Camera stores disappearing

[BTM_Pix]

33 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Let me know if you're in town again. I was in the UK when you were last here getting rained on!

It wasn't much better there !

I'll be back late November for about a week so I'll give you a shout.

[Leica50mm]

I think Jarred at Red has seen the future and it's a smart phone.

[Andrew Reid]

It's clearly going to be a lusted after phone in stand-alone form for the branding and eye catching design alone.

My qualms are with the modularity.

The thing is by the time you've put some decent modules on it and turned it into a cinema camera, it's going to lose some of the advantages of being a phone and you may as well have bought an Epic.

When you put a phone on the back of a big chunky camera, it becomes a screen. Nothing much more than that. A touch screen control panel at best.

The rest is all apps... If they get the apps right, then they should be on their normal cameras any way and not just Hydrogen.

So it remains to be seen whether the entire concept makes sense... I certainly think they will sell a lot of phones... Not sure if the modules will sell as well.

They haven't so far in the normal field of phones.

[OliKMIA]

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I think it's easy to be pessimistic about young people's obsession with phone cameras and snapchat but before that it was television and of the TV generation an awful lot still found the time to become passionate about photography. If anything the abundance of phone cameras should allow more people to discover if they have an interest in it to take it further.

The problem is not the device though, it's the narcissism.

Totally agree about narcissism however the smartphone really hurt the camera industry, thus the camera stores. 10-15 years ago people had to buy at least a compact camera to take photo. Some were moving to DSLR for "quality reason". All this market segment is now lost, eaten by the smartphones which are "good enough" for the majority of soccer moms, respectable dads and teenage travelers.

In the early 2000s the compact market was driven by the transition from film to digital, then came the megapixel war and around 2006-2008 the ridiculous super-zoom war (Panasonic TZ, etc.). There was some marketing incentive to buy new camera and in fact the quality really got better every year. Same for the video, all the dads who bought a camcorder in the 80s-early 2000s have now moved to smartphones. All these people were not particularly creative, their compact camera and camcorder were locked in the Auto mode.

Now that any smartphones can shoot reasonably good high megapixel pic with 2-4x zoom (even if digital) and sharp 4k video + slow mo people don't see why they should buy a compact camera with similar IQ or bother with bulky DSLR.

Add to this the narcissism and rise of social media, the development of online business and concentration of the market (B&H, Amazon, etc.) you have all the ingredient for a dying retail industry: loss of volume, shifting customer' habits, unfair business competition.

[ntblowz]

In our area we still have few cameras stores but yeah most mall camera shops is closed or converted to photo print shops. Though we have 1 brand of camera shop that expanding since that one is targeted mainly toward video people like us.

[dbp]

It's funny, I was just on a few small hikes today with friends, and I was thinking about how nice it was to see a plethora of DSLRs out and about. But now I realized that it was all middle aged and up folks. 

It's a shame. I have nothing against Ipads/notebooks/phones, but I was afraid that the lower sales would drive up the cost and slow the development of the higher end stuff. I still drag a GH4 and/or bmpcc on any treks, whereas all my friends just take phones. I don't see either of those as particularly bulky or annoying, but I know I'm in the minority amongst regular non tech nerd folks.

It is what it is, I suppose.

[Arikhan]

About 4 weeks ago I talked a guy owning a camera store and a small photo studio. He told me, he doesn't close his store <ONLY because his family owns the building and he doesn't want to rent the store to other people. But in fact, he should close, because it doesn't pay at all. He is very friendly and knowledgeable, but most nowadays customers don't honor this. (A small town with about 25.000 residents 30km far from Frankfurt/Germany)

Most people try to abuse his store as a free camera test location: They come in, put an own card in a camera, shoot a little bit around and go home...They never return to buy, probably they buy online for much cheaper...To stop this mess, he started to charge 50 Euros for testing and consulting (for about 30-45 minutes) - when people buy the tested gear/camera in his store, he refunds this fee...After starting this, there are about TWO people per week who want to test and get some advice, he said...He is glad having stopped the "test-mania", cheapo-parasites stealing his time at his costs...

[Andrew Reid]

I think people would happily pay a little for an hour with all sorts of used test gear to play with in a special room.

It would be much nicer than feeling guilty wasting the shop owner's time and having just 5 minutes with the next customer breathing down their neck.

The larger retailers can usually match Amazon prices, sadly the smaller ones don't seem to be able to, so maybe they are better trading in used goods and rarities instead.

PS ntblowz I had to delete your signature as it messed up the readability of the forum having a big long quote randomly appearing in threads. Sorry about that. Feel free to put something else in there that's smaller.

[eleison]

The enthusiastic camera market is following the same trajectory as the high-end audio market (https://forum.audiogon.com/discussions/is-high-end-audio-dying-if-not-dead-already).

