
Camera sales are falling sharply - janvdberg
https://om.co/2019/09/03/camera-sales-are-falling-sharply/
======
whitehouse3
My wife and I rented a full-frame mirrorless from the local camera store some
months ago because she wanted nice pictures of our first puppy. As it turns
out, this experience went much like a take-home test drive for a luxury car.
After a few days, we returned the camera to the rental desk then walked ten
feet and bought an identical unit.

We paid $3500 for the privilege with no regrets (so far). I forgot pictures
can look so good: high resolution, pleasing background blur, and most
important it's just a camera. It doesn't have reddit, or HN, or email, or
pinterest. It sits about the house where we can grab it quickly. It goes in
the day pack on hikes. It blows every other webcam out of the water.

And it has smarts to compete with our current-gen iPhones, which we
increasingly tuck away to combat distraction. Fast autofocus and face-
recognition are lifesavers and often outperform the phones. It's like
photography on easy mode. Which it should be considering the sticker price.

I get that the best camera is the one you have with you. But we carry our
phones less and our camera more. It's silly and sad that we can't exercise
more self-control. But from our privileged perspective, a dedicated camera was
a great investment in our quality of life.

~~~
roland35
Congrats on your purchase, I wish I went with mirrorless when we bought our
DSLR camera back around the birth of our first child! I thought I would want
access to all the available lenses and accessories for an established product.

But my photographer friend was right - mirrorless are better for amateurs and
have one huge benefit: they can record video much more easily since they can
focus and record at the same time.

~~~
DoofusOfDeath
My wife is a part-time pro photographer in her 40's. She's looking to go
mirrorless because, on long shoots, the weight of traditional cameras takes a
toll on her neck and shoulders.

~~~
paggle
Mirrorless is only a weight advantage in the APS-C size. At full frame there
is almost no advantage.

~~~
pdpi
Sort of. Full-frame mirrorless bodies are most definitely smaller and lighter
than their DSLR counterparts. The problem is the lenses, and those are a
problem for two reasons.

One is that many manufacturers haven't taken advantage of how mirrorless
changes lens design yet (the shorter flange distance enables a lot of design
space), so you're still carrying a lens designed for a DSLR, but with a lot of
hollow space between the back element and the mount. This is especially
obvious with third-party lenses; e.g. it's well understood that a lot of Sigma
lenses for Sony FE are functionally just their DSLR lenses with a built-in
adapter.

The other reason why you don't see a big weight advantage with mirrorless
lenses is that, where they _are_ designed for mirrorless specifically, they
tend to aim for "better" rather than "lighter. Lenses like the Canon 85mm
f/1.2, the 50mm f/1.2, and the 28-70 f/2.0 are perfect examples of this.

However, lenses designed to take advantage of mirrorless can be smaller and
lighter, when they have the same design goals — e.g. the latest (DSRL) Canon
EF 24-105L f/4 weighs 795g vs the (Mirrorless) RF 24-105L f/4's 694g.

------
braythwayt
These days, dedicated cameras are like supercars.

There is no question that they beat the pants off a Toyota Corolla.[1] But
most us us just want to drop our kids off at school and pick up groceries.

And you know what? A Corolla is actually a pretty good car. And nobody[2]
really cares about their daily driver’s 0-60 time or whether it set a new
record at Nürburgring.

—

[1] Substitute your favourite boring daily driver.

[2] To paraphrase Joel Spolsky, by “nobody,” we mean “Fewer than 10,000,000
people.”

~~~
ben7799
Lots of other people have pointed out the issues with this analogy.

My reasoning for thinking this is not a good analogy is the supercar is a
device that cannot be used/exploited in normal operation. It is illegal to use
the top speed or acceleration of a supercar. It cannot make traffic move out
of the way for you. A Supercar will not get you to work any faster than a
Toyota Corolla. The Corolla will go fast enough to send you to jail, just like
the Supercar. You can't use the Supercar features without legal risk without
going to a special place (the race track). People who own sports cars and
supercars try to rationalize this away but it's true. They are really just
driving them around to show off and can't realistically use the cars
capabilities in the real world.

If a fancy DSLR or Mirrorless camera is like a supercar than it would mean
everyone who had a DSLR or Mirrorless camera had to use the camera with one
fixed prime lens that had bad quality and was locked at a small aperture. You
had to use it in green "full auto" mode all the time. You had to set the
camera up to run in it's slowest mode, and you had to set the camera up run at
a very high ISO and to store photos in a high compression JPEG setting.

Only when you went to the special zone of photography would you be able to use
the extra features. (Changing lenses & settings for maximum effect.)

Most people who carry DSLRs & Mirrorless cameras around can exploit their
advantages ruthlessly in the real world whenever they want.. nothing at all
like paying for a sports car or supercar and just using it as a show-off
token.

I am not arguing against Om's point though. I'm in the same boat as him, I
have a pretty expensive camera setup but have bought minimal camera gear since
2012 and use my Smartphone more and more.

~~~
braythwayt
I personally think you're reaching. You might as well point out that a
Supercar doesn't take pictures.

I mean, really, are we going to get into discussing the people who buy a
supercar and hold it as an investment/collectible and rarely drive it?

Or what about the people who track their McLaren and absolutely use it to its
full potential? Those people 100% absolutely drive them for performance and
use every bit of it.

And yes, there are camera owners who collect cameras. And camera owners who
buy "Prosumer" models just because they want a nice camera, even if they don't
use it to its full potential. Maybe not you, but we both know there are such
people.

That doesn't really invalidate my analogy or validate it. If you feel around
to the edges of any metaphor, it breaks. But the question is whether the basic
idea is right. I think it's right enough, you don't.

