Future of photography?

[RichF]

As I scroll though various images there's an unmistakable trend - the image quality from phones just keeps getting better. And, in fact, there's more than a few articles and topics posts around the internet that ask if phones will replace "real" cameras one day. What that hypothesis fails to realize is that our "real" cameras are ALSO getting better all the time and still hold a very comfortable lead for capability and image quality. The technology and image quality we get now from our DSLR and mirrorless cameras absolutely blows away what was possible even just 10 years ago. There are some things you just can't do with a phone - and eventually the technology will get pushed to the point that physics gets in the way and it's gone as far as it'll go in that form factor.

The only thing that separates phones from "real" cameras is not IQ but range of lens and burst rates. Sure for snaps I could see phones supplanting cameras. I could even imagine a wedding being shot with a phone (wedding photographers please don't lynch me) though the business fall out would be tremendously bad.

 

[Steve]

The only thing that separates phones from "real" cameras is not IQ but range of lens and burst rates. Sure for snaps I could see phones supplanting cameras. I could even imagine a wedding being shot with a phone (wedding photographers please don't lynch me) though the business fall out would be tremendously bad.

While I agree the primary differentiators are things like lenses and burst rates, etc, I'm not sure I agree with IQ. The difference between the quality of a good DSLR and the tiny sensor on a phone is noticeable and significant. Obviously, it doesn't matter too much if you'll only ever be looking at the images on a phone, but compare a low(*ish) light shot between the two and it's not even close. At least not in my experience

 

[RichF]

While I agree the primary differentiators are things like lenses and burst rates, etc, I'm not sure I agree with IQ. The difference between the quality of a good DSLR and the tiny sensor on a phone is noticeable and significant. Obviously, it doesn't matter too much if you'll only ever be looking at the images on a phone, but compare a low(*ish) light shot between the two and it's not even close. At least not in my experience

Not today for IQ, but in 5, 10 years more modest sized prints/displays there may not be much difference in good light

 

[Steve]

Not today for IQ, but in 5, 10 years more modest sized prints/displays there may not be much difference in good light

That may be true, but I also think the our mirrorless cameras will continue to evolve as well, so it begs the question, what will they be like in five or ten years? Of course, there is a point of divining returns, so we'll have to see how it pans out I suppose.

 

[RichF]

That may be true, but I also think the our mirrorless cameras will continue to evolve as well, so it begs the question, what will they be like in five or ten years? Of course, there is a point of divining returns, so we'll have to see how it pans out I suppose.

I think about computers in the 1970/1980s. Then the market was segmented into 3 major groups - big mainframes (IBM and to much less degree CDC and Cray), workstations and similar - Digital Computers, Sun, SGI, ..., and personal computers such as the IBM PC and the Apple Mac. The was growing much faster than the workstations and eventually came close enough to them that though the workstation was technically superior, it was not worth the large up charge.

I see the same same thing happening in w/ camera phones. They are improving much faster than P&S and lower end ML cameras. They out sell P&S and ML cameras by 100:1 or is 1000:1? Companies like Apple, Samsung, ... can afford to out spend Canon, Nikon and Sony, especially on a product by product basis. And the phone has significant image enhancement software built-in, something that cameras do not - we rely upon the likes of Adobe, Phase One, Topac, Nik, ...

 

[Steve]

I think about computers in the 1970/1980s. Then the market was segmented into 3 major groups - big mainframes (IBM and to much less degree CDC and Cray), workstations and similar - Digital Computers, Sun, SGI, ..., and personal computers such as the IBM PC and the Apple Mac. The was growing much faster than the workstations and eventually came close enough to them that though the workstation was technically superior, it was not worth the large up charge.

I see the same same thing happening in w/ camera phones. They are improving much faster than P&S and lower end ML cameras. They out sell P&S and ML cameras by 100:1 or is 1000:1? Companies like Apple, Samsung, ... can afford to out spend Canon, Nikon and Sony, especially on a product by product basis. And the phone has significant image enhancement software built-in, something that cameras do not - we rely upon the likes of Adobe, Phase One, Topac, Nik, ...

That's a good point, not sure if those credit necessarily transfer, but they may. There's no doubt cell phone cameras are evening rapidly, but I think they'll reach the point of diminishing returns pretty soon. Although, who knows - in a few years I may be working on a video covering how to do wildlife photography with your smartphone

 

[Abinoone]

That's a good point, not sure if those credit necessarily transfer, but they may. There's no doubt cell phone cameras are evening rapidly, but I think they'll reach the point of diminishing returns pretty soon. Although, who knows - in a few years I may be working on a video covering how to do wildlife photography with your smartphone

The market will determine the extent to which phone cameras evolve, and I think there aren't too many professional photographers clamoring for better smartphones. The consumer market, on the other hand, is looking for great quality still and video capabilities for image sharing, and this will drive technological change for smart phones. Eventually, it will reach a point of "good enough" for the vast majority of buyers. But, you never know, so I humbly submit this image for inclusion in Steve's video on smartphone wildlife photography.

