Is the digital photo craze dead? DPReview.com shutting down.

[Helge]

The difference in quality of the images taken with my iPhone 6s and my son's iPhone 12 is readily apparently.

Likely mostly down to better software and a bit larger sensor.
I can see the difference between my 13 Pro and 14 Pro 48MP mode too. But it comes at the cost of a larger camera.

If they were to do the same trick with the longest lens camera on the phone they would either have to go with the IQ impairing bent optical path or have a comically long lens protruding

In short, the sensor isn’t better “per pixel”.

The 48MP mode on the 14 Pro doesn’t even begin to touch a 24MP camera with a 24mm lens either.

 

[Pieter12]

Market research. It is one part of my job. And I am quite good at it . E.g. because of the methods I developed I was able in 2007 to forcast the time span of the film revival exactly. At a time in which (almost) all others were convinced film is dead.



No, not at all. It is extremely unlikely that all cameras of a certain type will break. Especially as lots of digital cameras were sold in huge quantities. So it won't be a major problem to find a replacement camera if needed. Also it is not needed to find exactly the same type again:
For example you have used a Nikon D600, and that breaks so fundamentally that it cannot be repaired anymore, you can also look for a Nikon D610, D750 or D780, and you will be totally satiesfied.

Best regards,
Henning

"Market research" is a generic term and certainly not an exact science. I worked in advertising and saw how much it can be misinterpreted, misunderstood, and abused. Do you have specifics? Several million is a lot of film photographers consuming a lot of film. To echo your point above, digital cameras were sld in huge quantities. Were film cameras sold in similar numbers, and how many of those are still functioning--Kodak sold a lot of 126 Instamatics. Nobody is using them today.

As far as digital is concerned, these huge quantities include a great majority of point and shoot, fixed lens cameras that are not going to be candidates for replacing the gentleman's DSLR when it eventually fails. At some point there will not be that many DSLR cameras in good working condition and mirrorless won't take those lenses, just as many DSLRs won't take older film camera lenses. There are a lot of defective and broken cameras that cannot be repaired--just ask any technician. The more expensive models tend to have been used professionally and have seen a lot of use, the cheaper ones are just that and more prone to failure through misuse and lesser quality. Oh, and all those DSLRs need custom batteries, another item that will become less available as time goes on.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It is of course absolutely correct that the number of digital (snap)shots has exploded over the last years, due to the smartphone. Look e.g. at all the shots of daily food which people are taking and sharing (something I have never understood ).
And in that context and for those people the function of photos has changed: It is not about photography, it is about communication: A shot is integrated in chats like a smiley, as an emphasis to a message in a chat or messenger app.

But that is a different purpose, and different market compared to what we as enthusiast photographers are mainly interested in.

Best regards,
Henning

I often attach a photo here with my post on a photo forum to help expand or explain my post. Considering this is a photo forum, I'm surprised more posters don't do this.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The difference in quality of the images taken with my iPhone 6s and my son's iPhone 12 is readily apparently.

My iPhone 7 went MIA and I had choices. I chose the home button with the finger print activation over the three lens models; I chose the iPhone SE version 3 over the iPhone 13 or 14. Also that did not lighten my credit card as much.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Analogue CMOS sensors has most likely plateaued.
High MP (^24MP) cameras has existed for over a decade, yet many new cameras still hover around the 24MP figure.

Sure, you can get to around 50MP, but not for free. Not when looking at the money, but certainly not either when you look at the comparable DR and noise from a coarser sensor.

DR is another area, where digital has made very little real inroads during the last decade.
Most of the alleged progress has really been better software and D/A conversion, to invisibly milk the cow more efficiently.
But the basic CMOS sensor hasn’t changed much.
It highly questionable whether we are going to see much of an attempt at that or even trying something completely new, since the enthusiasm is so low, and what is there is deemed good enough.

Look at how relatively stagnant phone cameras has been in image quality. Even there, where there is good money to be made by having the best sensor, things hasn’t changed much WRT basic IQ for a long time.

Kodak had it right when they tried to bury digital and keep pushing film.

 

[Pieter12]

Kodak had it right when they tried to bury digital and keep pushing film.

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Kodak had it right when they tried to bury digital and keep pushing film.

But the world did not listen to Kodak.

 

[Henning Serger]

"Market research" is a generic term and certainly not an exact science.

