Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 04 Jan 2017 (Wednesday) 09:50
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?

129 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 16
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Nottinghamshire, UK
Post edited over 1 year ago by logiclee. (3 edits in all)
Jan 31, 2017 10:20 |  #151

As others have said the market has changed so much.

When I was 14 (34 years ago) I bought a Zenit 11 35mm SLR with 50mm lens. I'd saved up for over a year and used Christmas and Birthday money. The camera was manual focus only, it did have an inbuilt light meter but you had to set shutter speed and aperture manually.
So I had to learn quickly and of course wait for the photo's to come back from the developers to check the results. Massive anticipation and a lot of disappointment.
Over the next few years I saved for more glass, flash, tripod etc and when I started work I moved to Canon which did have auto focus and auto exposure but I was already a fluent user of manual. :)
It was an interest then for a young lad, a massive hobby.

Now most western teenagers have a point and shoot camera on their phone. They can just delete if it's not good and upload to social media if its great. They have apps to manipulate photos or add effects. What I'm trying to convey is does this fuel interest in photography or just kill any desire to own a DSLR with lenses?

Certainly modern high end smart phones do away with any need for a basic to medium range compact camera. I used to own a G9 and my wife still has a SX but I can't remember the last time we used them. If I haven't got the DSLR I'll use my Samsung S7 phone.
Canon must have seen a big drop in sales at the bottom end of the market.

The prices have gone up in the UK in recent months but that has probably got more to do with the exchange rate after the Brexit vote than any Canon pricing strategy.


Canon 80D | 50D | 17-55mm f2.8 IS | 70-200mm f4L | 10-18mm IS | 50mm f1.8 | Kenko 1.4x Pro 300 | Sigma 530 DG Super | Giottos Tripod and Monopod |

Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
40,241 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2040
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 8 months ago by Wilt. (6 edits in all)
Nov 02, 2017 11:01 |  #152

quickben wrote in post #18232809 (external link)
I'm just thinking. With the current global economy, and the ever encroaching plague of smartphone photography taking bigger chunks of the market, are companies like Canon, Nikon etc pricing themselves out of business ?

Lyn2011 wrote in post #18244773 (external link)
I just discovered this thread so I'm replying to the OP about prices. I think the prices of the new Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are extremely high. They are as expensive as a Nikon D500 or even more expensive than Canon 7Dii. So I'm not changing to either of these brands, although I was considering it.
I haven't done research in US or Euro, this is what happens here in Oz.

To address the perceptions of how 'expensive' photography might be now, compared to 50 years ago (1965)

  • in 1965, the median family annual income was $6882 according the site, or $18.85 per day
  • in 1965, the median for a gallon of gas was $0.30 per gallon, or you could buy 63 gallons of gas with a day of wages

  • in 1965, an entry level SLR was $159 (Topcon Auto 100, Kowa SE, Pentax H1a) with 'normal' f/2 lens, or 8.4 days of income or 530 gallons of gas
  • in 1965, a mid-range SLR (Topcon D-1, Nikkormat FT, Minolta SRT101), was $269 with 'normal' f/1.8 lens, or 14.3 days of income or 897 gallons of gas
  • in 1965, a high end SLR (Nikon F Photomic, Beseler Topcon Super D) was $425 with 'normal' f/1.4 lens or 22.5 days of income or 1417 gallons of gas, (or $369 with 'normal' f/1.8 lens),..the upgrade to f/1.4 was 3 days of income.

In comparison with 50 years ago, more recently...
  • in 2015 the median family annual income was $55775 according the site, or $152.80 per day
  • the median for a gallon of gas is $2.43 per gallon according to (external link), or you could buy 63 gallons of gas with a day of wages

  • in 2015 an entry level dSLR (Canon T6) with 18-135mm STM was $899 MSRP, (or $749 without lens); or 5.9 days of wages or 370 gallons of gas
  • in 2015 a midlevel dSLR (Canon 7DII) with 18-135mm STM was $2149 MSRP, (or $1799 without lens); or 14 days of wages or 884 gallons of gas
  • in 2015 a high end dSLR (Canon 5DIV) with 24-70mm f/4 was $4399; or 28 days of wages or 1810 gallons of gas
    and without lens was $3499 MSRP, or 22.8 days of wages or 1440 gallons of gas
  • in 2015a top end dSLR (Canon 1DXII) body only was $5999 MSRP; or 39 days of wages or 2468 gallons of gas

But we need to remember that the user of the SLR had to buy film and pay for processing and prints. Consulting a 1968 edition of Modern Photography, one finds
36 exp roll of Ektachrome-X with processing: $5.20 per roll in purchase of 3 rolls. Using the mid-range camera as the basis of comparison, with near equal expense today vs. 50 years ago,
if you pushed 50k shots thru it, you would have spent an additional $7200 shooting 50 years ago.