Ok.

------
ageitgey
I'm a camera enthusiast and I collect some fancy/expensive old cameras and
lenses. I'm the last person who you think would settle for a camera phone as a
camera replacement. But they are just getting so good and they are so easy to
use!

I'm finding it harder and harder to justify bringing along a camera unless I'm
doing special like a specific photo shoot. Obviously phone cameras are no
where near as good as a 40 megapixel full frame camera with a good prime lens
shooting in raw. But 99% of the time I'm just going to post a photo of my kid
in Instagram and it doesn't matter.

It is a tough time to be a camera maker.

~~~
bobloblaw45
There are philosophies in many hobbies that are pretty close to what you were
getting at. With firearms when asked what the best gun is the answer is "the
one you shoot well". With astronomy they say it's better to have a small cheap
telescope you use all the time rather than a big expensive telescope you
barely use. And with cars/motorcycles you hear how it's more fun to drive a
slow vehicle fast than a fast vehicle slow.

Everywhere there's a fixation on expensive equipment. People use it to try to
replace skill. Also it serves as a way to elevate their status within their
hobbies community. And man it happens in every hobby I've seen. But in the end
all it really does it weigh them down. Their equipment is too bulky to use all
the time. So much more gizmos to keep track of. Things are so much more
expensive that you don't really take it out as much and enjoy it out of fear
of breaking it. Even if there's some sort of insurance in place to cover the
cost of damage, you still don't want to risk scratching your new baby.

Anyways there's this series on youtube called "Pro Photographer, Cheap Camera
Challenge" that I adore. I'm not even a photography buff but it's super
interesting to see these professional photographers take the cheapest cameras
available, in some cases they're actually toys, and turn out some amazing
pictures.

~~~
crikli
Pointless digression:

"And with cars/motorcycles you hear how it's more fun to drive a slow vehicle
fast than a fast vehicle slow."

I know this is just your third comparator in your statement, but I never
thought I'd see it pop up on HN. :)

It's one of those clichés you see all the time in Jalopnik comment
sections...I always want to say "but have actually done that, driven the slow
car fast and the fast car slow?" Because...I've got a slow car and a very very
fast car. The fast car is fun to drive even when you're going 0 miles an hour
at a stoplight. The slow car is fun to drive slow but awful to drive fast.

Maybe this statement works if the "slow" car is an E30/Miata/Fiat or similar
but in my book, fast car going any speed is always way more fun. :)

~~~
rlonstein
I haven't heard it about cars but it applies to motorcycles. Generalizing, a
maintained bike with good brakes and tires is probably more capable than most
riders and faster than public roads so a 1990's or later 400-600cc motorcycle
("slow"?) is more fun whirring the engine and stirring the gearbox than loping
along in second gear on a liter-class bike.

~~~
mikestew
One of the most fun rides I ever had was after swapping my bike for a riding
buddy's 250 Ninja for the Friday lunch ride. I flogged that thing like a
rented mule trying to keep up with the bigger bikes. Riding that thing close
to the 14K redline in every gear. Give the handlebars the slightest nudge, and
that <400lb. bike just lays on its side, hammer the throttle at the apex
because that tiny engine isn't going to spin the rear tire up.

Try that on a ZX-1X on public roads, and they'll be pulling dental records to
identify your body.

------
vparikh
There are two main reasons for this:

1\. 95% of the people use their cameras for output to the web (i.e.,
instagram, pintrest, etc.) And email links to them, or actually email the
picture itself when they share them.

In this case, you don't really need a high end camera such as a DSLR or a
Mirrorless. That doesn't mean you can't benefit, its just that the reason you
are taking the picture isn't worth to learn how to use a camera properly. For
these people their crappy cell phone lens based phone is good enough.

2\. Has any body looked at the used DSLRs available? Go over to KEH and take a
look. You can get a Nikon D300 in excellent condition for less than $300 with
a 180 day warranty!!! Want a pro body? You can get a Nikon D3s in excellent
condition for $1100 with a 180 day warranty.

That D300 just 4 years ago was $1900 and that D3s was going for well over
$6000 around the same time. Why on earth would anyone go and buy a new camera
these days?

The camera companies did this to themselves by releasing a new camera every
12-16 months for the past decade.

I predict that those companies that can survive this downturn will have huge
success down the road. People will realise how much a real camera offers in
quality, capability and options. And then the market will return.

------
Tepix
If you look at the bigger chart further down the page you can see that the
market for interchangeable lens cameras is still a lot bigger than in 2003 or
even 2007. Full frame sensors are getting popular and able to fetch higher
prices.

Meanwhile I have a camera body that was introduced at the end of 2012 and it's
working just fine for photos and Full HD videos. I'm in no rush to upgrade, my
guess is i'll keep using it until 4K60P video capable interchangeable lens
camera bodies become more affordable, perhaps in 2021 or so.

~~~
ageitgey
It's big and heavy, but the Canon 5D mkII released around 2008 still takes
beautiful pictures far beyond what most non-pros would ever need. It's tough
when you are competing with your decade old products.

~~~
thewhitetulip
And for some reason, decade old products are very sturdy and of high quality.

~~~
stiglitz
Survivor bias

~~~
thewhitetulip
Fair enough

------
gambiting
>>Of course, by aggressively introducing newer and newer cameras with marginal
improvements, companies like Fuji and Sony are finding that they might have
created a headache.

Yep, Sony shoot themselves in the foot with the RX100 series. Fantastic
cameras, but for some reason they make a point of releasing a new model every
single year with marginal improvements, but a much higher price point - so
even though we are at Mk 7(?) now, the general recommendation is to just find
a Mk 2 or Mk 3 model and save yourself a tonne of money compared to the latest
model.

~~~
jeswin
The range from 24mm to 70mm can easily be covered by phone cameras these days
with their telephoto lenses - and the sensor sizes are catching up. RX100 vi
and vii go up to 200mm which phones don't have yet.

