Grahame Loc: Fiji

I suppose you could assume that 'point and shoots' which were generally purchased to have something small, affordable and easy to use are very much being replaced by the great phone cameras most carry now.

obsidian

Thank God, you are a Sony user. I'm not buying another camera until A7r5 comes out. Going on Safari adventure when this COVID dissipates to just like ordinary flu, maybe next year. How is your experience with 200-600 f5.6-6.3?

wireloose

Here is Nikon’s take over 5 years. pro/ hobbyist has barely declined, it’s almost all at the lower end. https://www.nikon.com/about/ir/ir_library/result/pdf/2021/21second_1_e.pdf See slide 4. The cameras on phones are as good or better as the lower end and are always with you, the convenience factor is enormous. My daughter is semi-pro, no longer makes a living from photography but still does a portrait session every couple of weeks. But 80 percent of the photos of the grandchildren on the calendars she makes for me each Christmas are shot on her phone, because it’s always with her.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

A choice made by a photographer who wants to be known/called an artist. It's just ego gratification.

JimBart Loc: Western Michigan

Just like history being taught in schools, the younger generation cares only for the here and now. Consequently the cell phones works for now and the pic is disposable .

Woodworm65 Loc: Lombard, IL

If you think about it less is more, what I mean by that is why buy a DLSR or mirror less camera and have to think about using it when a good quality smartphone phone does it all, we have become a society of non thinkers what happened when calculators came along people in the retail business can not comprehend how to give you change if the cash register doesn’t do it for them.
Yes we have become a society of let the machine do the thinking as fo me, I would rather do the thinking and keep my brain tuned up.

alexol

The vast majority of people who take photos have always been very casual users, and a high percentage of even very fancy DSLRs (and mirror less) are still used for basic snapshots - if we're honest, a lot of the images on here are not exactly masterpieces. And some are magnificent.

It's probably not unreasonable to suggest that anyone even vaguely serious about their images - and serious doesn't necessarily mean they produce good results, just that they have enthusiasm - does some work on their images.

Now let's compare the total number of sales of image processing software units vs the total number of camera equipped phones and we'll find that the serious users represent the tiniest, minutest fraction of image producers.

My father would have been a classic example. He had a very expensive & fancy (at the time) Zeiss Ikon rangefinder. He took photos occasionally of landscapes, but 95%+ of his photos were family snapshots. Today, he'd be a phone user.

More serious is this:. Before phone cameras, the cost of higher end equipment was held down by the volume of cameras sold. Effectively, mass sales were sponsoring sales to the more serious folks, amateurs and professional alike. That sponsorship is evaporating rapidly, and camera companies will either have to raise prices to stay in business or go to the wall.

This is further exacerbated by the incredible image quality now available to phone users. In our little closet, we can be as disparaging as we want, but there are some incredible photos being taken with smartphones these days - and there's been spectacular technical progress made in the last few years with much more to come.

You see this same effect in every field - bulk sales to casual users support sales to serious users. If the casual users go away...

Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley

I think one of the things not discussed much about the decline of camera sales, is the prices of the gear now.
Why spend thousands of dollars on a camera, lenses and accessories when you can buy a smart phone with 3 or 4 lenses built in and a highly effective sensor.
Like a previous poster said, he has seen people getting images with smart phones that look as good as many taken with a dedicated digital camera.
Smart phone cameras are constantly getting better and better, and most people have their phone with them most all the time, so missing a capture of something is very negligible now.
I think digital cameras will go the way of LPs and cassette tapes eventually, only truly dedicated purists will be be using them.
I will be one of them, I have almost a thousand LPs and close to 200 cassette tapes.

will

NJphotodoc Loc: Now in the First State

I offered my 12 yo granddaughter a Nikon PS for her birthday. She said she'd rather have a new cellphone. She has no problem using my D7200 but she'd rather carry a single device in her back pocket.
I guess its like when I got rid of my darkroom (Beseler Dichro 67, tanks, etc.) for an Adobe Photoshop subscription and a new color printer. Sad to see it go but honestly no regrets.

grberg

I can’t answer your question, but maybe my experience with DSLRs and cell phones can give a little insight into this trend. A few summers ago my wife and I went on a vacation to Italy. I took my Nikon d5200 and an 18-300 lens. I came home with about 3,000 pics, about 100 of which I made into a Shutterfly album of nice photos and memories. A couple of years later we took a trip from Vienna to Athens. I started to pack my DSLR when my wife informed me that if the camera came on the trip she was staying home. Easy choice until I remembered that I had already paid for the trip. My iPhone 6 would have to do. Came home from that trip with about 3,000 pics, and again a Shutterfly album with nice pics and memories. Maybe it’s a critique of my photography skills, but when looking at these albums I can’t tell which camera was used for which album. Certainly a d850, a prime lens and a tripod would get me better photos, but for most people taking photos for fun and memories, that easy to carry and use cell phone is just fine.

rvhowdy

Is that 600mm worth the money?

BebuLamar

Because I think around 2010 way too many people were buying cameras. Way more than normal. I don't have data back in the 70 and 80 but I believe camera sales back then is much less.
So the peak in 2010 for me is just a fad and it's going away back to the norm.

rvhowdy

Not to mention the improved quality of editing APPs and programs available to smart phone users!

sippyjug104 Loc: Missouri

CHG_CANON, I agree with you. Digital cameras are also a durable good so there is no need to replenish one's supply. However the money is in the lenses although they too are a buy one and done item. I suspect that many spend more accumulatively in their collection of lenses than they did for the camera body alone.

Ever wonder why inkjet printers are so inexpensive when the cost of the printer cartridges are amazingly expensive for the amount of ink they contain? Calculate the cost of a gallon of printer ink purchased via cartridges and it is truly mind blowing. The money is in the ink...not in the printer.

Bigmike1 Loc: I am from Gaffney, S.C. but live in Utah.

Well, I do't reckon I have done my part. The last time I bought a new camera was in 2000 when I retired from the military. I bought an Olympus E620 through the Online PX for a thousand bucks. I don't use it now because the vue screen no longer lights up. From KEH I have bought a Canon EOS 10D used for less than 50 bucks and a Nikon D100 used for less than 50 bucks. I have a number of lenses that I have found used; all for less than 50 bucks and some for as little as 10 bucks. At my age and financial situation I will not be buying any new equipment so if the manufacturers are depending on me they are SOL. (: