# WSJ: "Cameras Succumb to Smartphone Juggernaut"



## brunerww

The title is a little breathless, but when the Journal publishes something like this, it's time to pay attention:

Cameras: Latest Victims of the Smartphone Juggernaut - WSJ.com


----------



## pixmedic

that was _*almost*_ interesting until i realized they said apple iphone 5s EVERY OTHER SENTENCE!
it read more like an iphone sales pitch than an actual informed article.


----------



## SnappingShark

I agree that it sounds like an iPhone commercial.

However, for professionals and enthusiasts, nothing will beat the feeling of holding a camera in the hands, composing the image, checking your settings, tra la la, taking the shot and seeing what you have.

Also, what's the deal with people now tilting their heads to the side when having their picture taken? What happened to the "back straight, head up" pose?


----------



## robbins.photo

brunerww said:


> The title is a little breathless, but when the Journal publishes something like this, it's time to pay attention:
> 
> Cameras: Latest Victims of the Smartphone Juggernaut - WSJ.com



Headline : Another Scare Tactic Article that Has No Appreciation for Real Market Data 

Yup, just another lets take a mishmash of information and try to proclaim the death of the DSLR. People use cell phone cameras for the same reason they go to McDonald's drive thru, because of the convenience. But guess what, despite the billions sold by McDonalds, local steak houses and fine dining facilities are still in operation and doing fine. Why? Simple, because there is still a segment of the market place that cares about quality and will pay for quality over convenience.

Same for cameras. Anyone who says differently, well they are talking out of an orafice that is not normally used for such a purpose.</SPAN>


----------



## Derrel

Yeah...according to the author, the "Apple iPhone 5s will replace portable GPS systems, home computers, stopwatches, wristwatches, waffle irons, and home stereos. The iPhone 5s has a processor that's a billion times faster than the processor in any waffle iron made since 1964, and will revolutionize the world with *iWaffles,* ordered and delivered via smartphone with only a 13- to 22-hour lead time necessary to provide hot, crisp waffles (well, frozen waffles made hot and crisp by virtue of a 30-second microwave nuking, followed by a 5-minute oven bake at 450 degrees).Android-based phones SUCK, and will mark you as an old fart."


----------



## robbins.photo

Derrel said:


> Yeah...according to the author, the "Apple iPhone 5s will replace portable GPS systems, home computers, stopwatches, wristwatches, waffle irons, and home stereos. The iPhone 5s has a processor that's a billion times faster than the processor in any waffle iron made since 1964, and will revolutionize the world with *iWaffles,* ordered and delivered via smartphone with only a 13- to 22-hour lead time necessary to provide hot, crisp waffles (well, frozen waffles made hot and crisp by virtue of a 30-second microwave nuking, followed by a 5-minute oven bake at 450 degrees).Android-based phones SUCK, and will mark you as an old fart."



Wait just a cotton pickin minute here.. ok, I can live without my stopwatch.  I can forgo GPS.  I can do without my home computer or stereo.  But you ain't getting my waffle iron.  Not happening.  Lol...

Just amazes me how many of these people are on the "smartphones will replace X" kick, then they base their conclusion on the fact that so many people own a smartphone.  Well ya, duh - I own a smartphone too.  I use it for making phone calls and the occasional texting.  But you know what, I still own a DSLR, and I'll buy another one eventually, and another after that and another after that.  Just because I own a smarthphone doesn't mean it's replaced everything and is the end all be all of my existence.  That's why I always laugh when I see these articles.


----------



## amolitor

Manjoo is just about the worst technology fanboy in the world. He's always breathless, always the apologist for the tech industry, always extolling the next wave of everything as a total game changer.

Sometimes he's right. His natural inclinations happen to be aligned with actual trends, so he's right more or less by accident a lot of the time.

I hate his guts, though. He makes his living telling us all about how flying cars will make everything awesome in the future. And, while we might have whatever Manjoo's idea of flying cars is today or not, the fact is that they're not going to make anything better.


----------



## Derrel

amolitor said:


> Manjoo is just about the worst technology fanboy in the world. He's always breathless, always the apologist for the tech industry, always extolling the next wave of everything as a total game changer.
> 
> Sometimes he's right. His natural inclinations happen to be aligned with actual trends, so he's right more or less by accident a lot of the time.
> 
> I hate his guts, though. He makes his living telling us all about how flying cars will make everything awesome in the future. And, while we might have whatever Manjoo's idea of flying cars is today or not, the fact is that they're not going to make anything better.



*Write to *Farhad Manjoo at farhad.manjoo@wsj.com


----------



## runnah

robbins.photo said:


> Just amazes me how many of these people are on the "smartphones will replace X" kick, then they base their conclusion on the fact that so many people own a smartphone.  Well ya, duh - I own a smartphone too.  I use it for making phone calls and the occasional texting.  But you know what, I still own a DSLR, and I'll buy another one eventually, and another after that and another after that.  Just because I own a smarthphone doesn't mean it's replaced everything and is the end all be all of my existence.  That's why I always laugh when I see these articles.



Well I hate to break it to you but you are old. Every kid by age 8 has a smartphone/tablet/laptop, this allows every kid to have a camera in their pocket. Kids will grow up not knowing what it's like to have a device dedicated to ONLY taking photos. Getting these kids to buy a DSLR is going to be a tough sell because camera phones are only going to get better.

I would say not to scoff too much at this type of article because it's closer to reality than lots of people would care to admit.


----------



## amolitor

Yes, just because Farhad is a putz doesn't mean the DSLR market isn't going to shrink a very great deal in the next decade. Of course it will.

Farhad is just a day late, a dollar short, and wayyyy too excited about Apple products.


----------



## runnah

amolitor said:


> Farhad is just a day late, a dollar short, and wayyyy too excited about Apple products.



Well there is a lot to get excited about. Well maybe pre-Cook.


----------



## pixmedic

he probably just  Manjoo'd in his pants because Apple sent him a free 5s for his writeup.


----------



## Derrel

The Apple iPhone 5s is the BESTEST, MOST-AWESOMEST SMART PHONE EVER!!!!!!!!!!! All other phones that came before the Apple iPhone 5s sucked, and sucked hard!!!!!

Signed,
F. Manjoo, WSJ


----------



## sashbar

runnah said:


> Every kid by age 8 has a smartphone/tablet/laptop, this allows every kid to have a camera in their pocket. Kids will grow up not knowing what it's like to have a device dedicated to ONLY taking photos. Getting these kids to buy a DSLR is going to be a tough sell because camera phones are only going to get better.



Actually, I believe it works both ways. Yes, a lot of kids will use smartphones instead of cameras. On the other hand, smartphones will introduce a lot of kids to photography. Most kids will be like this Manjoo guy who knows sweet FA about a good image, but many will figure it out and will buy a proper camera.


----------



## robbins.photo

runnah said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just amazes me how many of these people are on the "smartphones will replace X" kick, then they base their conclusion on the fact that so many people own a smartphone. Well ya, duh - I own a smartphone too. I use it for making phone calls and the occasional texting. But you know what, I still own a DSLR, and I'll buy another one eventually, and another after that and another after that. Just because I own a smarthphone doesn't mean it's replaced everything and is the end all be all of my existence. That's why I always laugh when I see these articles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I hate to break it to you but you are old. Every kid by age 8 has a smartphone/tablet/laptop, this allows every kid to have a camera in their pocket. Kids will grow up not knowing what it's like to have a device dedicated to ONLY taking photos. Getting these kids to buy a DSLR is going to be a tough sell because camera phones are only going to get better.
> 
> I would say not to scoff too much at this type of article because it's closer to reality than lots of people would care to admit.
Click to expand...


I'll believe it when I see it. Am I getting old? Yup, I sure am. A little older each day. I've got one grandchild already, and probably more on the way in the next few years. So what. I've heard this massive over generalization of the youth of America before, still doesn't wash. 

Just because your average 8 year old will go to Mcdonald's a heck of a lot more often than they will a good restaurant doesn't mean that all good restaurants will no longer exist and Mcdonald's will be the only available option then that 8 year old is my age now.

I'm still waiting for all of us to have flying cars and for me to be able to move to that colony on the moon if I feel like it.  That's where they said we would be when I was a kid.    I'm also waiting for them to stop manufacturing mercedes, lexus, lamborghini - yes all of these brands will be gone in 5 years.  I mean after all, how many 8 year olds get to ride around in luxury vehicles.  Since the vast majority of them only are exposed to Chevy or Ford why then Mercedes might as well lock it's doors and go out of business now.  No way they are ever going to be able to sell a car at all in 5 years or 10 years since so few of the kids today have ever ridden in one, right?

So ya, heard it before, will hear it again - still don't believe a word of it.


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> brunerww said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title is a little breathless, but when the Journal publishes something like this, it's time to pay attention:
> 
> Cameras: Latest Victims of the Smartphone Juggernaut - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Headline : Another Scare Tactic Article that Has No Appreciation for Real Market Data
> 
> Yup, just another lets take a mishmash of information and try to proclaim the death of the DSLR. People use cell phone cameras for the same reason they go to McDonald's drive thru, because of the convenience. But guess what, despite the billions sold by McDonalds, local steak houses and fine dining facilities are still in operation and doing fine. Why? Simple, because there is still a segment of the market place that cares about quality and will pay for quality over convenience.
> 
> Same for cameras. Anyone who says differently, well they are talking out of an orafice that is not normally used for such a purpose.</SPAN>
Click to expand...


You and the other resident Flat Earth Club members should look over Nikon's financials sometime between rants.


----------



## amolitor

cgw said:


> You and the other resident Flat Earth Club members should look over Nikon's financials sometime between rants.



Which parts? Glancing over them just now they look quite good.


----------



## runnah

robbins.photo said:


> I'll believe it when I see it. Am I getting old? Yup, I sure am. A little older each day. I've got one grandchild already, and probably more on the way in the next few years. So what. I've heard this massive over generalization of the youth of America before, still doesn't wash.
> 
> Just because your average 8 year old will go to Mcdonald's a heck of a lot more often than they will a good restaurant doesn't mean that all good restaurants will no longer exist and Mcdonald's will be the only available option then that 8 year old is my age now.
> 
> I'm still waiting for all of us to have flying cars and for me to be able to move to that colony on the moon if I feel like it.  That's where they said we would be when I was a kid.    I'm also waiting for them to stop manufacturing mercedes, lexus, lamborghini - yes all of these brands will be gone in 5 years.  I mean after all, how many 8 year olds get to ride around in luxury vehicles.  Since the vast majority of them only are exposed to Chevy or Ford why then Mercedes might as well lock it's doors and go out of business now.  No way they are ever going to be able to sell a car at all in 5 years or 10 years since so few of the kids today have ever ridden in one, right?
> 
> So ya, heard it before, will hear it again - still don't believe a word of it.



You missed the point. You are comfortable with seeing cameras as a camera, the younger generation sees cameras as an app of their phone. This is the difference.

Camera phones are going to continue to bridge the gap. There will always be "professional" cameras, just nothing else between them and a camera phone. The issues arises when there is no lower tier to support the upper tier will companies be able to survive?


----------



## amolitor

At some point the professionals will move on to something else.

DSLRs are probably not going away, but they'll stabilize on something aimed at the "well to do enthusiast" market. See also Phase One.


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> brunerww said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title is a little breathless, but when the Journal publishes something like this, it's time to pay attention:
> 
> Cameras: Latest Victims of the Smartphone Juggernaut - WSJ.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Headline : Another Scare Tactic Article that Has No Appreciation for Real Market Data
> 
> Yup, just another lets take a mishmash of information and try to proclaim the death of the DSLR. People use cell phone cameras for the same reason they go to McDonald's drive thru, because of the convenience. But guess what, despite the billions sold by McDonalds, local steak houses and fine dining facilities are still in operation and doing fine. Why? Simple, because there is still a segment of the market place that cares about quality and will pay for quality over convenience.
> 
> Same for cameras. Anyone who says differently, well they are talking out of an orafice that is not normally used for such a purpose.</SPAN>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and the other resident Flat Earth Club members should look over Nikon's financials sometime between rants.
Click to expand...


