# What's Behind the Camera Market Collapse



## cgw

Lots to unpack here:

Real Reasons Why The Camera Market Is Shrinking ~ ROBIN WONG


----------



## jcdeboever

Yes sir and he covers it. Everyone is taking images. The elite are making them. He doesn't cover the elite but he makes his point with the professional.


----------



## Derrel

I read it. I think he is right in many ways.


----------



## AQS

Indeed, it's all a bit depressing.


----------



## Soocom1

I agree but only to a point. 

In all seriousness, photography has not stopped evolving. Sorry to digress from the narrative, but they said the same thing about the US patent office needing to be closed because all things to ever been invented had been so.  Even if it was a parody joke in 1899, it still means that there is the thought that many do not see a future. 

In reality I have had discussions with various folks on many different levels and photography is not far from a huge shot int he arm. 
Simi or psudo 3D photography-holography is in development. 
The future of 3D holograms comes into focus

That is one point. 
3D Scanning: Understanding the Differences In LIDAR, Photogrammetry and Infrared Techniques

Though more geared to the engineering world, its the infancy of the industry. it will evolve. 

Refractive 3d photography and other points including the use of LiDar incorporated together is the future. its imply is being birthed at this point. 
6 dreamy examples of refraction photography | Creative Bloq

BTW, why am I linking these links together? Because though not specifically linked as a whole, they are the aggregate of the future technology.

As for social media, yes there is that. Along with social media making us stupiderer.  
When the fad of social media runs its course (and it will) our IQ will start the long process of upward mobility.


----------



## smoke665

As @Soocom1 says above I agree with a lot of what he says but take issue with photography not evolving. How we currently take and view photography might go away, but it will be replaced by something even better. Holograms, 3D renderings, AI that can anticipate what we want to see and show it, all of these are as foreign to us now as the digital sensor was to film photographers. For thousands of years humans have been preserving memories in one form or another, and is not likely to change.

One thing he doesn't mention is the cell phone evolution. Most of the people who at one time would have been customers for low to moderately priced DLSRs have cell phones that will do everything they want. Couple that with the price of a modern cell phone and they just don't have money left over to spend on something that's a duplication at best of what they're holding in their hand.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

I've written this before, but new people probably missed it:

I agree that the camera market has been shrinking, but I don't know how much.  A part of the reason I am not in panic mode is because it might not be as bad as we are reading.  All the respected reports are based on CIPA numbers.  This is what I wrote about that:

CIPA numbers are based on the JAPANESE camera manufacturers.  They do not include GoPro, nor BlackMagic, not sure about Leica, but I think Leica is also missing, nor any of the pro video camera makers (what Hollywood really uses), nor Samyang in Korea, nor ANY of the Chinese lens manufacturers, nor any of the Chinese made Action Camera makers (like Yi Technology).

So how much has the camera market shrunk and how much has just shifted?  I don't know.  I do think that maybe the Japanese camera makers need to be more "competitive" though.


----------



## weepete

Soocom1 said:


> That is one point.
> 3D Scanning: Understanding the Differences In LIDAR, Photogrammetry and Infrared Techniques
> 
> Though more geared to the engineering world, its the infancy of the industry. it will evolve.



LIDAR is fantastic from what I've seen. I'm starting to experiment with photogrammetry at my work (as my own wee side project which shows a lot of promise but I'm not sure the endpoint is more than something cool at the moment. At least until we get interactive holographic displays.


----------



## Derrel

I thought his writing with regard to how photography has turned from outwardly finding Beauty and Artistry in the world and has shifted to me, me, me and selfie culture in this age of social media was something that I have not heard before. If I look at Instagram today I see much more emphasis on the me culture than I used to. When I first joined Instagram back in 2012 it was to see cool photography. In the intervening years it has become much more a pretend lifestyle showcase, and less of a photographic showcase. Much more selfie stuff, hardly any serious photography on the part of 95% of people.

I can see the change in photography. There is a lot more effort directed to use photography to document one's own carefully-curated (pretend) lifestyle, and much less traditional photographic effort at showing others the world. Since Instagram has now become the de facto way to display one's photographic efforts, I think the platform has discouraged many casual users from wanting to partake in Instagram as a way to Showcase their photography oh, and I think that this has also been why there has been a decline in interest  in buying a camera  and doing photography. In fact over the last year or so Instagram has become a huge advertising platform and I find it much less satisfying and more filled with artifice and fake BS stories and with way too many advertisements from Healthcare and insurance companies, as well as companies selling their crap.


----------



## Sharpshooterr

cgw said:


> Lots to unpack here:
> 
> Real Reasons Why The Camera Market Is Shrinking ~ ROBIN WONG



lots to unpack?? There’s nothing to unpack! Most of us unpacked those same opinions decades ago. 
Today’s cell phone is just yesterday’s Instamatic. For a time it looked like the wedding photographer was gonna become extinct since you arrived at a wedding and each table had a disposable 110 that was passed around the table. 
He thinks camera tech has plateaued? Shirley he’s jesting, LoL!? About every 50 years there’s a new photo revolution, in fact they’re accelerating. 
people that want entry level dslr are NOT buying iPhones for photography. I have an iPhone X and believe me, it’s NOT a camera!
The question lately has never been whether photography is dying but only if dslr is being taken over by ML. 
Go to Costco and Best Buy and ask them if IL cameras are dead?  
I mean cameras do 4K video now! Just a few years ago you had to be deep in the cine scene to have access to 4K! 
Just 15 years ago I was trying to transition from film to digital. so I bought a little piece of crap that had 3.2 mp. Now just 15 years later I can not only shoot 4K video but I can do it from a miniature helicopter if I want but I can augment that story with my 50mp camera!!! Imagine what Mathew Brady could have done with this stuff!?
I don’t think that shooting weddings with 10 year old gear is any indication of the state of the photography industry. How many guys you think are gonna be at the Olympics shooting with a D700 just because it still works? And why not if it’s good enough for a wedding in Indonesia??
That’s as far as I got before I fell asleep!!
He shoulda used statistics, like Bloomberg did with Nikon, they can be tweaked better and the numbers don’t lie!!! LoL 
SS


----------



## Braineack

What collaspe?


