# Interesting Article



## GDHLEWIS (Nov 5, 2013)

Interesting article I came across thought Id share. 
The Graying Of Traditional Photography And Why Everything Is Getting Re-Invented In A Form We Don't Understand By Kirk Tuck | DIYPhotography.net


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 5, 2013)

GDHLEWIS said:


> Interesting article I came across thought Id share.
> The Graying Of Traditional Photography And Why Everything Is Getting Re-Invented In A Form We Don't Understand By Kirk Tuck | DIYPhotography.net



Honestly, heard this before and will likely hear all of it again, how the cell phone camera will kill the DSLR, etc, etc.  Still don't believe a word of it.  This is like listening to some fool with zero understanding of market forces droning on about how the McDonald's Drive through will put all steak houses out of business.  There is always going to be a market segment that will prefer quality over convenience.    This may come as a shock to the author of this article but I have absolutely no desire for a cell phone sized camera even if it could produce anything even remotely close to the quality that my DSLR does, the ergonomics are simply all wrong for what I do and frankly that is another thing that authors like this completely fail to appreciate.

Take a good look at bridge cameras - the technology has improved a lot over the last few years and they are certainly producing much higher quality images than ever before, but they still lack some of the features and capabilities that a good DSLR will give you particularly in the arena of low light performance and image quality.  Strangely enough though you don't see most of the cell phone camera users rushing out to buy these even though they are better than anything a cell phone can provide for images.  If this bozo had a clue as to what he was talking about you would assume cell phone users would be buying them in droves, I mean they offer the same advantages, small, lightweight, portable, plus better image quality and amazing zoom ranges.  So why aren't they flying off the shelves by leaps and bounds, snapped up by the 20 somethings that are all gung ho on cell phone photography?  Because what this and so many other authors of articles like this fail to realize is that it's a completely different market.

To your average cell phone user the camera is an add on at best - something that is "cool" to have but generally not a deal maker or breaker in most regards.  They use them because they have them and it's easy and convienient, much like hitting a drive through rather than going to a sit down resteraunt.  These are not the folks buying bridge camera's or DSLR's, it's a completely different market.  That's what this and so many authors on this subject just competely fail to understand or appreciate and why they keep making the same grand, idiotic assumption that the cell phone camera will eventually replace the DSLR.

It won't.  You can't sell apples to people who don't want an apple, don't need an apple and have the heart set on an orange.  That isn't to say that apples are evil or terrible or wrong somehow, it's just that some of us really don't want one.  So if I were you folks I'd ignore all these articles by the so called "experts" on the subject.  I'm sure this guy is some sort of industry professional and probably knows his business fairly well, but his understanding of the market and market forces is pretty much nil.  They are still marketing oranges out there today, they still will be tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that.  They do it because oranges sell, and there will always be a demand for them.  No matter how many bone headed articles might be written to the contrary.


----------



## GDHLEWIS (Nov 5, 2013)

robbins you will get no argument from me, but I do think that DSLR's will need to come up with something new if they are to revive the dwindling sales figures (if the published figures can be believed). Samsung's new camera NX (I believe that's it's name) is kind of going in the direction that Nikon and Canon should be going towards. I do think your statement about cameras on the phone being just an extra, is wrong tho, a good camera can put sales through the roof and I know people including myself who have bought phones cause it has a decent camera. . . well I thought it had a decent camera until I bought a DSLR lol. 
I feel there will always be a need for pro grade cameras as well as pro photographers but the world is changing fast and the big camera producers such as Nikon, Canon and Sony need to keep up otherwise companies like Samsung are going to overtake them and leave them for dust. In the end it should be an interesting decade for Cameras as a whole and I for one am keen to see how it all pans out in the end.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 5, 2013)

robbins.photo said:


> GDHLEWIS said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting article I came across thought Id share.
> ...



Kirk's essay is much more than the tired old cell phone camera will kill the d-slr saw...

You CLEARLY missed the point. By a mile.

Tuck's essay is one of the more provocative and compelling essays I've seen from him. It might be some of the best thinking I've seen in print in a long time. But obviously, some people can't see the forrest due to too many doggone trees being around.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 5, 2013)

GDHLEWIS said:


> robbins you will get no argument from me, but I do think that DSLR's will need to come up with something new if they are to revive the dwindling sales figures (if the published figures can be believed). Samsung's new camera NX (I believe that's it's name) is kind of going in the direction that Nikon and Canon should be going towards. I do think your statement about cameras on the phone being just an extra, is wrong tho, a good camera can put sales through the roof and I know people including myself who have bought phones cause it has a decent camera. . . well I thought it had a decent camera until I bought a DSLR lol.
> I feel there will always be a need for pro grade cameras as well as pro photographers but the world is changing fast and the big camera producers such as Nikon, Canon and Sony need to keep up otherwise companies like Samsung are going to overtake them and leave them for dust. In the end it should be an interesting decade for Cameras as a whole and I for one am keen to see how it all pans out in the end.



Well DSLR is a mature market, so it doesn't surprise me that sales have gone down.  That plus a fairly soft global economy, just makes sense that you would see a decline in sales over the past few years.  What I meant by the camera being a "add on" I still stand by, meaning that if cell phones didn't have cameras at all and they were the only ones available you'd most likely still own a cell phone.  Now a really good camera or front and back facing or yada yada might influence you on which particular cell phone to buy, but I think we can probably agree that it really doesn't play a part in the decision on whether or not you need a cell phone - just what make and model your going to get.  

I didn't really make that too clear I think in the original posting.  And I agree with you that DSLR's will change and continue to advance and grow - at some point the tech might not even be true "DSLR" anymore meaning the mirror might no longer be necessary.  It's certainly a possibility especially in light of recent events.  But I think like you that the need/market for a high end camera that takes quality pictures and isn't the size of a credit card, well there will always be a market for that.  The tech may change here and there, improvements in sensors and low light, et al - but the basics will most likely stay the same.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 5, 2013)

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > GDHLEWIS said:
> ...



Well apparently I did.  All I saw were the same old tired arguments that had been brought up time and time again - a few new frills and window dressing about how "they" don't think like "us" but nothing truly thought provoking or inspiring by any stretch of the imagination.

I suppose I can go back and re-read it, but if there were another point to be had I'll freely admit it was lost on me - all I got was the same "DSLR is dead" silliness wrapped up in a slightly dressier package.  More or less what I got was "Cell phone cameras will someday replace DSLR because for the millenials they need to know the why of the image, image quality is unimportant to them."

Well to me this misses the boat on so many levels I can't even begin to describe them all.  But hey, if I missed something here by all means - bring it to light.  Freely admit I just gave it a quick read and didn't analyze it in depth.


----------



## robbins.photo (Nov 5, 2013)

Ok, took a few minutes to go back through and reread this - not entirely certain why, still sounds like crap to me.. but here goes: (Oh, and for those of you who are 20 somethings, please note this disclaimer, when I speak to the 20 somethings I'm not saying that everyone in their 20's falls into this category, however as a market I think you'll agree that a good enough majority of those in your age group do so hopefully you'll see this for what it is, just making a point in general about the market and not as a personal attack)

_"while the stuff that the current generation is thinking about is more concerned with intimacy,"
_
And my response, who cares. The 20 somethings don't think like I do. Gosh. News flash. Bigger news flash, I didn't think the way I do now when I was in my 20's either. So why should Canon, Nikon, et all bow to my needs and produce cameras I like and want... well because it's me and the rest of the 40 somethings that have the disposable income to buy one. But guess what, by the time the 20 somethings of today have the disposable income, they'll be 40 somethings.

