Troubling Future Trends for Camera Makers

Three of the five top cameras on Flickr are cell phones

There is a troubling trend for camera makers today.

Most camera makers are either losing money, or experiencing declining profits, as camera phones have eroded their mass market sales base. The high end is still doing well, and will probably always do well, it is the mass market and the volume involved that is collapsing.

Compact P&S camera sales are disappearing fast.

Ask yourself..... precisely what are the products that camera companies sell today, and who are their customers?

• Compact cameras - These currently represent around half the dollar volume for camera makers, but this market has seriously been eroded by camera phones and tablets that have cameras. This is especially true at the low end of the scale. These customers are generally snap-shooters who want ease, simplicity, and reasonably good results.

• High end compacts - This is a small but important market, as some compact users move up and some DSLR users move down. But competition is fierce in this market as it is overcrowded with lots of $500 enthusiast compacts, high priced superzooms, and has competition from budget priced DSLRs and MILC cameras. Many of these are purchased as a second camera which means the owners are very likely to be enthusiasts.

• ILC cameras - including both DSLRs and MILC cameras. The mass market doesn't spend thousands of dollars on their cameras. Only photo enthusiasts do that. And it is pretty easy to spend thousands of dollars if you own more than just a few kit lenses for your ILC. I don't think this market has changed at all. The only difference is that the soccer moms are no longer buying $500 DSLRs at Walmart. They are now using their smart phones.

The reason that some camera makers are losing money, and the rest have declining profits is that the mass market users are more and more satisfied with the results they are getting from their camera phones.

The enthusiast base has not changed, it is still the same as before. What has changed is that casual users aren't snapping up cheap DSLRs anymore.

For around a five year period from 2006 to around 2011 owning a DSLR was a status symbol for some of the casual users.

They would buy them at Costco, Walmart and Target for $500, or $600 with a two lens kit, and they felt like they were real photographers. They used their DSLRS on full auto at their soccer matches, little league baseball games, and on their vacation cruises. Every college girl in America with a DSLR thought she was a photographer.

But this has all changed. Today's status symbol for a casual photographer is a high end smart phone or better yet... a tablet. The best way to get attention today is to either show up with a full frame camera and a tripod... or take photos using a tablet held at arm's length. And the smart phone or tablet is a lot easier to carry around. Today the software of choice for causal users isn't Photoshop or Lightroom, it is Instagram.

There is absolutely no status in using a $900 MILC camera, because it looks just like a $90 Sanyo compact you bought at Walmart. And unless that $900 MILC camera has a built in EVF, it is used in precisely the same way as the $90 Sanyo. The only people impressed will be other MILC camera users, and some of the DSLR users. By definition, anyone using an ILC camera today is an enthusiast, and not a casual user.

The entire bottom end of the camera market has been a victim of technology. Once the results became good enough for casual users, there was no reason for them to buy high end enthusiast cameras. This same thing happened to the low priced camcorder and the mp3 player as they gradually got replaced by smart phones for the casual users of these products.

If I am right, then this means making more high end products, and making them better will NOT get the camera makers out of this hole. It surely will thrill the camera enthusiasts, but it won't do much to increase mass market sales.

The solution isn't a $2,000 budget priced full frame camera. Or a $3000 fixed focal length full frame compact. The camera companies need $200 high quality compacts that have a touch screen and wifi connectivity if they want the casual users back. And even that might be a hard sell, since most people don't want to carry two devices when one device will do.

The high end of the market will always exist, but the mass market is moving in an entirely different direction. I really doubt this situation can be reversed.

This situation will eventually hurt Nikon a lot more than it will hurt Olympus, because Olympus does not depend on it's imaging division. They have demonstrated that they can survive due to their highly profitable medical devices division. Cameras and lenses are just a small part of their business at around 15%, while Nikon is primarily a camera company, at around 70% of sales.

The reason Sony is in deep trouble isn't just due to camera sales. It is because they are losing money selling everything except gaming devices.

One thing is very certain. The future will not be very much like the past. Camera makers will be forced to abandon mass market products or find a way to somehow offer more convenience and value than cell phones. In the end, they may have to retreat to the high end only, because that market will always be there.

It will probably be a very long while before we see any National Geographic cover shots taken with iPhones. And no one will pay a wedding photographer thousands of dollars if he shows up with a smart phone.

How I Finally Made it to Flickr Eplore

The new version

I joined Flickr almost six years ago, and since then I have posted over 21,000 photos and had over 380,000 views. But I never had a photo make it to Explore until today.

