There is a pervasive mantra on the web that we've hit a hard and long plateau which means "all current cameras are more than good enough."
DP Review made a splash, not with another "amazing pre-pre-preview of the latest Sony MILC" but with news of Nikon's recently released financials; which don't look good where their photography products are concerned. Another 18% drop in their imaging business revenue since just last year (which was NOT stellar). Sony had a drop in operating profit of 73% last quarter; according to (well informed) Thom Hogan. Makes one wonder if Samsung just did their homework a lot quicker (and better) than the rest of the companies in the camera market and got out first. Stopped digging deeper into the hole. Stopped the bleeding early...
The perspective I hear from nearly every working photographer I encounter in day-to-day life is this: "The cameras got so good a few years ago that there's really nothing I need in the new cameras that I can't get out of the stuff I bought two years (or three, or four) ago." Followed by, "I'm pretty happy with what I have now I think I'll skip this generation and wait for the next set of introductions." Online reviewers are still touting the latest products but they are still making their YouTube reviews mostly with Panasonic GH5 cameras; a three year old product with a smaller sensor, etc. (Examples are: Tony and Chelsea Northrup, and Jordan Drake and Chris Nichols over at DPReview).
If the guys who are charged with marketing the latest stuff to consumers are still using older gear with great results then one has to pause for a moment and wonder why. The on-screen guys surely have access to the latest stuff but....... is it possible that three years after its introduction the only real competitor to the GH5, in the hard specs (60p 4K, 10 bit, 4:2:2 with high data rates of 400 M/bs), is the Fuji X-T3? And even it falls short since there is no audio adapter for professional microphones, no waveform indicators, etc.
Sales of Nikon's new mirrorless products are being bedeviled and curtailed by the sheer strength of the two year old D850. Based mostly on an eight year old D800. Nikon would probably sell more of their mirrorless stuff if it was demonstrably better than the D850 but it's not. And they can't risk killing the main cannibal in their line-up or they'd lose too many sales since their mirrorless offerings have fewer unique selling points versus the MILC competition. Sad times for Nikon. And even sadder is that those new cameras are so good, if considered on their own...
So, what's driving the market down? It's probably the same thing that's making commercial photography jobs harder to come by: Fear of the next recession looming in the near future. That, and declining real incomes in mature markets. And maybe new product launch fatigue.
Recent surveys by business magazines and websites show a pessimistic trend among CFOs where the economy is concerned, and indicate that they are already taking steps to trim unnecessary costs. That's starting to be felt by freelancers and might soon hit contract workers as well, in spite of the historically low unemployment numbers. Someone has to be the "canary in the coal mine."
I finally also believe that phones with great cameras, and even better internal imaging software, are more and more responsible for a growing proportion of the photographic images (and video) we're seeing in social media and web advertising. There are still plenty of situations in which traditional cameras are needed for professional (or even acceptable) results. It would be tough-to-impossible (now) to get great live theater shots with long focal lengths and lots of movement in low light. Architects still need raw resolution and (for now) optical perspective correction. The list goes on but it's shrinking. And the styles of advertising imaging have changed. Now, more often than not, all but in the top, top end of advertising the imaging being used is most often a result of "PhotoShopping" together disparate elements (mostly free stock shots) to create a final image. Cheaper, faster and more than adequate for banner ads and ads that will appear (with a 65% likelihood ) on a person's phone screen.
Survey photo bloggers and you'll hear tales of woe and despair. Affiliate clicks are following the general downshifting of the overall camera market and income from in-blog ads for photo products are falling month by month. Some bloggers are turning to crowd-funding via resources like Patreon on which interested readers can make direct financial contributions. I can only surmise though that the decline in camera sales also reflects, to a certain degree, a declining interest in the blog content in general since most of the stuff written is (inevitably now) a rehash of the same old tropes and topics.
Samples being: Which lens is best? Comparisons between two current, popular cameras. Which camera is best? Which cameras are the top five ever produced? Why the making of prints will never die? Why printmaking is dead? Mirrorless versus Traditional. Canon versus everyone else. How I use one light to photograph hot models. Are Camera Makers Lying to Us? How we did (everything) this in the good old days. Why I hate video? Are Sony Cameras the Best in the Universe? Do Fuji cameras have worms?
I've written over 4,000 blogs. I'm now waiting for the next big thing in photography. Except....there may not be a "next big thing" in Photography. We'll see.
I'm getting more calls for video these days than for traditional photography. I hate to say it but client taste in videos is pretty basic. Occasionally we get clients who just watched "Avengers: Endgame" and they'd like their $3,000 video to look "just like that." But most are looking for basic "talking heads" and the clients have done a good job pushing their cost of videos down (rushing to be first to the bottom) which means fees are also falling. I'm just a few steps away from selling off all the cameras, buying two iPhones and offering nothing but available light iPhone video with iMovie editing.... But that's just my cynicism talking.
The odd thing is that after all the changes in the markets, the tools, the audiences and the publishing venues, I still love photography more than anything (except swimming) that I do in the realm of work and play. There's still a magic to it and I'm sure that no matter what happens to the business end of photography I'll still enjoy lacing up some hiking shoes, grabbing a camera, and heading out the door to see what the world looks like through a lens. It's addictive. I like it. I can quit any time I want...(ha. ha.).
I hope you do this for fun. It's a bright future for artists and the truly smitten. I'd just hate to be a camera sales person right about now.... And I'd never, ever suggest to my son that he take up photography for a living.
14 comments:
I think I mentioned a few days ago my view that in professional photography, the camera may be the least important element, as long as it is 'good enough.' I don't think cell phone cameras, or any cameras "lower" than perhaps m4/3, will suffice for a pro photographer. There'll probably always be the hip few who will produce much-celebrated work in the artier quarters done with cell phones, but that work will be done despite the phone. I think big hi-res cameras will be used by pro photographers, artists (who can always lose resolution to imitate cell phones if they really want to do that, but would have a hard time getting it back, if they use cell phones and try to emulate a D850) and a variety of amateurs and enthusiasts who identify with the pros. In other words, it's going back to the situation of the mid-Twentieth Century. Sales of pro cameras will also be much lower...like they were in the mid-20th. The camera companies have gotten used to selling new generations of cameras every two years; now they'll have to go back to every six or eight years, which means a smaller company, not a bigger one.
I've also suggested in the past that when people talk about camera companies failing, they usually assume Sony will go on forever because it has deep pockets. It does have deep pockets, and the pockets got that way because Sony ruthlessly cuts products that don't meet their performance standards. I would not be terribly shocked if someday they eliminated their camera line. Not because the cameras aren't good, but because they no longer produce a 20% profit. Nikon has no choice; they make cameras or die. They'll make cameras if they're making a 1% profit. Sony won't. IMHO.
John Camp
I’m afraid the recycling of stories on an almost predictable cycle was a well-established practice back in the days of print magazines. Especially in magazines aimed at the mass market, but focused on specific interests. When I was much younger and even more gullible I subscribed to Money Magazine. It took only two years of the three-year subscription to realize that the same features were coming around again and again with no added value of new information. Before there were algorithms to dictate content based clickthroughs and SEO keyword searches that’s what mass market editors did: find a way to put new lipstick on the same old (but reliable) pig. They appeared to take as given that subscriber churn would keep them afloat forever.
The "good enough" problem makes sense to me and seems linked to the "too expensive" problem. It's like the late CDs era: there was no "superior format" for audio after CDs. MP3s were arguably worse in terms of sound quality but had other advantages that made up for inferior sound. The human auditory system is only so sensitive.
Same with the human visual system, particularly on the class of display most people use, which is increasingly a smartphone display.
The main place cameras are seeing significant improvement is in video.
Roger says: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2019/05/just-the-mtf-charts-micro-43-lenses/
> Micro 4/3 doesn’t rent as much as it used to and we don’t have the kind of stock that we do in other mounts.
Yeah, that make sense to me. Allow me a little rant here. We were using a G85 for amateur smut for a while, and the image quality was great but the AF performance during video was usable, just fluttery and not as good as it should be. Then we saw the AF quality on a Sony a friend used at a small orgy and were amazed at its speed and consistency. Turns out that contrast-detect AF, at least as implemented so far, is not nearly as good as the Sony a6300/6500 phase-detect implementations (and probably a6400, though I haven't tried it).
Same problem on the Panasonic GH5, and it's a *very* expensive camera. Too expensive for substandard AF implementations.
Right now, Panasonic has good image quality, substandard AF during video, and large camera bodies. M43 was supposed to be cheaper and lighter. Both values seem to have been abandoned. The G95 uses a smaller crop for video: https://www.dpreview.com/opinion/5664582778/thinking-about-panasonic-lumix-dc-g95-for-video-read-this-first and is still quite physically large, while also being more expensive than the G85 it replaces. It too seems to exhibit flutter and AF problems characteristic of contrast-detect systems.
Olympus, meanwhile, seems to have largely abandoned the field.
So M43 has smaller sensors than Sony a6500; worse AF; worse video in the case of Olympus, similar in the case of Panasonic; and similar prices. A6500 is now down to $800 used. M43 has better lenses, to be sure, but it's annoying that modern Panasonics have considerably worse autofocus than Sonys from a couple years ago.
Cell phone image quality is creeping up from the bottom, while AF during video is inadequate in my view on M43. So where is the M43 market? People doing focus-pulling on GH5 for semi-pro video, probably. AF during video can be okay in perfect light. Meanwhile Fuji XT-3 is great (except for missing IBIS) and Sony may one day release an A6500 successor. Where is the M43 market? Olympus EM-5 was a "first of its kind" complete solution when it came out, but M43 seems to fallen behind.
I am planning to buy a camera in the near future only because I don't think I'll be able to find a camera with the quality of a D7500 for around $800 in the foreseeable future (once the current cameras sell out), and I'd like to have one as a back up to my current Nikon. A DX camera is small and light enough for travel and yet, for my photography hobby, it is good enough to do everything I want. As the camera companies start bumping up prices and pushing the market to full-frame, I think they'll inadvertantly be shoving aside a lot of hobbyists that resist the size and costs of full-frame - possibly myself included.
As for the economy, it feels like a chimera. It has been goosed by massive corporate tax cuts last year and seems to be riding the momentum of the >10-year bull market. Things are going well and will keep going well until one day they aren't. Probably sooner rather than later. When that happens, luxuries like new cameras will probably suffer additional sales declines, especially as all the camera makers continue to pursue high-price, high-profit margin, full-frame sales. Interesting times.
Ken
i wonder when and where photography will reach an equilibrium, as many obsolete or nearly obsolete technologies do? It seems likely that interest in photography as a hobby will continue to shrink, at least for awhile, as baby boomers die out and the next generation has a diminished interest, except as a convenient way to document (every second of) their lives. That suggests a smaller market for cameras more upscale than phones and likely longer product cycles, as discussed above.
But blacksmiths and farriers still exist and are needed. So do (and are) oil painters and watercolorists. There may not be as many of them as a percentage of the working population as in the 19th century and before, but they are still around. So it seems likely that there will still be hobbyists who are passionate about making photos and some demand for professionals, i.e., those more skilled than Uncle Bob for the wedding photos (particularly when Uncle Bob is now to feeble to get around), some sort of photojournalists who will likely be paid even less than todays' and probably product and commercial photographers like Kirk. As a photo hobbyist who still shoots a lot of film along with digital, I hope that demand for it stays high enough to keep at least one manufacturer in business.
I have to agree on the Canary in the Coal Mine analogy.
I have been seeing nervousness and falling prices in real estate IN CALIFORNIA. Not everywhere, but in enough markets to sense a quiver in the force.
My volume is holding up at the moment but despite historically low unemployment figures ( a somewhat squishy and statistically massaged number) I have yet to hear of anyone actually getting paid more. The new jobs are not in well paying jobs, but filling empty spots in service businesses that are late to the expansion party.
The economy has topped out but the cheerleaders in the stock market want us to believe that consumers' pockets are bottomless. What they are looking for is someone to offload their holdings before they flee for the hills while shouting over their shoulders "Don't exit the market, stay for the long term!".
The biggest issue is price. You pay dearly every time you're asked to upgrade to the next big thing from all the manufacturers. I can only speak for myself, but I'm tired of digging deep to upgrade every cycle, even if the equipment is on sale. And let me just say that what passes for sale prices today is what used to be high end flagship several years ago. Case in point is the FujiFilm X-H1. When it was released the MSRP body only was $1,900. It's now down to a 'mere' $1,300, and right around this last Christmas it was even less at $1,200, and that included the grip with two FujiFilm batteries. The Panasonic GH5 started out at a princely $2,000, and is now down to $1,500. And yet you won't see me rushing out with fists full of money to buy either one. They're still beyond my threshold of financial pain even at these 'low low' prices. And don't even get me started on lenses...
Bottom line is for this amateur every single make has priced themselves right out of my market. What I now have is more than what I'll ever need. And if it all breaks tomorrow, I'll switch to my smartphone camera.
I never buy new anymore. Yesterday's news often sells for 25 cents on the dollar. And it is plenty good enough for non-pro me. Which I think confirms your statement that many do not need to upgrade.