And when they are they will most likely start prioritizing things much like I do, much like my fellow 40 somethings do - they'll realize that quality is important in all aspects of life, not just in photography. They'll start to understand and appreciate that wisdom. Right now they could care less - they are 20 something. If it isn't fast and easy and handed to them on a silver platter they move on and find something that is because, well they are in their 20's. They can't yet appreciate the value of that once in a lifetime moment captured forever in a high quality, unforgettable way. 

So no, you won't see camera companies bowing and aquiescing to the needs of this marketplace because.. well, in a nutshell it's not their marketplace. 

The second portion I found interesting:

"_What do I see as "must haves" for the industry to resonate with the new markets?__Cameras must be smaller, lighter and more accessible. "

_They are already available. We call them bridge cameras or superzooms. They have their own market which really doesn't coincide with the DSLR market. That should tell you something right there. Should be a big red flag that maybe this treatise has gone off the rails. IF such cameras already exist, and they do, why do we even still have a need for DSLR. Hmm.. well when the facts don't fit your conclusions it's time to start re-examining your conclusions, not the facts.
_
Cameras need to work with less nit picky intervention on the part of the operators._

They already do - I haven't seen one yet that doesn't give you a choice of dozens of automated shooting modes. You turn the dial to the picture of the little guy running and bam, your good to go for shooting sports - well, at least for the most part. Granted this isn't the way to get your best photos, but you know what if you could invent a camera that would do all of that "nit picky" stuff, then I guess my question would be what would even be the point of having a photographer? 

_Whole systems must be smaller, lighter and more financially accessible._

Um.. bridge cameras, Bridge Cameras.. and .. lets see, dare I say it, bridge cameras! There are cameras out there right now that are readily available and fill this market segment. As time progresses you'll see them improve, get better low light performance, etc - and even then guess what. Still going to be a market for the DSLR, just as there is today. The smaller, lighter, financial accessible cameras you think are so necessary for the surivival of the industry already exist, have existed for a long time, and while they have a respectable market share of their own, they really don't detract much from the DSLR market. Might be time to stop and wonder why.
_
Cameras should be interconnected with phones and tablets in an almost mindless way._

Well this one is a little slower in coming - but you know what, I don't mind that a bit. I really don't want my camera to connect to anything wirelessly - ever. Yes, walking in the house and having it auto connect to my computer would be nice - but I'm a little more concious of the security issues involved than perhaps the author is given this statement. I really dislike the idea of broadcasting a wireless signal that can be intercepted, listened to and even exploited by those around me - while it is a little more convienient at times to have this at the moment at least for me I don't think this is really worth it considering the security risk of having others possibly accessing, copying or worse yet deleting my photos from the camera. 

But for those who want this feature, cameras are already starting to incorporate it and this will doubtless continue. 

You want to know how the big camera companies survive, how they avoid becoming the next "blackberry" (which seems to be everyone's goto reference)? Simple. They ignore advice from people, who yet again, display this much ignorance about the market as a whole. You don't try to market to a bunch of 20 somethings with high end cameras, they by and large don't have the disposable income. No matter how much cheaper or lighter you make it guess what, there is still going to be a market for better quality even if you've got a ton of cheaper, lightweight, smaller versions out there that aren't quite as good. If that wasn't true they would have stopped making DSLR's and we'd all be having to buy bridge cameras now.

No if your Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Canon - what you do is what your doing now. Slowly but surely stay the course, introduce new technology as needed but not at an overhwhelming pace, keep a focus on making sure that your new tech is compatible with your old tech whenever possible so as to not upset your current customer base, and concentrate your efforts on the people who actually buy your stuff - don't waste megamillions going after a market that can't afford what you make. That just isn't good marketing strategy.

Ok, as for the forest vrs the trees - well frankly I still see nothing here that is inspiring, thought provoking, or even somewhat sensible. Just bad advice from someone who, while he might be a really nice guy or some super photo pro or whatever, obviously doesn't understand the market place.


----------