----------



## Sharpshooterr

Braineack said:


> What collaspe?



For some, the sky has been falling their entire lives!
For others, the sky has always been the limit!!
There are doers and there are followers!!!
I think he was WRONG way more than he was right! 
SS


----------



## SquarePeg

Derrel said:


> I thought his writing with regard to how photography has turned from outwardly finding Beauty and Artistry in the world and has shifted to me, me, me and selfie culture in this age of social media was something that I have not heard before. If I look at Instagram today I see much more emphasis on the me culture than I used to. When I first joined Instagram back in 2012 it was to see cool photography. In the intervening years it has become much more a pretend lifestyle showcase, and less of a photographic showcase. Much more selfie stuff, hardly any serious photography on the part of 95% of people.
> 
> I can see the change in photography. There is a lot more effort directed to use photography to document one's own carefully-curated (pretend) lifestyle, and much less traditional photographic effort at showing others the world. Since Instagram has now become the de facto way to display one's photographic efforts, I think the platform has discouraged many casual users from wanting to partake in Instagram as a way to Showcase their photography oh, and I think that this has also been why there has been a decline in interest  in buying a camera  and doing photography. In fact over the last year or so Instagram has become a huge advertising platform and I find it much less satisfying and more filled with artifice and fake BS stories and with way too many advertisements from Healthcare and insurance companies, as well as companies selling their crap.



Nothing is more annoying than the trend of the photographer including themselves in the shot.  A beautiful shot of a lake/mountain/meadow ruined by the lone figure looking contemplatively out at it.  So overdone.


----------



## Braineack

So after actually reading, in terms of a shrinking market, I only semi-agree with #1 -- that most photographers aren't going out and buying a new camera every release --  however, this has always been a problem.  His other point is there is no development left.  Sorry, but they must live under rocks Malaysia.

I absolutely 100% hands-down _*disagree *_with #2. I'd agree photography and video is more popular than ever.  Interest is at an all time high.

Point #3. His analysis concludes most people don't need a real camera for social media, however, I see it over and over again, where people want to "step up" their game and eventually invest in real equipment.  Go find any celebrity's Instagram -- take all the Kardashians for example -- those aren't cell phone images they are posting.  Most of the cats I follow on Instagram are now posting images created with DSLRs and lighting.  While yes, cell phone apps are now trying to mimic the optics of real cameras, and while that may suffice for some, for others it's only leading them toward the camera market.

#4 isn't even worth talking about.


The entire premise is that since camera sales are slumping, so is interesting in photography, but I reject that.

Camera manufacturers are slow to change to what the market wants -- Nikon and Canon are still pumping out the same exact camera year after year with minuscule improvements.

Take the D780, it's going to be the same thing, but with components from other cameras stuffed into it, someone with a D750 isn't necessarily going to instantly upgrade.

Camera are also still crazy F'ing expensive -- so there's a huge barrier for a new consumer to break into the market. AND why would someone with a D750 spend ~$2200 to buy a D780?

Sony is doing a much better job adapting to the new market, building cameras designed for today's shooter, not the shooters of 20 years ago.  However, they still continually put out new models of each product line every year or so, then continue to sell the old model, and INCREASE the price of the newer model.  See the A6000 product line for an example of this.  They still sell new today the: a5100, a6000 [2014], a6400, a6100, and a6600.

But these big dogs are still having trouble not designing to legacy.  They still can't create an easy-to-use interface or an ergonomic body, and still can't fight tried old marketing gimmicks.  Take the Sony G7x miii and Sony G5x mii for example -- they are essentially the same camera, but the G5x has a pop-up viewfinder and different lens, and the G7x has a microphone port.  Just make one camera.

I have a feeling, if a company started selling decent cameras at a greatly reduced price, that are as easy-to-use as a cell phone, that produce easy-to-share images that look good without editing, we'd see a HUGE jump in sales.

I know a lot of people, personally, that buy a Canon Rebel or Nikon D3xxx, have trouble taking pictures with it, then don't get better results than a cell phone, and give it up.


----------



## SquarePeg

I agree with the brain that social media has increased the interest in photography.  People see these amazing photos and when they eventually realize they can’t get that shot with a cell phone many of them start researching “real” cameras.  What percentage of them convert to hobbyists or pros? probably similar to the percentage of those who had their interest peaked by print media back in the day and followed up with camera purchases.  We all had that one uncle.  Hell some of you ARE that one uncle! Or in my case Aunt.  

However the huge volume of people using social media makes that percentage equal a much larger number of  converts today than in the past.


----------



## TWX

Braineack said:


> But these big dogs are still having trouble not designing to legacy.  They still can't create an easy-to-use interface or an ergonomic body, and still can't fight tried old marketing gimmicks.  Take the Sony G7x miii and Sony G5x mii for example -- they are essentially the same camera, but the G5x has a pop-up viewfinder and different lens, and the G7x has a microphone port.  Just make one camera.



I assume that you mean Canon, not Sony.

That one is a bit of a head-scratcher.  The two are so similar that their few differences don't really make a whole lot of sense.  Perhaps the G5X-II was made more like the G7X series in order to differentiate it from the G1X-III, which the original G5X shared a striking physical similarity to as far as packaging goes, but to me it would seem that it makes more sense to have two cameras with substantially different internal specifications (APS-C vs 1") in similar bodies, than to have two cameras with nearly indentical internal specifications in similar bodies.

Maybe their licensing agreement for Sony sensors requires them to build so many camera bodies based on that sensor?  I suppose another possibility is they're trying to keep costs down by building one camera more specfically for video/vlogging, and the other more specifically for photography, but how much more money would it really cost to put a microphone port and longer zoom lens onto the camera body with the popup viewfinder?