Lol - if you say so skippy.  Lets see, according to their first quarter reporting for 2013 they actually sold record numbers of interchangeable lens cameras, lenses and even a very respectible number of compact cameras.  So what causes the doom and gloom?  Mostly idiot's who don't understand financial markets.  See, even though sales numbers were up, the actual profit margin declined because of the gains in sales were offset by the high value of the yen.

As a result even though Nikon sales were up.. way up, the company still made a smaller net profit in the first quarter of 2013 than they did in the first quarter of 2012 .  It had nothing to do with their sales at all - something that so few people writing these articles and responding to messages in message bases by being childish and calling someone a "flat earther" simply completely fail to understand.  It's amazing what just a little research into a subject will do for you.

So yes, while it can be said that Nikon's net profit fell by almost 50% in the first quarter of 2013 to get the whole picture, you know, so you actually have the first dang clue what your actually talking about, you need to look at the price of the yen and Nikon's actual sales.  Once you do it all falls into place and suddenly you no longer look like someone simply spouting off on a topic you apparently haven't researched, at all.

Thanks for playing though, if you give me your address I'll be more than happy to ship you out a nice copy of our home game.


----------



## Derrel

cgw said:
			
		

> You and the other resident Flat Earth Club members should look over Nikon's financials sometime between rants.



I love it--first, an insult, and then a pointless, vague, *FUD* comment that has ZERO information or worth to it.

Yeah...lower sales and yet higher profit percentage, and an estimated 20% growth for next year in their Precision Equipment division.

As Thom wrote last week about Nikon's financials, "For the full year, Nikon is forecasting about even overall sales for year-to-year (that means they've revised their forecast of sales downward) but they expect to make an improved profit year-to-year, an extraordinary feat in the market environments they compete in. "

Nikon Financials Posted | byThom | Thom Hogan


----------



## robbins.photo

runnah said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll believe it when I see it. Am I getting old? Yup, I sure am. A little older each day. I've got one grandchild already, and probably more on the way in the next few years. So what. I've heard this massive over generalization of the youth of America before, still doesn't wash.
> 
> Just because your average 8 year old will go to Mcdonald's a heck of a lot more often than they will a good restaurant doesn't mean that all good restaurants will no longer exist and Mcdonald's will be the only available option then that 8 year old is my age now.
> 
> I'm still waiting for all of us to have flying cars and for me to be able to move to that colony on the moon if I feel like it. That's where they said we would be when I was a kid. I'm also waiting for them to stop manufacturing mercedes, lexus, lamborghini - yes all of these brands will be gone in 5 years. I mean after all, how many 8 year olds get to ride around in luxury vehicles. Since the vast majority of them only are exposed to Chevy or Ford why then Mercedes might as well lock it's doors and go out of business now. No way they are ever going to be able to sell a car at all in 5 years or 10 years since so few of the kids today have ever ridden in one, right?
> 
> So ya, heard it before, will hear it again - still don't believe a word of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You missed the point. You are comfortable with seeing cameras as a camera, the younger generation sees cameras as an app of their phone. This is the difference.
> 
> Camera phones are going to continue to bridge the gap. There will always be "professional" cameras, just nothing else between them and a camera phone. The issues arises when there is no lower tier to support the upper tier will companies be able to survive?
Click to expand...


No, your missing the point. DSLR's never have been and never will be marketed to the market you describe. Just like you don't market a Mercedes or a Lexus to a 20 year old kid working a part time job. The fact that such a market exists does not preclude that another market also exists, one that appreciates a higher quality product and has the means and the desire to purchase it. Your average 20 year old might look at a Mercedes and say, "Don't need one, my chevy does that for me". By the time that same 20 year old is my age? Guess what, odds are good if he can afford the Mercedes, he will be interested. If not, maybe the Lexus, or some other luxury vehicle. 

That is what's missing from your equation.  You are correct, I don't think like someone in their 20's.  But even though I never will be able to go back to that mindset, it really doesn't matter.  By the time that 20 year old grows up, has a family, has the kind of experiences I've had - well he won't think like he did when he was 20 either.  Odds are good he'll think a lot more like me.


----------



## pixmedic

let us not drift TOO far from the original intent of this thread people.....to show what an obvious tool Mangoo is. 
also, snipping at each other will lead to comments getting deleted or the thread getting locked.


----------



## amolitor

Here's the thing about DSLRs.

There was a short period, about maybe 2007 to 2013, where soccer moms and the like who wanted Good Pictures Of Their Kids and similar bought a DSLR. The price had dropped into the affordable range, the image quality simply wasn't happening in any other form factor. This is where middle class suburban families went. TONS of them bought Rebels and D3xxx D5xxx cameras.

These cameras now sit on the shelf unused, mom has an iPhone now, and it serves the same purpose, and is always with her, and is a lot easier to use. The DSLR is not ever going to be replaced or upgraded in those households.

This created an anomalous spike in sales. A completely new and unexpected market appeared, peaked, and is now vanishing down the drain, in less than 10 years. The long standing markets, the camera enthusiasts, the artists, the professionals, the wannabee professionals,  the status seekers, these people aren't going anyplace. They're still with us and always will be. The soccer moms who just wanted pictures, they're gone.


----------



## runnah

robbins.photo said:


> No, your missing the point.  DSLR's never have been and never will be marketed to the market you describe.  Just like you don't market a Mercedes or a Lexus to a 20 year old kid working a part time job.  The fact that such a market exists does not preclude that another market also exists, one that appreciates a higher quality product and has the means and the desire to purchase it.  Your average 20 year old might look at a Mercedes and say, "Don't need one, my chevy does that for me".  By the time that same 20 year old is my age?  Guess what, odds are good if he can afford the Mercedes, he will be interested.  If not, maybe the Lexus, or some other luxury vehicle.
> 
> That is what's missing from your equation.



Every kids wants a Mercedes...

Ok, so Lexus is a division of Toyota. Toyota produces lots of cheap entry level cars like the Corolla, that most consumers can afford. This allows Toyota to make flagship cars like the LFA which is only affordable to a select few. Now Toyota takes a loss on every LFA that they make, but it all works out because they have the entry level Corolla which sells a lot. Now imagine that if every person was given a car that isn't as good as Corolla but still drives and stops. Now Toyota will no longer be selling it's case level corolla so they will lose a lot of profit. So this in turn makes all their other cars more expensive because they have to recoup their costs. Now the only people buying these more expensive cars are the real drivers who appreciate a good car. Sadly this is a small market that isn't big enough to support Toyota developing newer and better models.


----------



## Derrel

The only growth in the camera business over roughly the last 18 months has been in high-end cameras and high-end lenses. Maybe that's why Canon and Nikon, which sold 84% of all interchangeable lens cameras in the USA last year, have recently been focusing more and more attention on expensive, full-frame d-slr's, and expensive, high-grade lenses. Nikon's MOST-recent introductions have been a $2749 Df full-frame d-slr, and the week before, the $1,699 58mm f/1.4 AF-S G Nikkor prime lens.

Yes, cell phones have been eroding the point and shoot digital field for years now. I think the funniest thing though is the breathless, fanboyish fawning over the iPhone 5s by F. Majoo of the Wall Street Journal. How the WSJ could publish such a piece of tripe without the term "opinion" attached to it is beyond me...I mean, WOW! talk about shoddy "journalism"...it's almost totally *an opinion piece*, flying under the banner of the Wall Street Journal, and it was introduced here by brunerw, who is a sponsoring member who basically, almost exclusively "pushes" information on the latest and greatest sales and promotions and low-ball offers available all over the web.

I'm not trying to attack brunerw, but I have noticed exactly WHAT he does: he is some type of sales "advocate" or "Sales and Advertising" channel for vendors all over the web. I have no idea how that business model works, but I do find it odd that we have a TPF member that serves that function for who knows what kind of financial payment or whatever.


----------



## robbins.photo

runnah said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your missing the point. DSLR's never have been and never will be marketed to the market you describe. Just like you don't market a Mercedes or a Lexus to a 20 year old kid working a part time job. The fact that such a market exists does not preclude that another market also exists, one that appreciates a higher quality product and has the means and the desire to purchase it. Your average 20 year old might look at a Mercedes and say, "Don't need one, my chevy does that for me". By the time that same 20 year old is my age? Guess what, odds are good if he can afford the Mercedes, he will be interested. If not, maybe the Lexus, or some other luxury vehicle.
> 
> That is what's missing from your equation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every kids wants a Mercedes...
> 
> Ok, so Lexus is a division of Toyota. Toyota produces lots of cheap entry level cars like the Corolla, that most consumers can afford. This allows Toyota to make flagship cars like the LFA which is only affordable to a select few. Now Toyota takes a loss on every LFA that they make, but it all works out because they have the entry level Corolla which sells a lot. Now imagine that if every person was given a car that isn't as good as Corolla but still drives and stops. Now Toyota will no longer be selling it's case level corolla so they will lose a lot of profit. So this in turn makes all their other cars more expensive because they have to recoup their costs. Now the only people buying these more expensive cars are the real drivers who appreciate a good car. Sadly this is a small market that isn't big enough to support Toyota developing newer and better models.
Click to expand...


No, not every kid does want a Mercedes.  See, that's the point.  Marketing is not an all or nothing affair.  Not everyone wants a Mercedes - but then again not everyone wants a Chevy or a Ford either.  It doesn't have to be an all or nothing deal.  This notion that only one market will survive, that only one type/style of camera will be available 5 years from now, 10 years from now.. etc - it all comes down to that very basic point.  Not everyone wants a chevy, or a mercedes - but there are markets for both.  To say "Well when kids are in their 20's everyone of them owns a Chevy" is absolutely in no way any sort of evidence that you can point to to state that when they are 40 they will still all be driving a Chevy.  And that is exactly what articles like this are basing their claims off of -and I'm sorry, but it's just silly.


----------



## pixmedic

THIS is the pro photographer of the future!


----------



## bratkinson

pixmedic said:


> THIS is the pro photographer of the future!



I heartily concur. Although 35mm cameras still exist today, I don't think they are making any new ones lately. Pocket cameras and perhaps cameras like the Canon G15 are quickly giving way to cell phone cameras. Why? Because 90% or more (and yes, that's a wild guess on my part!) of the under 40 crowd (another guess) are more than satisfied with the pictures produced by their cell phones. And if they really want to go telephoto, put on one of the adapter lenses. One only need to look around to see the phenomena. Countless people holding up their cell phones to get a picture of some significant subject (eg, Boston Red Sox parade) and how many DSLRs did one see at the parade? I think I saw less than a dozen and I watched the entire thing on TV. 

When I compare dragging around (and safeguarding) my DSLR with perhaps a couple of lenses vs getting 'good enough' pictures with a cellphone I already have, there's really no contest. Why would someone 'on the go' and having grown up (or grown into) with cell phone cameras want to shell out, say, $500 or more for a starter DSLR kit only to find out that their cell phone takes better low light pictures than does their DSLR?

For those who doubt the laws of marketing, how many McDonalds hamburgers get sold EVERY DAY? How many filet mignon dinners with all the trimmings? It's all about volume and mass production. I personally expect the entry-level DSLR to fade away in the next 10 years or so and something like a Canon 6D with 24-105 will become the entry level 'kit'...it already has, for full frame. Less production numbers, higher profit numbers. That's how Canon, Nikon etc will survive. BOTH companies have already published that they expect declining numbers for their photography products. Canon even stated that they will become increasingly focused on their imaging business...eg, copiers and printers.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/articles-interest/344181-nikon-cuts-forecast-again.html


----------



## The Barbarian

I remember the rangefinder guys saying there would always be a market for rangefinders, and SLRs were never going to last.   Photography didn't crash and burn because of SLRs.   It won't crash and burn because of smartphones.   I've gotten some pretty good images from my rather ordinary 8MP smartphone camera, but I'd never consider it a replacement for my K-5 or my K-01.   Just doesn't do what I need, in all cases.   Maybe some day.   And if it does, then I'll go that way.

The WSJ guy sounds like a shill to me.   But he doesn't have everything wrong.   Pushing Apple over Android seems odd.   Maybe it's consistent with the WSJ, whose editorial staff seems to think that anything that seems remotely like open-source is Marxism on the march.


