Lazy people and "smartphones" continue to erode P&S sales

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by RichA, Dec 24, 2011.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    BBC:

    23 December 2011 Last updated at 09:35 ET
    Smartphones eat into low-end camera sales in US, study

    Smartphones are eating into sales of basic cameras and camcorders in
    the US, according to market researchers.

    The NPD Group said the point-and-shoot camera market sold 17% fewer
    units over the first 11 months of the year compared to the same period
    in 2010.

    It said the pocket camcorder market fell by 13% over the same period.

    Its online survey of adults and teenagers suggested users were also
    more likely to opt for their phone camera to take footage "on the
    fly".

    Respondents said they were more likely to opt for their smartphone,
    rather than a dedicated device, to take pictures or video of "fun,
    casual or spontaneous moments".

    However, smartphones were less likely to be used when it came to
    holiday snaps.
    SLR sales stay strong

    NPD's data also suggested that the total share of photos taken on a
    camera had fallen below the halfway point for the first time.

    The study suggested that 44% of photos were taken on a camera over the
    last year, down from 52% over the previous period.

    By contrast the share of photos taken with a smartphone rose to 27%
    from 17%.

    However, higher-end cameras appear to be immune from the rise of the
    smartphone - at least for now. NPD said 12% more detachable lens
    cameras - including SLRs - were sold over the last 11 months.

    It added that sales of cameras with a 10x zoom lens or greater rose by
    16%.

    "There is no doubt that the smartphone is becoming 'good enough' much
    of the time," said NPD's senior imaging analyst Liz Cutting.

    "But for important events, single purpose cameras or camcorders are
    still largely the device of choice."
    'Faff-free'

    Experts suggest the trend is in part due to the popularity of apps
    including Instagram, Twitter and Facebook which allow pictures to be
    uploaded to social networks immediately after they are taken.

    "When you combine the fact that smartphone camera quality has
    increased roughly 10-fold from where we were five years ago and the
    fact that we have all these apps and services that make it easy to
    host the photos, it makes it a no-brainer that we use them rather than
    dedicated devices with which there is a huge faff involved to get the
    footage online," said Chris Green, principal technology analyst at
    Davies Murphy Group Europe.

    Yahoo-owned Flickr's popular photo sharing site appears to confirm the
    point. Its statistics suggest that Apple's iPhone 4 is the most
    popular camera in its community.

    The next device in line is the Nikon D90 SLR camera, while the closest
    performing smartphone by another manufacturer is the HTC Evo 4G.
     
    RichA, Dec 24, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RichA

    MadHatter Guest

    On Dec 24 2011, 11:42 am, RichA <> wrote:
    > BBC:
    >
    > 23 December 2011 Last updated at 09:35 ET
    > Smartphones eat into low-end camera sales in US, study
    >
    > Smartphones are eating into sales of basic cameras and camcorders in
    > the US, according to market researchers.
    >
    > The NPD Group said the point-and-shoot camera market sold 17% fewer
    > units over the first 11 months of the year compared to the same period
    > in 2010.
    >
    > It said the pocket camcorder market fell by 13% over the same period.
    >
    > Its online survey of adults and teenagers suggested users were also
    > more likely to opt for their phone camera to take footage "on the
    > fly".
    >
    > Respondents said they were more likely to opt for their smartphone,
    > rather than a dedicated device, to take pictures or video of "fun,
    > casual or spontaneous moments".
    >
    > However, smartphones were less likely to be used when it came to
    > holiday snaps.
    > SLR sales stay strong
    >
    > NPD's data also suggested that the total share of photos taken on a
    > camera had fallen below the halfway point for the first time.
    >
    > The study suggested that 44% of photos were taken on a camera over the
    > last year, down from 52% over the previous period.
    >
    > By contrast the share of photos taken with a smartphone rose to 27%
    > from 17%.
    >
    > However, higher-end cameras appear to be immune from the rise of the
    > smartphone - at least for now. NPD said 12% more detachable lens
    > cameras - including SLRs - were sold over the last 11 months.
    >
    > It added that sales of cameras with a 10x zoom lens or greater rose by
    > 16%.
    >
    > "There is no doubt that the smartphone is becoming 'good enough' much
    > of the time," said NPD's senior imaging analyst Liz Cutting.
    >
    > "But for important events, single purpose cameras or camcorders are
    > still largely the device of choice."
    > 'Faff-free'
    >
    > Experts suggest the trend is in part due to the popularity of apps
    > including Instagram, Twitter and Facebook which allow pictures to be
    > uploaded to social networks immediately after they are taken.
    >
    > "When you combine the fact that smartphone camera quality has
    > increased roughly 10-fold from where we were five years ago and the
    > fact that we have all these apps and services that make it easy to
    > host the photos, it makes it a no-brainer that we use them rather than
    > dedicated devices with which there is a huge faff involved to get the
    > footage online," said Chris Green, principal technology analyst at
    > Davies Murphy Group Europe.
    >
    > Yahoo-owned Flickr's popular photo sharing site appears to confirm the
    > point. Its statistics suggest that Apple's iPhone 4 is the most
    > popular camera in its community.
    >
    > The next device in line is the Nikon D90 SLR camera, while the closest
    > performing smartphone by another manufacturer is the HTC Evo 4G.