I'm sort of hoping that a successor to the G1X-III ends up with the same sensor that the 90D and M6-II have, and that they step-up their lens more than the 15-45mm that's almost the same specs as the 15-45mm kit lens on the EOS-M line.  If the 15-45mm is basically the mirrorless-equivalent to the 18-55mm these days, I'd like to see an equivalent to the 17-55mm f/2.8, both in a small-packaged mirrorless lens and in a point-and-shoot.  Such a camera would make for a wonderful street photography and travel camera.  Unfortunately they may feel it would eat into their DSLR and Mirrorless sales, and given the extremely high price of the G1X-III, it wouldn't surprise me if they feel similarly about the current model as well.


----------



## TWX

SquarePeg said:


> I agree with the brain that social media has increased the interest in photography.  People see these amazing photos and when they eventually realize they can’t get that shot with a cell phone many of them start researching “real” cameras.  What percentage of them convert to hobbyists or pros? probably similar to the percentage of those who had their interest peaked by print media back in the day and followed up with camera purchases.  We all had that one uncle.  Hell some of you ARE that one uncle! Or in my case Aunt.
> 
> However the huge volume of people using social media makes that percentage equal a much larger number of  converts today than in the past.


Social media hasn't increased the interest in photography, it has increased interest in showing-off one's lifestyle, of which photography and videography are necessary components.

As a result, _some_ people will enter into the wider world of photography, even if only to improve the quality of the appearance of what they're trying to present, and might even find the hobby fun enough to pursue for more than just showing-off.  I suspect that most others will simply see it as the necessary tool for the job at hand, rather than as something to pursue for its own sake.


----------



## SquarePeg

TWX said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the brain that social media has increased the interest in photography.  People see these amazing photos and when they eventually realize they can’t get that shot with a cell phone many of them start researching “real” cameras.  What percentage of them convert to hobbyists or pros? probably similar to the percentage of those who had their interest peaked by print media back in the day and followed up with camera purchases.  We all had that one uncle.  Hell some of you ARE that one uncle! Or in my case Aunt.
> 
> However the huge volume of people using social media makes that percentage equal a much larger number of  converts today than in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Social media hasn't increased the interest in photography, it has increased interest in showing-off one's lifestyle, of which photography and videography are necessary components.
> 
> As a result, _some_ people will enter into the wider world of photography, even if only to improve the quality of the appearance of what they're trying to present, and might even find the hobby fun enough to pursue for more than just showing-off.  I suspect that most others will simply see it as the necessary tool for the job at hand, rather than as something to pursue for its own sake.
Click to expand...


There has always been a “show off” aspect to photography.  Isn’t that the point of the photo, for it to be seen?

I disagree, however, with your lumping everyone who uses social media into one bucket.  Not everyone who uses it is just trying to show off their lifestyle.  It’s a very useful tool for keeping in touch with relatives and friends, sharing information, crowd sourcing, community building, providing support groups etc. Photographers use it to build a brand, sell work, find customers, find inspiration, share ideas and instruction...

I don’t think social media is flawless by any means but I am continually surprised by people demonizing it.  You get out of it what you put in.  If you don’t like the Kardashians (which I don’t) then don’t follow them.  Don’t like “influencers”?  Don’t let them influence you. Don’t like bloggers/vloggers?  It’s not required reading/viewing.


----------



## Braineack

TWX said:


> Unfortunately they may feel it would eat into their DSLR and Mirrorless sales, and given the extremely high price of the G1X-III, it wouldn't surprise me if they feel similarly about the current model as well.



The G1x needs a tilt only screen, the swivel is a detriment, and it needs a 24-120mm equiv. lens.   The current sensor IMHO is very decent.



Regardless, the market is absolutely FLOODED with cameras today. And most with tons of compromises.


----------



## TWX

Braineack said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately they may feel it would eat into their DSLR and Mirrorless sales, and given the extremely high price of the G1X-III, it wouldn't surprise me if they feel similarly about the current model as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The G1x needs a tilt only screen, the swivel is a detriment, and it needs a 24-120mm equiv. lens.   The current sensor IMHO is very decent.
Click to expand...


I suspect they'd throw-in the new sensor along with any other improvements though.  Not sure they could get such a long lens to collapse-down small enough on a pocket camera (already assuming a very loose definition of "pocket") but if they can at least keep kit-upgrade level zoom while getting a much wider aperture then that would really be something.



Braineack said:


> Regardless, the market is absolutely FLOODED with cameras today. And most with tons of compromises.



Yeah.  Dad's Coolpix died right as we started looking at a camera for my wife, so I was looking at everything from 1/2.3  up to APS-C, and was not limiting my search on pocket cameras to just Canon.  Dad solved it for me, he found a good deal on a new-old-stock Canon SX710HS and I found a used but clean M100 with 15.45mm lens for $270 or therabouts, but I'd spent a fair amount of time looking at the Sony 1" sensor cameras, both the Sony-native and the Canons using Sony's parts.  I was leaning towards some revision of the G7X, possibly for both, or a G9x for Dad and a G7x for my wife.  The idea of a G1X-III or a successor would more be a pocket camera for me, but admittedly that's a lot of money.

Best Buy had a G5X first-gen in store for sale, it had been the demo unit.  Unfortunately they no longer had the box, battery, charger, etc, so I would have had to buy it as-is and then track down the battery etc, which for $400+ was an annoying prospect.


----------



## Soocom1

Like the Federal Reserve, Rockefeller and Jeckyll Island... They stole you money 100 years ago. 

Minolta is out of photography buisness...


What are you going to do about it?


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Soocom1 said:


> . . .
> Minolta is out of photography business...
> 
> What are you going to do about it?