----------



## cgw

"I'm not trying to attack brunerw, but I have noticed exactly WHAT he does: he is some type of sales "advocate" or "Sales and Advertising" channel for vendors all over the web. I have no idea how that business model works, but I do find it odd that we have a TPF member that serves that function for who knows what kind of financial payment or whatever."

Lose the puerile conspiracy crap. Anyone who presents anything contrary to your view is immediately labeled a paid sock puppet? Please. You're out of touch with the retail realities of the imaging business in 2013 and it shows here again and again.


----------



## dredgy

My DSLR is already being replaced by my phone more and more - mainly because when traveling to remote places it is just too cumbersome (seriously, try wandering around remote Iraq or Mauritania in summer with a huge camera). It's also too expensive for me to risk.



> However, for professionals and enthusiasts,



And this is why the DSLR will be safe from the rise of the smartphone (for now). It is a niche market for people serious about photography - most people do not and never have owned DSLR cameras and therefore they won't be replaced. What smartphones are replacing is the middle range - the humble point and shoot cameras. With phone cameras as good as they are these days, there is no reason for a pocket sized device that does nothing but take pictures.


----------



## cgw

amolitor said:


> Here's the thing about DSLRs.
> 
> There was a short period, about maybe 2007 to 2013, where soccer moms and the like who wanted Good Pictures Of Their Kids and similar bought a DSLR. The price had dropped into the affordable range, the image quality simply wasn't happening in any other form factor. This is where middle class suburban families went. TONS of them bought Rebels and D3xxx D5xxx cameras.
> 
> These cameras now sit on the shelf unused, mom has an iPhone now, and it serves the same purpose, and is always with her, and is a lot easier to use. The DSLR is not ever going to be replaced or upgraded in those households.
> 
> This created an anomalous spike in sales. A completely new and unexpected market appeared, peaked, and is now vanishing down the drain, in less than 10 years. The long standing markets, the camera enthusiasts, the artists, the professionals, the wannabee professionals, the status seekers, these people aren't going anyplace. They're still with us and always will be. The soccer moms who just wanted pictures, they're gone.



Hmmm. All those cameras those "soccer moms and the like"(sic) shelved were DX which are estimated to be around 80% of Nikon's DSLR sales.


----------



## manaheim

I predict this thread will go to 11 pages.


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> THIS is the pro photographer of the future!



Oh ya, that looks like a real joy to shoot with.. lol


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> "I'm not trying to attack brunerw, but I have noticed exactly WHAT he does: he is some type of sales "advocate" or "Sales and Advertising" channel for vendors all over the web. I have no idea how that business model works, but I do find it odd that we have a TPF member that serves that function for who knows what kind of financial payment or whatever."
> 
> Lose the puerile conspiracy crap. Anyone who presents anything contrary to your view is immediately labeled a paid sock puppet? Please. You're out of touch with the retail realities of the imaging business in 2013 and it shows here again and again.



cgw,

As mentioned in the previous posting.. you know, the one where you where shouting at the top of your lungs about looking at Nikon's profit statements - had you done that yourself you would have realized that sales were actually up I believe 5.6% over the same quarter in 2012.

That pretty much knocks your entire so called analysis into a cocked hat and proves that frankly you really didn't research this at all prior to sounding off.  Or to put it in an easier to understand albiet not quite as nice way, that you haven't a clue what your talking about.

That 5.6% increase was equal to roughly 259 billion yen, or roughly 2.6 billion dollars US.  So.. hmm.. tell me again about how Nikon is tanking and that any camera not built into a cell phone is no longer being purchased?


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm not trying to attack brunerw, but I have noticed exactly WHAT he does: he is some type of sales "advocate" or "Sales and Advertising" channel for vendors all over the web. I have no idea how that business model works, but I do find it odd that we have a TPF member that serves that function for who knows what kind of financial payment or whatever."
> 
> Lose the puerile conspiracy crap. Anyone who presents anything contrary to your view is immediately labeled a paid sock puppet? Please. You're out of touch with the retail realities of the imaging business in 2013 and it shows here again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw,
> 
> As mentioned in the previous posting.. you know, the one where you where shouting at the top of your lungs about looking at Nikon's profit statements - had you done that yourself you would have realized that sales were actually up I believe 5.6% over the same quarter in 2012.
> 
> That pretty much knocks your entire so called analysis into a cocked hat and proves that frankly you really didn't research this at all prior to sounding off. Or to put it in an easier to understand albiet not quite as nice way, that you haven't a clue what your talking about.
> 
> That 5.6% increase was equal to roughly 259 billion yen, or roughly 2.6 billion dollars US. So.. hmm.. tell me again about how Nikon is tanking and that any camera not built into a cell phone is no longer being purchased?
Click to expand...


Have a look here:

Nikon Financials Posted | byThom | Thom Hogan

Check Market watch for Nikon's recent EBITDA. We'll see how things go for Nikon over the next few quarters and how the market values its stock.


----------



## ceejtank

All this article does is renew my hatred of Apple and it's users.  I have yet to meet an intelligent person who recommends the iPhone over an android.


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm not trying to attack brunerw, but I have noticed exactly WHAT he does: he is some type of sales "advocate" or "Sales and Advertising" channel for vendors all over the web. I have no idea how that business model works, but I do find it odd that we have a TPF member that serves that function for who knows what kind of financial payment or whatever."
> 
> Lose the puerile conspiracy crap. Anyone who presents anything contrary to your view is immediately labeled a paid sock puppet? Please. You're out of touch with the retail realities of the imaging business in 2013 and it shows here again and again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw,
> 
> As mentioned in the previous posting.. you know, the one where you where shouting at the top of your lungs about looking at Nikon's profit statements - had you done that yourself you would have realized that sales were actually up I believe 5.6% over the same quarter in 2012.
> 
> That pretty much knocks your entire so called analysis into a cocked hat and proves that frankly you really didn't research this at all prior to sounding off. Or to put it in an easier to understand albiet not quite as nice way, that you haven't a clue what your talking about.
> 
> That 5.6% increase was equal to roughly 259 billion yen, or roughly 2.6 billion dollars US. So.. hmm.. tell me again about how Nikon is tanking and that any camera not built into a cell phone is no longer being purchased?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have a look here:
> 
> Nikon Financials Posted | byThom | Thom Hogan
> 
> Check Market watch for Nikon's recent EBITDA. We'll see how things go for Nikon over the next few quarters and how the market values its stock.
Click to expand...


Ah yes..doom, gloom, DSLR is dead. Numbers tell a completely different story of course, profit drop was due to a strong yen rather than a drop in net sales, in fact sales increased by 5.6% - but that's the nice part about the numbers, I mean provided you cherry pick what you want to support your argument as opposed to looking at them on the whole in a an objective fashion.

So yes, still in the "flat earth" society I guess, I'll believe all the hype about cell phones completely taking over all markets, even the market for people like me who have a cell phone camera and rarely if ever use it, when I see it. Much like I'll believe that all steak houses will close permanently and be boarded up because no one will ever want a steak again once they experience the low quality craptastic hamburgers at a McDonald's drive thru.

Yes, all the Mercedes dealerships around the world might as well close too, now that the Yugo is available for the mass market. I mean there couldn't possibly be more than one market out there, or a fairly good sized group of people who don't want a Yugo. That's just crazy talk. Flat earth stuff really. Lol


----------



## robbins.photo

manaheim said:


> I predict this thread will go to 11 pages.



Personally I think if it gets to 5 we should sell.


----------



## terri

This marks the second intervention by a moderator in this thread.   Please refrain from calling your fellow TPF members by anything other than their posted user name, especially within the confines of spirited debate, where anything else comes across as condescending and inflammatory.

thanks!


----------



## IByte

manaheim said:


> I predict this thread will go to 11 pages.



I see your 11 and up it to 15...bring on the bacon  manbunny!


----------



## Steve5D

I'm going to shoot with what I want to shoot with. Period.

It doesn't matter to me if someone thinks that an iPhone will soon replace a DSLR, simply because it will never replace mine...


----------



## hamlet

Steve5D said:


> I'm going to shoot with what I want to shoot with. Period.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me if someone thinks that an iPhone will soon replace a DSLR, simply because it will never replace mine...



This rings true in many ways. There are many who still prefer film over digital, they don't care either.



I'm not this way however. In my expierence, nothing ever lasts forever, clinging to old ways is counter-intuitive. But that is something that only applies to myself. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.


----------



## robbins.photo

hamlet said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to shoot with what I want to shoot with. Period.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me if someone thinks that an iPhone will soon replace a DSLR, simply because it will never replace mine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rings true in many ways. There are many who still prefer film over digital, they don't care either.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not this way however. In my expierence, nothing ever lasts forever, clinging to old ways is counter-intuitive. But that is something that only applies to myself. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.
Click to expand...


If the new way offers significant advantages over the old, then perhaps.  If the new way actually offers significant, glaring drawbacks, then the only reason one would choose the new is just to say, hey look, I'm modern!  I have to go with Steve on this one.


----------



## amolitor

robbins.photo said:


> If the new way offers significant advantages over the old, then perhaps.  If the new way actually offers significant, glaring drawbacks, then the only reason one would choose the new is just to say, hey look, I'm modern!  I have to go with Steve on this one.



The entire point of this whole issue may be restated as: for most people, these new ways have enormous advantages over the old ways, which is why the old ways are being marginalized.

Just because _you_ don't see any benefit to using a phone camera over a DSLR doesn't mean that lots of other people don't see any benefit either. The buying public isn't a bunch of morons ditching their DSLRs because DSLRs are stodgy and old fashioned. They're ditching their DSLRs because the see "significant advantages" to using their iPhones.


----------



## hamlet

robbins.photo said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm  going to shoot with what I want to shoot with. Period.
> 
> It doesn't matter to me if someone thinks that an iPhone will soon  replace a DSLR, simply because it will never replace mine...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This rings true in many ways. There are many who still prefer film over digital, they don't care either.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not this way however. In my expierence, nothing ever lasts forever,  clinging to old ways is counter-intuitive. But that is something that  only applies to myself. I'm not trying to speak for anyone else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the new way offers significant advantages over the old, then perhaps.   If the new way actually offers significant, glaring drawbacks, then  the only reason one would choose the new is just to say, hey look, I'm  modern!  I have to go with Steve on this one.
Click to expand...





I thought that was self-evident.


----------



## amolitor

hamlet said:


> I thought that was self-evident.



Me too. I'm not sure it's self-evident to other posters, though it may be. I felt it a point worth clarifying, anyways.


----------



## hamlet

amolitor said:


> hamlet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought that was self-evident.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me too. I'm not sure it's self-evident to other posters, though it may be. I felt it a point worth clarifying, anyways.
Click to expand...


I agree with everything you said, that is why i don't try to force my beliefs on anyone else.


----------



## amolitor

Sorry, my remark up above was based on not seeing what hamlet had quoted (or maybe it mysteriously wasn't there when I read the post, I sure didn't notice it, and it's a big whacking lump of text to miss..) Without the quoted text, it comes across quite different.


----------



## hamlet

amolitor said:


> Sorry, my remark up above was based on not seeing what hamlet had quoted (or maybe it mysteriously wasn't there when I read the post, I sure didn't notice it, and it's a big whacking lump of text to miss..) Without the quoted text, it comes across quite different.



Ow sorry, that was entirely my fault.


----------



## robbins.photo

amolitor said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the new way offers significant advantages over the old, then perhaps. If the new way actually offers significant, glaring drawbacks, then the only reason one would choose the new is just to say, hey look, I'm modern! I have to go with Steve on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire point of this whole issue may be restated as: for most people, these new ways have enormous advantages over the old ways, which is why the old ways are being marginalized.
> 
> Just because _you_ don't see any benefit to using a phone camera over a DSLR doesn't mean that lots of other people don't see any benefit either. The buying public isn't a bunch of morons ditching their DSLRs because DSLRs are stodgy and old fashioned. They're ditching their DSLRs because the see "significant advantages" to using their iPhones.
Click to expand...