The only thing the camera market has against the cellphone behemoth is "physics".  You can only get so much quality from a tiny, weeny, image sensor on a cell phone camera.  If I take a picture in a bar/pub, the difference between a cell and camera is noticeable - even to an ordinary, random person who has no interest in cameras.  However, once cell phones are as good as cameras in that low light environment, say good bye to the enthusiastic camera market as we know it.  I'm not sure if cell phone sensors WILL ever get that good in our lifetimes, but technology does move very fast.  I'm not counting out the possibility.  The cell phone can already create a shallow DOF effect that is good enough for most people.

No doubt though, cameras will be more niche....  less and less mainstream as the years go by... and MORE EXPENSIVE (damn you SONY!!!).  To survive, camera manufactures will need to innovate.  150+ megapixel cameras (infinity zooming, and cropping :-), cameras that turn night time into day (like the a7s, but EVEN better).  500fps, etc... The use case for the regular camera person is almost satisfied by the cell phone.  New use cases must be created for those with deep pockets.  If no new use cases are found, than yes,the  enthusiastic camera market follow the high-end audio market with the same disastrous result. 

Actually, if you think about it. It wouldn't really be "disastrous".  Having most of our imaging and video needs met by a small device that we carried wherever we go.. that would be pretty cool. 

[Arikhan]

@Andrew Reid

Quote

I think people would happily pay a little for an hour with all sorts of used test gear to play with in a special room.

That's it! We spend a substantial amount of money on our gear, increasing manufacturers profits - many times a 5 or 6 figures amount...But very often buyers don't honor the work of people doing quite much for the community/society like small camera sellers, serious reviewers, small software manufacturers, LUT- & plugin artists, service guys, etc. Throwing thousands of dollars in voracious manufacturers throats for very often overprized devices seems to be OK...But paying a small amount of extra money for a useful and personal service/extra work? With this most people seem to be stingy...

We should honor working and useful people and stop paying manufacturers arrogance and excessive steroid consumption of their PR and marketing division...

[dbp]

1 hour ago, eleison said:

 

Actually, if you think about it. It wouldn't really be "disastrous".  Having most of our imaging and video needs met by a small device that we carried wherever we go.. that would be pretty cool. 

It would be extremely cool. As it stands, the only thing I see phones having the advantage on is size and weight. I never want to use mine cause it's still cumbersome compared to my dedicated camera. You are either stick with the whims of the phone's auto setting, or fiddling with an awkward touch screen to change anything, where as a camera has multiple buttons to change settings in an instant. It becomes second nature after a while. For that reason alone, even if phone quality was identical, I'd still bring my camera and deal with the size disadvantage for the ergonomic advantage.

My wife has the new iphone that shoots raw. That definitely changes the picture a bit. But it's still a bit awkward to use.

For video, it's even worse. 

[Mattias Burling]

The cm1 feels nice in the hand. They should put two small, flush program wheels like on the Leica T.

Its big for a smartphone but not unbearable.

 

[tugela]

On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 2:14 AM, Arikhan said:

@Andrew Reid

My generation (16-20 years old) has ZERO interest in using proper video/photo cameras. ZERO...All people use extensively their smartphones, they want it "as simple as possible" and aim to post as fast as possible the results on social media. Facebook is for many young people BS, Instagram and SnapChat are nowadays king...An own website/blog? Muahaha....It has to be quick and dirty...NO EFFORTS (saving for buy, handling, shooting, editing, education, etc.), please...

"Winning back smartphone users"? This would be really hard (and costly) to do, as young users are generally lazy and don't want to spend any time with fiddling and properly operating a camera. The formula simply is: "As simple and automated as possible to shoot and share".

And never forget the costs: Most of my colleagues spend 30-50 EUR / month for "all net flat" mobile calling/internet fees, including a smartphone usage for 2 years....So no cash needed to buy a smartphone. This business model for "selling" smartphones is impossible to do for a camera manufacturer.

In my school there are about 1.500 scholars. I know very many people, but only FOUR scholars owning/operating a DSLR/MILC camera.

Camera stores?

It's hard for them (not for the big electronic discounters, but for smaller, specialized camera stores)...Generally diminished camera sales, very small margins and customers expecting top advice, but then going home and ordering online for cheapest price...For 95% of stores it's even impossible to get in the costs for rental...

The people who use cell phones today previously used small compacts to take pictures, that has nothing to do with higher end cameras, which are largely unaffected by cellphones. What does affect higher end cameras however is the overall maturation of camera ability. Cameras today are for the most part close to optimal performance, so new iterations offer minimal improvement over models a few years old. As a result the replacement cycle has become (and is becoming even more so) longer. Longer replacement cycles = fewer annual sales = harder for retailers to make net revenue selling them = placing cameras in less optimal locations or shuttering the operation altogether. As the trend continues the chilling effect on sales will become deeper and deeper.

Computers are in much the same boat. With every generation the improvements are less and less compelling, which means the effective life of the hardware you own is extended.