Not exactly.  Minolta was bought up by Sony and the product line continued under the Sony name.  Sony still makes bodies and lenses compatible with the mount that Minolta developed (now called the "A-mount") though they have mainly been replaced by the "E-mount" series products.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Ok, all the major players have laid down their cards for the first quarter of 2020.  As I have been writing (in another topic), I think that there is a lot of "Olympics" influence in there current product line -- both in the amateur field (lots of cropped sensor stuff) and for the Pros (mainly smoother, faster, more seamless workflow).  The latest two "big dogs" (Canon and Nikon) have developed better video capabilities.  Actually, I doubt whether those abilities help much.  I don't think sports photographers would be the type to be interested in mixing still and video work.  Ok, I'll put it more bluntly, if you are a Pro sports still picture taker, then starting to roll some video is a just enough confusion to make you miss "the big shot".  It is not something that sounds like a good idea.  But I guess they rightfully have learned that missing what potential customers think are "key features" unnecessarily will just land them in a bad place.  Anyway, we'll see what sells. . . .


----------



## Soocom1

VidThreeNorth said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .
> Minolta is out of photography business...
> 
> What are you going to do about it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly.  Minolta was bought up by Sony and the product line continued under the Sony name.  Sony still makes bodies and lenses compatible with the mount that Minolta developed (now called the "A-mount") though they have mainly been replaced by the "E-mount" series products.
Click to expand...

Actually when Konica Minolta sold out the patent rights, it became the exclusive property of Sony Electronics (Sonī Kabushiki Kaisha,) and therefor are NOT Minolta, nor Konica. 

The use of the legacy products are there for marketing reasons alone.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Soocom1 said:


> The use of the legacy products are there for marketing reasons alone.



So what's the difference?


----------



## malling

Derrel said:


> I thought his writing with regard to how photography has turned from outwardly finding Beauty and Artistry in the world and has shifted to me, me, me and selfie culture in this age of social media was something that I have not heard before. If I look at Instagram today I see much more emphasis on the me culture than I used to. When I first joined Instagram back in 2012 it was to see cool photography. In the intervening years it has become much more a pretend lifestyle showcase, and less of a photographic showcase. Much more selfie stuff, hardly any serious photography on the part of 95% of people.
> 
> I can see the change in photography. There is a lot more effort directed to use photography to document one's own carefully-curated (pretend) lifestyle, and much less traditional photographic effort at showing others the world. Since Instagram has now become the de facto way to display one's photographic efforts, I think the platform has discouraged many casual users from wanting to partake in Instagram as a way to Showcase their photography oh, and I think that this has also been why there has been a decline in interest  in buying a camera  and doing photography. In fact over the last year or so Instagram has become a huge advertising platform and I find it much less satisfying and more filled with artifice and fake BS stories and with way too many advertisements from Healthcare and insurance companies, as well as companies selling their crap.



Theres are so many users on Instagram, so it’s kinda obvious that the majority of pictures taken is made by the same segment that used to own point and shoot before the invention of smartphones.

But Instagram like many other platforms uses algorithms, so what you follow and search for, is what you see. I don’t see allot of the so called see me, see me posts but mostly photos taken with dSLR, Mirrorless either by happy amateur, pros or part time and the picture is quite good. 

But to be honest the pictures taken to day is vastly better then in the point and shoot age! Even if we don’t like the self centred version. you can see allot of them have been taken with care and with a quality you hardly ever encounter before, due to the fact that they know others are following them. 

Even in the age of point and shoot this where the pictures people took, we just didn’t notice before, because it where not on a platform. Now it has become more than obvious what it is people take pictures of and of what quality. 

There has never been taken so many pictures. So the camera market haven’t died as such, it has just evolved into something else, this is seen in the smartphone market as well as other gadgets. the interest has probably never been bigger, photography has never had such a broad audience or been on equal display as it is today. 

However the changes have had a damaging impact on the professional part of it, business has shot down, photographers can’t make a living of it and now many have a supplemental income and dSLR manufacturers are having a hard times, but they can only thank themselves for it. If they had been less conservative, they would have corporate with smartphone manufacturers from the beginning and supplied all the necessary part, those securing a healthy camera business. 

however sad that is, it’s just how development works, what where relevant once isn’t anymore. And if you’re not awake then at one point you become irrelevant.

But Nikon and Canon is just making a Nokia, a dominant force that where taking things for granted, now just like Nokia they pay the price.

Sony show that you can grow, that you can make a healthy profit. So it’s also about doing it right.

And doing it right also refer to keeping costs down. You don’t do that by having a huge catalog where allot of it is just collecting dust, by having multiple mounts. It’s no coincidence Sony is doing so well.


----------



## malling

TWX said:


> SquarePeg said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the brain that social media has increased the interest in photography.  People see these amazing photos and when they eventually realize they can’t get that shot with a cell phone many of them start researching “real” cameras.  What percentage of them convert to hobbyists or pros? probably similar to the percentage of those who had their interest peaked by print media back in the day and followed up with camera purchases.  We all had that one uncle.  Hell some of you ARE that one uncle! Or in my case Aunt.
> 
> However the huge volume of people using social media makes that percentage equal a much larger number of  converts today than in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> Social media hasn't increased the interest in photography, it has increased interest in showing-off one's lifestyle, of which photography and videography are necessary components.
> 
> As a result, _some_ people will enter into the wider world of photography, even if only to improve the quality of the appearance of what they're trying to present, and might even find the hobby fun enough to pursue for more than just showing-off.  I suspect that most others will simply see it as the necessary tool for the job at hand, rather than as something to pursue for its own sake.
Click to expand...


Isn’t that the point of photography, to showcase, document or tell something. 

The best photos has always been those that had something to tell, a technically beautiful photo isn’t necessarily very interesting if it doesn’t showcase, document or tell a story. 

That has always been the essence of Photography, to showcase a story. 

What pictures do you remember the most? one on the snowy mountain hills with a night sky or the one where crying naked kids runs scared in front of troops! The first one might be technically superior, but it’s the latter that is remembered. 

Photography is mostly relevant because it is excellent to tell a story! Not many would have found it interesting if it where just pictures of snowy hills.


----------



## Soocom1

VidThreeNorth said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of the legacy products are there for marketing reasons alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what's the difference?
Click to expand...

legally speaking they are Sony products. NOT Minolta. 