    Just out of curiosity, what makes them lazy? If their phones are a
    tool sufficient for their needs why should they carry another camera?
    Couldn't a large format photographer just as easily call SLR shooters
    lazy?
     
    MadHatter, Jan 15, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "ala" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an
    > advocacy group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a
    > magnifier to enable reading of documents with small print


    Wow, sounds like an expensive, power hungry magnifying glass to me.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jan 16, 2012
    #3
  4. In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:

    > "ala" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an
    >> advocacy group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a
    >> magnifier to enable reading of documents with small print


    > Wow, sounds like an expensive, power hungry magnifying glass to me.


    Which offers a degree of magnification and image quality at least an
    order of magnitude above any optical magnifying glass, plus a host of
    other features useful to those with poor sight. Have you checked the
    prices of the very best optical magnifying glasses you can get? Sounds
    a good deal to me.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 16, 2012
    #4
  5. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/15/2012 3:53 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
    > The point simply is that I do not always carry the camera with me, but I
    > always have my smartphone with me. This takes images of surprisingly
    > good quality.
    >
    > 10 days ago I was in Abu Simbel (Egypt) with the family, took a snapshot
    > of the family with the background of the temple, and immediately emailed
    > it to all relatives. I also shot again the same photo with the DSLR, but
    > the smartphone shot is what was sent to the relatives.



    Which is what many folk do. From what I see, the smart phone camera
    makes more people are enjoy photography. Except for the professionals,
    isn't personal enjoyment one of the big reasons people take pictures?



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 16, 2012
    #5
  6. "Trevor" <> writes:

    > "ala" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an
    >> advocacy group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a
    >> magnifier to enable reading of documents with small print

    >
    > Wow, sounds like an expensive, power hungry magnifying glass to me.


    Yes -- or else, it's a way to use the smartphone you actually have with
    you to accomplish something that in theory would be more efficiently
    accomplished by the magnifying glass you forgot to bring.
    --
    David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
    Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
    Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
    Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 16, 2012
    #6
  7. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:52:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    >On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:11:30 -0500, "ala" <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> BBC:
    >>>
    >>> 23 December 2011 Last updated at 09:35 ET
    >>> Smartphones eat into low-end camera sales in US, study
    >>>
    >>> Smartphones are eating into sales of basic cameras and camcorders in
    >>> the US, according to market researchers.

    >>
    >>I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an advocacy
    >>group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a magnifier to
    >>enable reading of documents with small print

    >
    >My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.


    Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".

    My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
    hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
    approval to own.

    I once bought her a very nice, and expensive, wristwatch as a
    Christmas gift. It didn't have a second hand, but I thought she could
    wear it as a dress watch. I had to exchange it.


    > He is
    >waiting for an app which will enable him to measure blood O2 in the
    >finger.
    >
    >Regards,
    >
    >Eric Stevens


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 16, 2012
    #7
  8. RichA

    Irwell Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:15:52 -0500, tony cooper wrote:

    > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:52:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:11:30 -0500, "ala" <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"RichA" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> BBC:
    >>>>
    >>>> 23 December 2011 Last updated at 09:35 ET
    >>>> Smartphones eat into low-end camera sales in US, study
    >>>>
    >>>> Smartphones are eating into sales of basic cameras and camcorders in
    >>>> the US, according to market researchers.
    >>>
    >>>I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an advocacy
    >>>group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a magnifier to
    >>>enable reading of documents with small print

    >>
    >>My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.

    >
    > Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".
    >
    > My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
    > hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
    > approval to own.
    >
    > I once bought her a very nice, and expensive, wristwatch as a
    > Christmas gift. It didn't have a second hand, but I thought she could
    > wear it as a dress watch. I had to exchange it.
    >


    Why do the blood pressures read by nurses differ so much from
    doctors, at least in the 'Health Fair' at the Mall, they do.
    The quacks findings are always higher for me.
     
