged perspective, a dedicated camera was a great investment in our quality of life.

roland35 7y ago
Congrats on your purchase, I wish I went with mirrorless when we bought our DSLR camera back around the birth of our first child! I thought I would want access to all the available lenses and accessories for an established product. But my photographer friend was right - mirrorless are better for amateurs and have one huge benefit: they can record video much more easily since they can focus and record at the same time.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  If you're going from mirror-based to mirrorless and stay with the manufacturer, there's always adapters meaning you can continue to use your existing lens collection without losing functionality such as auto-focus or stabilizers. Switching manufacturers is a different beast however and you'll likely be limited to manual focus and a gimbal/in-sensor for stabilization.
- Dork1234 7y ago
  Some Canon cameras (80D, 90D, 7D), have on dual pixel CMOS focus points that work in video mode. It is clear things are moving to mirrorless, but I feel we are still in the transition period for lens and focus technology. For certain type of photography either manual or traditional cross type focus points work best still. I think the biggest benefit of mirrorless cameras for amateurs is size and weight, the best camera is the one you have on you.

neallindsay 7y ago

According to that chart, interchangeable-lens cameras are holding steady. The 2019 entry is only for the first half of the year, so we can't draw any conclusions there (most camera sales come in the second half). Other than that it looks like interchangeable-lens cameras had a peak around 2012, but are still up a bit from a decade ago. Probably smartphones are eating in to a certain kind of enthusiast market, but big glass and big sensors can give you things that are just optically impossible in the form-factor of a phone. If only camera manufacturers can do good smartphone integration, I think they have a bright future. Point-and-shoots are toast for sure though and I doubt anyone is surprised.

dr_zoidberg 7y ago
I read earlier this year that one of the "super camera" phones (can't remember which one) was using a 1/1.7" sensor sitting at the bottom of the phone (instead of the back), perpendicular to the motherboard. That sensor is the same size that my old canon g12 had back in the day some 8 years ago. So yeah, phone cameras are replacing compact cameras because they're hiding one inside them! However, it has now become a question of physics, and large lenses getting in lots of light into focus over the sensor, and it being large enough that can catch all of those "scarce" photons, specially for low light photography. And the 1/1.7" sensor is about as large as you can fit inside a phone, which is why they're all moving to having multi-lens cameras and computational photography (with AI, DSP, etc). I now own an olympus mirrorless, and it's a fantastic piece of equipment with a superb sensor (both in size and technology), interchangeable lenses, and the image stabilization system on body gives it the ability to stabilize _any_ lens I use with it (here's a mean look to Nikon and Canon that place IS inside the lenses instead of the body, to charge premium for the feature). Can't see a phone fitting all those features, because they require physical size and or mechanisms taht wouldn't fit in our pockets.

Yuval_Halevi 7y ago

It's simple Once everyone has a camera in their phone buying an extra camera feel unnecessary like the past. A good way for companies like Canon to not fall apart will be by creating complementary products for smartphones to improve the image qualities.

cwal37 7y ago

I actually fell down a small film camera hole recently. I almost never dig out my old DSLR anymore, but I'd always admired Kodak Kodachrome photos[1]. While reading something about the film I saw a reference to fujifilm velvia[2]. Not the same, but also a color reversal film and nice for nature/landscape photography which I enjoy. This led me to purchasing a Canon EOS 3. You can find one for only a couple hundred bucks, they work with EF lenses, are pretty solid in design/construction, and have quite a few features I didn't expect from a film camera that first started production at the tail end of the 90s. Now I take the EOS 3 out specifically and only with a prime 35mm lens. The more methodical way I think about taking pictures is a nice contrast to taking a whole bunch of shots with smartphone or DSLR and then heavily curating afterwards. I just wanted a different feeling from taking photos and it's been quite fulfilling in that respect. Although breaking the habit of looking down at the back of the camera has been quite difficult. [1] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chicagos-rail-yards-1940s/571924/ https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chica... [2] https://www.flickr.com/groups/29949065@N00 https://www.flickr.com/groups/29949065@N00