Its akin to using third party parts in a Chevy. They fit and work perfectly, but are not made by the manufacturer. 
There is no mystery here.


----------



## Grandpa Ron

While I agree with what cgw says, one cannot discount the impact of cell phones.

I have 20, yes 20 old film camera that were given to me because, "Ron like to tinker with that stuff".  Why did they get rid of these? Because film was obsolete and you could buy a pocket sized digital camera at Wal-Mart for $79.00 or less.

Of all the folks you know, how many are true "camera buffs" and how many just "take snap shots"?  I would think the camera buffs are less that 1/2 of 1 % of the snap shot shooters. Those snap shot cameras were replaced by cell phones. The camera companies do not make money off of cell phones.

Like the buggy whips of old, the camera market has become a niche market for a diminishing number of camera buffs and professionals.  Also, as Derrel pointed out, the face of photography has changed. Folks may still appreciate a good photograph but they would much rather watch a video of some 5 year old trying to be a mini ninja warrior.

Photography is not dead, it has just being redefined in a world inundated by video images from every conceivable source. Photography will always have a core following, be it digital or film, avant-garde or traditional. Heck folk are still playing with pinhole cameras and daguerreotypes. Why, because it is fun, interesting and still a great way to express artistic talent, for those folks interested in such things.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Soocom1 said:


> . . .
> legally speaking they are Sony products. NOT Minolta.



Ok, you aren't getting my point, so I'll lay it out for you:

If you buy any of these interchangeable lens cameras or lenses, you have a warranty for the particular item.  Even that much might not be truly a legal contract with the Mfrs directly, but through a sub-contractor (the store).  Beyond that, you have nothing except "good will" or "reputation" or "marketing reasons" or whatever else you want to call it.  None of the companies are obligated to continue making a "system" tomorrow.  Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc., doesn't matter.  You have no contract with them.  All you have is what you bought.

So if Sony has continued support for A-mount all these years without need, to support people with A-mount products in the past, then good for them.  They seem to have respected the wishes of Minolta buyers from years ago.  That is commendable.  But none of the other companies have any more reason to do so than Sony.  It's that simply.  We buy the "reputation" as much as the products.

So the answer to my question is:  There is no difference.



Soocom1 said:


> Its akin to using third party parts in a Chevy. They fit and work perfectly, but are not made by the manufacturer.
> There is no mystery here.



You think "Chevy" makes all the parts on the shelf in their parts department in the "GM" boxes?  They don't.  I don't know how many are outside contractors these days, but all you know is that GM feels they make the standard.  But even that is not the same thing.  Unless you have a Pro support service contract, again, for camera companies, all you have is their reputation that the next thing you buy will be of "similar quality" as what you have already bought.  Call it "good will" or "reputation" or whatever you want to, it's not a contract.  There is no legal obligation and there never has been.  Minolta isn't Sony?  So what?


----------



## Soocom1

VidThreeNorth said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .
> legally speaking they are Sony products. NOT Minolta.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, you aren't getting my point, so I'll lay it out for you:
> 
> If you buy any of these interchangeable lens cameras or lenses, you have a warranty for the particular item.  Even that much might not be truly a legal contract with the Mfrs directly, but through a sub-contractor (the store).  Beyond that, you have nothing except "good will" or "reputation" or "marketing reasons" or whatever else you want to call it.  None of the companies are obligated to continue making a "system" tomorrow.  Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc., doesn't matter.  You have no contract with them.  All you have is what you bought.
> 
> So if Sony has continued support for A-mount all these years without need, to support people with A-mount products in the past, then good for them.  They seem to have respected the wishes of Minolta buyers from years ago.  That is commendable.  But none of the other companies have any more reason to do so than Sony.  It's that simply.  We buy the "reputation" as much as the products.
> 
> So the answer to my question is:  There is no difference.
> 
> 
> 
> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Its akin to using third party parts in a Chevy. They fit and work perfectly, but are not made by the manufacturer.
> There is no mystery here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think "Chevy" makes all the parts on the shelf in their parts department in the "GM" boxes?  They don't.  I don't know how many are outside contractors these days, but all you know is that GM feels they make the standard.  But even that is not the same thing.  Unless you have a Pro support service contract, again, for camera companies, all you have is their reputation that the next thing you buy will be of "similar quality" as what you have already bought.  Call it "good will" or "reputation" or whatever you want to, it's not a contract.  There is no legal obligation and there never has been.  Minolta isn't Sony?  So what?
Click to expand...

Your not getting what I said. 

You stated that "not really, sony took over minolta so minolta really didn't go away (not in so many words, but that's the jist).

You need to understand that the physical structure of the mount system was developed by Minolta and SOLD which means OWNED BY Sony. 

Parts made for GM or any other OEM is a different story. Fisher bodies is NOT Chevrolet, they are Fisher Bodies. 
\ Contracted through GM. 
But the parts are part of the GM structure built to the GM design to GM standards and GM OWNS the rights to the design. 
therefore they are GM parts. 
With Sony, they bought the legal OWNERSHIP of the design and thus Minolta is NO LONGER part of the equation, they are the Sony A mount system. 
Period. 

go talk to a lawyer about that.


----------



## Derrel

Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica camera division.

Minolta is in simple parlance, dead.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Ok, at this point I think that I'm about to get just a bit boring for everybody who is not me, but you guys have touched a point I'm curious about:



Soocom1 said:


> . . .
> 
> You stated that "not really, sony took over minolta so minolta really didn't go away (not in so many words, but that's the jist).
> 
> You need to understand that the physical structure of the mount system was developed by Minolta and SOLD which means OWNED BY Sony.
> 
> . . .





Derrel said:


> Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica camera division.
> 
> Minolta is in simple parlance, dead.