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

"Looks rough and well used"
12,729 posts
Gallery: 1114 photos
Best ofs: 3
Likes: 8161
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited 8 months ago by MalVeauX. (3 edits in all)
Nov 02, 2017 11:41 |  #153

Proper hobby photography? What does that even mean?

Anyhow, I remember when the 10D was released, an affordable prosumer digital camera body, the massive debates about the cost of the 10D versus the cost of their previous Canon (film) and the cost of film, and how much money was saved by moving to digital for enthusiast and professional shooters alike who shot a lot of shots but didn't want to spend the cash on the film just to casually go kill a roll having fun and how much it added up to be. And that was people even with their own home dark rooms.

Photography has gotten cheaper than it ever was.

Photography is not defined by a big dSLR or fancy F1.4 lens.

And visually sharing and consuming photography has never, ever, been easier or cheaper at a scale that is near unimaginable (speed of light, around the world, billions of images per day).

If anything, smartphone tech and other "everyone has it" tech will put enough pressure to eventually cause big changes. Could it be possible that the big camera makers, for the average consumer, basically go out of business at this scale? Sure. But it will be a long time before a smartphone or drone replaces sports photography's dSLR & F2.8 and F4 super telephotos.

It's not the manufacturers that are harming photography's market. It's the consumers who drive the market. No one wants a $200~300 P&S camera when their smartphone that they already carry around does the same thing, and probably better in some ways, with the ability to instantly process and share it from that device without having to go home and deal with a computer and software. Smartphones will eat up the P&S and likely a lot of the entry dSLR/mSLR market along with it eventually as the tech rages forward faster than the camera makers are able to. Smartphone R&D has a lot more consumers & capital, by far. But, smartphones again will not be touching certain niches of photography, like the high-end action market any time soon. So again, you really have to figure out what "proper" means.

Very best,

My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

Owain ­ Shaw
Some of my best friends are people.
2,012 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 573
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Valencia, Spain.
Post edited 8 months ago by Owain Shaw. (6 edits in all)
Nov 02, 2017 18:11 |  #154

Bassat wrote in post #18242645 (external link)
While addressing grammar issues, my pet peeve is 'that' instead of 'who'.

I saw a photographer that was using a big white lens. WRONG!!! The photographer is (usually) a person. People are 'who'.
I saw a photographer who was using a big white lens. AHHH!!! I feel better already.

Actually, using "that" instead of "who" is entirely possible in defining relative clauses such as these. Were they non-defining relative clauses this would not be possible and only who is correct. E.g. The photographer, who was using a big white lens, happened to be a keen linguist. There the additional information which (or that) can be omitted, or is not essential to the sentence, and is placed between commas. 'Who' or 'which' are the only two relative pronouns that (or which) can be replaced by that in defining relative clauses, other relative pronouns do not change. The use of 'that' is a stylistic choice and often a feature of spoken English, but is not incorrect in the written language, though 'who' or 'which' may be considered more formal - and this will perhaps be why one is far more pleasing to your tastes but the other is not on this occasion incorrect. (A surprising amount of so-called rules of English grammar are based on the personal preferences of early self-styled grammarians ... it's actually depressing to think of the number of people upon whom physical punishments were inflicted for ending sentences in prepositions, which is another example of a "rule" that is no such thing. My dad had his knuckles rapped for that, and I'd be surprised if my mother escaped.)

Returning to the original subject: numerous calculations appear to show that Photography is, relatively speaking, as expensive as it has ever been and perhaps even cheaper as we are now spared running costs such as processing and printing - though the latter remains possible and to be encouraged. What has changed for the casual photographer is that previously, owning a camera of some description was the sole means of taking photographs whereas nowadays most people consider a smartphone to be an essential item, meaning we already carry cameras with us. As these cameras become more capable and our sharing habits become more instantaneous and geared towards the means provided by said smartphones, the idea of investing in an additional, expensive and in many ways less convenient piece of photographic equipment becomes a less attractive proposition for many. The poster above me has already alluded to this.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18243605 (external link)
Isn't the Euro worth about half what it was worth 10 years ago?

There's also the disparity within the Eurozone to consider. I just did a quick check on and and the same lens carries the same price on both sites to within about one euro. The lens in question cost around €2000 and it only takes a passing knowledge of European affairs to understand that such a price is not the same for person collecting their salary in Germany as it is for one cashing cheques in Spain or Greece.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18486921 (external link)
Proper hobby photography? What does that even mean?
So again, you really have to figure out what "proper" means.

I come ("I's" or 'I is' in dialect form) from the West Country where "proper" means 'great' or 'excellent'; with "that's proper job that is" being high praise indeed. This probably isn't what you meant though.

| Photographic for the People - New website coming soon. |
| Gear | Flickr (external link) |

sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17,886 views & 92 likes for this thread
Camera manufacturers killing proper hobby photography ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©

Latest registered member is suitman1
381 guests, 278 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017 Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.