Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / July 2009
P&S sales continue to tank while DSLR sales thrive
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Rich - 02 Jul 2009 20:09 GMT amateurphotographer.co.uk
Compact camera sales drop 14.5%
Thursday 2nd July 2009 Chris Cheesman GfK
UK consumers snapped up 14.5% fewer compact cameras in May than in the same month the year before, according to official figures seen by Amateur Photographer. However, DSLR sales continue to ride out the effects of the economic downturn.
Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009 - that's 73,400 fewer than in May 2008.
This led to a 11% drop in compact camera sales revenue, according to the figures compiled by GfK Retail & Technology.
GfK attributed the fall in demand for compact cameras to higher prices, compared to a year ago, and the effects of the recession.
GfK's Photo/Imaging account manager Cedric Mertes blamed higher unemployment and cuts in household budgets, adding that the compact market has now 'reached maturity'.
He said that 75% of UK households own a compact camera and people are reluctant to upgrade to newer models during a downturn.
However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%, compared to 12 months earlier.
LOL - 02 Jul 2009 20:26 GMT >amateurphotographer.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%, >compared to 12 months earlier. So what you're really trying to say is, that the UK represents the whole world (how fuckingly arrogant of those Brits, as usual, pompous blowhards) and that people bought 391,100 more P&S cameras in the UK than the 42,800 DSLRs purchased.
Yeah, that's some huge sign of P&S disinterest, isn't it.
LOL
Rich - 03 Jul 2009 06:14 GMT > >amateurphotographer.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > LOL I'd say the UK is fine as representation of all capitalist economies. Why shouldn't it be?
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 15:13 GMT >> So what you're really trying to say is, that the UK represents the whole >> world ...
>I'd say the UK is fine as representation of all capitalist economies. I'd say it's not, much less that "capitalist economies" is relevant -- there are great differences in the camera markets even in developed countries (e.g., Japan versus UK), not to mention other major markets (e.g., China).
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Neil Ellwood - 03 Jul 2009 11:56 GMT >>amateurphotographer.co.uk >> [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > LOL Your reading comprehension gets lower each time you post. He mentioned the UK not the World. The periodical he quoted from is a UK magazine.
You are the pompous a.s.
 Signature Neil reverse ra and delete l Linux user 335851
John Navas - 02 Jul 2009 20:32 GMT >[SNIP] How silly. What this actually shows: * Sales of dSLR cameras are also down * Compact cameras outsold dSLR cameras by more than 10:1 * "the compact market has now 'reached maturity'" * "the effects of the recession"
 Signature Best regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
LOL - 02 Jul 2009 21:37 GMT >>[SNIP] > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > * "the compact market has now 'reached maturity'" > * "the effects of the recession" And that DSLRs break sooner and more often because of their loud and crappy but delicate and slow slapping antiquated mirrors and shutters so they need to be replaced at least every two years or more often. If you're any kind of photographer that is and are actually using it regularly. Buy one or two well made P&S cameras and it will take another 3 to 4 years or more before you want to upgrade because they rarely break, their shutter lives easily exceeding 300,000 and more actuations. Plus they already do more than even most pros will ever need. You don't even have to buy other lenses for them. All the focal-length range, aperture, and sharpness that you'll ever need is already included.
That about sum it up too?
Rich is so helpful to bring this to everyone's attention. Isn't he?
LOL
My 2002 P&S camera's images still can't be beat by any DSLR's images that I've seen yet. Why replace a camera as good as that? Not even 7 years later have they bested that particular P&S camera's image output in newer designs, not in a P&S nor DSLR. More megapixels yes, but that's rarely any kind of advantage. 300,000+ exposures and videos later and it's still never needed any repairs. I have bought others since then, but only because they had some unique feature (like CD quality stereo audio recording for my nature documentation needs) that wasn't thought of putting in a camera that long ago. The 2002 P&S is still my favorite.
<fun digression alert>
I just used it again last night to photograph and video record a bear in my yard by using its IR imaging mode. I don't like startling bears with nasty flash. It causes unpredictable repercussions. It was busy turning over my burning-barrel, tearing down the hummingbird feeder next to the front-door, threw over a lawn-chaise by the barn, and then settled down on my front-door steps to chew up a styrofoam human-skull that I had on a stick outside for a year-round Halloween decoration. (Works great as a jehova repellent! Highly recommended!) Why it chewed on that particular item for so long and so contentedly ... got me a WEE bit concerned, it did! LOL He left nice bite imprints in parts of the skull's remains though.
Methinks I have a bear with a vendetta.
LOL
I measured the canine-span in the styrofoam skull's imprints this morning. According to info I found online this bear's canine-span (59mm) equates to about a 350-400 lb. bear, might be even more. Eesh! That tooth-span don't seem very wide, not even to me, but they have narrow snouts in front like gavials and crocs.
Makes it much more interesting around here. Got my firecrackers, rifle, and compound-bow setting by the door. JUST in case. Maybe I should buy more styrofoam human-skulls to feed to him, to keep him happy. Until he's got whatever it is out of his system. Either that or I just might have to put bear-steaks back into my diet again.
LOL
ray - 02 Jul 2009 21:57 GMT > amateurphotographer.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%, > compared to 12 months earlier. Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble.
Floyd L. Davidson - 02 Jul 2009 22:21 GMT >Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way or another. How much did the *profits* change? We don't know, but that is the only number which counts...
 Signature Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
John Navas - 02 Jul 2009 23:04 GMT >>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. > >Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way >or another. How much did the *profits* change? We >don't know, but that is the only number which counts... To you, but not to the rest of the world.
 Signature Best regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Floyd L. Davidson - 03 Jul 2009 02:16 GMT >>>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >>>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >To you, but not to the rest of the world. So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember Adam Osborne selling computers like that...
 Signature Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 06:37 GMT >>>>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >>>>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember >Adam Osborne selling computers like that... How silly.
 Signature Best regards, John (Panasonic DMC-FZ28, and several others)
Floyd L. Davidson - 03 Jul 2009 07:37 GMT >>>>>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >>>>>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >How silly. Oh, so you *don't* remember Adam Osborne. Look it up.
 Signature Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
Savageduck - 03 Jul 2009 07:51 GMT >>>>>> Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >>>>>> Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Oh, so you *don't* remember Adam Osborne. Look it up. Yup. Compaq copied his suitcase portable. 8088, Keyboard lid, twin 51/4 drives amber 6" monitor.
Lug fest!
 Signature Regards,
Savageduck
Floyd L. Davidson - 03 Jul 2009 09:04 GMT >>>>>>> Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as >>>>>>> opposed to 42,000 dslrs. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Lug fest! However, the point is that while Osborne created a wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate his cost of production and for the entire life of the product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and went bankrupt due to the "success"!
Along the same lines, to stay with the original discussion relating 434,000 compact cameras to 42,000 DSLRs, another story that I've heard but have not verified, involves Henry Ford. Supposedly his invention of the production line to build cars was what brought him success, but that is not exactly the real story either. Seems he came up with the production line idea first... and applied it to making a $35 wrist watch! But he did do his homework, and it doesn't take much arithmetic to determine how many watches it takes to make a million bucks (too many!). So he literally went looking for something more expensive.