[noone]

3 hours ago, tugela said:

The people who use cell phones today previously used small compacts to take pictures, that has nothing to do with higher end cameras, which are largely unaffected by cellphones. What does affect higher end cameras however is the overall maturation of camera ability. Cameras today are for the most part close to optimal performance, so new iterations offer minimal improvement over models a few years old. As a result the replacement cycle has become (and is becoming even more so) longer. Longer replacement cycles = fewer annual sales = harder for retailers to make net revenue selling them = placing cameras in less optimal locations or shuttering the operation altogether. As the trend continues the chilling effect on sales will become deeper and deeper.

Computers are in much the same boat. With every generation the improvements are less and less compelling, which means the effective life of the hardware you own is extended.

I am not so sure about that as I see more and more Pro photographers and former pros uploading phone pics to Instagram and Face Book.

There are also a LOT more people taking photos now who would not have previously too.      People who would never have purchased a stand alone camera that will use the one that comes with their phone.

[Arikhan]

Flushed of victory of digital cameras at the beginning of the new millenium, the leading camera manufacturers refused years ago to adapt and none of them could ever anticipate the smartphone revolution. Not even a mobile manufacturer like Nokia could know years ago, that they will be destroyed by smartphones. The smartphones are in some way a kind of electronic intifada, a complete demolition of the classical camera business. It might sound very strange, but the electronic industry completely destroyed the camera manufacturers.

Now it's just a matter of time till drawing the curtain over some camera manufacturers. Factually, the camera business is dead...Most (not all) manufacturers can only survive by  cross-subsidization of camera business through their successful divisions.

[cantsin]

The problem really is that DSLR and even mirrorless cameras are still being designed to appeal to photographers coming from analog photography, using the same mode dials as on analog cameras, the same nomenclature (such as ASA/ISO instead of gain etc.)

A few months ago, a friend of mine decided to upgrade from her smartphone camera to a 'real' camera because she was taking a lot of indoor photographs without flash and wasn't satisfied with the noisy images she got from her phone. Upon my and somebody else's recommendation, she bought an LX100. Although she knows more about photography than most people (being familiar with shutter speed, aperture and ISO) and generally tech-savvy, most buttons and the camera menu were completely cryptic to her, so I ended up spending half an hour to explain everything. Aside from the fact, to repeat myself, that neither the LX100 nor any other camera has an upload button for pictures to Instagram, Facebook or other social media.

It's like as if today's TV sets would still require UHF and VHF channel tuning from you and wouldn't allow you to watch Netflix. 

Unless usability and user interface design (+ network functions) of cameras catch up with the year 2017, the camera industry will destroy itself. (Just like most of the car industry is now in the course of destroying itself by not switching to electrical cars, but rather manipulating firmware to fake low gas emissions.)

[Mattias Burling]

I know big popular reviewers aren't very liked by many here (I like them). But Steve did touch base on alot of what we are talking about in this thread.

And I definitely agree with the "buy with your heart" philosophy.

 

[Arikhan]

@Mattias Burling

Quote

I know big popular reviewers aren't very liked by many here (I like them)

There is a lot of envy and hate today out there. Most pixel whores and armchair experts simply don't honor others people WORK. Filming / photographing is not only fun, it's some work too. And most people working quite hard (as many SERIOUS reviewers/filmers/photographers do) get rewarded: personal satisfaction, public appreciation, financial compensation, etc. Bored pixel peepers don't like others people success, because - in fact - they hate themselves for just hanging around and/or acting completely useless....

We don't have to agree with all the conclusions or methodology of every reviewer, but we should respect his/her efforts and work, considering that most of them offer us considerable informations FOR FREE...

[Mattias Burling]

6 minutes ago, Arikhan said:

@Mattias Burling

There is a lot of envy and hate today out there. Most pixel whores and armchair experts simply don't honor others people WORK. Filming / photographing is not only fun, it's some work too. And most people working quite hard (as many SERIOUS reviewers/filmers/photographers do) get rewarded: personal satisfaction, public appreciation, financial compensation, etc. Bored pixel peepers don't like others people success, because - in fact - they hate themselves for just hanging around and/or acting completely useless....

We don't have to agree with all the conclusions or methodology of every reviewer, but we should respect his/her efforts and work, considering that most of them offer us considerable informations FOR FREE...

This.

You splendidly put my thoughts into writing. 

[tugela]

20 hours ago, noone said:

I am not so sure about that as I see more and more Pro photographers and former pros uploading phone pics to Instagram and Face Book.

There are also a LOT more people taking photos now who would not have previously too.      People who would never have purchased a stand alone camera that will use the one that comes with their phone.

Even pros carried small pocketable cameras when not working, so nothing has changed in that respect. All that has happened is those small pocketable cameras can now be used as cell phones. That is what has really happened, not the other way around.

People like to say that cell phones have taken over the camera market, but you could equally well say the reverse, that cameras have taken over the cell phone market. Just because the cameras in question are being made by companies other than the traditional manufacturers does not make it less true.

This is the problem when people put blinkers on, they get so stuck in conventional wisdom that they don't see what is really going on. In reality not a whole lot has changed, except that many more people take pictures now than in the old days, and to those who wear blinkers it seems to them that demographics have changed and/or that something has been "lost", when nothing is further from the truth.