    Irwell, Jan 16, 2012
    #8
  9. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "Eric Stevens" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse. He is
    > waiting for an app which will enable him to measure blood O2 in the
    > finger.


    It's amazing how non technical people think you simply need an 'app" to do
    anything, forgetting the sensors/interface are the real hardware, and the
    iphone simply adds a processor and display. In many cases the device can be
    made just as cheaply as a stand alone item rather than an iphone add-on.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jan 16, 2012
    #9
  10. RichA

    PeterN Guest

    On 1/16/2012 4:15 PM, tony cooper wrote:
    > On Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:52:05 +1300, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 15 Jan 2012 11:11:30 -0500, "ala"<>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "RichA"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> BBC:
    >>>>
    >>>> 23 December 2011 Last updated at 09:35 ET
    >>>> Smartphones eat into low-end camera sales in US, study
    >>>>
    >>>> Smartphones are eating into sales of basic cameras and camcorders in
    >>>> the US, according to market researchers.
    >>>
    >>> I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an advocacy
    >>> group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a magnifier to
    >>> enable reading of documents with small print

    >>
    >> My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.

    >
    > Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".
    >
    > My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
    > hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
    > approval to own.
    >
    > I once bought her a very nice, and expensive, wristwatch as a
    > Christmas gift. It didn't have a second hand, but I thought she could
    > wear it as a dress watch. I had to exchange it.
    >


    She could always use the "one Mississippi" method. It worked great for
    me in the darkroom.



    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Jan 17, 2012
    #10
  11. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, tony cooper
    <> wrote:

    > >My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.

    >
    > Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".


    so you just pressed the watch to the person's skin and it directly read
    out the pulse? amazing! and to think all those years people did it the
    hard way by counting.

    no, your watch did not have any such app. *you* were the app, not the
    watch.

    fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
    smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
    too, including blood sugar, and even alert a doctor should the
    measurements be outside of normal. did your watch do all of that?
    didn't think so.

    > My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
    > hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
    > approval to own.


    did she at least accept digital watches or was she analog-only?
     
    nospam, Jan 17, 2012
    #11
  12. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <jf2b40$487$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > > My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse. He is
    > > waiting for an app which will enable him to measure blood O2 in the
    > > finger.

    >
    > It's amazing how non technical people think you simply need an 'app" to do
    > anything, forgetting the sensors/interface are the real hardware, and the
    > iphone simply adds a processor and display. In many cases the device can be
    > made just as cheaply as a stand alone item rather than an iphone add-on.


    it's amazing how many people resist advances in technology. why must
    one carry multiple devices or do it manually the way our ancestors did,
    when there's a perfectly capable device that slips into your pocket
    that can do it all a whole lot easier and a lot more accurately too?
     
    nospam, Jan 17, 2012
    #12
  13. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:160120121655531184%...
    > fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
    > smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
    > too, including blood sugar,


    I'm impressed a phone can do it now, for so many years diabetics have had to
    draw blood to do it. Or does the phone do that too?

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jan 17, 2012
    #13
  14. RichA

    Trevor Guest

    "nospam" <> wrote in message
    news:160120121658059092%...
    > it's amazing how many people resist advances in technology. why must
    > one carry multiple devices or do it manually the way our ancestors did,
    > when there's a perfectly capable device that slips into your pocket
    > that can do it all a whole lot easier and a lot more accurately too?


    Yes, sometimes the phone can do amazing things with only a simple "app", in
    which case I have no complaints. However other times you need to buy the
    actual device that makes the measurement and simply use the phone as a
    display, and that's an entirely different matter IMO.
    And I bet you have NO idea what the accuracy is in any case.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Jan 17, 2012
    #14
  15. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <jf2i6u$ivt$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > > it's amazing how many people resist advances in technology. why must
    > > one carry multiple devices or do it manually the way our ancestors did,
    > > when there's a perfectly capable device that slips into your pocket
    > > that can do it all a whole lot easier and a lot more accurately too?

    >
    > Yes, sometimes the phone can do amazing things with only a simple "app", in
    > which case I have no complaints. However other times you need to buy the
    > actual device that makes the measurement and simply use the phone as a
    > display, and that's an entirely different matter IMO.


    not really.