 Signature Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 15:53 GMT >>>>>>>> Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as >>>>>>>> opposed to 42,000 dslrs. [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and >went bankrupt due to the "success"! What actually happened is that sales of the Osborne 1 dried up, in part because Osborne pre-announced major upgrades (Executive and Vixen), in part because the Osborne 1 wasn't so wonderful as compared to newer competitive models, in part because the pre-announced Osborne Executive was actually *overpriced* as compared to better competitive models (e.g., Kaypro), and in part because Osborne failed to properly manage its manufacturing inventories and ran out of cash. The pre-announcement part came to be called the Osborne Effect. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect>
>Along the same lines, to stay with the original >discussion relating 434,000 compact cameras to 42,000 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >make a million bucks (too many!). So he literally went >looking for something more expensive. Even farther off the mark -- <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford#Early_years>:
His father gave Henry a pocket watch in his early teens. At fifteen, Ford dismantled and reassembled the timepieces of friends and neighbors dozens of times, gaining the reputation of a watch repairman.
Read on and you'll see that's it for watches.
Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a tiny bit of checking first.
(Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual ad hominem instead?)
 Signature Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com>
'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
nospam - 03 Jul 2009 21:00 GMT > >However, the point is that while Osborne created a > >wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > part came to be called the Osborne Effect. > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect> here's what thom hogan has to say:
<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1020&message=28933374>
First, note that the source you quote says this is a myth. And they're right--though they don't have all the details. As I was the number 2 public person at Osborne behind Adam and one of the five-member design board I could tell you much, much more about what actually happened. But I'll just say this: Osborne was out of control. Indeed, as was discovered in all the law suits that got filed I kept a full set of (accurate) accounting books for my groups (software, publishing, product marketing, etc.) because the main accounting department simply wasn't accurate or even close to being timely. Even the auditor--a famous company that doesn't exist any more because of repeated problems they had--didn't know I kept that set of books and ended up losing a major suit because of that. Bottom line: Osborne did not fail because it preannounced something.
<http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=30610128>
I could give a very long explanation here about why Osborne Computer failed. It wasn't because a product was preannounced, as common myth has it. It was because that project was internally postponed by new top management (a CEO brought in from a soda pop company), a cash boost from selling off old inventory was canceled, and the company ran out of cash (it was severely under capitalized to start with). I was there for all those meetings, and I argued consistently then as I do now. And I'm convinced Osborne would still be going if my advice was taken. But what did I know? After all, I'd never run a soda pop company before ;~).
> Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a > tiny bit of checking first. > > (Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual > ad hominem instead?) what a hoot.
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 21:27 GMT >> Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a >> tiny bit of checking first. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >what a hoot. It's amusing to watch BSers and trollers scramble after the fact to try to claim they knew the truth all along, but only mildly so.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Floyd L. Davidson - 03 Jul 2009 23:16 GMT >>> Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a >>> tiny bit of checking first. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It's amusing to watch BSers and trollers scramble after the fact to try >to claim they knew the truth all along, but only mildly so. You've described yourself.
You are the one who cited, in support of you claim, a Wikipedia article that described your claim in detail... and then the article states it is not true!
You really should have read *all* of it!
 Signature Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
John Navas - 04 Jul 2009 18:06 GMT >>It's amusing to watch BSers and trollers scramble after the fact to try >>to claim they knew the truth all along, but only mildly so. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >You really should have read *all* of it! I read all of it, and it supports what I wrote. You must not have paid much attention to what's actually in the article and/or what I actually wrote. <news:ej4s45pnh7r1ki5schcntb9be4tsh69h3m@4ax.com>
What actually happened is that sales of the Osborne 1 dried up, in part because Osborne pre-announced major upgrades (Executive and Vixen), in part because the Osborne 1 wasn't so wonderful as compared to newer competitive models, in part because the pre-announced Osborne Executive was actually *overpriced* as compared to better competitive models (e.g., Kaypro), and IN PART BECAUSE OSBORNE FAILED TO PROPERLY MANAGE ITS MANUFACTURING INVENTORIES AND RAN OUT OF CASH. The PRE-ANNOUNCEMENT PART came to be called the Osborne Effect. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect> [emphasis added]
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Floyd L. Davidson - 03 Jul 2009 23:11 GMT >>>>>>>>> Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as >>>>>>>>> opposed to 42,000 dslrs. [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >part came to be called the Osborne Effect. ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect> "It seems, therefore, that while the pre-announcement myth has been prevalent in the computer industry for years, its manifestation in the Osborne computer's case is somewhat exaggerated." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
You probably should read the material you cite. Regardless, even if what you just said had been valid, that would not deny what you responded to. Your logic is not sound.
>>Along the same lines, to stay with the original >>discussion relating 434,000 compact cameras to 42,000 [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] >Next time, to avoid posting more misinformation, do at least at least a >tiny bit of checking first. What misinformation? You have posted a cite (and quoted entirely the only mention it has of anything related to what I said) that not only does not contradict what I said, but is circumstantial evidence that it was true!
>(Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual >ad hominem instead?) As usual, no logic and a gratuitous personal insult.
John, get a dictionary and look up the word "gratuitous". And while you are at it, look of "relevant" too! If your comments are insulting, they cannot be gratuitous. If your comments are intended to be a contradiction, they must be relevant. You seem to miss on both in most of your posts.
 Signature Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com
John Navas - 04 Jul 2009 18:14 GMT >>Even farther off the mark -- >><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_ford#Early_years>: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >what I said) that not only does not contradict what I >said, but is circumstantial evidence that it was true! What the article and cite actually show is that there's no apparent real basis for your rumor, just an association to the teenage watch story, and you've still not provided any support. Why is that?
>>(Will you be man enough to admit your mistakes, or will I get your usual >>ad hominem instead?) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >be a contradiction, they must be relevant. You seem to >miss on both in most of your posts. I'm going to ignore these latest offensive remarks and offer you a truce in which we both treat each other with courtesy and respect, whether we agree or disagree, with no insults, denigration, or pedantic lecturing. What say you?
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
SMS - 03 Jul 2009 17:47 GMT > However, the point is that while Osborne created a > wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate > his cost of production and for the entire life of the > product he sold it for less than it cost to make... and > went bankrupt due to the "success"! That's not what happened to Osborne Computer at all.
Several things killed Osborne.
1. Kaypro came out with a 9" screen model hurting sales of the 5" screen Osborne 1.
2. Compaq offered their suitcase computer which was IBM compatible.
3. Adam pre-announced the Osborne Executive (7" screen) and sales of the Osborne 1 tanked because everyone waited for the new model.
4. The company was under-capitalized so they could not ride out the sales lull and develop new products fast enough.
5. He could not produce the original model in sufficient quantities to meet demand, and by the time he could, prices had fallen.
Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books.
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 18:09 GMT >> However, the point is that while Osborne created a >> wonderful computer, he failed to accurately calculate [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books. I see you've now read the Wikipedia article and changed your tune but without acknowledging or apologizing for your prior bad information: <news:_do3m.1970$8r.641@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> Why am I not surprised.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
ray - 03 Jul 2009 18:24 GMT >> However, the point is that while Osborne created a wonderful computer, >> he failed to accurately calculate his cost of production and for the [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Too bad, Adam was a good guy. Maybe he should have stuck to books. The book 'Hypergrowth' has a very good description of the entire mess.