~~~
hanklazard
True but with the longer lens, the RX has also gotten a smaller maximum
aperture size, f/2.8-4.5 vs f/1.8-2.8 (1). I'd go with a Mark V for that
reason despite the shorter focal length.

1\. [https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-
comparison](https://photographylife.com/sony-rx100-series-comparison)

~~~
h0l0cube
Looking at that link, the Mark VI/VII has more stops of OIS, which is more
important for point and clicks, especially when zoomed/shaky/low-light. The
f-number isn't the aperture size, though it is affected by changing aperture.
The values you quoted are related to the f-number at both the lowest and
highest focal length.

~~~
hanklazard
Whether you value OIS is more a matter of personal opinion. I don’t need to
shoot at lower shutter speeds generally, especially with these Sony sensors
which are pretty great at higher ISO.

Point taken on f-number and aperture not being equivalent, but that’s getting
pretty picky ... f-numbers are ratios of focal length to aperture diameter and
so effectively do represent aperture size. The point is the smaller f-numbers
will give a more shallow depth of field, and at this point, that property is
one of the few advantages that a high-end p&s camera has over a nice phone
camera (yes, I know some phones are faking shallow DoP in software).

------
supernova87a
The reason I still bring a DSLR on trips is that the image quality is so much
better than any phone's camera. And by image quality, I mean things that you
really start to notice if you zoom in or want to print something up, like:

\-- chromatic aberration \-- pixel noise \-- resolution (and not just pixel
count)

You just can't beat a large sensor gathering lots of light for the noise and
resolution, and almost any lenses are an improvement over a phone's.

Yes, the best camera is the one you have with you. But while that's good
enough for photos that are just throwaways, when you have something you really
want to capture at high quality, bring the DSLR (or mirrorless) with you.

------
cwal37
I actually fell down a small film camera hole recently. I almost never dig out
my old DSLR anymore, but I'd always admired Kodak Kodachrome photos[1]. While
reading something about the film I saw a reference to fujifilm velvia[2]. Not
the same, but also a color reversal film and nice for nature/landscape
photography which I enjoy. This led me to purchasing a Canon EOS 3. You can
find one for only a couple hundred bucks, they work with EF lenses, are pretty
solid in design/construction, and have quite a few features I didn't expect
from a film camera that first started production at the tail end of the 90s.

Now I take the EOS 3 out specifically and only with a prime 35mm lens. The
more methodical way I think about taking pictures is a nice contrast to taking
a whole bunch of shots with smartphone or DSLR and then heavily curating
afterwards. I just wanted a different feeling from taking photos and it's been
quite fulfilling in that respect. Although breaking the habit of looking down
at the back of the camera has been quite difficult.

[1] [https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-
chica...](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chicagos-
rail-yards-1940s/571924/)

[2]
[https://www.flickr.com/groups/29949065@N00](https://www.flickr.com/groups/29949065@N00)

~~~
mauvehaus
Those photos from The Atlantic are phenomenal; thank you for the link!

I would love to know how he got #14 [0]. Slide film (as you're no doubt aware)
has relatively little exposure latitude compared to print film, meaning it's a
hell of a trick to get both the inside of the tower and the trains in the yard
outside exposed properly.

You can see the issue pretty often in real-estate photos. Photos featuring the
inside of the house with a window usually have the window way blown out
because there's so much more light outside than inside.

[0] [https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-
chica...](https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2018/10/color-photos-chicagos-
rail-yards-1940s/571924/#img14)

~~~
cwal37
Glad you liked them! They're in the Library of Congress, so you can get high
quality digital copies from their website for free[0]. Yeah, the shots are
really great and well beyond my personal ability for sure, particularly given
the less advanced metering options he would have been working working with.
Great learning examples though.

[0]
[https://www.loc.gov/photos/?fa=contributor:delano,+jack%7Clo...](https://www.loc.gov/photos/?fa=contributor:delano,+jack%7Clocation:illinois%7Clocation:chicago%7Conline-
format:image&sb=date)

------
2rsf
> the best camera is the one you have with you

[https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm](https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm)

------
bt848
How many cameras did they think the world would buy? Digital went through a
rapid period of technological improvement but it has slowed. My Olympus m43
body is an amazing camera about which I have few complaints. A new camera
would need to be radically superior before I would spend the money. Before
that I was planning on just keeping my Nikon D70 forever, but it was stolen.
My father shot a Canon AE-1 for decades, until film finally became too hard to
find. I don't think just being on a treadmill of buying new cameras was common
in the film era.

------
jeswin
2019 holiday shopping season is just coming up - that's when a lot of camera
sales and discounts happen. For Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC), new models
get announced round about this time and I assume many people would wait for
updated models.

While I wouldn't be worried about ILC sales yet, compacts are an entirely
different story. Phone cameras now have wide angle and telephoto lenses, PDAF
sensors, depth sensing, better AI, and have powerful CPUs easily capable of
high-fps 4K. Sensor sizes are approaching parity to high-end 1"-sensor
compacts like RX100 and LX100 with Samsung Isocell GW1 (1/1.7" sensor) and
Isocell Bright HMX (1/1.33" sensor). There will be fewer reasons to buy these
in a couple of years.