    > And I bet you have NO idea what the accuracy is in any case.


    do you know the accuracy of the devices sold today that don't require a
    smartphone? didn't think so.

    the medical stuff requires fda approval, so it's should be just as
    accurate, if not more so, than existing solutions.
     
    nospam, Jan 17, 2012
    #15
  16. RichA

    nospam Guest

    In article <jf2hrk$iee$>, Trevor <>
    wrote:

    > > fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
    > > smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
    > > too, including blood sugar,

    >
    > I'm impressed a phone can do it now, for so many years diabetics have had to
    > draw blood to do it. Or does the phone do that too?


    you still have to do the pin prick (until they get non-invasive methods
    working well), but the phone can measure blood sugar, log it, and do
    all of the manual work that people had to do (and often neglected).

    here's one such device:
    <http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/01/video-ihealth-smart-glucometer/a
    ll/1>

    i remember reading about a normal watch that could measure blood sugar
    through sweat on your skin but i haven't heard anything about it in a
    few years.

    let's see your analog watch do this:
    <http://medgadget.com/2009/06/airstrip_telemetry_for_your_iphone.html>
     
    nospam, Jan 17, 2012
    #16
  17. Irwell <> wrote:

    > Why do the blood pressures read by nurses differ so much from
    > doctors, at least in the 'Health Fair' at the Mall, they do.
    > The quacks findings are always higher for me.


    Doctors are threatening. Nurses are not. What raises the
    blood pressure more?

    It's obvious, don't you think?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 17, 2012
    #17
  18. Chris Malcolm <> wrote:
    > In rec.photo.digital Trevor <> wrote:
    >> "ala" <> wrote in message


    >>> I bought one for the camera because I can download an app from an
    >>> advocacy group that deals with vision issues that uses the camera as a
    >>> magnifier to enable reading of documents with small print


    >> Wow, sounds like an expensive, power hungry magnifying glass to me.


    > Which offers a degree of magnification and image quality at least an
    > order of magnitude above any optical magnifying glass,


    Is that needed?
    And is that indeed true?

    > plus a host of
    > other features useful to those with poor sight. Have you checked the
    > prices of the very best optical magnifying glasses you can get? Sounds
    > a good deal to me.


    I usually don't check the prices for 13 meter diameter parabol
    mirror optics or even 1200mm f/5.6 lenses when looking for a
    35mm-sized 50mm lens. You seem to.

    BTW, the very best optical magnifying glass is quite more powerful
    than your iWhatever or smartsomethingorother. After all, the
    microscope's objective lens is nothing else and can enlarge
    100x (and that can be enlarged at least by another factor 10x).
    That means your 1mm³ will look like 1m² at the other end.

    Oh, and you'll probably want a tablet, because smartphone
    screens are ... well ... tiny.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 17, 2012
    #18
  19. MadHatter <> wrote:
    > On Dec 24 2011, 11:42 am, RichA <> wrote:

    [the usualy drivel, this time about [see subject]]

    > Just out of curiosity, what makes them lazy?


    They're unwilling to wet their glass plates themselves and
    carry 30+kg of gear with them for just a few shots.

    > If their phones are a
    > tool sufficient for their needs why should they carry another camera?


    Because RichA (who doesn't even own a camera nor a
    smartphone) says so.

    > Couldn't a large format photographer just as easily call SLR shooters
    > lazy?


    Of course, but SLRs are in the happy middle ground. :)

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 17, 2012
    #19
  20. RichA

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:55:53 -0800, nospam <>
    wrote:

    >In article <>, tony cooper
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >> >My medical nephew has an app which lets him measure the pulse.

    >>
    >> Every watch with a second hand I've ever owned has had that "app".

    >
    >so you just pressed the watch to the person's skin and it directly read
    >out the pulse? amazing! and to think all those years people did it the
    >hard way by counting.
    >
    >no, your watch did not have any such app. *you* were the app, not the
    >watch.


    Fortunately, my wife has the training, skills, and intellectual
    ability to not need an app for this.
    >
    >fortunately, technology has advanced since then. not only can a
    >smartphone measure one's pulse but it can measure many other things
    >too, including blood sugar, and even alert a doctor should the
    >measurements be outside of normal. did your watch do all of that?
    >didn't think so.
    >
    >> My wife, a now-retired nurse, has never owned a watch without a second
    >> hand. No designer watch, no matter how stylish, has ever met with her
    >> approval to own.

    >
    >did she at least accept digital watches or was she analog-only?


    Neither my wife nor I would ever wear a digital wristwatch. They have
    no style. I know, to you, "high style" is a pocket protector without
    an logo, but some of us have different views.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jan 17, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Allan
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    904
    Tim V.
    May 1, 2006
  2. Rich
    Replies:
    61
    Views:
    2,366
    Bob Larter
    Jul 13, 2009
  3. Rich

    Cruddy P&S sales drop for Sony, DSLR sales jump

    Rich, Aug 1, 2009, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    472
  4. RichA
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    475
    Bruce
    May 3, 2010
  5. Bruce
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    926
    David Dyer-Bennet
    Mar 23, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page