mauvehaus 7y ago
Those photos from The Atlantic are phenomenal; thank you for the link! I would love to know how he got #14 [0]. Slide film (as you're no doubt aware) has relatively little exposure latitude compared to print film, meaning it's a hell of a trick to get both the inside of the tower and the trains in the yard outside exposed properly. You can see the issue pretty often in real-estate photos. Photos featuring the inside of the house with a window usually have the window way blown out because there's so much more light outside than inside. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chicagos-rail-yards-1940s/571924/#img14 https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chica...
- cwal37 7y ago
  Glad you liked them! They're in the Library of Congress, so you can get high quality digital copies from their website for free[0]. Yeah, the shots are really great and well beyond my personal ability for sure, particularly given the less advanced metering options he would have been working working with. Great learning examples though. [0] https://www.loc.gov/photos/?fa=contributor:delano,+jack%7Clocation:illinois%7Clocation:chicago%7Conline-format:image&sb=date https://www.loc.gov/photos/?fa=contributor:delano,+jack%7Clo...

heavymark 7y ago

Well I think the title means to say point and shoot (built In lens) cameras falling sharply. Interchangeable camera sales are on the rise, which of course makes perfect sense.

lunchables 7y ago
According to the first graph they appear to have peaked in 2012 and dropping ever since: 2011: 16 2012: 20 <--- peak 2013: 17 2014: 14 2015: 13 2016: 12 2017: 12 2018: 4 (annualized rate of 8)
- dougmany 7y ago
  I remember reading about how google searches reflected mood. One example they gave was people search for cameras when they are happy with their life. I wonder if in 2012 people were in a happier place.
  - lunchables 7y ago
    I think 2012 was around the time when smartphone cameras got really, really good. There was a tipping point where people stopped needing point and shoots and it looks like further down the line that might even have impacted DSLR sales, maybe.
    - josephdviviano 7y ago
      You can also see a massive jump leading up to 2012. Right now camera sales are still well above the basal rate established during the 70s, 80s, 90s. The camera isn't dead, it's just not being purchased by people who don't want to learn how to use them.

ubermonkey 7y ago

For LOTS of people who only care about casual snapshots, yeah, the current crop of iPhone and nicer Android cameras are sufficient. But the gap between those cameras and, say, my full-frame Sony is still enormous. If you care about photography, you buy a real camera. It's just that most people don't care about photography.

overcast 7y ago

The best camera is ALWAYS going to be the one you have on you, which is why the camera phone will always win hands down for convenience. However, no amount of magic is going to change physics when it comes to comparing one to a full frame camera. Particularly in low light performance, and anything further than a few feet away from you. I absolutely could not do my job without my D850 or equivalent, in the lighting conditions I'm often in.

jswrenn 7y ago
> Particularly in low light performance, and anything further than a few feet away from you. I am not a professional photographer, but for urbex, I find that my Pixel 2XL has basically replaced my LUMIX DMC-FZ300. Sure, the LUMIX could produce higher-quality low-light images, but shooting on a tripod for a long exposure shot is often impractical or impossible. The Pixel's Night Sight [1] mode is really good. I desperately wish I had a full frame camera with the computational chops of my smartphone! [1] https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark-on-pixel.html https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark...
- overcast 7y ago
  A modern full frame sensor will give you that. But if you're happy with the Pixel, use it!

rb808 7y ago

I've always had DSLRs. My most recent vacation I barely used it and took 99% of all photos with my phone, so much more convenient and the quality is great. The main thing I'd like to work on is getting more video. Videos of people especially are much deeper emotional response, I just wish I took more of my children when they were smaller, and relatives when they were still alive. Hearing someone speak adds something that photo's really dont capture. The main problem with video (apart from getting people to talk on camera) is storing and managing all the data. Its probably too hard for most people, even worse than keeping all the many thousands of photos.

nobrains 7y ago

Does anyone know of a good dedicated full-frame camera, which also has smartphone-camera features, like WiFi (to instantly transfer photos), backup photos (even if not in original quality) to google photos, remotely empty sd-card, instant sharing of photos with friends, etc. I am looking for the above, to not have to "manage" yet another device, and dedicated cameras do need some management, especially when back from a trip, so transfer photos, share photos, empty memory, etc.