SMS - 03 Jul 2009 18:39 GMT > The book 'Hypergrowth' has a very good description of the entire mess. Well at least as Adam Osborne and John Dvorak tell it! I used to talk to former colleagues that went to work there.
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 20:17 GMT >> The book 'Hypergrowth' has a very good description of the entire mess. > >Well at least as Adam Osborne and John Dvorak tell it! I used to talk to >former colleagues that went to work there. The cleaning staff have no idea what's going on.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
SMS - 03 Jul 2009 15:05 GMT > So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily > doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember > Adam Osborne selling computers like that... I used to work right next to Osborne Computer in Hayward, CA and I'd see Adam coming and going. We (Xerox) lost a lot of employees to Osborne, but they didn't last long there. But Osborne's real cash problems started when they pre-announced the new model, and everyone stopped buying the old model. They were under-capitalized, and couldn't survive the transition, it had nothing to do with losing money on every sale, there were just no sales.
The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of total sales, and the profit per D-SLR system sold is far greater than the profit on a commodity point and shoot, where you don't keep selling lenses and accessories far into the future. I don't think the question was ever whether or not the manufacturers are profitable overall in the digital camera segment. Some obviously are not, and have exited the business (Konica/Minolta) and probably Samsung and Panasonic in the near future. They just don't have the critical mass to survive. As NPD director Ross Rubin stated, "The top three suppliers are solidly positioned," Rubin said, "but slowing growth in the point-and-shoot market could make it difficult for other brands, like Samsung and Panasonic, which are still making in-roads in the digital camera market." The question is how long these companies are willing to lose money in this segment, funding the operations with revenue from other segments.
The D-SLR growth is a natural progression as people decide that they want better quality photos, faster AF, more lens choices, and more control. As Australian Photo Information Council spokesperson Paul Curtis stated last week, "Over the last five months, digital SLR sales have soared by nearly fifty per cent. We believe it is the cheaper low-end cameras and camera phones which became available over the last couple of years that inspired people into the joys of taking better photos. An SLR camera allows a photographer to be more expressive, versatile and creative in their picture taking."
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 16:03 GMT >> So if they can boost sales to half a million, they are necessarily >> doing fine... even if they lose $50 on every sale??? Do you remember [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >the transition, it had nothing to do with losing money on every sale, >there were just no sales. That's the myth. What actually happened is much broader mismanagement and lack of competitiveness. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect>
>The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of >total sales, Meaningless, since dSLR sales are coming from a much smaller base.
>and the profit per D-SLR system sold is far greater than >the profit on a commodity point and shoot, where you don't keep selling >lenses and accessories far into the future. The low end, higher volume part of the dSLR market is actually just as price competitive as the compact digital camera market, likewise the low end of the lens market; margins are no better than on better compact digital cameras; and total profits from those products are only a small fraction of compact digital camera profits.
>I don't think the question >was ever whether or not the manufacturers are profitable overall in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >money in this segment, funding the operations with revenue from other >segments. Industrial and technology giant Panasonic is actually doing very well, gaining market share according to plan, and looks set to be a strong long term player, just as in other consumer electronics products.
>The D-SLR growth is a natural progression as people decide that they >want better quality photos, faster AF, more lens choices, and more >control. ... There's simply no real evidence to support that.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
tony cooper - 03 Jul 2009 17:50 GMT >>The fact is that the D-SLR sales are becoming a bigger percentage of >>total sales, > >Meaningless, since dSLR sales are coming from a much smaller base. I am looking forward to your book on market analysis. In which chapter will you explain how the market segment base size makes the percentage of sales to that market segment a meaningless part of the overall sales?
Also, in which chapter will you explain your concept of "base"? You have evidently determined that purchases of point and shoot cameras and sales of dslr cameras come from different bases. While it is entirely possible that a person's first camera purchase would be a dslr, it seems to me that most dslr sales are to people who already own a camera of some type. Therefore, people who are in the same base as the owners of point and shoots and camera phones. They have merely upgraded to a different type of camera.
 Signature Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
SMS - 03 Jul 2009 18:43 GMT > I am looking forward to your book on market analysis. In which > chapter will you explain how the market segment base size makes the > percentage of sales to that market segment a meaningless part of the > overall sales? You spend a lot of time trying to explain things to the king of cluelessness.
Filters are your friend.
Wolfgang Weisselberg - 03 Jul 2009 03:16 GMT > On Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:21:04 -0800, floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
>>Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way >>or another. How much did the *profits* change? We >>don't know, but that is the only number which counts...
> To you, but not to the rest of the world. Yes, no profits meaning stores and camera makers going bankrupt ... doesn't mean a thing to the world. It's not like banks failing had any affect on the world, either.
-Wolfgang
ray - 03 Jul 2009 03:03 GMT >>Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. >>Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. > > Actually those numbers don't give much of a clue one way or another. > How much did the *profits* change? We don't know, but that is the only > number which counts... Really. Only matters to me if I own stock in one of the companies. I don't.
Rich - 03 Jul 2009 06:12 GMT > > amateurphotographer.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Let me see . . . 434,000 'compact cameras' as opposed to 42,000 dslrs. > Yeah, I'd say they're in big trouble. Difference is? There is no PROFIT in selling P&S's except for the most expensive ones that sell in fewer numbers than DSLRs. DSLRs on the other hand (except for cheaply priced ones for what they offer like the A900) are profitable because the purchasing does not stop with the cost of the body.
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 16:04 GMT >Difference is? There is no PROFIT in selling P&S's except for the >most expensive ones that sell in fewer numbers than DSLRs. DSLRs on >the other hand (except for cheaply priced ones for what they offer >like the A900) are profitable because the purchasing does not stop >with the cost of the body. The low end, higher volume part of the dSLR market is actually just as price competitive as the compact digital camera market, likewise the low end of the lens market; margins are no better than on better compact digital cameras; and total profits from those products are only a small fraction of compact digital camera profits.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Scott W - 03 Jul 2009 02:29 GMT > amateurphotographer.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%, > compared to 12 months earlier. I don’t know of many people who now do not own a compact camera, including me. Doesn’t it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact cameras is going to drop as most people have them? On the other hand most people don’t yet have a DSLR, so there is still a large potential market for them.
If you are trying to say that sales of compact cameras are in trouble due to DLSR you are about as deluded as some of the film people who keep seeing a resurgence in the use of film and claim that large numbers of people are giving up their digital cameras for film.
I love my DSLR, but I also like my compact camera, I use both and enough both.
As for the anti DSLR nut I have to point out that my wife and I own two DSLR, one over 4 years old the other over 3 and neither has given us any problem. On the other hand I have had a number of P&S digital cameras crap out on me.
Compact digital camera as simple not as bad as Rich makes out or as good as some other make out. And as far as value for you money they deliver nicely.
bugbear - 03 Jul 2009 13:58 GMT > I don’t know of many people who now do not own a compact camera, > including me. Doesn’t it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I love my DSLR, but I also like my compact camera, I use both and > enough both. Looking around, I see a lot of people taking photographs with their phones, or (should I say) their all-in-one techno-centre.