Low/mid-tier compacts have long been surpassed by phones. In fact, mid-tier
compacts from 2010-2012 fare better than those of today. Back then, these
compacts (Canon G12, Nikon P7x00, Olympus Stylus-1, Pansonic LX5 etc) used to
have 1/1.7" sensors (with a sensible 10-12MP resolution) and now we have tiny
1/2.3" sensors with 20MP due to the megapixel wars. This market is really dead
now.

Super-zoom, small-sensor cameras like Sony RX10 and Nikon P1000 will not be
challenged by Smartphones soon. But they are also kinda niche.

~~~
sundvor
I have a mobile computer aka phone with a ToF sensor built in - the Samsung
S10 5G. The Live Focus mode is a bit hit and miss, but like with any piece of
equipment you learn to work with it - and the results can be astounding. The
quality compared to the S10+ (I got a free upgrade to the 5G from that) which
doesn't have the LIDAR like sensor is quite remarkable. I believe it's the
same setup as the Note 10+.

I've had a world class pro photographer comment with some disbelief on the
quality of shots that are attainable from this.

~~~
nolok
The upgrade in live focus on Samsung phone from one generation to the next is
scary good. I did s7 edge, s9+ And now s10+ and it moved from cool toy needing
a lot of work to “almost there”.

The original on s7 had only one lens to work with so you had to wait during
your shot while it took several at different focus.

------
subpixel
I bought a $2500 mirrorless aps-c when my kid was born. The images and the
video were amazing but I returned it within 30 days b/c there was zero chance
I was going to be able to carry it around and have it when I wanted it on hand
and ready.

So I downgraded to a $1500+ mirrorless aps-c with a single, non-removable lens
- my goal was maximum image quality, minimum size. But even that camera is a
giant pain and I haven't used it in months.

This is saying nothing about the work involved in shooting RAW and converting
everything, using a new piece of software you have to buy.

When the new iPhone comes out, I'm buying a used XS. If you can't beat em,
join em.

------
nobrains
Does anyone know of a good dedicated full-frame camera, which also has
smartphone-camera features, like WiFi (to instantly transfer photos), backup
photos (even if not in original quality) to google photos, remotely empty sd-
card, instant sharing of photos with friends, etc.

I am looking for the above, to not have to "manage" yet another device, and
dedicated cameras do need some management, especially when back from a trip,
so transfer photos, share photos, empty memory, etc.

~~~
eropple
I can't think of any serious camera that automatically archives to Google
Photos or even sends them to people, but cameras like the Panasonic Lumix
series (G9, GH4, GH5) have wifi for both transferring photos and for remote
control. I assume their full-frame S1 does as well, though I've never looked
at it.

(My sideline is video, and three S1's would give me pause.)

~~~
newshophours
I love my Panasonic M43 cameras, but the wifi experience with them is
miserable. The android app looks like something from 2010, and performs worse.
I've tried it with every permutation of four android phones and three
Panasonic bodies (GX85, G85, G95) and every combination performs miserably.

~~~
eropple
Dunno about the G/GX series, but I use it regularly with my GH4 (my primary
camera) and it's just fine for me. My only real complaint is that I can't use
it _and_ an HDMI out to a recorder, for some reason.

------
turc1656
My wife takes a LOT of photos. She's not an amateur photographer or anything
like that. She's just always wanted to have photos of people (particularly our
children), events, etc. for memories. Even she doesn't care too much about the
quality boost of photos vs _modern_ smartphones. She used a dedicated camera
up until recently. We always had semi-expensive high end point and shoot
cameras for their simplicity, ease of use, and transportability.

Now that she has the Google Pixel, all bets are off. Not only has she not used
the very nice point and shoot we had been using for most photos, but she
completely stopped even bringing it anywhere! She absolutely loves the Pixel's
portrait mode and HDR features. And it's hard to argue with. They look
stunning and you pretty much never have to even change a setting on the phone
- nearly every single thing is automatic and they look utterly fantastic.

So fantastic that I installed a ported version of the Gcam app to my non-Pixel
Android and wow - what an improvement.

The camera world is quickly on its way to becoming a hobbyist-only endeavor. I
see no reason to buy a standalone camera anymore.

On a similar note - does anyone anywhere buy standalone music players anymore?
Hell, do they even sell them? I can't imagine all but a few die-hards buying
them when every smartphone now comes with significant storage and most have
expandable slots as well. And that's for people that even _have_ mp3s. Most
just stream everything now (spotify, youtube, etc.).

~~~
jimhefferon
> does anyone anywhere buy standalone music players anymore?

I like it for exercising. Much lighter than my phone and more square than
flat, so more compact.

------
kbutler
Standalone cameras lack the killer feature of availability.

"The best camera is the one you have with you."

Every potential camera owner already has a smartphone. This means the
standalone camera purchase has to compete with the existing smartphone
("free"/marginal cost zero) and an upgraded smartphone with a better camera
(already desired future purchase, so nearly "free"), and for the existing
photography hobbyist - the previously purchased DSLR (also "free").

~~~
sgt
I would recommend the Fuji X100's for this reason. They are very good cameras,
yet compact enough to fit in your pocket or in a backpack with ease.