eropple 7y ago
I can't think of any serious camera that automatically archives to Google Photos or even sends them to people, but cameras like the Panasonic Lumix series (G9, GH4, GH5) have wifi for both transferring photos and for remote control. I assume their full-frame S1 does as well, though I've never looked at it. (My sideline is video, and three S1's would give me pause.)
- newshophours 7y ago
  I love my Panasonic M43 cameras, but the wifi experience with them is miserable. The android app looks like something from 2010, and performs worse. I've tried it with every permutation of four android phones and three Panasonic bodies (GX85, G85, G95) and every combination performs miserably.
  - eropple 7y ago
    Dunno about the G/GX series, but I use it regularly with my GH4 (my primary camera) and it's just fine for me. My only real complaint is that I can't use it and an HDMI out to a recorder, for some reason.
nelsonic 7y ago
Depends if a flip ("selfie") screen is important to you or not and whether you favour compactness or price. Sony A7 Series (Mirrorless Full Frame) has everything you need/want and much more. Even the first generation body will not let you down. If you have the spare cash, get the 3rd Gen body as it has more advanced autofocus and low-light capabilities. Depending on which program you use on your computer, you can configure it to automatically download the photos from the camera and wipe the SD card when connected via USB cable (wifi is usually quite slow to transfer large files especially video).

holografix 7y ago

You can get a Sony a6600 for a reasonable price given what it does. Photos with a cheap, albeit fast lens, will be vastly superior to an iPhone

mtw 7y ago

I was skeptical about smartphones taking over. There's little though that dedicated cameras can do that smartphones can't. The Huawei P30 Pro, like many others such as Samsung Note 10, have an impressive zoom and low-light. It takes super wide shots. It blurs portraits, similar to expensive portrait lenses. It's also very responsive. And it can stack photos to improve sharpness and textures, a feature that no DSLR or mirrorless can't do currently. I have trouble thinking what dedicated cameras can do currently that smartphones won't do in a couple of years.

patientplatypus 7y ago

The economy is turning. High end cameras are a luxury good and one of the first consumer purchases to take a hit.

acomjean 7y ago

We got a new point and shoot, when my partner lamented that when looking through her pictures the ones take with her phone weren't looking as good as the ones taken with a small point a shoot. Especially when looking on a larger screen. It was true. The extra effort makes better photos, plus the zoom for framing is nice. For the here and now, phones are way more convent and the cameras are quite good.

nradov 7y ago

I hope at least a couple companies will continue making dedicated compact cameras suitable for underwater photography with a waterproof housing. Cell phones don't really work for that use case: we need cameras with mechanical button controls.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

subpixel 7y ago

I bought a $2500 mirrorless aps-c when my kid was born. The images and the video were amazing but I returned it within 30 days b/c there was zero chance I was going to be able to carry it around and have it when I wanted it on hand and ready. So I downgraded to a $1500+ mirrorless aps-c with a single, non-removable lens - my goal was maximum image quality, minimum size. But even that camera is a giant pain and I haven't used it in months. This is saying nothing about the work involved in shooting RAW and converting everything, using a new piece of software you have to buy. When the new iPhone comes out, I'm buying a used XS. If you can't beat em, join em.

criddell 7y ago

> I would be bereft without my Leica SL, and it would limit my ability to create images of a certain type. Leica, at least there is a loyal following of dedicated customers, but ones such as Nikon and Canon, are particularly vulnerable in the near future. I think camera's like Om's Leica are appealing largely for reasons other than the image produced. For the same reasons one might choose to wear an expensive mechanical watch to tell the time, one might choose a Leica for their camera.

graeme 7y ago

Anyone have a recommendation for a small, decent camera, OR one with a good carrying case you can strap to a belt that doesn't look awful? I used such a camera on my travels years back and loved being able to instantly capture any moment in high quality. It was even faster than a smartphone, and it had a decent looking leather case with a magnetic lid. I tried getting one small enough to put in a pocket but I couldn't find one small/good enough. I know carrying one on my belt looks ridiculously, but I'm hoping to make it just passable enough that I could carry it everywhere.

lisper 7y ago
I absolutely love my Panasonic DMC-ZS60. For me it's the perfect blend of features and quality vs weight and volume. It doesn't quite fit in a pocket, but fits comfortably in a neoprene case on my belt. Some sample shots: http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/422.html http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/422.html http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/496.html http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/496.html
zokier 7y ago
RX100 series from Sony is generally pretty well received and definitely matches the "small and decent" criteria.