Now you guys are confusing me.  Derrel, you say Sony owns ... intellectual property of Minolta and Konica ..."  Now, part of the "intellectual property" is branding, including company names.  I don't know what happened because I was not doing any photography when this all happened, but I thought that Sony bought the rights to the brands too.  So in effect, Sony probably owns the name Minolta (and Konica too, but that isn't the point right now).  Now this gets into real lawyering territory, but it is also "just a business matter."  Exactly what is the point of  a brand?  Well, it identifies the source of a product.  I don't think there is anything beyond that.  Anyway, my point is that if Sony owns the Minolta brand, then they can use it again, unless they did something else that we might not know about (like give it away to someone else).  But Soocom1, you don't think that Sony bought that part of company?  I have no idea.  I had nothing to do with it. 

Anyway, I think I'm getting boring for everyone, so if you don't reply, I'll understand.


----------



## Derrel

Minolta ran into deep financial trouble and they needed the cash infusion to keep the doors open so they sold out to Konica. Konica Minolta did not last too long, until Sony bought all of their patents and lens designs and other intellectual property, including the brand names, which they decided not to carry on. Just like Pontiac died after almost 90 years as a brand name, so did the names of Konica and Minolta as cameras. I am not sure if Konica still makes copiers.

One might say that Sony bought Konica Minolta for their share of the hobby Photo Market, as well as for the excellent Minolta lens designs. I don't quite understand what is so difficult to comprehend here, or why it even matters. As a camera company, Konica no longer makes products. As a camera company, Minolta is dead. You can't buy a new Konica camera, and you cannot buy a new Minolta camera, but you can buy a new Sony camera. I believe that you are correct, Sony owns the brand names, but so far they have shown no interest in resurrecting them. Who knows what the future might bring.


----------



## TWX

Derrel said:


> As a camera company, Konica no longer makes products. As a camera company, Minolta is dead. You can't buy a new Konica camera, and you cannot buy a new Minolta camera, but you can buy a new Sony camera. I believe that you are correct, Sony owns the brand names, but so far they have shown no interest in resurrecting them. Who knows what the future might bring.



It's possible that Sony's rights to use either "Konica" or "Minolta" ended after so many years of being discontinued, and that those rights have returned to the entity that sold that camera division to Sony.  But this is admittedly a nitpick.


----------



## malling

After so many years out, that name would bear little to no meaning as not many can remember it any Longer. It only hold value for a closed group of people who is old enough to have owned one or who are familiar with it one way or another. In a market that is shrinking fast and where name means far less than it used to, there is no point in resurrect it.


----------



## Derrel

No one cares.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Well thanks for the summaries anyway.  It's a piece of the history that I had not really thought about much.  I've been too busy trying to learn how to get things done. . . .


----------



## Soocom1

OK.. Go hoer:

KONICA MINOLTA

Konica-Minolta is still VERY MUCH ALIVE and well making copiers WITH THE MINOILTA BLUE DOT symbol.

This is critical in the discussion of this.

The patent for the old SR mounts of Minolts expired decades ago. Minolta no longer owns or has control over the SR mount design, and they SOLD the rights and intellectual aspect of the A-Mount (formally known as the Minolta Automatic, hence "A Mount) and it was re-branded by sony to "Alpha" mount.

This is because sony though taking over the system wanted their own legacy process. BUT does NOT own the name "Minolta", the branding or the logos.  just he photo hardware designs.

You talk about why a brand matters, and in all honesty and in the grand scheme of things... not a damn thing.  its all Fan-Boy garbage.
But, the brand identifies who made something and the market determines if that brand goes on living or dying.

GM almost disappeared under our previous  president.

Ford almost bought it in the 1970's with their brilliant moves of Mustang II, Pinto, Fairmont, the luxo-boat Cougars (formally a muscle car) and the early version of the Escort.  And their desire to make more money off of repairs than the car itself.  It almost killed the brand after Lee Iacocca left.


----------



## Derrel

Soocom1, this has got to be one of the best hijacks in recent memories! Great detective work. PM me for some help in fitting my old Minolta 50mm F 1.4 to a new Konica Minolta copy machine! I would love to hear more detail as well on how Obama allegedly almost killed off GM .I'm sure Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh would be interested as well.


----------



## Soocom1

It is what it is.....


----------



## Derrel

Derrel said:


> Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica camera division.
> 
> Minolta is in simple parlance, dead.





Soocom1 said:


> It is what it is.....



Please re-read what I wrote and note the use of the words " camera division ".


----------



## Derrel

Please carefully re-read what I wrote above. Konica Minolta does not make any more cameras.  they make office equipment and medical equipment and so on but they do not make cameras or lenses for Consumer use. This is not a discussion of office equipment, or photo copiers, or medical imaging devices, or IT services, all of which Konica Minolta still has a hand in. this is a discussion of the camera business.


----------



## Soocom1

Derrel said:


> Please carefully re-read what I wrote above. Konica Minolta does not make any more cameras.  they make office equipment and medical equipment and so on but they do not make cameras or lenses for Consumer use. This is not a discussion of office equipment, or photo copiers, or medical imaging devices, or IT services, all of which Konica Minolta still has a hand in. this is a discussion of the camera business.


Read what I wrote. 
I didnt make the claim.


----------



## Derrel

Once again this is a thread about the camera market decline, and not about how you allege that General Motors almost disappeared under the Obama Administration, or how Konica Minolta still lives on as an office automation company and a medical imaging technology company.

Camera,camera,camera. This is not about photo copiers or MRI machines that bear that Minolta blue circle, despite your repeated attempts to focus on two dead brands of camera. I have no idea why you seem to be fixated on two dead camera brands.


----------



## Soocom1

Its called a metaphor. 

And whst happened to minolta is relevent as part of the discussion.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

Soocom1 said:


> It is what it is.....



Well good work anyway!  I think we're done for this issue.