I would disagree. I don't see the "advantages" that so many are touting here at all other than one, and that's simply convenience. Other than that pretty much every advantage goes to the DSLR. The arguments here have all been "all of the new generation will ditch quality in favor of convenience" - which simply isn't true. It discounts some very important facts and totally ignores all historical marketing data on the subject. It also discounts that yes, while many of this "new generation" we speak of might favor convenience over quality "now", that does not lock them into this mindset for their entire lives.

When I was that age, guess what, I thought much the same way they do - I'm sure my dad did when he was that age, and probably my father's father, etc - but when you get a little older and a little wiser you start to realize some things. One, that in many aspects of life quality is important. Two, that you generally get what you pay for - cheaper is not always better, in fact usually it ends up being worse. Three, that the satisfaction you get out of a project is proportional to the amount of work you put in to begin with - just doing things the fast, easy way usually gives you very disappointing results.

The other thing I would state that your entire premise is simply false. The public is not ditching DSLR - despite all the doom and gloom articles on the subject. The numbers just don't support that statement.</SPAN>


----------



## pixmedic

I am always amazed at "trends",  and how people perceive value based on how many people use a certain product or technique.  If lots and lots of people use it, it MUST be good, right?  Millions of Bieber fans cant be wrong? 

We all have our little quirks and beliefs that we cling to... 
Some people think film is "purer"  than digital. (whatever that means) 
Some people think HDR is only good when it is realistic. 
I think portraits should always be done using flash. 
I think autotune has ruined music. 
No amount of people saying otherwise, no matter what reasons they offer, are likely to change anyones mind. 

"majority rule" isnt necessarily wrong either. And theres the real kick in the yarbles. Your damned either way. Go with the crowd and you are a sheep, break from the crowd, and you are doing it "wrong". 
There will always be plenty of people on both sides more than willing to tell you how bad your choice was. 

Too many traditionalists willing to trash work that is "different" or "outside the box", and too many new "artists" crying "thats my style"  and "artistic choice " before learning even the basics of their craft. 

Its no secret how i feel about certain photography "styles", but i wont say they are wrong either. 
If you are shooting for yourself, and you are happy, then your not wrong. 
If you are shooting for a client and they are happy, you are not wrong. 
It doesn't matter how many "experts"  say otherwise, about your gear or about your end product, unless you are shooting to please them, you are not wrong. 

Dont let trends define you. 
You can follow the trends, or you can MAKE the trends.


----------



## hamlet

This thread applies to pretty much everything in life. You could even change it to home-made pudding vs supermarket pudding. Nothing would change :greenpbl:. It should be moved to the philosophy section.


----------



## robbins.photo

pixmedic said:


> I am always amazed at "trends", and how people perceive value based on how many people use a certain product or technique. If lots and lots of people use it, it MUST be good, right? Millions of Bieber fans cant be wrong?
> 
> We all have our little quirks and beliefs that we cling to...
> Some people think film is "purer" than digital. (whatever that means)
> Some people think HDR is only good when it is realistic.
> I think portraits should always be done using flash.
> I think autotune has ruined music.
> No amount of people saying otherwise, no matter what reasons they offer, are likely to change anyones mind.
> 
> "majority rule" isnt necessarily wrong either. And theres the real kick in the yarbles. Your damned either way. Go with the crowd and you are a sheep, break from the crowd, and you are doing it "wrong".
> There will always be plenty of people on both sides more than willing to tell you how bad your choice was.
> 
> Too many traditionalists willing to trash work that is "different" or "outside the box", and too many new "artists" crying "thats my style" and "artistic choice " before learning even the basics of their craft.
> 
> Its no secret how i feel about certain photography "styles", but i wont say they are wrong either.
> If you are shooting for yourself, and you are happy, then your not wrong.
> If you are shooting for a client and they are happy, you are not wrong.
> It doesn't matter how many "experts" say otherwise, about your gear or about your end product, unless you are shooting to please them, you are not wrong.
> 
> Dont let trends define you.
> You can follow the trends, or you can MAKE the trends.



Ok, first allow me to go on record and categorically state that no matter how many fans the Bieb has.. yup. they are wrong.  Disturbingly wrong.. lol

I do understand the rest of your points and I don't disgree with them for the most part.  The problem I have here is that so many people are starting from an entirely false premise.  I suppose in the long run though it hardly matters, if an when they can actually make a cell phone that can match a DSLR in capabilites the silly thing will be so incredibly expensive they won't sell more than half a dozen anyway.  The DSLR crowd is going to stick to buying DSLR's for years to come, and while at some point the true "DSLR" might be replaced by some kind of hybrid technology or a vastly improved mirrorless system it will still look and act and perform very much like the DSLR's we have today.  Ergonomics will win that battle, of that I have no doubt.

Many of the cell phone crowd will migrate to DSLR's or their equivalent as they get older - there will pretty much always be a market for the point and shoot style camera and the DSLR camera (or it's eventual very DSLR like replacement) because there will always be people out there who want better quality, and cell phone cameras will always be at the bottom of that heap no matter how good they get.


----------



## amolitor

robbins.photo said:


> The other thing I would state that your entire premise is simply false. The public is not ditching DSLR - despite all the doom and gloom articles on the subject. The numbers just don't support that statement.



2013 month-to-month CIPA numbers show camera sales consistently down relative to the same month a year. It could be economic factors causing a temporary dip, but plotting it out sure looks like the top of the curve passed in Jan 2013.


----------



## HughGuessWho

pixmedic said:


> I am always amazed at "trends",  and how people perceive value based on how many people use a certain product or technique.  If lots and lots of people use it, it MUST be good, right?  Millions of Bieber fans cant be wrong?  We all have our little quirks and beliefs that we cling to... Some people think film is "purer"  than digital. (whatever that means) Some people think HDR is only good when it is realistic. I think portraits should always be done using flash. I think autotune has ruined music. No amount of people saying otherwise, no matter what reasons they offer, are likely to change anyones mind.  "majority rule" isnt necessarily wrong either. And theres the real kick in the yarbles. Your damned either way. Go with the crowd and you are a sheep, break from the crowd, and you are doing it "wrong". There will always be plenty of people on both sides more than willing to tell you how bad your choice was.  Too many traditionalists willing to trash work that is "different" or "outside the box", and too many new "artists" crying "thats my style"  and "artistic choice " before learning even the basics of their craft.  Its no secret how i feel about certain photography "styles", but i wont say they are wrong either. If you are shooting for yourself, and you are happy, then your not wrong. If you are shooting for a client and they are happy, you are not wrong. It doesn't matter how many "experts"  say otherwise, about your gear or about your end product, unless you are shooting to please them, you are not wrong.  Dont let trends define you. You can follow the trends, or you can MAKE the trends.



Amen! Now, pass the potatoes.


----------



## robbins.photo

amolitor said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The other thing I would state that your entire premise is simply false. The public is not ditching DSLR - despite all the doom and gloom articles on the subject. The numbers just don't support that statement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2013 month-to-month CIPA numbers show camera sales consistently down relative to the same month a year. It could be economic factors causing a temporary dip, but plotting it out sure looks like the top of the curve passed in Jan 2013.
Click to expand...


Some of the dip will not be due to economic factors entirely.  A lot of it can be attributed to the fact that the DSLR market is now considered mature and thus it is only natural to see a decline at this stage.  But there is one huge, major, monster difference between a decline due to market maturity or economic slowdown and the notion that people are abandoning something in droves, so much so that the market will eventually no longer exist.

The numbers simply do not support that conclusion, not even remotely.


----------



## amolitor

In the first place it's not just DSLRs, it's all digital still cameras.

In the second place, you need to stop moving the goalposts around, if you want people to keep talking to you. When I rebut one remark, you can't simply claim that you said something else. What you said previously is right there in front of me, plus, I have a memory which mostly works ok. So, it's not going to work out all that well.


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the new way offers significant advantages over the old, then perhaps. If the new way actually offers significant, glaring drawbacks, then the only reason one would choose the new is just to say, hey look, I'm modern! I have to go with Steve on this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire point of this whole issue may be restated as: for most people, these new ways have enormous advantages over the old ways, which is why the old ways are being marginalized.
> 
> Just because _you_ don't see any benefit to using a phone camera over a DSLR doesn't mean that lots of other people don't see any benefit either. The buying public isn't a bunch of morons ditching their DSLRs because DSLRs are stodgy and old fashioned. They're ditching their DSLRs because the see "significant advantages" to using their iPhones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would disagree. I don't see the "advantages" that so many are touting here at all other than one, and that's simply convenience. Other than that pretty much every advantage goes to the DSLR. The arguments here have all been "all of the new generation will ditch quality in favor of convenience" - which simply isn't true. It discounts some very important facts and totally ignores all historical marketing data on the subject. It also discounts that yes, while many of this "new generation" we speak of might favor convenience over quality "now", that does not lock them into this mindset for their entire lives.
> 
> When I was that age, guess what, I thought much the same way they do - I'm sure my dad did when he was that age, and probably my father's father, etc - but when you get a little older and a little wiser you start to realize some things. One, that in many aspects of life quality is important. Two, that you generally get what you pay for - cheaper is not always better, in fact usually it ends up being worse. Three, that the satisfaction you get out of a project is proportional to the amount of work you put in to begin with - just doing things the fast, easy way usually gives you very disappointing results.
> 
> The other thing I would state that your entire premise is simply false. The public is not ditching DSLR - despite all the doom and gloom articles on the subject. The numbers just don't support that statement.</SPAN>
Click to expand...


Truisms at ten paces--again.

Maybe it really boils down to this*



_The reason why digital cameras soared and killed film cameras is "instantaneous review." Suddenly everyone had an answer to "did I get the shot?"_
 


_The reason why smartphones are soaring and killing off digital cameras is "instantaneous sharing." Suddenly everyone has an answer for "how do I get this where people can see it?" _

*The Short Answer | Gearophile | Thom Hogan


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire point of this whole issue may be restated as: for most people, these new ways have enormous advantages over the old ways, which is why the old ways are being marginalized.
> 
> Just because _you_ don't see any benefit to using a phone camera over a DSLR doesn't mean that lots of other people don't see any benefit either. The buying public isn't a bunch of morons ditching their DSLRs because DSLRs are stodgy and old fashioned. They're ditching their DSLRs because the see "significant advantages" to using their iPhones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would disagree. I don't see the "advantages" that so many are touting here at all other than one, and that's simply convenience. Other than that pretty much every advantage goes to the DSLR. The arguments here have all been "all of the new generation will ditch quality in favor of convenience" - which simply isn't true. It discounts some very important facts and totally ignores all historical marketing data on the subject. It also discounts that yes, while many of this "new generation" we speak of might favor convenience over quality "now", that does not lock them into this mindset for their entire lives.
> 
> When I was that age, guess what, I thought much the same way they do - I'm sure my dad did when he was that age, and probably my father's father, etc - but when you get a little older and a little wiser you start to realize some things. One, that in many aspects of life quality is important. Two, that you generally get what you pay for - cheaper is not always better, in fact usually it ends up being worse. Three, that the satisfaction you get out of a project is proportional to the amount of work you put in to begin with - just doing things the fast, easy way usually gives you very disappointing results.
> 
> The other thing I would state that your entire premise is simply false. The public is not ditching DSLR - despite all the doom and gloom articles on the subject. The numbers just don't support that statement.</SPAN>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truisms at ten paces--again.
> 
> Maybe it really boils down to this*
> 
> 
> 
> _The reason why digital cameras soared and killed film cameras is "instantaneous review." Suddenly everyone had an answer to "did I get the shot?"_
> 
> 
> 
> _The reason why smartphones are soaring and killing off digital cameras is "instantaneous sharing." Suddenly everyone has an answer for "how do I get this where people can see it?" _
> 
> *The Short Answer | Gearophile | Thom Hogan
Click to expand...


Well, if that's the answer - hmm.. can't imagine it would be all that difficult to add simple wireless capability to the DSLR.. I mean, gosh.. I might be mistaken but I think they may have done that already.  As that technology progresses the folks who want higher quality won't be forced to make that choice - they can have the simple touch screen sharing capabilites right from the screen of the DSLR.