You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

 

[RichF]

That's a good point, not sure if those credit necessarily transfer, but they may. There's no doubt cell phone cameras are evening rapidly, but I think they'll reach the point of diminishing returns pretty soon. Although, who knows - in a few years I may be working on a video covering how to do wildlife photography with your smartphone

There are some excellent wildlife video already though not use superteles (yet)

 

[RichF]

The market will determine the extent to which phone cameras evolve, and I think there aren't too many professional photographers clamoring for better smartphones. The consumer market, on the other hand, is looking for great quality still and video capabilities for image sharing, and this will drive technological change for smart phones. Eventually, it will reach a point of "good enough" for the vast majority of buyers. But, you never know, so I humbly submit this image for inclusion in Steve's video on smartphone wildlife photography.

View attachment 28923

Doesn't matter what the majority of buyers say, it matters what marketing thinks will increase market share and sell more units or units at a higher price point/great profitability

 

[Abinoone]

Doesn't matter what the majority of buyers say, it matters what marketing thinks will increase market share and sell more units or units at a higher price point/great profitability

Au contraire. Good marketing people are very adept at understanding buyer interests and needs, and will tailor their marketing strategies accordingly.

 

[bleirer]

Cell phones are pretty amazing, especially the computational photography behind them, but no matter how many pixels nor how good the cell phone tech, i think the size of the sensor is always going to mean something in terms of what a lens can resolve. A big sensor puts a lot less demand on a lens.

 

[R_Warshaw]

You made me curious. At 19 (ahem… 1972), I was enrolled in a split major of Photography (BFA) and Graphic Design. Years and changes in major (BS Biological Science… unused in eventual career) later, my college still teaches photography. The umbrella College of Fine Arts is now Communications and Marketing. My old department, Cinema and Photography, is now Photography and Video. The available classes look more contemporary also.

I made my living as a photographer in the early 1970s. I was reasonably good at it and have Time, Life and NY Times credits as well as two one-man shows in New York to prove it. When real life interfered I ended up as a medical researcher and for the next 40 odd years used photography for note-taking. In "retirement" I graduated with an MFA in photography when I was well past 70 (I'm 79 now) so my current perspective is as a practicing artist that happens to use photography as a medium. Many here seem to view photography as an entity unto itself - the art students I studied with and later taught digital printing to as an adjunct considered themselves to be first and foremost artists. They viewed photography as a medium like drawing, printmaking, oil, acrylic, watercolor painting, sculpture, video or creating directly by computer, just another means of making art. To the extent that photography has a future, at least in the art world, it seems likely to be as just another arrow in the artists' quiver.

 

[bleirer]

I made my living as a photographer in the early 1970s. I was reasonably good at it and have Time, Life and NY Times credits as well as two one-man shows in New York to prove it. When real life interfered I ended up as a medical researcher and for the next 40 odd years used photography for note-taking. In "retirement" I graduated with an MFA in photography when I was well past 70 (I'm 79 now) so my current perspective is as a practicing artist that happens to use photography as a medium. Many here seem to view photography as an entity unto itself - the art students I studied with and later taught digital printing to as an adjunct considered themselves to be first and foremost artists. They viewed photography as a medium like drawing, printmaking, oil, acrylic, watercolor painting, sculpture, video or creating directly by computer, just another means of making art. To the extent that photography has a future, at least in the art world, it seems likely to be as just another arrow in the artists' quiver.

I'm with you on the arrow in the quiver thing. One gets a lot of pushback here from some that think only SOOC is legit photography. Me I'm using digital brushes more and more and the photo is more of a reference or a source of pixels. It's all good as long as the artist has an idea to communicate.

 

[O]

This is relatively common across all camera groups. I do see a lot of professionals who are younger, but it's the start of a career or a gig for them. In relative terms, there are not many pros compared to all the amateur photographers. It's even more the case for wildlife and nature compared to wedding, portrait, and baby photography.

There are several things driving the age of photographers. It takes disposable income and time to be able to afford a camera, possibly a camera club, and the time to spend on photography. Add to that the economics associated with travel for wildlife photography, and the market gets quite limited.

There are many younger people taking photos and video with phones over cameras. Part of that is that they own a smart phone that is quite capable, so it's essentially free as far as gear is concerned.

One thing I have seen is entry to the enthusiast market seems to be strong in the mid to late 40's and older. That's a point where income is up, kids are in college, and time is increasingly available.