turc1656 7y ago

My wife takes a LOT of photos. She's not an amateur photographer or anything like that. She's just always wanted to have photos of people (particularly our children), events, etc. for memories. Even she doesn't care too much about the quality boost of photos vs modern smartphones. She used a dedicated camera up until recently. We always had semi-expensive high end point and shoot cameras for their simplicity, ease of use, and transportability. Now that she has the Google Pixel, all bets are off. Not only has she not used the very nice point and shoot we had been using for most photos, but she completely stopped even bringing it anywhere! She absolutely loves the Pixel's portrait mode and HDR features. And it's hard to argue with. They look stunning and you pretty much never have to even change a setting on the phone - nearly every single thing is automatic and they look utterly fantastic. So fantastic that I installed a ported version of the Gcam app to my non-Pixel Android and wow - what an improvement. The camera world is quickly on its way to becoming a hobbyist-only endeavor. I see no reason to buy a standalone camera anymore. On a similar note - does anyone anywhere buy standalone music players anymore? Hell, do they even sell them? I can't imagine all but a few die-hards buying them when every smartphone now comes with significant storage and most have expandable slots as well. And that's for people that even have mp3s. Most just stream everything now (spotify, youtube, etc.).

jimhefferon 7y ago
> does anyone anywhere buy standalone music players anymore? I like it for exercising. Much lighter than my phone and more square than flat, so more compact.

sangd 7y ago

I'm into the photo quality and I often carry a Sony camera, I prefer my RX100 better than an interchangeable one because of the size. But a few months ago I got my Pixel 3a and I am very amazed with its RAW photos. The JPEG ones look good on the phone, but acceptable on a large screen, probably too much processing/filtering. The video quality is decent because it doesn't feel as smooth as an iPhone even though it claims to have IS. The photo RAW is quite surprising, it gives me a lot more detail when editing for a 12MP camera. Overall, there's no good reason to bring a separate camera unless I'm going for a photoshoot.

supernova87a 7y ago

The reason I still bring a DSLR on trips is that the image quality is so much better than any phone's camera. And by image quality, I mean things that you really start to notice if you zoom in or want to print something up, like: -- chromatic aberration -- pixel noise -- resolution (and not just pixel count) You just can't beat a large sensor gathering lots of light for the noise and resolution, and almost any lenses are an improvement over a phone's. Yes, the best camera is the one you have with you. But while that's good enough for photos that are just throwaways, when you have something you really want to capture at high quality, bring the DSLR (or mirrorless) with you.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

simonw 7y ago

I just got back from a four week trip around Madagascar with a Canon DSLR (a pretty basic consumer EOS model but we took some /really/ nice lenses, including a 100-400mm telephoto). One thing I really enjoyed was the duality of having a DSLR with a good zoom combined with a iPhone XS. No need to swap lenses: the iPhone takes great wide angle, landscape and close-up photos while the DSLR covers the all-important lemurs-in-a-tree. Surprisingly one of the things I missed most with the DSLR was Live Photos, which are fantastic for wildlife. My dream DSLR would run Android. I want all of the niceties of modern phone cameras, but with the ability to strap on absurdly good lenses. I'm surprised Canon and Nikon don't seem to have done this yet. Lemur photo: https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nOhNuJ3sX/ https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nOhNuJ3sX/

droithomme 7y ago

Modern phones are digital cameras but not included in these numbers. Article title should perhaps be "sales of digital cameras which don't include critical phone feature are falling sharply", but perhaps that gives it away since they do address this issue further along in the article.

callmeal 7y ago

This is such a lopsided disposable-society view of things. Has anyone considered the fact that perhaps more cameras are not being bought because the market is saturated? Take me for example: I have an Elan 7e, a 40D and a panasonic mirrorless. They all do the things I want to do well. Both the canons have been repaired at least twice (shutter replaced), the panasonic has been holding steady. My sister is still using the Rebel II because that's good enough for her needs. Do businesses really expect growth to never taper off? I suppose if you engineer your products to have a finite life and then fail it could work. The Japanese manufacturers have something to learn from American industry.

paulcole 7y ago

I just don't take or have any interest in photos. Too many hours of interminable family slide nights and standing around in the hot sun waiting for my dad to fiddle with his camera. Never again.