Maarten's YT channel is terrific. He does great reviews.
Most hobbyists and even serious photographers do not need more than what is currently available and there is no need to spend thousands of dollars on a new camera system. The Nikon D5600, the Sony A6000, the Fuji xt20 or xE-3, the Olympus EM-10 III, the Panny GX85, the Sony RX series...take your pick. All can be had for very reasonable prices and will cover pretty much all of your photography needs.
The working photographer will have different needs but even in that case, there isn't a need to blow your brains out spending tens of thousands of dollars.
The new phone cameras will cover most of the ground most casual photographers need to cover. Selfies, group shots, travel shots uploaded straight to social media. I agree, Samsung saw the writing on the wall and got out early. They now make a very capable Android phone with a pretty good camera in it. They have future proofed their business model. Credit to them for correctly reading the future of the market.
Sensor size doesn't matter. I know serious photographers don't like to hear this. The good news is the used market will be flush with cameras and lenses in great condition for many years to come. There will be enough affordable stuff out there for me to be able to shoot affordably for the rest of my life. When the phone cameras get better, and we aren't far off, then I will switch to my phone. I'm ready now. My iPhone 7+ isn't quite there yet. I think in 3-5 years I'll mostly be shooting with whatever phone I have then.
I think change is good. Change is healthy. Having an open mind is good. Photography will be just fine I think, just very different than what we have become accustomed to. And that's ok.
My theory is that the global economy is trending down because 16,745,987 bloggers have robbed us of our self confidence to make a purchase! ;)
And that Nikon's woes are not about the D850 and Z's, but their bread and butter, the APS-C, not having any mirrorless offerings while the mothership's actions of 2018 make it clear that mirrorless is the future. What is any self-disrespecting blog consumer -- sorry, photographer -- supposed to think?
Keep it up, Kirk. We'll never figure anything out, will we? ;)
Arg
Yep yep yep.
I posted a few times that I had the $ ready but the Nikon mirror free didn't have an adapter to auto-focus my screw-drive lenses, that disappointment gave me more time to realize that my D600 that I bought used Dec 2014 for < $850 was still really good.
I'm slowly thinking of a video camera in the future; Canon EOS R (color/AF), Sony A6400 (AF/specs) and Fuji XH-1 (color/specs) have my interest but I'm hoping for more of a slam dunk product since I've waited so long.
I wish I had never sold my D700 but once I went to m4/3 it didn't get used much and the money from the D700 funded some new Panasonic glass. Currently I am using a G85 with the hopes of adding a GH5 once the price drops on or below $1.6K CDN. Since I am retired and can't/won't justify buying a new camera just based on the "just gotta have it" mentality I am prepared to wait. My photography projects are now focused on helping non-profits in third world counties. So no income is derived to offset a new camera purchase and all travel expenses are on my dime.
Beyond that I have never upgraded my gear when I was a working photographer unless there was a valid business case for it. It's the Scot and Taurus in me I guess ;)
Eric
I, too, agree with your Canary in the Coal mine analogy. This is the time to move into frugal mode.
And I agree with this: "The cameras got so good a few years ago that there's really nothing I need in the new cameras that I can't get out of the stuff I bought two years (or three, or four) ago." I have not bought anything digital for four years. Why bother? More important, I get much more fun out of my 1959 Rolleiflex, 1967 Leica M2, 1971 Spotmatic, and 1990s Hasselblad 501CM. Why would I need to upgrade?
One further comment (to the one above.)
I once went to Iraq during the war, as a reporter. I was based out of Balad air force base. They had a "market" there, in which they would allow local Iraqis to come in and sell to American military people. One large busy table was nothing but software with the protection removed -- and it was expensive stuff, like AutoCAD. AutoCad in the U.S. cost something like $600, but at Balad, $30 would get you a full unprotected copy. I've traveled quite a bit around the Middle East, and a common joke I heard in several countries was that only one copy of an expensive program was sold in each country -- then the protection would be hacked, and the hacker would go into business for himself. It was so common that when a new program would come out, there'd be inquiries on the local Internet groups about when the local copies would be available. They'd also hack movies, simply by getting a movie theater to run the movie without an audience, and then film the screen with a video tape recorder and decent microphones to pick up the sound. Video tapes would usually be available within a week or two of a new movie being released, and while they weren't as good as the real thing, they were quite watchable.
John Camp
Post a Comment