Each day Flickr selects the best photos of the day and post them in their Explore area. 

I understood why none of my photos were chosen, because I am basically just a snapshooter. I don't try to be artistic, and I don't even pretend to be a good photographer. I just like to take photos.

While I have never had a photo selected before, I know people who had had dozens selected. I just figured that my photos just weren't interesting or artistic enough to make the grade.

All of this changed today when one of my shots made it to explore, and it's an interesting story how it got there.

Two days ago someone put this comment on this seventeen month old photo:

The original version

Have you considered blackening out the street lights in the distance? I think it would look way cooler on an already cool shot :)

So I took his advice and redid the photo in Photoshop, using the healing brush to eliminate the lights in the background, and then I raised the black point slightly in levels.

Then, yesterday I posted the new  version of my old photo (the photo above).

Since re-posting this old photo yesterday it seems to have gone viral. I have had over 600 views, 25 comments, and 86 favorites... plus it was selected for Explore. Also... five people have listed me as a contact since the photo was posted.

It's pretty interesting how much difference a little photo tweaking can make. Why didn't I think of doing this myself seventeen moths ago?

Wait.... I know. Because I am just a snaphooter, and not a photograher!

The Last Ten Years of Digital Cameras

Now that 2012 is behind us, we can look back to 2002 and see how much has changed in a decade by looking at the major cameras released in each year. 

And a lot has really changed.

As always, we seem to be getting more choices and more features for our money as the competition has become brutal. But some other interesting things have happened as well.

 
Here are the major trends I see:

There are more cameras models, but coming from fewer manufacturers
 
In 2002 we had 97 major cameras released from 18 separate makers. In 2012 we had 165 cameras from 12 makers. 

Contax, HP, Konica, Kyocera, Minolta and Toshiba have completely disappeared from the marketplace. Ricoh has joined the fray, but they could be considered an heir of Kyocera. 

There has been a simultaneous consolidation of manufacturers and explosion of camera models available on the market today.

Cameras today have much more resolution, and much more zoom range
 

In 2002, the average sensor size was 3.2 MP, and the average zoom range was 3.3X. In 2012 that shot up to an astounding 15.9 MP and 11.6X. In 2002 there was exactly one "Superzoom" camera, the 12X Panasonic FZ1. This represented roughly 1% of that year's new releases.

In 2012 we had 46 cameras released with 12X zoom lenses or greater. Some even went up to 40X and 50X, and these superzoom cameras now represent 27% of the 165 cameras released.


Features have gone way up... while prices have come way down

In 2002 you could buy a reasonably good 5 MP camera with a 3X zoom for $500. 

In 2012, you could buy a 16MP DSLR with a 3X lens for the same $500.

Back in 2002, a DSLR was a major investment. The cheapest one made cost thousands of dollars.

Today, they are pretty common and affordable. Especially when you take inflation into account. When you spend $500 today it has the purchasing power of $400 ten years ago.

Even the cheapest cameras today have features we could only dream about ten years earlier. Things like face detection, creative filters, sweep panorama, HD video, and multiple scene modes. The better cameras today have features like auto HDR, built in GPS, tilt and swivel screens, touch screens and wireless connectivity.

There are more types of cameras available today

Back in 2002 we had only three styles of   
digital cameras. We had the DSLR, a Superzoom camera, and lots of P&S cameras.

Today we have nine kinds. The above three plus MILC cameras, Waterproof Cameras, Ultrazoom cameras (over 30X zoom), Digital Rangefinder cameras, Modular cameras (think Ricoh GXR) and Semi Translucent Lens Cameras (SLT).

If you count "camera phones" then we have ten kinds.

Interchangeable Lens Cameras have increased market share dramatically

In 2002, we had exactly six interchangeable lens cameras. and they were all DSLRs. Ten years later we had  forty-one models released that can swap lenses. 

And today you aren't limited to DSLRs. In addition to DSLRs, you can now select from MILC cameras, digital rangefinders, SLTs, and Modular cameras if you want to swap out lenses. In the case of the Modular camera, when you swap the lens you are also swapping the sensor. 

This is an interesting idea, but I think it is doomed due to the high cost of buying a sensor every time you buy a lens. 

In 2002 those six ILCs represented 5% of all new releases. In 2012, those forty-one ILC are 25% of the new cameras released. That's a five fold increase!

The entire camera market is shrinking. It might even disappear.