----------



## Derrel

Soocom1 said:


> OK.. Go hoer:
> 
> KONICA MINOLTA
> 
> Konica-Minolta is still VERY MUCH ALIVE and well making copiers WITH THE MINOILTA BLUE DOT symbol.
> 
> This is critical in the discussion of this.
> 
> The patent for the old SR mounts of Minolts expired decades ago. Minolta no longer owns or has control over the SR mount design, and they SOLD the rights and intellectual aspect of the A-Mount (formally known as the Minolta Automatic, hence "A Mount) and it was re-branded by sony to "Alpha" mount.
> 
> This is because sony though taking over the system wanted their own legacy process. BUT does NOT own the name "Minolta", the branding or the logos.  just he photo hardware designs.
> 
> You talk about why a brand matters, and in all honesty and in the grand scheme of things... not a damn thing.  its all Fan-Boy garbage.
> But, the brand identifies who made something and the market determines if that brand goes on living or dying.
> 
> GM almost disappeared under our previous illustrious president.
> 
> Ford almost bought it in the 1970's with their brilliant moves of Mustang II, Pinto, Fairmont, the luxo-boat Cougars (formally a muscle car) and the early version of the Escort.  And their desire to make more money off of repairs than the car itself.  It almost killed the brand after Lee Iacocca left.





Derrel said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Minolta is dead now. Their designs and their intellectual property were merged to form the company Konica Minolta, and then Sony bought that concern, ergo Sony owns the camera and imaging designs and patents and intellectual property of Minolta and of Konica
Click to expand...


----------



## Derrel

Still waiting to hear how a former US president almost caused The Disappearance of General Motors.

Alex is holding on line three for you.


----------



## Derrel

Soocom1 said:


> GM almost disappeared under our previous illustrious president.


----------



## Braineack

GM literally had to cut V8s in half during the 70s because they have zero grasp of the market.

They feel into a similar rabbit hole in the late 2000s with the HUMMER brand.  A had to cut other incredibly crummy brands like daewoo, pontiac, saturn, oldsmobile.

GM was falling before Obama came around, an injection of cash straight into the blood stream didn't seem to cure their AIDS.


Hell, the came to market with a plug-in car, WHICH IS ALL THE FREAKING RAGE RIGHT NOW, and still failed so freaking hard.  They couldn't even design it to seat 5 people...or have incredibly bad press with the fake "sudden acceleration" issue like Toyota had to deal with.  I mean, the LEAF did better than it.  The LEAF.  smh


----------



## Derrel

So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, GM caused the camera business to decline precipitously, due to their introduction of a lame electric car. Right?


----------



## Braineack

Derrel said:


> So, if I understand correctly what you are saying, GM caused the camera business to decline precipitously, due to their introduction of a lame electric car. Right?



nailed it.


----------



## cgw

Sad how wildly OT frothing is irresistible for some.


----------



## Derrel

cgw said:


> Sad how wildly OT frothing is irresistible for some.



Kind of like constantly second-guessing large multinational corporations based upon a small circle of Canadian friends... irresistible.


----------



## terri

Soocom1 said:


> It is what it is.....


What it is, is off topic rhetoric that introduces political nuance where it doesn't belong. 

Stay on topic, please.


----------



## Derrel

In the video that was part of the original post, the video producer cites the fact that cameras have become sufficient and that even though we may have a camera that's a little bit old, it will do everything we need. Over the past few days I have gone back and looked at some of the photos I've made as far back as 2003 and the best photos even with 2.7 megapixel cameras ( the Nikon D1 and D1h), and 6-megapixel cameras (Nikon D70 and D40, Canon 10D, and 12-12.8 megapixel (Nikon D2x and Canon 5D) still "hold up"....

People no longer need to buy a new digital camera for good results.  If you have a model that was introduced from 2009 onward, you will not be getting that much of a performance increase, in most cases of regular everyday photography.


----------



## cgw

Derrel said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sad how wildly OT frothing is irresistible for some.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like constantly second-guessing large multinational corporations based upon a small circle of Canadian friends... irresistible.
Click to expand...

Think you missed my point. Keep your stick on the ice, eh?


----------



## beddingfield

Derrel said:


> In the video that was part of the original post, the video producer cites the fact that cameras have become sufficient and that even though we may have a camera that's a little bit old, it will do everything we need. Over the past few days I have gone back and looked at some of the photos I've made as far back as 2003 and the best photos even with 2.7 megapixel cameras ( the Nikon D1 and D1h), and 6-megapixel cameras (Nikon D70 and D40, Canon 10D, and 12-12.8 megapixel (Nikon D2x and Canon 5D) still "hold up"....
> 
> People no longer need to buy a new digital camera for good results.  If you have a model that was introduced from 2009 onward, you will not be getting that much of a performance increase, in most cases of regular everyday photography.


But you wont be able to take a RAW image at 24 megapixels, with a 2,000@ camera, of your whole wheat bagel that cost you 8$ at the trendy diner


----------



## malling

I’m not sure you’ll need a Leica for that, you use that for when you want to take a pic of the flat white at your (not so) local coffee place. But remember to bring a mac and wear that hipster clothing too, you don’t want to look out of place, and preferably some hip philosophical or social realistic book too, that you can place next too that coffee, it looks great on Instagram and then you can pretend like you read that **** and drink cofffee too, but we both know you don’t, but what dos it matter, You followers don’t know.


----------



## Derrel

Keep your stick on the ice... you should probably translate that from Canuck to English... your attempt at an an insult is kind of vague... those of us who don't live in the Frozen North have likely not heard it before.


----------



## star camera company

The only collapse I’m genuinly worried about is the possibility my shelf with about 20 film cameras may fall off the wall.


----------



## TWX

star camera company said:


> The only collapse I’m genuinly worried about is the possibility my shelf with about 20 film cameras may fall off the wall.


For some reason I'm reminded of a TV interview Willie Nelson did with one of the late-night shows.  They were talking about the relative dangers of various drugs, and Willie was quick to point out that marijuana had its dangers too.  The host looked at him quizzically and he continued, a bale fell on a friend of his, crushed him.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

With the Canon results for 2019 available, I thought I'd look at the CIPA reports.  They are only available for 11 months (up to November 2019), but what I see is encouraging.  Keeping in mind the criticism I have posted in the past, and that this year's numbers will be affected by the Olympics in Japan, at least for the oriental sales numbers, overall, it looks like the drop in the industry is bottoming out.  When the December numbers come out, the trends might reverse.