But mathematics, statistics and economics are when used properly. And my methods are based on that. I have worked for several years as a scientist in several research projects at the University here in my city.

Do you have specifics?

I have posted numbers and sources from the manufacturers here in this subforum regularly over the years in countless postings. Just look at the former threads.

Several million is a lot of film photographers consuming a lot of film.

But you overlook the fact that not all of them have used or are using a lot of film. For example film AF point&shoot cameras have become popular again by young people, especially women, and lots of users in the huge Asian markets. And this user group is often using only 2-4 films p.a.
So if you have again 2-3 million users in that user group, you can do the math.

And to give you an assessment of the film revival in numbers: In summer 2019 the amount of backorders (not sold film, only backorders) surpassed the 35 million (!) unit mark.

To echo your point above, digital cameras were sld in huge quantities. Were film cameras sold in similar numbers, and how many of those are still functioning--Kodak sold a lot of 126 Instamatics. Nobody is using them today.

Huge amounts of film cameras are still working. And in the last years of mass film camera manufacturing (2000-2007) more than 70 million units have been sold by the Japanese camera manufacturers alone (and you can add a seven digital number by Chinese manufacturers in that timne span).
And that 126 instamatic cameras are not used anymore is not caused by a lack of working cameras, but the stop of film production in that format.
And that is completely irrelevant to what I have explained above, that you won't have a problem in maybe ten years to find a working DSLR or EVIL camera on the used market.

As far as digital is concerned, these huge quantities include a great majority of point and shoot, fixed lens cameras that are not going to be candidates for replacing the gentleman's DSLR when it eventually fails.

Why don't you just look at the sources I have posted above? Then you will immediately see from the CIPA data that since 2002 more than 140 (!!!) million DSLRs have been sold. And the production is still ongoing. Pentax even has declared to concentrate completely on DSLRs for the future.

Therefore your statement that there will be problems in the future to get a replacement DSLR is simply wrong.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Sirius Glass]

My real horror about DPReview.com shutting down is that I might have to start reading www.kenrockwell.com! I breakout in cold sweats when that comes up at night in my sleep.

 

[Helge]

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

{moderator's deletion of unhelpful and unnecessary comment}

Kodak was very very successful in digital imaging for a while. They made the best sensors by far and they actually managed to sell a large number of point and shoots with their name on them.

Only problem was that they never realized that the software surrounding the sensors was by far the most important part of the product.

What really made digital jump around 2004 was the emergence of cheap, fast and abundant flash storage. Same thing that has all but killed mechanical harddrives. It made workable digi-cams small, robust and cheap.
And the maturation of the lithium ion battery.

Stuff no one other than people deeply in the electronics industry could see coming.

 

[Henning Serger]

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

That is simply wrong as Kodak has been extremely active in digital imaging for many years.
For example in 2005 they even were market leader in digital camera sales in North America.

Best regards,
Henning

 

[Helge]

My real horror about DPReview.com shutting down is that I might have to start reading www.kenrockwell.com! I breakout in cold sweats when that comes up at night in my sleep.

They were rescued.
And Ken is nothing but a stand-up guy. I never read a single thing he wrote that was not grounded in truth in some way.
I’d say the two of you share a lot of personality, from what I’ve been able to gather on here.
His site is great in a lot of ways.

 

[Sirius Glass]

They were rescued.
And Ken is nothing but a stand-up guy. I never read a single thing he wrote that was not grounded in truth in some way.
I’d say the two of you share a lot of personality, from what I’ve been able to gather on here.
His site is great in a lot of ways.

It is the "grounded in truth in some way" that has bothered me.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

They were right from the standpoint that digital would kill their film market and now the camera market.

 

[MattKing]

They were right from the standpoint that digital would kill their film market and now the camera market.

Except they didn't believe that - thus the co-development of APS.

 

[alanrockwood]

Hmmmm... if the digital photography craze is dead then it's probably time for me to get real serious about digital photography, being the troglodyte that I am.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Hmmmm... if the digital photography craze is dead then it's probably time for me to get real serious about digital photography, being the troglodyte that I am.

It seems the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll craze is dead too.

 

[VinceInMT]

It seems the sex, drugs and rock 'n roll craze is dead too.

Oh, Alan, you’re hanging out with the wrong crowd.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

Oh, gawd, are we going to go down this idiotic Kodak hate talk again. Eastman Kodak was a pioneer in the mathematics and technology behind many aspects of digital photography. Read some of the descriptions above or try any one of the hundred previous threads on the topic.