Some people (actually rather a lot, and rising) find their phone serves their record-the-moment need satisfactorily.
I suspect the market for (single-purpose) compact cameras will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's getting smaller.
BugBear
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 17:00 GMT >> I dont know of many people who now do not own a compact camera, >> including me. Doesnt it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's >getting smaller. Depends on what you mean by "squeezed". Phone cameras may take over much of the very low end of the digital camera market, and dSLR cameras may take more of the high end, but that still leaves a vast middle.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
SMS - 03 Jul 2009 18:02 GMT > I suspect the market for (single-purpose) compact cameras > will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's > getting smaller. What's happening, and the reason why D-SLR sales are increasing as a percentage of total cameras sold, are just as Australian Photo Information Council spokesperson Paul Curtis stated last week, "Over the last five months, digital SLR sales have soared by nearly fifty per cent. We believe it is the cheaper low-end cameras and camera phones which became available over the last couple of years that inspired people into the joys of taking better photos. An SLR camera allows a photographer to be more expressive, versatile and creative in their picture taking."
This is isn't limited to Australia of course, we've seen similar reports out of the U.S., China, and the U.K.. All the experts agree that as people want to improve the quality of their photos, as well as being able to take certain photos at all, they are buying D-SLRs. It's quite similar to the evolution of film SLRs, when they hit the mass market the adoption rate soared. But with D-SLRs there's another thing driving the growth. Back in the film days, everyone had access to the same full frame "sensors;" you bought them on rolls. You didn't have the huge disconnect in noise and low light performance that you now have with D-SLRs versus digital point and shoot cameras, and you didn't have all the autofocus lag issues. The D-SLR solves problems that exist in P&S digital cameras that film compact cameras never had.
P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for photography rather than "snapshots."
John Navas - 03 Jul 2009 18:11 GMT >P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for >photography rather than "snapshots." Nonsense.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
P&S Pete - 03 Jul 2009 23:06 GMT >>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for >>photography rather than "snapshots." > > Nonsense. Now, this seems funny to me.
I was lucky enough to be at a tennis tournament in London today, and in the press pits, I saw not one pro with a super-zoom P&S. Not one. Why would that be? These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most interesting, involving photos of the action. The man who can move from Centre Court to Court No. 1 and back with the least encumbrance will earn the most - who needs those big wide, heavy lenses? These guys embrace technology - it's their living.. It isn't like the old days, when they needed to use the medium that was most compatible with everyone else, i.e. 35mm because that's what the papers could handle.. Now, they simply blast off whatever photo or crop by WiFi or 3G. So why use DSLR? They must be the stupidest blokes on the planet - I mean, can't they read or something?
Puzzled of SW19.
Just a 0.02 euros.
You Don't Get Out Much Do You - 04 Jul 2009 00:06 GMT >>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >Not one. >Why would that be? Simple. Because 99.99% of all other "pros" that I've ever had the misfortune to work beside are brainless herd following sheep without a clue. They have an image to keep up. With their employers and each other. So what if the employer is another brain-dead moron who will never realize that P&S cameras will do just as well, if not better, for all their photographers. They don't know sh.t about cameras and photography, yet they demand that they only hire photographers that use the most expensive, noisiest, most limiting, and most obnoxious gear. <gruff moron boss voice> "Because THAT'S WHAT PROS USE! SO THERE!" </gruff moron boss voice> Then the "pros" themselves have to try to impress each other by how much money they waste on their kits. They love nothing better than to fondly hand-hold their penis-extenders to show the next "pro" that they are BIGGER AND BETTER.
It has zero to do with image quality and camera functionality.
Are you really this stupid to not know this? Their choice in cameras has NOTHING to do with the images obtained from them. It's all about the penis-waving-show they engage in. On the field, in the office, wherever they can make use of it. They really are that ridiculously insecure. From employer to employee. They're all the very same penis-waving morons.
SMS - 04 Jul 2009 00:54 GMT > These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably > the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most > interesting, involving photos of the action. Super-zoom P&S cameras are especially poorly suited to action shots. They could not do their job with a P&S.
I've gotten some good P&S landscape shots outdoors, but you want to avoid P&S cameras if you need low noise, high resolution, fast focusing, and if you need to shoot in low light. All the experts agree on this.
TROLL SPOTTER - 04 Jul 2009 01:59 GMT >> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably >> the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >I've gotten some good P&S landscape shots outdoors, But but but ... just how do you do that SMS? We ALL know that you've never held a camera in your lifetime. You've been clearly outted as a basement-living pretend-photographer troll so many times, for so long. Do you really think anyone is buying your virtual-reality role-playing crap anymore?
Well, I guess his behavior *is* the definition of psychotic after all, isn't it. Can't expect more than this from them.
Rich - 05 Jul 2009 05:03 GMT > > These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably > > the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most > > interesting, involving photos of the action. > > Super-zoom P&S cameras are especially poorly suited to action shots. > They could not do their job with a P&S. Why even entertain this in casual conversation? The thought of a phalanx of professional sports photogs lined up a football game armed with LX3's is so hilarious it should be its own comedy skit.
ray - 05 Jul 2009 15:25 GMT >> > These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and >> > presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > phalanx of professional sports photogs lined up a football game armed > with LX3's is so hilarious it should be its own comedy skit. Hardly. It might be comical for a bunch of 'professional' photographers, but to make it as a real comedy skit, it must be related to by your average Joe Sixpack.
John Navas - 06 Jul 2009 23:47 GMT >> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably >> the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most >> interesting, involving photos of the action. > >Super-zoom P&S cameras are especially poorly suited to action shots. In fact just the opposite.
>I've gotten some good P&S landscape shots outdoors, but you want to >avoid P&S cameras if you need low noise, high resolution, fast >focusing, and if you need to shoot in low light. All the experts agree >on this. Simply not true.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Bob Larter - 09 Jul 2009 08:40 GMT >>> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and presumably >>> the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, brightest, most >>> interesting, involving photos of the action. >> Super-zoom P&S cameras are especially poorly suited to action shots. > > In fact just the opposite. Evidence?
>> I've gotten some good P&S landscape shots outdoors, but you want to >> avoid P&S cameras if you need low noise, high resolution, fast >> focusing, and if you need to shoot in low light. All the experts agree >> on this. > > Simply not true. Evidence?
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
ray - 09 Jul 2009 15:45 GMT >>>> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and >>>> presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Evidence? Such brilliant, insightful repartee!
DocGlock - 09 Jul 2009 16:43 GMT >>>>> These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and >>>>> presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Such brilliant, insightful repartee! Watch out, I feel that Navas is getting ready to use his favorite word to throw out there: empirical
Wolfgang Weisselberg - 10 Jul 2009 17:06 GMT > "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
>>>> Simply not true.
>>> Evidence?
>> Such brilliant, insightful repartee!
> Watch out, I feel that Navas is getting ready to use his favorite word to > throw out there: empirical Without understanding what that means, most likely.
-Wolfgang
ray - 04 Jul 2009 01:53 GMT >>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Why would that be? > These people depend on their cameras for their livelihoods, and And most of us don't. So why would we be expected to use the same equipment?
> presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, > brightest, most interesting, involving photos of the action. The man who [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > They must be the stupidest blokes on the planet - I mean, can't they > read or something? No, they simply have a different set of parameters to work with than most of the general populace - not everyone is a professional photographer.
> Puzzled of SW19. > > Just a 0.02 euros. SMS - 04 Jul 2009 03:21 GMT <snip>
> And most of us don't. So why would we be expected to use the same > equipment? Not the same equipment, since the professionals were no doubt using high-resolution, full-frame Nikon and Canon D-SLRs to produce the absolute best quality image that would later be printed in large sizes. But there are many reasons for the non-professional to choose a D-SLR on many occasions as well.
1. You shoot in low light. Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low noise images at ISO speeds up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point and shoot cameras, with their small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at ISO 200, with some poorer models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
2. You want to use flash attachments. While a few higher end point and shoot digital models have hot shoes for an external flash, most do not. Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes can use a wireless flash, but it's not a great flash unit.
3. You need an extreme wide-angle lens. Digital SLRs have super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an effective focal length of as little as 16mm. There are no point and shoot digital cameras with lenses that wide. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but even the best adapters are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a moderately wide, 28mm lens.
4. You need a long telephoto lens. Whether it’s doing wildlife photography in Alaska, or shooting at sporting events, only a digital SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If you only need a specialty lens for rare occasions, you can even rent one for a couple of days since they can be rather expensive. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on adapters to increase the telephoto range but even the best adapters are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a long telephoto lens, but the quality is not great.
5. You need fast auto-focus. Most digital SLRs (with the exception of Pentax) use lenses with internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and shoot digital cameras cannot focus nearly as fast.
6. You need low shutter lag. Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing the crack of the bat against the baseball, you simply cannot obtain these shots with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes. Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
8. You want an optical viewfinder. While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder, it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult, and greatly reduces battery life.
9. You want full manual control. While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models, there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control back, but it's very flaky and complicated.
10. Expandability and upgradability. Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments, filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and accessories can be used on the new body if it’s from the same manufacturer.
11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it’s true. With the free-fall of digital SLR prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost of a high end point and shoot camera.
13. Weight. There are now D-SLRs that are the same weight, or lighter weight, than ZLRs, even with the lens weight included. So while most users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital camera when portability is more important than quality, there’s no reason to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
14. Size. There are now D-SLRs that are the same volume, or smaller volume, than ZLRs, even with the lens volume included. So while most users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital camera when portablity is more important than quality, there’s no reason to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera.
15. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a wide-range “SLR-like” P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn’t very good at the ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher quality wide angle and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the simplicity of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to not carry extra lenses.
16. Complexity. While a D-SLR does give you the ability to have a great deal of control, you also have the option of setting it to automatic mode, making it no more complex than a simple point and shoot camera. If you have the desire to expand your creative control in the future, that capability is built in. Most point and shoot cameras lack the option for manual control, though some Canon cameras can use a freeware program to add some limited control.
The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are more important than portability.
Troll Killer - 04 Jul 2009 04:06 GMT >Not the same equipment, since the professionals were no doubt using >high-resolution, full-frame Nikon and Canon D-SLRs to produce the >absolute best quality image that would later be printed in large sizes. >But there are many reasons for the non-professional to choose a D-SLR on >many occasions as well. Dear Resident Pretend-Photographer DSLR-Troll,
Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortio ns.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to them their piss-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing."
ray - 04 Jul 2009 22:59 GMT > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and shoot cameras, with their small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at > ISO 200, with some poorer models being too noisy even at 100 ISO. I don't.
> 2. You want to use flash attachments. While a few higher end point and > shoot digital models have hot shoes for an external flash, most do not. > Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes can use a wireless flash, but > it's not a great flash unit. I don't. But, I have, on occasion, used a hot shoe slave - no bit deal.
> 3. You need an extreme wide-angle lens. Digital SLRs have > super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an effective focal length of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a moderately wide, > 28mm lens. Yes, the moderately wide angle has sufficed for me.
> 4. You need a long telephoto lens. Whether it’s doing wildlife > photography in Alaska, or shooting at sporting events, only a digital [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are of mediocre quality. Some ZLR cameras do give you a long telephoto > lens, but the quality is not great. I find the 420 equivalent to be adequate. I probably wouldn't pay for anything bigger for an slr.
> 5. You need fast auto-focus. Most digital SLRs (with the exception of > Pentax) use lenses with internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and > shoot digital cameras cannot focus nearly as fast. I don't.
> 6. You need low shutter lag. Whether it’s photographing your child on a > merry-go-round, or capturing the crack of the bat against the baseball, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > point and shoot camera, the sensor is activated electronically after it > is used to focus the shot. Don't need that either.
> 7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes. Only a > high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints. No desire to do posters.
> 8. You want an optical viewfinder. While a few point and shoot cameras > have retained an optical viewfinder, it’s been cost-reduced out of most > models. Composing a picture on the LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is > very difficult, and greatly reduces battery life. Hate the frigging LCD screens - but I'm quite content with the EVF - I checked and made sure I got one that is adequate.
> 9. You want full manual control. While some high-end point and shoot > models have retained some level of manual control, most have > cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models, there is third-party software > that can get some of the manual control back, but it's very flaky and > complicated. I have all of that on my P850.
> 10. Expandability and upgradability. Not only a wide variety of > specialty lenses, but flash attachments, filters, vertical grips, remote > shutter releases, etc. If you eventually want to upgrade to a better > D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and accessories can be used on the new > body if it’s from the same manufacturer. I don't have a requirement now, for that sort of thing. I can see that it could be nice.
> 11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you > can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving. I don't generally shoot people - certainly not in action. I'm not a sports photographer.
> 12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it’s true. With the free-fall of digital SLR > prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost > of a high end point and shoot camera. Not less than the P&S I already have.
> 13. Weight. There are now D-SLRs that are the same weight, or lighter > weight, than ZLRs, even with the lens weight included. So while most > users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital > camera when portability is more important than quality, there’s no > reason to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera. I think you forgot something. By the time you pack all the accessories you were so proud of before - extra lenses, flashes, etc. It's going to weigh in a lot more than my P&S. And I don't need that when I'm on a 10 mile hike, or a 20 mile bike ride or out snowshoeing.
> 14. Size. There are now D-SLRs that are the same volume, or smaller > volume, than ZLRs, even with the lens volume included. So while most > users will still want to use a pocket-size point and shoot digital > camera when portablity is more important than quality, there’s no reason > to sacrifice quality and get a large P&S camera. Until you add all the extra lenses, etc.
> 15. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a > wide-range “SLR-like” P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > manual control, though some Canon cameras can use a freeware program to > add some limited control. My Kodak P850 allows full manual control. It also shoots raw images. No extra software needed and no need to specifically transfer the software to every card you might have.
> The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a > pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important > than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are > more important than portability. Main problem is that many of us don't want to mess with trying to remember how to operate two different cameras, or don't want the added expense. For many of us, a decent EVF is the perfect solution.