----------



## robbins.photo

amolitor said:


> In the first place it's not just DSLRs, it's all digital still cameras.
> 
> In the second place, you need to stop moving the goalposts around, if you want people to keep talking to you. When I rebut one remark, you can't simply claim that you said something else. What you said previously is right there in front of me, plus, I have a memory which mostly works ok. So, it's not going to work out all that well.



Well I haven't moved any goalposts at all - I've simply tried to answer the questions put forth - and dispel any miscomunication.  I'm assuming your referring to a comment on another thread - about the D800 vrs DF.  Interesting I think, how you seem to be coming after me on a lot of threads here recently.  My guess is this has a lot more to do with my recent percieved heresy than anything else.  Regardless, I think were done here.  Not much point in presenting facts that will simply be ignored.  

We'll know for sure soon enough anyway, when the DSLR market doesn't collapse, when the kids of today become the adults of tomorrow and not everyone of them is snapping vacation pics with an Iphone or some equivalent.  I guess until then maybe the best thing to do is just agree to disagree.


----------



## TheFantasticG

Yeah, wifi is one thing, but DSLRS are going to need 3G/4G, wifi, and gps to catch up to smartphones *minimum*. Also need installed apps like instagram, FB, twitter, etc. Honestly, I'm surprised Canon didn't put all that into the latest T5i.


----------



## amolitor

I don't give a damn if you like B&W or not.

"the public are not abandoning the DSLR, the numbers simply don't support that"

then I show that, actually, the numbers DO support that

"the DSLR market is declining, but it's not going to vanish completely, the numbers simply don't support that"

That's moving the goalposts, and I am done responding to you.


----------



## robbins.photo

amolitor said:


> I don't give a damn if you like B&W or not.
> 
> "the public are not abandoning the DSLR, the numbers simply don't support that"
> 
> then I show that, actually, the numbers DO support that
> 
> "the DSLR market is declining, but it's not going to vanish completely, the numbers simply don't support that"
> 
> That's moving the goalposts, and I am done responding to you.



No, you didn't show the numbers support that the public is "abandoning" DSLR, what you showed was that there was a decline in DSLR sales. Had you read anything other than your own magic prose you might have realized there is a big difference between those two states of being. A huge difference. I would recommend you do a little research on market percentages, market maturity, look at Nikons first quater sales numbers for 2013 and compare them to 2012, take a look at the strength of the yen and how that affects the profit margin of Nikon overall to start with, and then analyze the data based on BPS and percentage rate of decline while factoring in market maturity and fluctuations in the relative strength of the yen.

Then do the same for Canon. When you do you'll find what I did - and you'll most likely come to the same conclusion I did. Truth is you might be a fine photographer and you might also be extremely knowledgeable about cameras - but that doesn't translate over to a knowledge of marketing or international markets I'm afraid. So, as for being done responding to me, that is not something I consider to be a bad thing. You've obviously been spoiling for a fight on 3 different threads now, so if this gives you the excuse you need to ignore me feel free. Put me in the same non-person category Lew did, I am a-ok with that one.

As for your moving the goal post analogy, sorry but no. The goal posts haven't moved. Just don't get mad at me if you kick it on the ground, it goes all of about a foot and a half and then I don't give you 3 points for it.


----------



## robbins.photo

TheFantasticG said:


> Yeah, wifi is one thing, but DSLRS are going to need 3G/4G, wifi, and gps to catch up to smartphones *minimum*. Also need installed apps like instagram, FB, twitter, etc. Honestly, I'm surprised Canon didn't put all that into the latest T5i.



Well no, not really - no more so than these necessarily have to be built into tablets or other portable devices. The phone can be used as a 4g router, after all.  So if you want instagram, fb, twitter, etc - you have your phone.

If you want high quality, easily shared pictures, you pull out your DSLR - take your picture, press the touchscreen and instantly share it, through the phone.  Technology already exists for the most part, just a matter of tying it together.


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, wifi is one thing, but DSLRS are going to need 3G/4G, wifi, and gps to catch up to smartphones *minimum*. Also need installed apps like instagram, FB, twitter, etc. Honestly, I'm surprised Canon didn't put all that into the latest T5i.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well no, not really - no more so than these necessarily have to be built into tablets or other portable devices. The phone can be used as a 4g router, after all. So if you want instagram, fb, twitter, etc - you have your phone.
> 
> If you want high quality, easily shared pictures, you pull out your DSLR - take your picture, press the touchscreen and instantly share it, through the phone. Technology already exists for the most part, just a matter of tying it together.
Click to expand...


Just look at the new Fuji X-E2's specs.


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn if you like B&W or not.
> 
> "the public are not abandoning the DSLR, the numbers simply don't support that"
> 
> then I show that, actually, the numbers DO support that
> 
> "the DSLR market is declining, but it's not going to vanish completely, the numbers simply don't support that"
> 
> That's moving the goalposts, and I am done responding to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't show the numbers support that the public is "abandoning" DSLR, what you showed was that there was a decline in DSLR sales. Had you read anything other than your own magic prose you might have realized there is a big difference between those two states of being. A huge difference. I would recommend you do a little research on market percentages, market maturity, look at Nikons first quater sales numbers for 2013 and compare them to 2012, take a look at the strength of the yen and how that affects the profit margin of Nikon overall to start with, and then analyze the data based on BPS and percentage rate of decline while factoring in market maturity and fluctuations in the relative strength of the yen.
> 
> Then do the same for Canon. When you do you'll find what I did - and you'll most likely come to the same conclusion I did. Truth is you might be a fine photographer and you might also be extremely knowledgeable about cameras - but that doesn't translate over to a knowledge of marketing or international markets I'm afraid. So, as for being done responding to me, that is not something I consider to be a bad thing. You've obviously been spoiling for a fight on 3 different threads now, so if this gives you the excuse you need to ignore me feel free. Put me in the same non-person category Lew did, I am a-ok with that one.
> 
> As for your moving the goal post analogy, sorry but no. The goal posts haven't moved. Just don't get mad at me if you kick it on the ground, it goes all of about a foot and a half and then I don't give you 3 points for it.
Click to expand...


Go to check Nikon's EBITDA numbers.


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't give a damn if you like B&W or not.
> 
> "the public are not abandoning the DSLR, the numbers simply don't support that"
> 
> then I show that, actually, the numbers DO support that
> 
> "the DSLR market is declining, but it's not going to vanish completely, the numbers simply don't support that"
> 
> That's moving the goalposts, and I am done responding to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't show the numbers support that the public is "abandoning" DSLR, what you showed was that there was a decline in DSLR sales. Had you read anything other than your own magic prose you might have realized there is a big difference between those two states of being. A huge difference. I would recommend you do a little research on market percentages, market maturity, look at Nikons first quater sales numbers for 2013 and compare them to 2012, take a look at the strength of the yen and how that affects the profit margin of Nikon overall to start with, and then analyze the data based on BPS and percentage rate of decline while factoring in market maturity and fluctuations in the relative strength of the yen.
> 
> Then do the same for Canon. When you do you'll find what I did - and you'll most likely come to the same conclusion I did. Truth is you might be a fine photographer and you might also be extremely knowledgeable about cameras - but that doesn't translate over to a knowledge of marketing or international markets I'm afraid. So, as for being done responding to me, that is not something I consider to be a bad thing. You've obviously been spoiling for a fight on 3 different threads now, so if this gives you the excuse you need to ignore me feel free. Put me in the same non-person category Lew did, I am a-ok with that one.
> 
> As for your moving the goal post analogy, sorry but no. The goal posts haven't moved. Just don't get mad at me if you kick it on the ground, it goes all of about a foot and a half and then I don't give you 3 points for it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go to check Nikon's EBITDA numbers.
Click to expand...


Ok, again - for those sitting in the cheap seats. You cannot accurately compare and assess the strength of the market for DSLR's using profit as your sole guide. If you look at Nikon's numbers for the first quarter of 2012 and compare them with the first quarter of 2013 you will see a marked decline in profits. Not something anyone would deny. But what your missing is the fact that while profits declined, sales actually increased by 5.6%. 

The reason for this is that their profits are affected by more than just sales. In this case the biggest reason for the decline in profit margin was the strength of the yen. The yen was much stronger in the first quarter of 2013 than it was in 2012 - as a result even though Nikon increased it's sales by 5.6%, which is roughly 2.4 Billion dollars, they saw a decrease in overall profit thanks mostly to the cost of currency exchange.

Look, I could go into an incredibly long winded market analysis here, and do it properly. I could take the sales figures, factor in the currency exchange, factor in the decline in economy and the lower demand for items that are considered "luxury" items by taking a vareity of other luxury items and comparing there decrease in sales to that of Nikon and canon's. I could lay this all out in a series of complicated charts and spreadsheets and bore everyone to tears.

But it will not change the underlying facts or the obvious conclusions that are drawn from them - yes, DSLR sales have declined. However people are not abandoning DSLR, the market has declined but the declines are primarly due to other factors and honestly don't have that much to do with improved cameras in cell phones, and the entire premise of all these doom and gloom articles are just dead wrong because they just cherry picked numbers that agreed with them rather than doing a true, in depth analysis.

But I tell you what, if you are absolutely firmly convinced that the DSLR is dead, box yours up and ship it to me, and run out with your fancy cell phone cam and have a ball. I have no problem with that whatsoever.. lol.


----------



## Derrel

robbins.photo, keep in mind that you've been arguing with a person who keeps "pushing" the superiority of mirrorless cameras, despite the fact that North American market customers bought only 39,000 mirrorless cameras over roughly the June 2012 to June 2013 time frame... yes *thirty-nine thousand* units in all of North America. So, yeah...cherry-picking seems to be a specialty of some folks who show up on this forum and repeatedly,stridently make their case that mirrorless solutions are "the next big thing"...because people are simply NOT BUYING some classes of cameras in significant numbers. And the post that started off this thread...a known Apple-fanantic tech writer spewing a bunch of *personal opinion* in a WSJ piece that is not fit to be called "news reporting" nor "journalism", but which reads more like Apple fanboy material.


----------



## robbins.photo

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo, keep in mind that you've been arguing with a person who keeps "pushing" the superiority of mirrorless cameras, despite the fact that North American market customers bought only 39,000 mirrorless cameras over roughly the June 2012 to June 2013 time frame... yes *thirty-nine thousand* units in all of North America. So, yeah...cherry-picking seems to be a specialty of some folks who show up on this forum and repeatedly,stridently make their case that mirrorless solutions are "the next big thing"...because people are simply NOT BUYING some classes of cameras in significant numbers. And the post that started off this thread...a known Apple-fanantic tech writer spewing a bunch of *personal opinion* in a WSJ piece that is not fit to be called "news reporting" nor "journalism", but which reads more like Apple fanboy material.



Derrel, as usual you arrive just in time with the appropriate reality check - lol


----------



## amolitor

Camera sales across the board, all digital still cameras, are down a handful of percent month by month. The year is shaping up to be 40% down overall digital still camera sales, with interchangeable lens cameras down 20%, this despite a half-decent January. They might get a pop in the Christmas season, I know of no reason that demand would not be down, but I know of no reason that demand in the gift giving season should -- or should not -- follow the spring/summer trends. What is clear is that the wheels are falling off the bus. A 20% drop year to year in a commodity market like this is like falling off a cliff.

This is only loosely related to any camera maker's overall performance, of course, since most of them have other business units, and there are ways to reduce the monetary losses in the short term. It is clear that camera building business units need to be preparing for a new world in which a hell of a lot less digital still cameras get built. A hell of a lot less isn't zero.

Anyone who tells you that the market is going to vanish is probably an idiot. Anyone who tells you that the market isn't undergoing some pretty dramatic changes is also probably an idiot. It's changing, radically, but there are strong reasons to suppose that a modest market will remain in a somewhat fat long tail, sufficient to support.. something. How many players, and how much R&D they can do is unknown, but probably more than zero on both fronts.

Essentially no photographic technology has ever been lost to us, with the exception of dry plate. There is no reason to suppose that there's something magic about DSLRs or whatever that will make them vanish where film, Polaroid, wet-plate, large format, and dozens of other out of date technologies have survived in some form or another.