pbuzbee 7y ago

After spending a couple thousand dollars on photography equipment, I've realized that I usually prefer photos taken with my phone. If I photograph the same scene with my phone (Nexus 5X, an old phone!) and my DSLR (Canon 80D, usually with a decent prime), I'll like the one my phone took better. The color and contrast on its photos are much better than on pictures from the DSLR. Do the DSLR photos look better at the pixel level? Sure, but I rarely need that level of detail. Could I edit the DSLR photo to get the same color/contrast? Yes, but that takes a lot of time when you have 500+ photos from a vacation. The DSLR really only wins out if I want to zoom in for the shot. Then the DSLR wins in a landslide. So now my personal rule is: if I don't need to zoom, just use my phone. And it's been nice not having to drag the heavy DSLR around everywhere I go.

_Codemonkeyism 7y ago
(as a hobby photographer) I went to Norway to hike 680km. Agonizing for weeks if I should take my DSLR and lenses. Took only a OnePlus6T with Google camera, Open Camera and PhotoMap. I'm happy with the results and the 2kg less in the backpack.
rconti 7y ago
One thing I've found myself doing is replicating phone pictures with my high-end pocket camera or mirrorless, when traveling. I might take a snap with my cell phone and be like HOLY CRAP that looks amazing.. then do the same shot on my camera, it looks like crap. But when I get home to my 5k display, the phone pic looks like an oil painting compared to the mirrorless or even point and shoot (rx-100) shot. The screen is just so damn bad on every digital camera I've ever owned, that I need the iphone screen to compose and realize how good the shot will be if i take it with a real camera.

gtycomb 7y ago

This Labor day weekend I took my old Nikon D600 DSLR on a visit to a State Forest nearby. Usually I go with no camera, I like to have my hands free to look around while my family takes snaps with iPhones which is enough. However back at home this week we are all still looking at the pictures from the D600 and struck by the picture quality -- the details of how they capture light, interesting compositions on a good standard wide to zoom lens, etc. I'd say that the weight of the camera is not a bother if I have to carry a camera at all.

bt848 7y ago

How many cameras did they think the world would buy? Digital went through a rapid period of technological improvement but it has slowed. My Olympus m43 body is an amazing camera about which I have few complaints. A new camera would need to be radically superior before I would spend the money. Before that I was planning on just keeping my Nikon D70 forever, but it was stolen. My father shot a Canon AE-1 for decades, until film finally became too hard to find. I don't think just being on a treadmill of buying new cameras was common in the film era.

localhost 7y ago

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is how amazingly good the metering is in phones. Perhaps it's the vastly greater compute power available on phones that makes this possible, and I find that my Pixel 2 XL does metering better than any DSLR or P&S camera that I've owned. Tricky lighting situations like shooting partially into sunrise on Haleakala were nailed by my Pixel 2 XL. Another thing is how much better the displays are on phones for proofing photos. My RX100vi's display (my most recent camera) pales in comparison.

ekianjo 7y ago

One of the main issues of the DSLR market (that I follow closely) is that new models tend to be more expensive than previous models in the same category. Compared to about every other field in technology, it feels counter-intuitive: everything should be getting cheaper and better over time, as most components are electronic by nature. I suspect this is another reason why DSLR sales stalled.

Wistar 7y ago

"Can you imagine listening to the stories of old people's photos 50 years from now? How terrible that experience is going to be?" https://youtu.be/uSh5voSUhrs https://youtu.be/uSh5voSUhrs

epx 7y ago

I sold my DSLR because I seldom used it, and mirrorless is the thing of the future. But they are currently too expensive, and you can't even find mirrorless for sale in some markets (e.g. Brazil). But a good camera is irreplaceble, I plan to buy one next year, abroad if necessary. The mirrorless market should have settled a bit till then.

rongenre 7y ago

I'd love to own a full-featured digital camera (and I've bought a bunch over the past couple decades), but unless I enroll in a class to learn to use it well and get in the habit of using it I'm pretty sure it'll collect dust. Maybe my next vacation.