SMS - 06 Jul 2009 16:52 GMT >> <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I don't. <snip>
A lot of the "I" word in your response. What you have to understand is that the world doesn't revolve around you.
ray - 06 Jul 2009 18:12 GMT >>> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > A lot of the "I" word in your response. What you have to understand is > that the world doesn't revolve around you. Only point I was trying to make is that there a many folks who have a different set of priorities than you claim. With roughly 10x the sales, it would appear that a large portion of the population finds P&S cameras meet their needs better than a DSLR. There are many different kinds of users in the world. It should come as no surprise that some find one type more useful while others find the other more useful and some prefer to have both - for times when their particular requirements differ.
SMS - 06 Jul 2009 20:04 GMT > Only point I was trying to make is that there a many folks who have a > different set of priorities than you claim. With roughly 10x the sales, > it would appear that a large portion of the population finds P&S cameras > meet their needs better than a DSLR. You're basing your conclusion solely on sales figures. Look at the trends. Why are D-SLR sales becoming a larger percentage of total sales? It's not price or size, it's a) because more and more users are wanting photographs, rather than just snapshots and b) as the market matures users are realizing the advantages the D-SLRs provide.
ray - 06 Jul 2009 21:24 GMT >> Only point I was trying to make is that there a many folks who have a >> different set of priorities than you claim. With roughly 10x the sales, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > photographs, rather than just snapshots and b) as the market matures > users are realizing the advantages the D-SLRs provide. Your argument seems quite like the folks who claim that MS is doomed since Linux and MAC sales are increasing.
John Navas - 06 Jul 2009 23:50 GMT >> Only point I was trying to make is that there a many folks who have a >> different set of priorities than you claim. With roughly 10x the sales, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >You're basing your conclusion solely on sales figures. Look at the >trends. Why are D-SLR sales becoming a larger percentage of total sales? Because ther're starting from a much lower base, and still constitute only a tiny fraction of the market.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
whoo boy -- you folks try to educate this SMS moron - 07 Jul 2009 02:01 GMT >Why are D-SLR sales becoming a larger percentage of total sales? From original post:
>Statistics show that 433,900 compact cameras were sold in May 2009
>However, sales of digital SLRs held up, sliding around 2% in volume in >May, to 42,800 units. Do you even know what the word "percentage" means?
Are we going to have to educate you on the most basic of math principles that any 3rd-grader has already mastered?
Quick, tell us. What percentage of total sales were P&S cameras and what percentage of total sales were DSLR cameras? Using the facts reported above.
We'll wait while you try to sort out this highly complex math problem .... because it's now glaringly obvious that you don't even know what the word "percentage" means.
P&S Pete - 04 Jul 2009 09:52 GMT >>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And most of us don't. So why would we be expected to use the same > equipment? But I'm not talking about the rest of us - I'm talking about the press. A builder doesn't buy a Black&Decker drill, he buys a Makita or a de Walt for two or three times the price. Does he buy this because of some putative construction industry willy-waving? No, he buys it because it does the job and is robust enough for his needs.
>> presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, >> brightest, most interesting, involving photos of the action. The man who [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > No, they simply have a different set of parameters to work with than most > of the general populace - not everyone is a professional photographer. Agreed that they have a different set of parameters, but if something cheaper and lighter does the job, you'd be mad not to use it, but I don't see these guys zonked out on meds, or with white-coated minders. Don't forget, it's all about content according to our resident laughing-stock, so if you can capture more and better content with a super zoom P&S, why not use it and vastly enhance your earning-power - I mean, what's willy-waving if you can't aford a decent lifestyle?
Dear resident laughing stock, insert your easily detectable 24K of BS just
>>> HERE <<<< Troll Killer - 04 Jul 2009 09:56 GMT >>>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] >Dear resident laughing stock, insert your easily detectable 24K of BS just > >>> HERE <<<< No need to. You made a laughing-stock of yourself all by ignorant little self. You don't need my help.
P&S Pete - 04 Jul 2009 10:21 GMT >>>>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>>>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > No need to. You made a laughing-stock of yourself all by ignorant little > self. You don't need my help. Is that really the best you can do? That's pitiful.
Look, willy-wavers are competitive; press photographers are some of the worst - they'll do anything to stiff the other guy, so that they can get a sellable shot. So, if you can get a true Darwinian life advantage by using a P&S - buy a new Lambo on the proceeds, marry another super-model etc - do you honestly think these guys wouldn't take it?
You must do a lot of flash photography, because it must be awfully dark where your head is.
Jeff Albrahms - 04 Jul 2009 10:25 GMT >>>>>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>>>>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >You must do a lot of flash photography, because it must be awfully dark >where your head is. Sigh, just another useless know-nothing usenet troll. And I thought higher of you at first. My error. Some of you slip under the wire. Live and learn.
ray - 04 Jul 2009 15:18 GMT >>>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good >>>>>enough for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > No, he buys it because it does the job and is robust enough for his > needs. Exactly. And for most of us that would be a needless expenditure - the B&D or Craftsman will suffice for what we need to do.
>>> presumably the most successful will be the one with the sharpest, >>> brightest, most interesting, involving photos of the action. The man [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > super zoom P&S, why not use it and vastly enhance your earning-power - I > mean, what's willy-waving if you can't aford a decent lifestyle? It's foolish to claim that 'everyone' has the same needs. As I pointed out.
> Dear resident laughing stock, insert your easily detectable 24K of BS > just > >>> HERE <<<< John Navas - 06 Jul 2009 19:00 GMT >>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>>for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >And most of us don't. So why would we be expected to use the same >equipment? It's a patently silly argument. Lewis Hamilton drives a Formula One McLaren on the track. Does that mean the Formula One McLaren is the best car for all purposes? Of course not. His personal car is the Mercedes GL320 CDI (diesel SUV).
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
ray - 06 Jul 2009 21:23 GMT >>>>>P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good >>>>>enough for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > best car for all purposes? Of course not. His personal car is the > Mercedes GL320 CDI (diesel SUV). Fine. I don't need or want an SUV, either.
Chris Malcolm - 04 Jul 2009 09:32 GMT >> I suspect the market for (single-purpose) compact cameras >> will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's >> getting smaller.
> What's happening, and the reason why D-SLR sales are increasing as a > percentage of total cameras sold, are just as Australian Photo [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > photographer to be more expressive, versatile and creative in their > picture taking."
> This is isn't limited to Australia of course, we've seen similar reports > out of the U.S., China, and the U.K.. All the experts agree that as [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the autofocus lag issues. The D-SLR solves problems that exist in P&S > digital cameras that film compact cameras never had.
> P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough > for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for > photography rather than "snapshots." In the days of film cameras there was a well established long lasting market for simple compact cameras which the SLR photographer could carry in a pocket "just in case", and which had good enough lenses to deliver photographs of SLR quality. In the digital world such high quality compacts do not quite yet exist, due to various technological problems afflicting current P&S technology.
But some makers of high-end P&S are clearly aiming at that kind of buyer. The AF "shutter" lag of image sensor contrast based autofocus is one of the residual problems. But it's a problem that will be solved sooner or later one way or another. As will other problems peculiar to digital compacts, such as high ISO noise. At which time I expect to see that kind of market niche established in the digital camera world.
 Signature Chris Malcolm
The March of the Ignorants - 04 Jul 2009 09:59 GMT >>> I suspect the market for (single-purpose) compact cameras >>> will be squeezed between phones getting better and DSLR's [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >expect to see that kind of market niche established in the digital >camera world. Catch up. Been solved long ago. My latest P&S camera has a "shutter lag" of 45ms. Far faster than any DSLR in existence.