~~~
subpixel
I have an X100F and I can assure you it is not pocketable. I really wish it
were, but it's not.

~~~
sgt
I suppose which pocket and the size. I've been putting into a jacket pocket.

------
Balanceinfinity
It's all about the glass. If you're taking a picture of your latte from 6
inches for display on a camera, it really doesn't matter. But if you want a
picture of your son's soccer game that you can show on a TV or laptop, and
where you can bring his image up and crop it without loss of
resolution....it's all about the glass. Phones will never be able to do real
photography at a distance because they won't ever invest in the kind of glass
necessary. Nikon has great glass (as does cannon, etc). If you want great
glass at a great price - try Lumix. They have a deal with Leica for some of
their cameras - great price and great glass.

[https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-
camcorders/cameras/DC...](https://shop.panasonic.com/cameras-and-
camcorders/cameras/DC-LX100M2.html#start=1&cgid=lumix-point-and-shoot-cameras)

~~~
x2f10
Can you link some example photography captures using the linked camera? I
browsed some reviews (first 2-3 that popped up on Google) and I'm not
impressed. I feel my iPhone XS produces similar output.

~~~
Balanceinfinity
Two variables control the image: shutter speed and f-stop (how wide the
aperture is open). The higher the shutter speed the more you can stop action
(like a baseball in the air), and the higher the F-stop, the greater the depth
of field (more in focus beyond the focal plane). Your iPhone chooses these
numbers for you and basically gives you what it can. on a camera like this you
can set for automatic, but you can also control these numbers (choose the best
shutter speed and it will choose F-stop; choose best F-stop and it will choose
shutter speed). You want to capture your friend and the monument behind him
all in focus, go for a higher F-Stop; want to stop action at a soccer game, go
for a faster shutter speed). Beyond that, the glass will give you the
resolution you need to blow up the picture. Sometimes, this might mean for
printing, but also when you want to crop the picture and bring up something
that was small in the original. That's where the great glass destroys the
iPhone.

------
simonw
I just got back from a four week trip around Madagascar with a Canon DSLR (a
pretty basic consumer EOS model but we took some /really/ nice lenses,
including a 100-400mm telephoto).

One thing I really enjoyed was the duality of having a DSLR with a good zoom
combined with a iPhone XS. No need to swap lenses: the iPhone takes great wide
angle, landscape and close-up photos while the DSLR covers the all-important
lemurs-in-a-tree.

Surprisingly one of the things I missed most with the DSLR was Live Photos,
which are fantastic for wildlife.

My dream DSLR would run Android. I want all of the niceties of modern phone
cameras, but with the ability to strap on absurdly good lenses. I'm surprised
Canon and Nikon don't seem to have done this yet.

Lemur photo:
[https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nOhNuJ3sX/](https://www.instagram.com/p/B0nOhNuJ3sX/)

------
neallindsay
According to that chart, interchangeable-lens cameras are holding steady. The
2019 entry is only for the first half of the year, so we can't draw any
conclusions there (most camera sales come in the second half). Other than that
it looks like interchangeable-lens cameras had a peak around 2012, but are
still up a bit from a decade ago.

Probably smartphones are eating in to a certain kind of enthusiast market, but
big glass and big sensors can give you things that are just optically
impossible in the form-factor of a phone. If only camera manufacturers can do
good smartphone integration, I think they have a bright future.

Point-and-shoots are toast for sure though and I doubt anyone is surprised.

~~~
dr_zoidberg
I read earlier this year that one of the "super camera" phones (can't remember
which one) was using a 1/1.7" sensor sitting at the bottom of the phone
(instead of the back), perpendicular to the motherboard. That sensor is the
same size that my old canon g12 had back in the day some 8 years ago. So yeah,
phone cameras are replacing compact cameras because they're hiding one inside
them!

However, it has now become a question of physics, and large lenses getting in
lots of light into focus over the sensor, and it being large enough that can
catch all of those "scarce" photons, specially for low light photography. And
the 1/1.7" sensor is about as large as you can fit inside a phone, which is
why they're all moving to having multi-lens cameras and computational
photography (with AI, DSP, etc).

I now own an olympus mirrorless, and it's a fantastic piece of equipment with
a superb sensor (both in size and technology), interchangeable lenses, and the
image stabilization system on body gives it the ability to stabilize _any_
lens I use with it (here's a mean look to Nikon and Canon that place IS inside
the lenses instead of the body, to charge premium for the feature). Can't see
a phone fitting all those features, because they require physical size and or
mechanisms taht wouldn't fit in our pockets.

------
sangd
I'm into the photo quality and I often carry a Sony camera, I prefer my RX100
better than an interchangeable one because of the size. But a few months ago I
got my Pixel 3a and I am very amazed with its RAW photos. The JPEG ones look
good on the phone, but acceptable on a large screen, probably too much
processing/filtering. The video quality is decent because it doesn't feel as
smooth as an iPhone even though it claims to have IS. The photo RAW is quite
surprising, it gives me a lot more detail when editing for a 12MP camera.
Overall, there's no good reason to bring a separate camera unless I'm going
for a photoshoot.

------
rb808
I've always had DSLRs. My most recent vacation I barely used it and took 99%
of all photos with my phone, so much more convenient and the quality is great.

The main thing I'd like to work on is getting more video. Videos of people
especially are much deeper emotional response, I just wish I took more of my
children when they were smaller, and relatives when they were still alive.
Hearing someone speak adds something that photo's really dont capture.

The main problem with video (apart from getting people to talk on camera) is
storing and managing all the data. Its probably too hard for most people, even
worse than keeping all the many thousands of photos.

------
mtw
I was skeptical about smartphones taking over. There's little though that
dedicated cameras can do that smartphones can't. The Huawei P30 Pro, like many
others such as Samsung Note 10, have an impressive zoom and low-light. It
takes super wide shots. It blurs portraits, similar to expensive portrait
lenses. It's also very responsive. And it can stack photos to improve
sharpness and textures, a feature that no DSLR or mirrorless can't do
currently. I have trouble thinking what dedicated cameras can do currently
that smartphones won't do in a couple of years.

------
graeme
Anyone have a recommendation for a small, decent camera, OR one with a good
carrying case you can strap to a belt that doesn't look awful?

I used such a camera on my travels years back and loved being able to
instantly capture any moment in high quality. It was even faster than a
smartphone, and it had a decent looking leather case with a magnetic lid.