Digital Camera Shipments Worldwide
"http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201911_e.pdf"

Interchangeable Lens Shipments Worldwide
"http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/sw-201911_e.pdf"


----------



## TWX

VidThreeNorth said:


> With the Canon results for 2019 available, I thought I'd look at the CIPA reports.  They are only available for 11 months (up to November 2019), but what I see is encouraging.  Keeping in mind the criticism I have posted in the past, and that this year's numbers will be affected by the Olympics in Japan, at least for the oriental sales numbers, overall, it looks like the drop in the industry is bottoming out.  When the December numbers come out, the trends might reverse.
> 
> Digital Camera Shipments Worldwide
> "http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201911_e.pdf"
> 
> Interchangeable Lens Shipments Worldwide
> "http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/sw-201911_e.pdf"



Perhaps.  On the other hand if we're headed for recession as the treasury-curve inversion may indicate, that could pretty significantly impact a market where a lot of the sales are essentially optional.  Professionals that have a need to buy would probably still buy even during a recession, but the prosumer and consumer market might be hit pretty hard if people have economic uncertainty to curtail what essentially amounts to hobbyist expenses.

Granted, an American recession's worst effects will probably be domestic, but American recessions have this habit of spilling out into the wider world, and the American market is large enough to have a dip in it really hurt.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

TWX said:


> . . .
> 
> Perhaps.  On the other hand if we're headed for recession as the treasury-curve inversion may indicate, that could pretty significantly impact a market where a lot of the sales are essentially optional.  Professionals that have a need to buy would probably still buy even during a recession, but the prosumer and consumer market might be hit pretty hard if people have economic uncertainty to curtail what essentially amounts to hobbyist expenses.
> 
> Granted, an American recession's worst effects will probably be domestic, but American recessions have this habit of spilling out into the wider world, and the American market is large enough to have a dip in it really hurt.



Your note of the possible American recession made me think of other macro economic issues and the biggest unforeseen issue is the Wuhan virus.  It's impact on China directly and by influence, the rest of the world is going to be very big.  You are probably tired of me mentioning the Japan Olympics, but Japan was expect a substantial boost in tourism from Chinese visitors.  I don't think that it's going to happen.  I think this virus outbreak will not be over in time.  So Japan is going to have to attract "replacement" tourists from the West, and that is going to be difficult.  I think we in the West are more likely to attend the Olympics when they are set in the West.  Some people in the West would like to combine the Olympics with a visit to a very exotic holiday setting, but I think mainly people who want to see a sporting event probably tend to prefer sticking with the event.

Moreover, companies might have to shut down temporarily if workers cannot make it to work.  I don' t know how much of that will happen, but it cannot be good for their country.  The economic impact of all this to the rest of us could be felt for the first half of the year.


----------



## Soocom1

meh... I have everything I need for Captain Trips.


----------



## TWX

VidThreeNorth said:


> TWX said:
> 
> 
> 
> . . .
> 
> Perhaps.  On the other hand if we're headed for recession as the treasury-curve inversion may indicate, that could pretty significantly impact a market where a lot of the sales are essentially optional.  Professionals that have a need to buy would probably still buy even during a recession, but the prosumer and consumer market might be hit pretty hard if people have economic uncertainty to curtail what essentially amounts to hobbyist expenses.
> 
> Granted, an American recession's worst effects will probably be domestic, but American recessions have this habit of spilling out into the wider world, and the American market is large enough to have a dip in it really hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your note of the possible American recession made me think of other macro economic issues and the biggest unforeseen issue is the Wuhan virus.  It's impact on China directly and by influence, the rest of the world is going to be very big.  You are probably tired of me mentioning the Japan Olympics, but Japan was expect a substantial boost in tourism from Chinese visitors.  I don't think that it's going to happen.  I think this virus outbreak will not be over in time.  So Japan is going to have to attract "replacement" tourists from the West, and that is going to be difficult.  I think we in the West are more likely to attend the Olympics when they are set in the West.  Some people in the West would like to combine the Olympics with a visit to a very exotic holiday setting, but I think mainly people who want to see a sporting event probably tend to prefer sticking with the event.
> 
> Moreover, companies might have to shut down temporarily if workers cannot make it to work.  I don' t know how much of that will happen, but it cannot be good for their country.  The economic impact of all this to the rest of us could be felt for the first half of the year.
Click to expand...


Japan sits at this weird East-meets-West confluence though, it was strongly affected by Western culture in the leadup to WWII, arguably motivating its position entering the war, and after WWII its occupation led to a lot more Western exposure, and it has in-turn influenced Western culture through technology and creative content.  Japan is likely the Asian country that most Westerners would be comfortable visiting, if only because Japan has the least likely chance of significant consequences from cultural misunderstanding.

I would myself like to visit Japan some day and while I normally don't much care for sports, some Olympic events are more interesting than professional sports.  I was also acquainted with an Olympian while in high school that went on to win Gold in 2000, so knowing someone that managed to be the best in the world was pretty cool.  Unfortunately my daughter is far too young to easily make that sort of trip, so I very much doubt that we could go at any price, however unexpectedly discounted.


----------



## VidThreeNorth

I am updating my previous note regarding the CIPA reports for November 2019.  The December report covers the whole 2019 calendar year, and the last month continues the trends of the previous 11.

While one can look at the results and say that this is the worst year of the three shown, the graphs show the bottoming out of the market for digital interchangeable lens cameras and lenses.  The only category which might still be on a downward trend is the "fixed lens" still camera, and the drop in that category seems to have slowed.   Unfortunately, the early part of this year might be impacted by global economic problems, such as the effects of the Wuhan corona virus, but overall, it seems like the digital interchangeable lens camera market is heading in a good direction.


2019 Digital Camera Shipments Worldwide
"http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/dw-201912_e.pdf"

2019 Interchangeable Lens Shipments Worldwide
"http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/e/sw-201912_e.pdf"


----------