Really. Do you fools want to continue to prove you are fools to the whole world time and time again? What's the point?
Chris Malcolm - 04 Jul 2009 16:09 GMT >>> P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>> for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >>expect to see that kind of market niche established in the digital >>camera world.
> Catch up. Been solved long ago. My latest P&S camera has a "shutter lag" of > 45ms. Far faster than any DSLR in existence.
> Really. Do you fools want to continue to prove you are fools to the whole > world time and time again? What's the point? Please read more slowly and carefully before throwing the rant switch. I explained that I was using "shutter" lag (as many do, albeit strictly incorrectly) to refer to the autofocus lag. I'm not at all surprised you have a P&S with a low *shutter* lag. The problem as you well know is the autofocus lag time.
Can you tell us what the *autofocus* lag time of your P&S camera is, or did you deliberately misunderstand me because that lag time is too embarrassing to reveal?
 Signature Chris Malcolm
The March of the Ignorants - 04 Jul 2009 16:58 GMT >>>> P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>> for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >or did you deliberately misunderstand me because that lag time is too >embarrassing to reveal? Autofocus-lag has never been a concern for me. On ANY camera. Are you trying to tell me that you're just a beginner point and shoot snapshooter because you need your camera to do everything for you as fast as possible? Yeah, I thought so. Got it. Loud and clear. You need say no more.
Don't forget to get face-detection and smile-detection on your next point and shoot DSLR too. You don't want to have to watch for those things, now do you? Without those snapshooter's much needed features you might miss Aunt Bessie's dentures showing at the next birthday party that they asked you to come photograph, or get them hopelessly out of focus again.
(how f.cking lame can these snapshooters get?)
Chris Malcolm - 05 Jul 2009 01:03 GMT >>>>> P&S digital cameras are good for portability, and they are good enough >>>>> for snapshots taken in good light, but the world is moving to D-SLRs for [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >>or did you deliberately misunderstand me because that lag time is too >>embarrassing to reveal?
> Autofocus-lag has never been a concern for me. On ANY camera. Are you > trying to tell me that you're just a beginner point and shoot snapshooter > because you need your camera to do everything for you as fast as possible? > Yeah, I thought so. Got it. Loud and clear. You need say no more.
> Don't forget to get face-detection and smile-detection on your next point > and shoot DSLR too. You don't want to have to watch for those things, now > do you? Without those snapshooter's much needed features you might miss > Aunt Bessie's dentures showing at the next birthday party that they asked > you to come photograph, or get them hopelessly out of focus again.
> (how f.cking lame can these snapshooters get?) Just as I suspected :-)
 Signature Chris Malcolm
Bob Larter - 05 Jul 2009 04:59 GMT > Catch up. Been solved long ago. My latest P&S camera has a "shutter lag" of > 45ms. Far faster than any DSLR in existence. HAHAHahahahahahaha!
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
SMS - 04 Jul 2009 15:27 GMT > In the days of film cameras there was a well established long lasting > market for simple compact cameras which the SLR photographer could [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > expect to see that kind of market niche established in the digital > camera world. There's little incentive for Canon or Nikon to work on solutions to these issues. Solving the noise issue is particularly difficult, and would require major sensor development, perhaps along the lines of doing something like Foveon did, but doing it better. Solving the AF issue is easier, but it would add cost to a product whose margins are already thin, and the price of these products are set by the market, not by how much they cost to design and manufacture.
What's the total available market for a high cost, high quality P&S that would justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D? Even when you fix the noise and AF issues, you still have all the other advantages of D-SLRs.
Perhaps the solution is a smaller D-SLR, as Olympus has been pushing, without much success as of yet.
gary tolens - 04 Jul 2009 15:46 GMT >> In the days of film cameras there was a well established long lasting >> market for simple compact cameras which the SLR photographer could [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >would require major sensor development, perhaps along the lines of doing >something like Foveon did, but doing it better. Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and not use ISOs above 100. Pretty simple isn't it? Or are you just one of the many point and shoot DSLR proponents that doesn't know how to use any camera properly? All my cameras are nearly noise-free up to ISO400. I see no need to ever want ISOs higher than that. Because I know what I'm doing. People who require ISOs higher than that don't have a clue.
>Solving the AF issue is >easier, but it would add cost to a product whose margins are already >thin, and the price of these products are set by the market, not by how >much they cost to design and manufacture. Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and know how to use manual focus and proper aperture settings to pre-focus all your cameras to ensure that your subject is in focus. Or are you just one of the many point and shoot DSLR proponents that has to have auto-everything because you're that lame at being a photographer?
The more that you type the more that you prove that you are just a useless snapshooter. If the camera can't do it for you then you don't know how and don't want to learn how. How lame can you get?
>What's the total available market for a high cost, high quality P&S that >would justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D? Even when [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Perhaps the solution is a smaller D-SLR, as Olympus has been pushing, >without much success as of yet. Perhaps the solution is that you dimwitted point and shoot snapshooting DSLR proponents learned how to be a real photographer one day. Could that be the solution? Oh no, not at all. You want to have a point and shoot DSLR because you'll never be a photographer. You prove that with every post that you have ever made.
rwalker - 05 Jul 2009 02:03 GMT snip usual b.s.
You must have a very unhappy homelife, or some other horrible personal problem, that leads you to compensate with these ridiculous rants.
At least they are amusing in a pathetic way.
Bob Larter - 06 Jul 2009 02:35 GMT The P&S kook wrote:
> Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and > not use ISOs above 100. Oh yeah, what a great idea - NOT.
> Pretty simple isn't it? Or are you just one of the > many point and shoot DSLR proponents that doesn't know how to use any > camera properly? All my cameras are nearly noise-free up to ISO400. I see > no need to ever want ISOs higher than that. Because I know what I'm doing. > People who require ISOs higher than that don't have a clue. Pfft. If P&Ses were any good at high ISOs, you'd be saying how important a feature it was.
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas - 06 Jul 2009 23:59 GMT >The P&S kook wrote: >> Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and >> not use ISOs above 100. > >Oh yeah, what a great idea - NOT. Really? Then why did so many pros use (and still use) relatively slow film instead of high speed film for most shots?
>> Pretty simple isn't it? Or are you just one of the >> many point and shoot DSLR proponents that doesn't know how to use any [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Pfft. If P&Ses were any good at high ISOs, you'd be saying how important >a feature it was. Not really. I used K25 and K64 almost exclusively when shooting film, even though faster films were readily available, and I rarely use digital ISO above 100 even though my cameras produce good results at higher speeds.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Bob Larter - 13 Jul 2009 06:45 GMT >> The P&S kook wrote: >>> Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Really? Then why did so many pros use (and still use) relatively slow > film instead of high speed film for most shots? Because high-ISO *film* is grainy as hell. But we are talking about *digital* cameras, not *film* cameras.
>>> Pretty simple isn't it? Or are you just one of the >>> many point and shoot DSLR proponents that doesn't know how to use any [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > digital ISO above 100 even though my cameras produce good results at > higher speeds. Good for you. But I do most of my shooting under very poor lighting where ISO 1600 is barely adequate, & ISO 100 simply isn't an option.