I tried getting one small enough to put in a pocket but I couldn't find one
small/good enough. I know carrying one on my belt looks ridiculously, but I'm
hoping to make it just passable enough that I could carry it everywhere.

~~~
lisper
I absolutely love my Panasonic DMC-ZS60. For me it's the perfect blend of
features and quality vs weight and volume. It doesn't quite fit in a pocket,
but fits comfortably in a neoprene case on my belt. Some sample shots:

[http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/422.html](http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/422.html)

[http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/496.html](http://flownet.com/ron/trips/Seabourn2019/Pages/496.html)

------
localhost
One thing that I haven't seen mentioned here is how amazingly good the
metering is in phones. Perhaps it's the vastly greater compute power available
on phones that makes this possible, and I find that my Pixel 2 XL does
metering better than any DSLR or P&S camera that I've owned. Tricky lighting
situations like shooting partially into sunrise on Haleakala were _nailed_ by
my Pixel 2 XL.

Another thing is how much better the displays are on phones for proofing
photos. My RX100vi's display (my most recent camera) pales in comparison.

------
adamcharnock
I'd be interested to see the interchangeable-lens-camera stats broken down by
price point. Are all the entry/mid/pro-level ranges seeing similar reductions
in unit sales? I'd _imagine_ that the pro ranges wouldn't be as badly hit,
whereas the average hobbyist that would have previously brought a 1000D would
now just use her phone instead.

I'd also imagine that unit sales are (/were) disproportionately comprised of
low-end camera purchases.

Regardless, a scary time to be a camera manufacturer.

~~~
thewhitetulip
I read that Xiaomi is making a camera of 100MP.

Source: [https://www.techradar.com/in/news/xiaomi-readying-four-
smart...](https://www.techradar.com/in/news/xiaomi-readying-four-smartphones-
with-samsungs-108mp-camera-sensor)

------
overcast
The best camera is ALWAYS going to be the one you have on you, which is why
the camera phone will always win hands down for convenience. However, no
amount of magic is going to change physics when it comes to comparing one to a
full frame camera. Particularly in low light performance, and anything further
than a few feet away from you. I absolutely could not do my job without my
D850 or equivalent, in the lighting conditions I'm often in.

~~~
jswrenn
> Particularly in low light performance, and anything further than a few feet
> away from you.

I am not a professional photographer, but for urbex, I find that my Pixel 2XL
has basically replaced my LUMIX DMC-FZ300. Sure, the LUMIX _could_ produce
higher-quality low-light images, but shooting on a tripod for a long exposure
shot is often impractical or impossible. The Pixel's Night Sight [1] mode is
_really_ good.

I desperately wish I had a full frame camera with the computational chops of
my smartphone!

[1] [https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-
dark...](https://ai.googleblog.com/2018/11/night-sight-seeing-in-dark-on-
pixel.html)

~~~
overcast
A modern full frame sensor will give you that. But if you're happy with the
Pixel, use it!

------
simias
I think the comparison with the server market isn't completely accurate. When
companies decided to go with Intel+Linux over Sun's mainframes, they actually
_did_ go through a decision process. They weighted the pros and the cons of
each solution.

With cameras it's arguably much worse. Most people these days (especially
those with enough disposable income to consider buying a dedicated camera)
already own a smartphone. Camera makers see smartphones as competition but
probably not so much the other way around. Apple and Samsung try to get better
and better cameras because they compete _with each other_ , they don't really
care about Fuji or Canon. Camera makers are in the tough situation of having
to sell a camera to people who already have one "for free". And they have to
convince a crowd that now mostly consume images in low-res on a small screen.
Good luck.

With smartphone cameras becoming so good and the software letting anybody take
good-looking (if heavily post-processed) pictures, I don't see how they could
ever recover. Sun might have been able to win the fight on the server side by
competing on price and features, I don't see how camera makers can ever hope
to regain the lost market share. It's a completely one-sided competition.

My girlfriend is a professional photographer. She owns a bunch of high-end
cameras. They vastly outperform our smartphones' cameras, especially in low-
light scenarios or while photographing fast-moving or far-away objects for
instance (with the right optics of course). But if you just want to make low-
res, mundane pictures for Instagram the difference is really not significant.
My cheap-o Nokia 6.1 does the job just fine and it's much easier to operate
than most pro cameras.