vparikh 7y ago

There are two main reasons for this: 1. 95% of the people use their cameras for output to the web (i.e., instagram, pintrest, etc.) And email links to them, or actually email the picture itself when they share them. In this case, you don't really need a high end camera such as a DSLR or a Mirrorless. That doesn't mean you can't benefit, its just that the reason you are taking the picture isn't worth to learn how to use a camera properly. For these people their crappy cell phone lens based phone is good enough. 2. Has any body looked at the used DSLRs available? Go over to KEH and take a look. You can get a Nikon D300 in excellent condition for less than $300 with a 180 day warranty!!! Want a pro body? You can get a Nikon D3s in excellent condition for $1100 with a 180 day warranty. That D300 just 4 years ago was $1900 and that D3s was going for well over $6000 around the same time. Why on earth would anyone go and buy a new camera these days? The camera companies did this to themselves by releasing a new camera every 12-16 months for the past decade. I predict that those companies that can survive this downturn will have huge success down the road. People will realise how much a real camera offers in quality, capability and options. And then the market will return.

inetsee 7y ago

I have thought for a long time that the best (and most cost effective) way to improve the quality of your pictures is to reduce camera shake. You could spend $1000 or much more on a new camera with a bunch more megapixels, or you could spend $100 or less on a tripod, or a monopod, and get sharper pictures with the camera you have. This advice works for a DSLR or a smartphone.

donniefitz2 7y ago

I think some of this slowdown is due to reaching "peak sensor". Much of the frenzy back in 2007-2012 was due to big advancements in sensor technology, namely, low-light performance. But now, my Fuji X100, which came out in 2011 still shoots great images, even in low light. And my Fuji X-H1 will be very adequate for the next 5-8 years. As camera sensors became better, the need to replace them with the next model diminished. Much of what camera makers are now producing are features on top of already great sensor technology. I don't think most consumers care about these additional features.

vondur 7y ago

I keep thinking that how great would it be if Apple and/or Google could make the software for a nice SLR/Mirroless camera where you can take excellent photos 90% of the time on auto, and still have the ability to go full manual for the other times. Cell phone cameras are good because of the software that runs them. The software on most cameras, not so much.

josephdviviano 7y ago

The thing I find really confusing about this is that people are regularly blowing ~$1000 on smartphones with decent cameras. My phone cost $200 and has a laughable camera. If I spent $800 every 2 years (I suspect the mean replacement rate) on camera equipment I would quickly have a really incredible setup... I don't even need to because for a one-time price of $800 I could get a better setup than the very best smartphone around.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Balanceinfinity 7y ago

It's all about the glass. If you're taking a picture of your latte from 6 inches for display on a camera, it really doesn't matter. But if you want a picture of your son's soccer game that you can show on a TV or laptop, and where you can bring his image up and crop it without loss of resolution....it's all about the glass. Phones will never be able to do real photography at a distance because they won't ever invest in the kind of glass necessary. Nikon has great glass (as does cannon, etc). If you want great glass at a great price - try Lumix. They have a deal with Leica for some of their cameras - great price and great glass. https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/DC-LX100M2.html#start=1&cgid=lumix-point-and-shoot-cameras https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-camcorders/cameras/DC...

Terretta 7y ago
You sure it’s not all about the ratio of photons to sensor size?
- Balanceinfinity 7y ago
  Fair point - yes, but only to a certain extent. "There is no denying that a decent image resolution is quintessential to achieve professional results, but it would be misleading to trust in the resolution as the sole indicator for a camera’s quality." http://www.exclusivearchitecture.com/?page_id=657 http://www.exclusivearchitecture.com/?page_id=657
  - Terretta 7y ago
    Not resolution so much as size of the pits that pick up photons.
x2f10 7y ago
Can you link some example photography captures using the linked camera? I browsed some reviews (first 2-3 that popped up on Google) and I'm not impressed. I feel my iPhone XS produces similar output.

kumarvvr 7y ago

I wish there was a good, cheap, fully programmable / hackable camera. There is a lot of digital capture work that I need to do, that requires a fully controllable camera. For example, I want to build a faster photocopier, using a camera frame, dual camera setup, real-time Image processing unit and a fast laser printer. However, almost all the cameras in the market are either feature deficit (point and shoot cameras that use CHDK, etc) or are in-accessible to me. I would love to use a Nikon DSLR, completely control it, grab pictures in real-time, process and print them. Sadly, no such options now. A decent photocopier costs about 130,000 in India. A Nikon D3000 or equivalent, with an 18-55 lens costs about 30,000. A decent laser printer costs about 14,000. A DIY frame, about 10,000. So with an overall cost of about 60,000 I can build myself a much better and faster photo copier.