And this is probably the most significant trend of all.  

 As camera phones improve, more people are finding it unnecessary to own a separate camera. 

Once camera phone image quality becomes "good enough" for most users, then cameras may only exist at the high end, for professional photographers and advanced enthusiasts. 

We have already seen this trend in the virtual disappearance of the consumer camcorder, as they were rendered unnecessary as still cameras added HD video capability. Camcorders still exist, but mostly for the high end market. For casual users, a P&S camera or even a camera phone can take video clips.

When you look at how much things have changed in the past ten years it really makes you wonder what will happen ten years from now. One thing is certain.... things will change. It's just hard to predict how much since technology keeps changing so rapidly. 

The Best Compact Camera you can buy today

Dpreview, which is probably the most respected camera review site, recently published their Enthusiast Zoom Compact Camera roundup. 

Their conclusion was that the Sony RX100 and the Olympus XZ-2 are the "best all around" compact zoom cameras. But I say... there are better choices that they didn't even consider.

For my money, the best high end compact zoom camera you can buy is an Olympus Pen EPL-3.
This camera is only a little larger, and actually quite a bit cheaper than the two winning cameras. And the image quality is heads and shoulders above the other two because of the much larger sensor.

None of these cameras is really tiny. Except perhaps the Canon S110, which was also one of the cameras in the group review. If you want a tiny camera you can find much smaller ones than these, so obviously Dpreview was putting a lot of weight on image quality, which is why the $650 RX100 and $550 XZ-2 came out on top.

But the E-PL3 is both cheaper and has better image quality than either one. Plus it has the advantage of having the ability to swap lenses. The E-PL3 is currently on an $100 instant rebate program and is selling for just $499. But even at $599 it still is a better choice than either the Sony RX100 or the Olympus XZ-2. It truly will provide DSLR type image quality in a very small package.

Want proof?

Well, lets look at Dpreview's own studio sample. At base ISO, all of these cameras will do very well, but lets take a look at a sample at ISO 1600:


Which one looks the best to you?

To my eye, the EPL3 beats the pants off the other three cameras.

And if you really want to spend as much as as a Sony RX100, then the newer E-PL5 will perform even BETTER, because it has a newer sensor with more resolution.

The Camera of the Year for 2012

Every year one camera stands out as being the one that draws the most attention from the photo enthusiast geeks. In 2011 it was the Fuji X-100 compact. The year before it was the

These are generally cameras that offer some really new technology, fill a product niche that previously went unfilled, or provide exceptional quality or value.

My choice for the camera of the year for 2012 is the Sony RX-1 which was announced during September's Photokina Show in Cologne.

This is an exciting new camera because it is virtually unique. It is relatively small and light, yet packs a full frame sensor and an extremely high quality Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 lens. What makes this camera so different is that it it is the first camera that combines and outstanding Zeiss lens with an outstanding Sony Exmor 24 MP sensor in a fixed lens autofocusing compact camera.

The camera has an extremely high build quality, which really makes you wonder why Sony decided to brand it as a Sony Cybershot rather than a Sony Alpha model. Up until now, the Cybershot branding was only used for their consumer grade P&S cameras, and this is clearly a camera aimed at professional photographers and relatively wealthy enthusiasts.

The $2800 price tag puts this camera out of the consumer market, but it really is a relative bargain when you compare it to other high grade cameras with full frame sensors.

The closest rival will probably be the Leica M10, which costs around three times more, and doesn't even include a lens. And the Leica does not have AF, although it does have interchangable lenses.

If you compare the RX-1 to other high grade fixed lens cameras, then there is nothing with a full frame sensor to compare it with.

But the $2000 Leica X-2 and the $1300 Fuji X-100 come closest, even though they both have smaller APS-C sensors and the Leica lacks AF ability.

Sony DSC-RX1 headline features:

* 24MP full-frame (24x36mm) CMOS sensor

* 35mm F2 lens

* ISO 100-25600

* Focus range switch for focus down to 0.2m
* Dedicated aperture ring
* Five user-customizable buttons
* Multi interface hotshoe
* 1.23M dot RGBW 'WhiteMagic' LCD
* 1080p60 HD movies in AVCHD (50p on PAL region models)
* Bulb mode and threaded cable release socket in shutter button

The RX-1 has a Carl Zeiss Sonnar T*, that has a lens leaf shutter for an essentially silent operation. However, if you prefer you can engage a sound effect if you wish. The leaf shutter means the camera can sync with flashes all the way up to its 1/4000th maximum shutter speed.