------
oh_sigh
Even with nicer glass in dedicated cameras, they will likely never have the
software features that phone cameras do. Like "night shot" on Android for
example. I'd love to see something like Android auto for cameras, because
camera companies traditionally suck at software. Let me buy a box of glass and
a sensor from Sony or Nikon, but it interconnect with my phone for any brains
it needs.

~~~
mschuster91
Sony actually did this with the PlayMemories stuff - the Alpha cameras run on
Linux with an Android subsystem that allows for "apps". However they
completely and utterly botched the implementation - no way for third parties
to write apps on their own, and their own apps were all pay-only. So they took
it out in the latest Alpha 7 series - and with it, unfortunately, also the
jailbreak ability which means one cannot unlock the video recording length any
more.

------
vondur
I keep thinking that how great would it be if Apple and/or Google could make
the software for a nice SLR/Mirroless camera where you can take excellent
photos 90% of the time on auto, and still have the ability to go full manual
for the other times. Cell phone cameras are good because of the software that
runs them. The software on most cameras, not so much.

------
ubermonkey
For LOTS of people who only care about casual snapshots, yeah, the current
crop of iPhone and nicer Android cameras are sufficient.

But the gap between those cameras and, say, my full-frame Sony is still
enormous. If you care about photography, you buy a real camera. It's just that
most people don't care about photography.

------
kumarvvr
I wish there was a good, cheap, fully programmable / hackable camera. There is
a lot of digital capture work that I need to do, that requires a fully
controllable camera.

For example, I want to build a faster photocopier, using a camera frame, dual
camera setup, real-time Image processing unit and a fast laser printer.
However, almost all the cameras in the market are either feature deficit
(point and shoot cameras that use CHDK, etc) or are in-accessible to me. I
would love to use a Nikon DSLR, completely control it, grab pictures in real-
time, process and print them. Sadly, no such options now.

A decent photocopier costs about 130,000 in India.

A Nikon D3000 or equivalent, with an 18-55 lens costs about 30,000. A decent
laser printer costs about 14,000. A DIY frame, about 10,000. So with an
overall cost of about 60,000 I can build myself a much better and faster photo
copier.

------
pbuzbee
After spending a couple thousand dollars on photography equipment, I've
realized that I usually prefer photos taken with my phone.

If I photograph the same scene with my phone (Nexus 5X, an old phone!) and my
DSLR (Canon 80D, usually with a decent prime), I'll like the one my phone took
better. The color and contrast on its photos are much better than on pictures
from the DSLR.

Do the DSLR photos look better at the pixel level? Sure, but I rarely need
that level of detail. Could I edit the DSLR photo to get the same
color/contrast? Yes, but that takes a lot of time when you have 500+ photos
from a vacation. The DSLR really only wins out if I want to zoom in for the
shot. Then the DSLR wins in a landslide.

So now my personal rule is: if I don't need to zoom, just use my phone. And
it's been nice not having to drag the heavy DSLR around everywhere I go.

~~~
rconti
One thing I've found myself doing is replicating phone pictures with my high-
end pocket camera or mirrorless, when traveling. I might take a snap with my
cell phone and be like HOLY CRAP that looks amazing.. then do the same shot on
my camera, it looks like crap.

But when I get home to my 5k display, the phone pic looks like an oil painting
compared to the mirrorless or even point and shoot (rx-100) shot. The screen
is just so damn bad on every digital camera I've ever owned, that I need the
iphone screen to compose and realize how good the shot will be if i take it
with a real camera.

------
Finnucane
I have a Nikon D850 (in addition to a number of vintage film cameras). It's a
pretty nice camera. Even when I bought it, I thought that it would do
everything I wanted out of a digital camera, and as long as it continued to
work, I'd never really have a compelling reason to upgrade.

~~~
overcast
The D850 is not even two years old yet, and is still cutting edge in that
price range (I use it daily).

------
gumby
I use a non-phone _compact_ camera — I shot with it all day Monday. Why? Well
for much less than a phone I can buy something shockproof and waterproof (I
was rafting) that can be operated with gloves on and has a multi day battery
life (great for long trips in the back country). I replaced the strap with a
paracord leash so I can tie it to myself or my equipment.

But that’s a niche application and a camera like that lasts for years. I don’t
see a future for those manufacturers either, which will be a problem for
me(GoPro-style cameras haven’t caught up).

And frankly though the sensor and lens are better than a phone, I’d still
rather shoot on the phone.

~~~
theelous3
I have a 10 year old webcam, a oneplus 5t, and a nice cannon eos with a few
good lenses.

Aside from the phone camera, they are all useless to me.

I mountain bike, so none of those are good for capturing that, nor are they
convenient or rugged enough to use as a camera midway through a run on some
beautiful peak.

Just bought a flagship gopro. It essentially fills all the gaps. I can use it
as a webcam, I can use it for mountain biking, I can bring it everywhere and
record 4k60fps, take photos, etc.

Phone + gopro seems to be the best way to go for anyone not looking to do
niche photography, like extreme macro, long exposure sky stuff, professional
large prints.

Ruggedized mini cameras like gopros are a pretty big factor in killing off
dslrs. There are countless professionals on youtube making high quality stuff
with nothing but phones and gopros.

------
callmeal
This is such a lopsided disposable-society view of things. Has anyone
considered the fact that perhaps more cameras are not being bought because the
market is saturated? Take me for example: I have an Elan 7e, a 40D and a
panasonic mirrorless. They all do the things I want to do well. Both the
canons have been repaired at least twice (shutter replaced), the panasonic has
been holding steady.

My sister is still using the Rebel II because that's good enough for her
needs.

Do businesses really expect growth to never taper off? I suppose if you
engineer your products to have a finite life and then fail it could work. The
Japanese manufacturers have something to learn from American industry.

------
donniefitz2
I think some of this slowdown is due to reaching "peak sensor". Much of the
frenzy back in 2007-2012 was due to big advancements in sensor technology,
namely, low-light performance. But now, my Fuji X100, which came out in 2011
still shoots great images, even in low light. And my Fuji X-H1 will be very
adequate for the next 5-8 years.

As camera sensors became better, the need to replace them with the next model
diminished.

Much of what camera makers are now producing are features on top of already
great sensor technology. I don't think most consumers care about these
additional features.

------
gtycomb
This Labor day weekend I took my old Nikon D600 DSLR on a visit to a State
Forest nearby. Usually I go with no camera, I like to have my hands free to
look around while my family takes snaps with iPhones which is enough. However
back at home this week we are all still looking at the pictures from the D600
and struck by the picture quality -- the details of how they capture light,
interesting compositions on a good standard wide to zoom lens, etc. I'd say
that the weight of the camera is not a bother if I have to carry a camera at
all.

------
criddell
> I would be bereft without my Leica SL, and it would limit my ability to
> create images of a certain type. Leica, at least there is a loyal following
> of dedicated customers, but ones such as Nikon and Canon, are particularly
> vulnerable in the near future.