----------



## robbins.photo

amolitor said:


> Camera sales across the board, all digital still cameras, are down a handful of percent month by month. The year is shaping up to be 40% down overall digital still camera sales, with interchangeable lens cameras down 20%, this despite a half-decent January. They might get a pop in the Christmas season, I know of no reason that demand would not be down, but I know of no reason that demand in the gift giving season should -- or should not -- follow the spring/summer trends. What is clear is that the wheels are falling off the bus. A 20% drop year to year in a commodity market like this is like falling off a cliff.
> 
> This is only loosely related to any camera maker's overall performance, of course, since most of them have other business units, and there are ways to reduce the monetary losses in the short term. It is clear that camera building business units need to be preparing for a new world in which a hell of a lot less digital still cameras get built. A hell of a lot less isn't zero.
> 
> Anyone who tells you that the market is going to vanish is probably an idiot. Anyone who tells you that the market isn't undergoing some pretty dramatic changes is also probably an idiot. It's changing, radically, but there are strong reasons to suppose that a modest market will remain in a somewhat fat long tail, sufficient to support.. something. How many players, and how much R&D they can do is unknown, but probably more than zero on both fronts.
> 
> Essentially no photographic technology has ever been lost to us, with the exception of dry plate. There is no reason to suppose that there's something magic about DSLRs or whatever that will make them vanish where film, Polaroid, wet-plate, large format, and dozens of other out of date technologies have survived in some form or another.



Ok, well I know this couldn't have been a response directed at me.. I mean I am a non-person afterall.  Simply not worth responding too whatsoever.  But since you've made at least one major misrepresentation and one very snotty accusation I guess I'm going to have to set the record straight on both.  I know you won't mind, me being a non-person and all it's not like anything I have to say would matter to a being of your deific magnificence.

First I never said the market wasn't undergoing changes - never said anything of the sort whatsoever.  See, I'm not the type to ignore reality and make wild, unbelievable statements.. you know, like saying something really outlandish about how people are "abandoning" DSLR's completely especially when the numbers clearly defy such an outlandish statement.

But when you look at the market, as a whole and you remove all of the various factors such as currency exchange, softer economies, etc - you discover something fairly interesting.  It's pretty much been detailed out over and over again, but the truth is DSLR sales are not falling because DSLR's are losing popularity or because they are being replaced with other options.  The factors that are influencing their decline in sales are the same factors affecting other luxury industries.   While there is some fall off due to market maturity, the decline simply is not dramatic enough to imperil the entire industry.  

Will DSLR technology eventually be replaced by something like mirrorless?  Sure, it's possible.  They are a long way from that stage though.  EVF has improved but it is still not ready to replace pentaprism or pentamirror.  And while they have developed autofocus systems that will supposedly keep up with DSLR (please note my use of the word supposedly here is not an indictment of these systems but I've never actually used one myself so I cannot accurately judge the veracity of this, I can only go by what I've read) those systems are still rather expensive.

And while I know the doom and gloomers are all in a huge rush to condemn the current generation of 20 somethings as all being of the "we could care less about quality" mindset, they overlook a lot of things with this analysis.  First they seem to totally fail to understand that DSLR's are not marketed towards 20 somethings - they for the most part lack the disposable income for that sort of purchase.  Second they assume that the 20 somethings will still have exactly the same mindset when they reach their late 30's or 40's, and thus won't change their purchasing habits.  Ok, trying to find a kind way to put this, but frankly that assumption pretty much flies completely in the face of reality and all known history.  

So, in the end will DSLR eventually be replaced by a better technology?  Almost certainly.  Will that happen within the next 5 - 10 years, very, very doubtful.  But in the end you know what?  The DSLR's replacement will look, feel, and function almost exactly the same way as the current DSLR we have today.  There is a reason why DSLR's are designed like they are.  Google "Ergonomics" if you have any doubts.  So yes, someday DSLR will most likely be replaced by a better technology - eventually.  But this notion that all cameras will be a part of a cell phone?  Laughable at best.   Yes, cell phone cameras will continue to improve - right up to the point where the camera becomes more expensive than what that market will support - and that's where it will stop.

The thing I find most laughable?  Nikon, by itself, improved their sales by 2.4 billion dollars over the same quarter of last year, and because people don't seem to understand that profit is affected by more than just sales, they run around like chickens with their heads cut off screaming about the sky falling.  Stop and think about the truly astounding amount of money that is - 2.4 billion.  There are a whole lot of business's that don't make that much total in a year, or 5 years, or even 10 - and that isn't even total sales, that's just how much improvement they made in one quarter when compared to what they did last year.


----------



## cgw

Derrel said:


> robbins.photo, keep in mind that you've been arguing with a person who keeps "pushing" the superiority of mirrorless cameras, despite the fact that North American market customers bought only 39,000 mirrorless cameras over roughly the June 2012 to June 2013 time frame... yes *thirty-nine thousand* units in all of North America. So, yeah...cherry-picking seems to be a specialty of some folks who show up on this forum and repeatedly,stridently make their case that mirrorless solutions are "the next big thing"...because people are simply NOT BUYING some classes of cameras in significant numbers. And the post that started off this thread...a known Apple-fanantic tech writer spewing a bunch of *personal opinion* in a WSJ piece that is not fit to be called "news reporting" nor "journalism", but which reads more like Apple fanboy material.



But then you made this uncharacteristically lucid comment here:

"I think the there from Tuck's article that applies best to your post, and your new mindset, is this one:

"_What it really means for the camera industry is that the tools they offer the new generation must be more intuitively integrated and less about "ultimate." In this world a powerful camera that's small enough and light enough to go with you anywhere (phone or small camera) trumps the huge camera that may generate better billboards but the quality of which is irrelevant for web use and social media. The accessible camera trumps the one that needs a sherpa for transport and a banker for acquisition._"

I think the folks at Fuji have really hit a good balance, aiming at the camera enthusiast/expert market, a market with people who value high-quality lenses, good features, nice looks and styling, and who want it to be smaller and more-portable, more-totable, more-carryable, than a big pentaprism-style d-slr like, say, a Canon 5D Mark II with a fairly good sized 24-105mm f/4 L series zoom... "


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you didn't show the numbers support that the public is "abandoning" DSLR, what you showed was that there was a decline in DSLR sales. Had you read anything other than your own magic prose you might have realized there is a big difference between those two states of being. A huge difference. I would recommend you do a little research on market percentages, market maturity, look at Nikons first quater sales numbers for 2013 and compare them to 2012, take a look at the strength of the yen and how that affects the profit margin of Nikon overall to start with, and then analyze the data based on BPS and percentage rate of decline while factoring in market maturity and fluctuations in the relative strength of the yen.
> 
> Then do the same for Canon. When you do you'll find what I did - and you'll most likely come to the same conclusion I did. Truth is you might be a fine photographer and you might also be extremely knowledgeable about cameras - but that doesn't translate over to a knowledge of marketing or international markets I'm afraid. So, as for being done responding to me, that is not something I consider to be a bad thing. You've obviously been spoiling for a fight on 3 different threads now, so if this gives you the excuse you need to ignore me feel free. Put me in the same non-person category Lew did, I am a-ok with that one.
> 
> As for your moving the goal post analogy, sorry but no. The goal posts haven't moved. Just don't get mad at me if you kick it on the ground, it goes all of about a foot and a half and then I don't give you 3 points for it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go to check Nikon's EBITDA numbers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, again - for those sitting in the cheap seats. You cannot accurately compare and assess the strength of the market for DSLR's using profit as your sole guide. If you look at Nikon's numbers for the first quarter of 2012 and compare them with the first quarter of 2013 you will see a marked decline in profits. Not something anyone would deny. But what your missing is the fact that while profits declined, sales actually increased by 5.6%.
> 
> The reason for this is that their profits are affected by more than just sales. In this case the biggest reason for the decline in profit margin was the strength of the yen. The yen was much stronger in the first quarter of 2013 than it was in 2012 - as a result even though Nikon increased it's sales by 5.6%, which is roughly 2.4 Billion dollars, they saw a decrease in overall profit thanks mostly to the cost of currency exchange.
> 
> Look, I could go into an incredibly long winded market analysis here, and do it properly. I could take the sales figures, factor in the currency exchange, factor in the decline in economy and the lower demand for items that are considered "luxury" items by taking a vareity of other luxury items and comparing there decrease in sales to that of Nikon and canon's. I could lay this all out in a series of complicated charts and spreadsheets and bore everyone to tears.
> 
> But it will not change the underlying facts or the obvious conclusions that are drawn from them - yes, DSLR sales have declined. However people are not abandoning DSLR, the market has declined but the declines are primarly due to other factors and honestly don't have that much to do with improved cameras in cell phones, and the entire premise of all these doom and gloom articles are just dead wrong because they just cherry picked numbers that agreed with them rather than doing a true, in depth analysis.
> 
> But I tell you what, if you are absolutely firmly convinced that the DSLR is dead, box yours up and ship it to me, and run out with your fancy cell phone cam and have a ball. I have no problem with that whatsoever.. lol.
Click to expand...


But what about Hogan's two points above? Your arguments suggest you just don't grasp what's prompting people to pass on buying DSLRs or what it is with smart phones that works for them. 
Xmas 2013 will add a few more pages to the story. I'm particularly interested to see how the numbers you dismiss/discount will affect Nikon's holiday pricing and discounts.


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> But what about Hogan's two points above? Your arguments suggest you just don't grasp what's prompting people to pass on buying DSLRs or what it is with smart phones that works for them.
> Xmas 2013 will add a few more pages to the story. I'm particularly interested to see how the numbers you dismiss/discount will affect Nikon's holiday pricing and discounts.



Guess it must be really, really loud up there in the cheap seat section.  The numbers you provided don't show that people are passing on DSLR and purchasing cell phones instead.  Your premise is completely flawed from the beginning.  All of the analysis you are relying on is done by people who don't understand that there are many things that affect a profit margin besides sales, and they are taking the profit margin numbers and trying to use them to say, "Look, nobody is buying DSLR" anymore.

Simply isn't true.  Wasn't true when you said it the first time, isn't true now.  Nothing you've posted provides a single shred of evidence that cell phone sales have had any effect on DSLR sales at all - that is a massive assumption that as it turns out also is not supported by the numbers.  If that were true you'd expect to see a huge drop off in DSLR sales, but as it is the drop off in sales can be easily accounted for by weaker global economies and market maturity.  

Ok, I get it.. you've got some mirrorless wonder that your ga-ga over.  Great.  Wonderful.  Go out and take some pictures with it, be happy.  This may come as a huge shock and surprise but I really don't want one.  I'm happy with the camera I have.  The simple truth here is that you can shout doom and gloom from the rooftops all you want, it is not going to make anyone thing any more highly of your personal choice in cameras.


----------



## cgw

robbins.photo said:


> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about Hogan's two points above? Your arguments suggest you just don't grasp what's prompting people to pass on buying DSLRs or what it is with smart phones that works for them.
> Xmas 2013 will add a few more pages to the story. I'm particularly interested to see how the numbers you dismiss/discount will affect Nikon's holiday pricing and discounts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess it must be really, really loud up there in the cheap seat section. The numbers you provided don't show that people are passing on DSLR and purchasing cell phones instead. Your premise is completely flawed from the beginning. All of the analysis you are relying on is done by people who don't understand that there are many things that affect a profit margin besides sales, and they are taking the profit margin numbers and trying to use them to say, "Look, nobody is buying DSLR" anymore.
> 
> Simply isn't true. Wasn't true when you said it the first time, isn't true now. Nothing you've posted provides a single shred of evidence that cell phone sales have had any effect on DSLR sales at all - that is a massive assumption that as it turns out also is not supported by the numbers. If that were true you'd expect to see a huge drop off in DSLR sales, but as it is the drop off in sales can be easily accounted for by weaker global economies and market maturity.
> 
> Ok, I get it.. you've got some mirrorless wonder that your ga-ga over. Great. Wonderful. Go out and take some pictures with it, be happy. This may come as a huge shock and surprise but I really don't want one. I'm happy with the camera I have. The simple truth here is that you can shout doom and gloom from the rooftops all you want, it is not going to make anyone thing any more highly of your personal choice in cameras.
Click to expand...