The 35mm lens has 8 elements in 7 groups, with 3 aspherical elements, including one 'advanced aspheric' element. It can focus down as close as 30cm from the imaging plane. If you need to focus closer, a ring around the front of the lens can be rotated into a different position, shifting the focus group, allowing focus down to 20cm from the sensor plane.

There's no image stabilization for stills shooting, but the combination of a bright aperture and high maximum ISO should offer alternatives in most situations.

The sensor itself is a variant of the excellent one used in Sony's SLT A99. It maximises the amount of each photosite that is light sensitive and has had the depth of the circuitry reduced to further increase light capture.

The Sony RX-1 ends up being the cheapest camera with a full frame sensor, and the smallest fixed lens high end camera  (although not the lightest... the Leica X-2 gets that award.)

The camera isn't available yet, but retailers are taking preorders at full list price of $2800.

The best camera bargains are last year's models

You really won't get the best value for your money if you need to pay full list price for any camera today.

Normally, cameras will be discounted up to 40% seven or eight months into the product cycle, and the improvements in the new models is really very slight.

These improvements are mostly evolutionary, and involve features rather than big leaps in image quality.

The Olympus OM-D might be the exception to this, which could explain why it is still selling for full list price.

It really did represent a big leap improvement over the E-P3 which was the previous top model for Olympus. Prior to the OM-D there was no model that offered weather sealing and a magnesium alloy body.

If you are looking for the best value for your dollar, then look to models that have been recently replaced by newer models. Live slightly behind the curve, rather than on the bleeding edge.

Here are some recent examples, along with the extra cost and features you get with the newer model:

Canon T3i ($599) vs T4i ($920): 

The T4i isn't a very impressive upgrade for the Canon Rebel series.

All you get is a touch screen, a faster continuous drive rate, a stereo microphone and the ability to add GPS for the extra $320. Hardly worth the extra expense, unless you feel you need these features.



Nikon D5100 ($547) vs. D5200 (~$1000): 

With the new Nikon D5200 you get a 24MP sensor vs. a 16MP sensor, more AF points (39 vs 11), a newer processing engine and a stereo microphone for the extra $450.

Not really a vast improvement over the 3Ti. Unless you absolutely need much higher resolution, save your money.
  


Pentax K-5 ($800) vs. K-5 II ($1230): 

The only difference here is that the new model is said to have a better AF sensor, which was one of the few weaknesses of the K-5. Other than that, the two cameras are virtually identical.

There is also a K-5 IIs model for $100 more that has no anti aliasing filter. Certainly not worth an additional $500.


Olympus EPL3 ($500) vs. EPL5 ($700): 

This is a case where the new model might be worth the extra $200 more.

The improvements include a much better sensor, a removable hand grip, anarticulating LCD screen that has a wider range of movement, and an orientation sensor. 


Sony NEX 5N ($600) vs. NEX 5R ($750): 

In this case the changes are very minor and mostly cosmetic. The newer camera has a better hybrid AF system and the LCD screen flips up 180 degrees for self portraits. Is it worth $150 more? Probably not, but if you wait three months it will probably cost $150 less anyway.


Panasonic GH2 ($650) vs. GH3 ($1300): 

This might be a poor example, since the GH3 is essentially a very different camera than the GH2.

It is improved in every way imaginable, and has been upgraded to a serious semi-pro model with the larger weather sealed body, better sensor, OLED display, and wireless flash control.

Whether the new model is worth twice the price of the old one is something only you can decide for yourself, based on your own needs. 

The Halloween Pumpkins People

The entry from Pediatrics

I've been retired for almost nine years now. and I love having the time to pursue all my hobbies and interests.

But four years after retiring, I got bored and decided I needed to to do something  else. Since I didn't want to have a job I decided to become a volunteer.

For the past five years I have been working at our local hospital as a volunteer. We volunteers pretty much do all the menial tasks that don't require any medical training or certification. This frees up doctors and nurses to do what they do best.

Every year our hospital has a fund raising competition for decorating Halloween pumpkins. The people in each department (which usually means the nurses) decorate a pumpkin with a theme reflecting their function.

Then the pumpkins go on display in our cafeteria, and each one has a jar in front of it for donations. Whichever pumpkin brings in the most money is declared the winner.

I have always been amazed at how creative these folks are at decorating pumpkins. This year, I snapped a few photos of some of the entries so I could share them with you.