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Playing With Trolls - 13 Jul 2009 08:08 GMT >>> The P&S kook wrote: >>>> Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >Good for you. But I do most of my shooting under very poor lighting >where ISO 1600 is barely adequate, & ISO 100 simply isn't an option. Yeah, those out-of-focus bees in direct sunlight are so demanding for ISO1600.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob Larter - 13 Jul 2009 20:30 GMT >>>> The P&S kook wrote: >>>>> Or you could do like every professional has done for the last century and [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > LOL!!!!!!!!!!! You mean this bee? <http://users.tpg.com.au/lionel6//CRW_4708-4.jpg> Doesn't look out of focus to me. I think you need to get your eyes checked, kook.
 Signature W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
John Navas - 06 Jul 2009 23:53 GMT >What's the total available market for a high cost, high quality P&S that >would justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D? Even when >you fix the noise and AF issues, you still have all the other advantages >of D-SLRs. Clearly contradicted by (1) R&R spending on compact digital cameras as compared to dSLR cameras and (2) continued market dominance of compact digital cameras.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
John Navas - 06 Jul 2009 23:51 GMT >But some makers of high-end P&S are clearly aiming at that kind of >buyer. The AF "shutter" lag of image sensor contrast based autofocus >is one of the residual problems. But it's a problem that will be >solved sooner or later one way or another. ... There is no such problem.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
Kent Vanders - 03 Jul 2009 19:30 GMT >> I dont know of many people who now do not own a compact camera, >> including me. Doesnt it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > BugBear What? You mean that everyone is going to want a compact super-zoom eventually? That's the exact design that both fields are focusing into, isn't it. What's next? A camera that you can read your favorite e-books on too while waiting for your plane to land? Just like carrying a mini-Kindle. Oh wait, that's already been done years ago in every CHDK super-zoom camera, as the free CHDK add-on.
Yeah, that futuristic trend is what I thought. That's why I bought into that design of camera almost a decade ago and ditched my SLR and dSLR time-consuming, slow-shutter image distorting, slow flash-sync, opportunity-missing, lens-needs-changing, lead-weighted bricks. I'm never one to follow the herd. But now that everyone is finding the vast benefits of smaller, quieter, more adaptable, and more efficient than a dSLR with images every bit as good; and much better image quality than a cell-phone with the very same creative possibilities as any dSLR; I just don't feel so trend-setting and special anymore by using and supporting super-zoom cameras all these years.
Don't you just hate it when the rest of the world finally wakes up and starts doing what you were first doing over a decade ago? Whether it be in camera choices or photography style, none of them can ever think creatively for themselves. How I hate that. Bunch of bleating and stampeding wannabees. I resent them even more for having been so ignorant and stupid for so long. They're losers no matter how they got from A to B.
bugbear - 06 Jul 2009 10:52 GMT >>> I don’t know of many people who now do not own a compact camera, >>> including me. Doesn’t it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > What? You mean that everyone is going to want a compact super-zoom > eventually? No, not "everyone", and the compact super-zoom will be part of their phone, and it will be heavily automated, not super controllable.
What people want are photographs, not cameras.
BugBear
Oh The Trolls ... - 06 Jul 2009 11:27 GMT >>>> I dont know of many people who now do not own a compact camera, >>>> including me. Doesnt it make sense that perhaps the sales of compact [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > BugBear An ad-hoc intentional misdirection by truncating the important context? That makes you nothing but a low-life troll. Thanks for the revelation*. I've always suspected as much, but wasn't sure until now.
* revelation \'re-ve-"la-shen\ noun [ME, fr. MF, fr. LL revelation-, revelatio, fr. L revelare to reveal] (14c) 1 a : an act of revealing or communicating DEVINE TRUTH b : something that is revealed by someone's god to humans 2 a : an act of revealing to view or making known b : something that is revealed; esp : an enlightening or ASTONISHING DISCLOSURE <SHOCKING REVELATIONS> c : a pleasant often enlightening surprise <her talent was a revelation> 3 cap : AN APOCOLYPTIC WRITING addressed to early christians of Asia Minor and included as a book in the New Testament
(caps-emphasis mine)
bugbear - 07 Jul 2009 10:06 GMT >>> What? You mean that everyone is going to want a compact super-zoom >>> eventually? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > An ad-hoc intentional misdirection by truncating the important context? Context?! All you did was a long ramble, of no discernible merit or meaning. So I snipped it out of deference to the common good, and included the statement I was replying to.
http://www.businessemailetiquette.com/down-edit-instead-of-top-posting/
BugBear
Bob Williams - 03 Jul 2009 08:10 GMT > amateurphotographer.co.uk > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > May, to 42,800 units. In value terms DSLR sales dipped just 1.5%, > compared to 12 months earlier. Statistics are ONE thing..... Interpretation of those Statistics is quite ANOTHER. The raw data tells us essentially nothing. Bob Williams
SMS - 03 Jul 2009 17:39 GMT > Statistics are ONE thing..... > Interpretation of those Statistics is quite ANOTHER.
> The raw data tells us essentially nothing. LOL, it depends on what you want to know! If you want to know what those changes meant in terms of profit or loss, and revenue, then you're out of luck, and the manufacturers aren't going to release that data.
If you want to know which products are increasing or decreasing in terms of unit sales, the data tells you a lot
Bob Williams - 04 Jul 2009 09:13 GMT >> Statistics are ONE thing..... >> Interpretation of those Statistics is quite ANOTHER. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you want to know which products are increasing or decreasing in terms > of unit sales, the data tells you a lot Not Really. Just knowing that XYZ company's P/S sales were down 25% from the previous year tells you nothing about WHY they were down or indicates what XYZ can do to improve the situation if they so desire. If XYZ cut their advertising budget in half and introduced only one new camera that year, a 25% drop in sales may have generated more profit than that compared to a much higher advertising budget and the high costs associated with introducing 5 new models the previous year. Bob Williams
SMS - 04 Jul 2009 15:18 GMT >>> Statistics are ONE thing..... >>> Interpretation of those Statistics is quite ANOTHER. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Not Really. Again, it depends on what you want to know. If all you want to know is the sales trends, without knowing why the trends are changing are how its effecting the manufacturer's financials, the data tells you a lot. And there are situations where the raw data is useful. If you're an after-market accessory manufacturer, it's helpful to know that D-SLR sales are strong while P&S sales are weak because you can plan your product mix based on this data.
You have to look at the big picture, no pun intended.
John Navas - 07 Jul 2009 00:05 GMT >>> If you want to know which products are increasing or decreasing in >>> terms of unit sales, the data tells you a lot [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >the sales trends, without knowing why the trends are changing are how >its effecting the manufacturer's financials, the data tells you a lot. You were trying to draw product conclusions from the raw data. Now you're pretending you weren't. Oops!
>And there are situations where the raw data is useful. If you're an >after-market accessory manufacturer, it's helpful to know that D-SLR >sales are strong while P&S sales are weak because you can plan your >product mix based on this data. That wasn't what you were doing.
>You have to look at the big picture, no pun intended. There is no "big picture". You're blowing smoke.
 Signature Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
|
|
|