I think camera's like Om's Leica are appealing largely for reasons other than
the image produced. For the same reasons one might choose to wear an expensive
mechanical watch to tell the time, one might choose a Leica for their camera.

------
acomjean
We got a new point and shoot, when my partner lamented that when looking
through her pictures the ones take with her phone weren't looking as good as
the ones taken with a small point a shoot. Especially when looking on a larger
screen.

It was true. The extra effort makes better photos, plus the zoom for framing
is nice. For the here and now, phones are way more convent and the cameras are
quite good.

------
ekianjo
One of the main issues of the DSLR market (that I follow closely) is that new
models tend to be more expensive than previous models in the same category.
Compared to about every other field in technology, it feels counter-intuitive:
everything should be getting cheaper and better over time, as most components
are electronic by nature. I suspect this is another reason why DSLR sales
stalled.

------
inetsee
I have thought for a long time that the best (and most cost effective) way to
improve the quality of your pictures is to reduce camera shake. You could
spend $1000 or much more on a new camera with a bunch more megapixels, or you
could spend $100 or less on a tripod, or a monopod, and get sharper pictures
with the camera you have. This advice works for a DSLR or a smartphone.

------
epx
I sold my DSLR because I seldom used it, and mirrorless is the thing of the
future. But they are currently too expensive, and you can't even find
mirrorless for sale in some markets (e.g. Brazil). But a good camera is
irreplaceble, I plan to buy one next year, abroad if necessary. The mirrorless
market should have settled a bit till then.

------
frou_dh
The likes of Sony aren't that much of bumbling dinosaur, considering they're
already inside e.g. the iPhone camera.

------
droithomme
Modern phones are digital cameras but not included in these numbers.

Article title should perhaps be "sales of digital cameras which don't include
critical phone feature are falling sharply", but perhaps that gives it away
since they do address this issue further along in the article.

------
rongenre
I'd love to own a full-featured digital camera (and I've bought a bunch over
the past couple decades), but unless I enroll in a class to learn to use it
well and get in the habit of using it I'm pretty sure it'll collect dust.

Maybe my next vacation.

------
nradov
I hope at least a couple companies will continue making dedicated compact
cameras suitable for underwater photography with a waterproof housing. Cell
phones don't really work for that use case: we need cameras with mechanical
button controls.

------
Wistar
"Can you imagine listening to the stories of old people's photos 50 years from
now? How terrible that experience is going to be?"

[https://youtu.be/uSh5voSUhrs](https://youtu.be/uSh5voSUhrs)

------
Yuval_Halevi
It's simple

Once everyone has a camera in their phone buying an extra camera feel
unnecessary like the past.

A good way for companies like Canon to not fall apart will be by creating
complementary products for smartphones to improve the image qualities.

------
avenueb
I am sooo happy with my new Canon M100. I got tired of carrying a big SLR,
this is quite a nice portable size. Phone cameras are pretty good these days,
but no match for a SLR or Mirrorless with a decent lens.

------
heavymark
Well I think the title means to say point and shoot (built In lens) cameras
falling sharply. Interchangeable camera sales are on the rise, which of course
makes perfect sense.

~~~
lunchables
According to the first graph they appear to have peaked in 2012 and dropping
ever since:

2011: 16

2012: 20 <\--- peak

2013: 17

2014: 14

2015: 13

2016: 12

2017: 12

2018: 4 (annualized rate of 8)

~~~
dougmany
I remember reading about how google searches reflected mood. One example they
gave was people search for cameras when they are happy with their life. I
wonder if in 2012 people were in a happier place.

~~~
lunchables
I think 2012 was around the time when smartphone cameras got really, really
good. There was a tipping point where people stopped needing point and shoots
and it looks like further down the line that might even have impacted DSLR
sales, maybe.

~~~
josephdviviano
You can also see a massive jump leading up to 2012. Right now camera sales are
still well above the basal rate established during the 70s, 80s, 90s.

The camera isn't dead, it's just not being purchased by people who don't want
to learn how to use them.

------
growlist
For me it's when images are printed at A4, A3 upwards that the benefit of a
good lens+decent-sized sensor combo becomes obvious. But how many people do
that?

------
holografix
You can get a Sony a6600 for a reasonable price given what it does. Photos
with a cheap, albeit fast lens, will be vastly superior to an iPhone

------
josephdviviano
The thing I find really confusing about this is that people are regularly
blowing ~$1000 on smartphones with decent cameras.

My phone cost $200 and has a laughable camera.

If I spent $800 every 2 years (I suspect the mean replacement rate) on camera
equipment I would quickly have a really incredible setup... I don't even need
to because for a one-time price of $800 I could get a better setup than the
very best smartphone around.

------
paulcole
I just don't take or have any interest in photos. Too many hours of
interminable family slide nights and standing around in the hot sun waiting
for my dad to fiddle with his camera. Never again.

------
lawlessone
2019 is misleading?, we're only halfway through.

~~~
onion2k
We're 3/4 through.

~~~
lorenzhs
The numbers in the first figure are "[t]hrough first 6 months of 2019"

------
bluedino
I thought that YouTubers buying cameras would bump these numbers up a bit.
Most cameras have the option to shoot video now.

~~~
Synaesthesia
A cheap webcam will surely suffice for most of them.

~~~
bluedino
"Everyone" shoots in 4K now and bad video quality is a good way to basically
push viewers away.

~~~
Synaesthesia
My iPhone 6S does 4K in great quality with a really cheap camera. (As a part)

------
patientplatypus
The economy is turning. High end cameras are a luxury good and one of the
first consumer purchases to take a hit.