 

[Steven Lee]

Well, at least several million photographers have started or re-started using film in the last years.

Henning, I respectfully disagree. EK film sales are semi-public and we're looking at low double-digit million annual sales, around $30M IIRC from their latest earnings call. Even if we charitably interpret your comment as "there are 2 million photographers world wide", it would mean that an average film photographer exposed no more than two rolls on Kodak film per year. That just seems too low, especially considering that Kodak is the only real CN manufacturer left standing.

I just can't see how your claim of several million net new film shooters can be true. In fact, I seriously doubt we're in the millions, i.e. all of us, including those who never stopped.

 

[Steven Lee]

Kodak committed suicide by not pursuing digital.

You received a lot of flack for this misinformed comment already The real answer is that Kodak committed suicide by continuing to seek business in imaging. Digital technology destroyed value, or to put it more accurately, it shifted all value to the consumer. Today's imaging market, all of it, is not big enough to support even a single company of Kodak's size at its peak. If you combine profits of consumer imaging divisions of all remaining digital camera makers, they will be minicule compared to EK's profits in the early 90s adjusted for inflation. The most successful part of EK today is Eastman Chemical, which left the imaging business and doing $10Bn in annual sales IIRC.

TLDR: Consumer imaging is a tiny market compared to its heyday. There is no money in photography.

 

[Helge]

Henning, I respectfully disagree. EK film sales are semi-public and we're looking at low double-digit million annual sales, around $30M IIRC from their latest earnings call. Even if we charitably interpret your comment as "there are 2 million photographers world wide", it would mean that an average film photographer exposed no more than two rolls on Kodak film per year. That just seems too low, especially considering that Kodak is the only real CN manufacturer left standing.

I just can't see how your claim of several million net new film shooters can be true. In fact, I seriously doubt we're in the millions, i.e. all of us, including those who never stopped.

That’s EK. What about KA?

 

[Steven Lee]

That’s EK. What about KA?

Maybe I misunderstood your question, but KA numbers are included in EK's reporting. Alaris is just a distributor, no different from Lomography or Cinestill. They all sell film manufactured by Eastman Kodak.

 

[Prest_400]

My real horror about DPReview.com shutting down is that I might have to start reading www.kenrockwell.com! I breakout in cold sweats when that comes up at night in my sleep.

He sold off all his Velvia and does not talk wonders about film anymore. Ironically I liked his 2008-10 pro film era and it convinced my teenager self to use it. So not all is bad. /s

That is simply wrong as Kodak has been extremely active in digital imaging for many years.
For example in 2005 they even were market leader in digital camera sales in North America.

Best regards,
Henning

Good to see you Henning around here

You received a lot of flack for this misinformed comment already The real answer is that Kodak committed suicide by continuing to seek business in imaging. Digital technology destroyed value, or to put it more accurately, it shifted all value to the consumer. Today's imaging market, all of it, is not big enough to support even a single company of Kodak's size at its peak. If you combine profits of consumer imaging divisions of all remaining digital camera makers, they will be minicule compared to EK's profits in the early 90s adjusted for inflation. The most successful part of EK today is Eastman Chemical, which left the imaging business and doing $10Bn in annual sales IIRC.

TLDR: Consumer imaging is a tiny market compared to its heyday. There is no money in photography.

Indeed well put. Imaging wise I have been thinking how would have it been if Perez's Kodak had focused less in printing and more in actual digital solutions as well as leveraging the chemical and knowledge side of the company. Think Apple, camera phones and such diversification. I see that Eastman Chemical was spun off in 94 so should not play much into the actual collapse of 2004-14 Kodak. And sensors, oop, they spun that off. I would guess a Kodak success story would resemble more what Fuji has done.

But small Yellow father at least is hiring, so positive signs: https://www.whec.com/top-news/consu...is-looking-for-60-new-employees-in-rochester/

 

[Helge]

Maybe I misunderstood your question, but KA numbers are included in EK's reporting. Alaris is just a distributor, no different from Lomography or Cinestill. They all sell film manufactured by Eastman Kodak.

Well I haven’t bothered to find the report so it was an honest question.
Would you happen to have a link to the report?

Edit. Did a bit of searching. The numbers seems completely intractable to extract.
I’d need a screen-dump with an arrow to the number(s).