I've concluded that anyone who references the long-dead Yugo in a discussion to make a point probably isn't likely to be open to much that disturbs or disputes their settled opinions. Nikon's leaking customers. That's not opinion.


----------



## robbins.photo

cgw said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgw said:
> 
> 
> 
> But what about Hogan's two points above? Your arguments suggest you just don't grasp what's prompting people to pass on buying DSLRs or what it is with smart phones that works for them.
> Xmas 2013 will add a few more pages to the story. I'm particularly interested to see how the numbers you dismiss/discount will affect Nikon's holiday pricing and discounts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess it must be really, really loud up there in the cheap seat section. The numbers you provided don't show that people are passing on DSLR and purchasing cell phones instead. Your premise is completely flawed from the beginning. All of the analysis you are relying on is done by people who don't understand that there are many things that affect a profit margin besides sales, and they are taking the profit margin numbers and trying to use them to say, "Look, nobody is buying DSLR" anymore.
> 
> Simply isn't true. Wasn't true when you said it the first time, isn't true now. Nothing you've posted provides a single shred of evidence that cell phone sales have had any effect on DSLR sales at all - that is a massive assumption that as it turns out also is not supported by the numbers. If that were true you'd expect to see a huge drop off in DSLR sales, but as it is the drop off in sales can be easily accounted for by weaker global economies and market maturity.
> 
> Ok, I get it.. you've got some mirrorless wonder that your ga-ga over. Great. Wonderful. Go out and take some pictures with it, be happy. This may come as a huge shock and surprise but I really don't want one. I'm happy with the camera I have. The simple truth here is that you can shout doom and gloom from the rooftops all you want, it is not going to make anyone thing any more highly of your personal choice in cameras.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've concluded that anyone who references the long-dead Yugo in a discussion to make a point probably isn't likely to be open to much that disturbs or disputes their settled opinions. Nikon's leaking customers. That's not opinion.
Click to expand...


Well when you have some actual facts to post to backup your opinions, by all means - post them.  Until then you can continue this ridiculous charade and run off on tangents like this one, and try desperately to obfuscate because we both know the facts don't support your position.  I'm sure that will work great.


----------



## camz

LOL I don't know what the argument is all about. There will always be professional equipment that separates the field from what the regular consumer typically buys. Down the road it could be the size of a cell phone or a booger for all we care. The only thing that will obliterate a professional career like a photographer is by removing the human element out of the equation and automating it like the production lines in the Silicon Valley (keep in mind these are repetitive functions). Until that day comes, professional gear will always be available regardless of what it's called or what size it's going to be in the future.


----------



## bratkinson

I'd have to say "The handwriting is on the wall"...

Canon Slumps After Forecast Misses Estimates: Tokyo Mover - Bloomberg

Expect longer 'development and testing' periods and slower introduction of new equipment. At least, that's my take on it.


----------



## Braineack

Last night my smartphone choked out my dslr.


----------



## ratssass

Braineack said:


> Last night my smartphone choked out my dslr.



...*and* posted it on phacebook!!


----------



## JerryVenz

As a full time professional photographer I CAN'T WAIT FOR ALL THE MOMS AND AND OTHER DILETNATES TO ABANDON THEIR DSLRS!!

The more people using the "instamatic"  of the day the more money we make as professionals.


----------



## Derrel

JerryVenz said:


> As a full time professional photographer I CAN'T WAIT FOR ALL THE MOMS AND AND OTHER DILETNATES TO ABANDON THEIR DSLRS!!
> 
> The more people using the "instamatic"  of the day the more money we make as professionals.



Jerry, I wish that logic held true today. I think it USED TO be accurate, and true, but what I see is the vast majority of people being happy with low-quality but very rapidly-shared images snapped with phones. It seems like for many people, photographs are now so common, and so easily transferred via text message, e-mail, and social media, that a "quality, professional-level photo" is no longer as important as having an image RIGHT NOW, dag-nabbit--and I mean *right NOW!!!!!!!!!!!
*
I think for the forseeable future, the quality and style and skill that professional photographers like yourself have prided themselves on has lost a lot of its importance with the average buying public; only the wealthier, older, more-established clients know the value of professional-grade, printed images and canvasses. (But that's a good thing; you don't want a hundred low-end clients when ten well-heeled, upscale customers will be less work and earn you farrrrr better sales...)

Burt then again, this new attitude DOES open up new marketing avenues, and changes the way people look at real "professional photographers". And maybe you are right, and I am wrong. Maybe if this new attitude goes on for another five to ten years there will be a "sea-change" where people start saying things like, "Honey, these cell-phone pictures and the ones your sister takes are nice and all, but I think we need to hire somebody who REALLY,really, knows what he's doing." And maybe by that time, all of the weekend and wanna-be "pros" will be thinned out, and working regular jobs?


----------



## Braineack

Everyone always bugs me for my photos after a party/event/whatever I may be shooting...

for example:







vs.




Happy 1st Birthday by The Braineack, on Flickr


funny, my pictures also seem to make it online faster than the rest too


----------



## Derrel

Good post Braineack. Your real-camera photo has MUCH higher quality than the cell phone snap of the birthday girl.

ON the opposite side of the coin...remember the tragic London train bombing incident? Almost all the news photos I saw were CELL-phone snaps, made by "citizen journalists"...also known as "regular people". LOndon train bombing photos - Google Search

And the unrest in Egypt? I watched most of the coverage on YouTube, shot by "regular people" who were THERE, live, as it happened. Not ABC News crews who took 24 hours and got there after the fact.

Which Chicago newspaper was it that fired ALL of its photography staff, and turned the reporters looks after a brief "iPhone Photography Lesson" class???

TIME magazine used a $30 stock photo image for a cover a few years back...wow.


----------



## Braineack

they'll learn, you'll see.  but then again people actually bought and played the wii.


----------



## minicoop1985

Hey now, I sold my Wii, OK? Sheesh.

The problem is decent cameras are getting cheaper and smaller (I said decent, not good) and people are cheap and lazy. Don't want to pay someone for doing something they PERCEIVE they can do (ooooh no, I didn't say they actually can-put the ax down. Yes, you, put that thing down before you hurt yourself). I hired a photographer for my wedding. I hired a photographer to take photos of my kid. Actually, several different photographers. I'll hire other photographers to take pictures of him in the future. Sure, I take hundreds of *snapshots* of him, but trying to take good photos of a toddler in low light without flashing 10,000 times requires things that are worth more than my car (it's 2 years old, so do the maths), so we get a lot of blurs more than anything.


----------



## bribrius

its better now. my grandparents maybe had a couple pictures to pass on. My parents a few. when I was young I had pictures taken of me. so I got a photo album (including paid for pictures).I think I have about two thousand pictures of my kids. Over the last fourty or fifty years, the quality of the prints has also increased dramatically. The photos of my children, are better than the paid for prints just ten or fifteen years ago, even the ones done with a point and shoot. Move on to the last decade and the increase of phones with cameras, tablets with cameras, the images in them getting better and better. The reason all this is so popular, as you are free to take a picture of whatever, whenever you want. Much simpler too than my old Kodak with the manual advance. Much better quality.

I think people that still pay for portraits, either cant afford a decent camera or are still kind of stuck in the history of hiring someone. I expect that to go by the way side though for the average family, and expect it already has to a large extent. When lower end camera lines are putting excellent images, iphones and cellphones are putting out excellent images. One has to wonder why the average consumer would buy a dslr or pay a photographer much longer. Average prints are 5x7, 8x10. Most any low end snap shooter or many phones could deliver that in a satisfactory image. But instead of having to choose "package a, package b, wallet size, " et. etc. etc. the people can take whatever picture they want, and print whatever they want at their whim. And candids taken daily are often more treasured than a settings picture. 

something else to think about, is if dslr tech has maxed out. 24 mp, 30 mp. The snapshooters are getting up to decent mp now. Seems avoiding the mirror, selling a less expensive camera, with a high end sensor, and still having plenty of mp comparable to and better than most dslrs. Well, why would someone want to carry a dslr that weighs so much more?
Lets face it, dslr's are inconvenient as hell. I mean, for the most part they really do suck. Did you read the thread on "do you carry your dslr every day? Even most of the faithful photo lovers here avoid carrying their dslr. And for obvious reasons.

And with the increase in tech, the dslr is rather unnecessary or soon to be unnecessary, and outdated. You know who buys dslrs? Baby boomers. Because they couldn't afford one when they were younger. Its a generation thing. Generation y up, 4 get about it. If the newest generation can get a 15 mp cellphone what would they need a dslr for? Or a 30 mp point and shoot. That's why these companys gave up on the professionals, who are becoming less and less and only make up a fraction of the market share, started hammering soccer moms and suburbia. Just saw a cannon commercial not to long ago again trying to push the soccer mom dslr thing. Because they know if they lose that, which they are losing that, they are screwed. And pushing the "hobbiest" approach, is because they don't know what else to say to sell one and keep customers. So now its a "hobby". which will wear off too. But just selling it for a " hobby" tells you right there, it has no legitimate, or soon will have no legitamet other purpose. you wont need to have or know how to use a dslr to take a really good picture. Suppose, you could consider knowing how to use a dslr like building model airplanes or sewing...

In fact knowing and using a dslr will soon be counter productive, as other things will take better pictures with furthering technology than dslrs do and in a much smaller more efficient package. 
For those that cant accept that, I dunno. I guess I would just suggest to remember that dslrs had a purpose for existing. It was a technology and bridged a gap. Like anything, when that purpose is nolonger needed, or that gap gets bridged by more efficient means. Well the product doesn't need to exist. Short of a few diehard enthusiasts which I expect will diminish (some people still get into short wave radios I suppose) but Tablets replace laptops, laptops replaced home computers, the cellphone replaced the home phone, cars replaced horses.


----------



## bratkinson

I think the attitude of the Gen x-y-z'<WHATEVER>s is 'why bother with the bulk/hassle/having to learn a DSLR when my cell phone can do it all?" In computer circles, the ever growing capabilities of cell phones are killing the desk top computer business and dancing all over having to carry a once-upon-a-time-chic laptop computer.

The drop in price for price for computers and all electronics is greatly appreciated by all who use them. I well remember paying $4995.00 for a brand new IBM PC-XT (2.88mhz/256K/10meg HD, no monitor, no video, no sound, no network, no operating system) and $125 for an extra 64 KILObytes of RAM about 30 years ago. With ever improving miniaturization and the continual price and size drops have accomplished is to put advanced technology into everyones' hands. No longer does it take 'magic' to use a mainframe computer or even take a picture in dim light, it's all a couple of finger-presses away. So, why -bother- with something bulky/difficult to use when I can get it for free AND it fits my pocket or purse?


----------



## Braineack

I'm about to ruin the wedding photography business:






_*GNU Free Documentation License*_


----------



## pixmedic

well, it says Ultra so.....it _*must*_ be a pro camera.


----------



## falcontertomt

Can I just point out the irony of attaching a $2500 canon L series lens to a $200 Smart phone... Not to mention the conversion ratio from the lens to the camera has to be crap.

I imagine you will see fewer DSLRs in the hands of soccer moms. It will become a "professional" or "enthusiast" thing. 
The same will happen in the PC market, ever try typing a 20 page document or editing a complex excel spreadsheet on your tablet or iPhone?


----------



## Braineack

ever tried doing anything notable but play candy crush on a tablet or iphone?


----------



## Greiver

Even Android phones can't replace SLR's and plenty of them have better cameras than the 5S. I wonder how much Apple paid this site to write this?


----------



## Greiver

The funny thing is, the doom and gloomers like to use the current 20-somethings as their reason why DSLR's are failing and yet...i'm 23 right this moment and I got my DSLR....oh yeah, last year! And being one of those 20-something's that people like to think are always gonna use a smartphone over a DSLR because it's more "convenient" I just have to say those people couldn't be more wrong. I know plenty of others my age that want to get an SLR, trust me we're not going to be nailing the DSLR's coffin anytime soon.


----------



## Braineack

Greiver said:


> The funny thing is, the doom and gloomers like to use the current 20-somethings as their reason why DSLR's are failing and yet...i'm 23 right this moment and I got my DSLR....oh yeah, last year! And being one of those 20-something's that people like to think are always gonna use a smartphone over a DSLR because it's more "convenient" I just have to say those people couldn't be more wrong. I know plenty of others my age that want to get an SLR, trust me we're not going to be nailing the DSLR's coffin anytime soon.



welcome to the 10%.


----------



## Greiver

Braineack said:


> Greiver said:
> 
> 
> 
> The funny thing is, the doom and gloomers like to use the current 20-somethings as their reason why DSLR's are failing and yet...i'm 23 right this moment and I got my DSLR....oh yeah, last year! And being one of those 20-something's that people like to think are always gonna use a smartphone over a DSLR because it's more "convenient" I just have to say those people couldn't be more wrong. I know plenty of others my age that want to get an SLR, trust me we're not going to be nailing the DSLR's coffin anytime soon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> welcome to the 10%.
Click to expand...

10% is still a lot.


----------



## Braineack

10% of people who have shot a camera, actually shooting a real camera and not a cell phone, that is.


----------



## Greiver

Braineack said:


> 10% of people who have shot a camera, actually shooting a real camera and not a cell phone, that is.


I know what you meant. 10% is still a decent amount all things considered.


----------



## PBlais

Anything that promotes taking pictures is great! OK, most here Don't shoot smartphones for a living or even a lot but people thinking images is the only future for "real" cameras taking better pictures. People have been in love with images since the earliest days. I don't see it going away and having more people taking crappy pictures just means more people wanting and loving them. Snap shots keep the idea alive! It's should be no surprise that they will one day decide there are better pictures being taken in better ways. If you learn to love music young you are set for life and visual images are the same idea.

Bottom line: How the heck can the idea of pictures be promoted if nobody wants one? It's the product that sells itself. It's like beer! The more you get -the more you want! With all those iPhones taking picture a few good ones will sneak in too.


----------



## unpopular

Iphone photography is a bit like DSLR video: it's only remarkable because it's significantly better than what came before.

An iPhone is no full frame Canon 1D. A Canon 1D is no Red (or for that matter, Black Magic).


----------



## Derrel

Braineack said:


> ever tried doing anything notable but play candy crush on a tablet or iphone?



Oh come on man--hell, I've frickin' ordered PIZZA on my iPhone! WHILE I was driving on both city streets, AND the interstate freeway system! Now that is pretty notable.


----------



## Braineack

I'll have what you're having!


----------



## pixmedic

Derrel said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ever tried doing anything notable but play candy crush on a tablet or iphone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on man--hell, I've frickin' ordered PIZZA on my iPhone! WHILE I was driving on both city streets, AND the interstate freeway system! Now that is pretty notable.
Click to expand...


I took a picture of my junk and made the background of my iphone...
wait, that was someone else's iphone. i have the galaxy note 3.


----------



## runnah

pixmedic said:


> I took a picture of my junk and made the background of my iphone... wait, that was someone else's iphone. i have the galaxy note 3.



That was you?!


----------



## Derrel

pixmedic said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> 
> ever tried doing anything notable but play candy crush on a tablet or iphone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on man--hell, I've frickin' ordered PIZZA on my iPhone! WHILE I was driving on both city streets, AND the interstate freeway system! Now that is pretty notable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I took a picture of my junk and made the background of my iphone...
> wait, that was someone else's iphone. i have the galaxy note 3.
Click to expand...


My niece has the Galaxy Note. It's a nice, large-screen phone,for people who want to do a lot of their internet and social media stuff using their phone. Or...for people who want a BIG picture of their junk as a screen image.


----------



## vipgraphx

I think that what many professionals sometimes forget is that as times are changing they are become less valuable to the common joe. Many professionals  have the attitude that they are the high
and mighty..that is good but does not pay the bills. They criticize the so called "SOCCER MOMS" for wanting to take pictures of their kids. I read so much trash on the net about people don't understand light
or the fundamentals of photography and composition BUT, the reality is that Who THE F#%$ really cares???? Not the so called "SOCCER MOMS" they are very content with their black friday DSLR camera bundle&#8230;

Times are changing in this ever so "tech" world&#8230;cell phone cameras are being upgraded like crazy with newest and greatest..Its hard to big camera manufactures to keep up so and are forced to create entry level DSLR in both Crop and FF&#8230;think 10 years ago people that had the big bulky cameras where PROS&#8230;there was not entry level so much. Pro Photographers were need more now they are less and less needed in this ever changing world that is a fact and I do not believe it will change. IF you are stuck in the old times and days you will not survive in years to come thats a fact , you can get mad all you want but, this world does not care!

Have you seen Sonys new contraption? 

New Sony QX Series ?Lens-Style Cameras? Redefine the Mobile Photography Experience | Sony

This is going to be changing the way people use their cell phones for sure&#8230;

I say this because I have had a crazy past in the Graphic Art industry.

I graduated in 2001 after 4 years in the Art Center with Computer Graphics Animation. I freelanced for a few years, I then started a business called Pixel Dust Graphics where we specialized in 3d animation, video processing and graphic design. It was great but more and more companies started doing this so we had to change and started doing websites and logos as more of our main source of income..well then comes all the $100 logo websites offering logos for $100. I used to charge From $500 -$10,000 for logo design. Then here comes cheap do it yourself websites taking more of the market share. I was charging per page and now these sites are offering $100 websites&#8230; Jeeeeeesss how do I make a living now..Think about it how many of you now make your own logo and websites&#8230;business like mine are not as valuable..YEs I can say but do they know how to CODE,, can they use flash&#8230;.? Eehhh they are cookie cutter websites&#8230;blah blah blah&#8230;I had to to change once again and started VIP Graphics Printing and Embroidry and have been doing this since 2006. Once again there are more and more people getting into doing there own shirts but what is helping me and other business is that equipment is still very expensive and it takes a good amount of money to get started and keep going&#8230;The cost of printing is pretty cheap so there is no need for people to go out and do it them selves so much nor have the time and know how&#8230;.I still offer graphic design and logo as part of my business but its the printing that brings in that business...


With cell phones being so cheap and DSLR's being so cheap its easier and easier for average people to get into it and start controlling the market. Those people only look at pictures and color for that. They do not take to much time into composition and lighting and are completely satisfied with their results. In-fact they have family and friends telling them how good they can take pictures that they start their own side business and do pretty good because many people look at a photo for what it is not what it isn't. Its only PRO's and Prosumers really that look at photos and cast judgment and pixel peep and find fault&#8230;.People on photo forums who praise themselves because they have been shooting since the 1300's which makes them wizards of photography&#8230;well in the real world no body really cares and many people are fine with Instagram quality photos that never see a printer.

There are many people that instead of hiring a professional to do their child's senior portraits they go out and by their very own DSLR and do it themselves because it is cheaper&#8230;.This is where Pro Photographers are going to take a hit like my past business because the cost to get it done cheaper is what is driving this market.

OF course there are many many people that would rather have their shots taken by a pro and for that they seek out a pro and do not mind paying the money as they see the value in it.


----------



## pixmedic

Derrel said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come on man--hell, I've frickin' ordered PIZZA on my iPhone! WHILE I was driving on both city streets, AND the interstate freeway system! Now that is pretty notable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I took a picture of my junk and made the background of my iphone...
> wait, that was someone else's iphone. i have the galaxy note 3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My niece has the Galaxy Note. It's a nice, large-screen phone,for people who want to do a lot of their internet and social media stuff using their phone. Or...for people who want a BIG picture of their junk as a screen image.
Click to expand...


me and the wife were going to get the galaxy S4 today, but the note 3 was newer, had a few cool features so...we both got one. 
im kinda a phone tech junkie and i found the quad-core processor and 3 gigs of ram appealing. And, you know...big pictures of my junk.  I really cant imagine how much longer they can really "innovate" in the smart phone department. these things are basically laptops in your pocket already. and the bluetooth watch that pairs with the note 3?? holy $#!*snacks, that thing was awesome! i just cant quite bring myself to have a watch i have to charge every night with my phone.


----------



## Braineack

I took this picture this morning, think I can sell it?   Used my Pro-Level HTC DNA.







Pretty much Nat Geo level...


----------



## bratkinson

vipgraphx said:


> well in the real world no body really cares and many people are fine with Instagram quality photos that never see a printer.



That pretty well sums up the entire gist of this thread.  When nobody really cares about quality images and are satisfied with mediocre, we get Instagram, Facebook, etc.  

The same is true of just about everything these days.  We are satisfied more with a low price than a quality product.  When the knock-off makers of just about everything are selling more products than the original, real product makers are, be it clothing to cameras, the quality companies inevitably suffer and either change business models, buy competitors, or go broke.

It's all a matter of perception.  Why pay $xxx for something I can get for free?  Same reason I pay all my bills online and the US Postal Service, check printing company, and even the envelope company all get zilch.  Oh yea, the Uniball pen company gets zilch, too!  I don't buy water by the bottle, either, when I get it for next to nothing out of the tap.


----------



## minicoop1985

bratkinson said:


> The same is true of just about everything these days.  We are satisfied more with a low price than a quality product.  When the knock-off makers of just about everything are selling more products than the original, real product makers are, be it clothing to cameras, the quality companies inevitably suffer and either change business models, buy competitors, or go broke.



Aaaaaaaaaaaand that's why Walmart exists, unfortunately.


----------



## bribrius

I worked for a printing company when I was younger. heres a example. we had two rooms of people to do layouts, make printing plates etc. downsized to one room and a half a million dollar image scanner. I was one of the few people I know of trained on a manual four color press. I was a printer and the guy who taught me was in his sixties and that was twenty years ago. Roll and sheet fed single and double web. climb in each unit and manually adjust ink level, check registrations, change blankets, hand feed ink. Then they trained me on a newer printer, then a newer printer. Got rid of the old ones. until I was working on a million dollar three thousand feet per minute double web, all computer controlled from triple consoles and robot unloaded by the pallet finished magazines , flyers, etc.
But I still remember climbing in and manually adjusting and hand feeding ink in individual units. ON both four color and double webs. I loved running a double web manual press. Took me three years to learn to run one. Jus walking in in the morning, setting my coffee down and starting up one of those beasts. IF you haven't seen a double web start up, the sound of it.. its something to behold. They are bigger than most houses. Them days are gone. I think they print things in a little room now somewhere all computer.

Tech changes. Entire place I worked then, is nolonger there now.
when they took away my manual press they gave me one of these 



 which I worked for a couple years then they took away that and went to 3000's . Then they shut the doors and found something else to print with than presses I think. Twenty years ago.........


And you guys think a dslr is around to stay...........


----------



## Jamesaz

Bribrius, I worked in industrial too. First army photo school then when I got out a couple dozen labs. Then I got a staff photographer job at a good size company. For the first 20 or so years or so, I was an artist. I photographed politicians from presidents (Reagan, U.S., and Fox, Mexico) to mayors. Annual reports, all kinds of cool things. Then, somewhere along the line, I became a content provider. I didn't know quite what to think about that but I didn't do any thing different. Then, everyone started using their phones for company newsletter and website photos. I got bored with having nothing to do and retired. Life goes on. I shoot film and digital both and, as far as it goes for me, film and digital will both last at least as long as I do. Oh yeah, I can't imagine having to have a day job now.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular

Bribius- certainly the physical limitations of a swinging mirror and the improvements in electronic viewfinders will prevent number the SLRs longevity, and by all means cell phones will get better and professional equipment will eventually have a phone attached to it to easily share and mail images. It may very well be that in the mid-distant future cameras will not have storage facilities at all.

Nobody wants to lug around an RB67-sized camera in a crowded stadium, no matter if it can capture a few noiseless gigapixels in complete darkness in one shot. Short of a paradigm shift, quantum physics will end of the practicality of the SLR.

But your argument is a bit like saying that because today's digital presses are essentially giant inkjet printers, inkjet printers - the kind that we have on our desktop - will be the death of the printing industry. Certainly when desktop publishing became feasible in the early 1990s people did have this fear, yet, you still see print shops.

The demands of a professional will always be different than that of the consumer. Most consumers don't need the precision, reliability and speed of a $75,000 printing press. The same goes for photography.


----------