NANPA has made several pushes to attract young nature photographers. Even giving away membership for free and deep discounts on activities are not sufficient to create a significant number of members. Renewals are much lower than other demographic groups. I don't think the economics make sense to bother with the effort, and the resources are much better spent on age 45 and older segments.

Totally agree and seeing a lot here is Oz similarly.......
Many of the members are saying that they spent a life time developing skills, today they are virtually obsolete with the new gear that's out..........leaving composition as the only satisfaction.....and now even that is under threat as stills are coming from video in the near future.

 

[Roy]

I notice that many of us myself included are not spring chickens. One of the local photo clubs that I have participated a couple of times with over the last couple of years I find that I am the youngest person (I am 47) that is a member. Most are retired with a few of us still working but they are in their late 50's. I am not sure but do schools still have photography programs? I wonder in another 20-40 years as technology advances and all of us dinosaurs who grew up on film are gone will there still be a photography community like we have here?

I wonder if there is more our generation should be doing to pass down the love of photography to a younger generation growing up with smart phones and social media?

I often donate gear to local Photo schools.
The participation seems down but they still are around

 

[Neil H.]

I made my living as a photographer in the early 1970s. I was reasonably good at it and have Time, Life and NY Times credits as well as two one-man shows in New York to prove it. When real life interfered I ended up as a medical researcher and for the next 40 odd years used photography for note-taking. In "retirement" I graduated with an MFA in photography when I was well past 70 (I'm 79 now) so my current perspective is as a practicing artist that happens to use photography as a medium. Many here seem to view photography as an entity unto itself - the art students I studied with and later taught digital printing to as an adjunct considered themselves to be first and foremost artists. They viewed photography as a medium like drawing, printmaking, oil, acrylic, watercolor painting, sculpture, video or creating directly by computer, just another means of making art. To the extent that photography has a future, at least in the art world, it seems likely to be as just another arrow in the artists' quiver.

I was recently amazed at a David Hockney art exhibition. There were many examples of him drawing layer by layer on an iPad. What pulled me up short was he did the same actions that I do in layers in Photoshop. Slowly, slowly, layer by layer to get the intended effect. Blake Rudis has a hard time convincing many of his followers that they are in fact artists. Maybe the question should be "What is a photographer?" Certainly not somebody that simply presses a button on a phone or camera. That makes as much sense as somebody pressing a button on a radio claiming to be a musician! The great beauty of photography is that it is a journey which can be as short (one click) or as long (endless) as you like.

 

[MartyD]

When I was young I promised myself I would never sound like an old man, but here I am sounding like an old man, because I am.

Photography as we know it is dead. That may be a little strong, but the photographers that follow those of us in the retired set will travel a much different path with much different photography tools and expectations than we did. The advantage the smart phone generation has is that they have image tools that allow them to show and explore their creativity from the very beginning. They can take, view, edit, and share images in a way we could not. We started with the exposure triangle and we needed a camera simply to record our family memories. We thought in multiples of 36 and what we could afford to have processed.

My grandchildren have taken more photos on their cell phones in the first 10 years of their lives than I did with my cameras in the first 30 years of mine and the quality of their photos is much better. They will be able to easily access and enjoy their photos forever, from anywhere, and they are conveniently organized automatically. Someday they may be looking for the camera with the long telephoto to allow them to capture a bird in flight or record fast action in low light, what that camera looks like in 30 years is anybody's guess. The feature list will be lengthy considering what they will be used to on their cell phones.

To be honest if I don't let my pride and my need to defend my expensive equipment and advanced processing get in the way I am amazed at what my grown children and my grandchildren produce on a daily basis. If we travel or attend an event together, I capture images and videos, and upload the images to my PC for editing over the next few days. They capture images, video, time lapse, slow motion, panorama, and more on their smart phones, edit them while riding home, and have shared them by the time I sit down at my computer. I certainly hope my children and grandchildren don't replace their smart phone cameras any time soon, I don't want to wait until the images have been properly edited before I get to see what they have been doing.

When we are older we often question the skill set of those much younger than us. It is difficult for us to accept that some skills that we spent many hours learning, perfecting, and understanding are no longer necessary. We can argue that to fully understand a concept or process these skills must be mastered, and that may be true, but we need to recognize the skills that those much younger than us possess that we don't. We shouldn't hesitate to learn what we can from those young whippersnappers and they will be much more willing to learn from us.

 

[RichF]

My grandchildren have taken more photos on their cell phones in the first 10 years of their lives than I did with my cameras in the first 30 years of mine and the quality of their photos is much better. They will be able to easily access and enjoy their photos forever, from anywhere, and they are conveniently organized automatically. Someday they may be looking for the camera with the long telephoto to allow them to capture a bird in flight or record fast action in low light, what that camera looks like in 30 years is anybody's guess. The feature list will be lengthy considering what they will be used to on their cell phones.

And the cost of your 30 years of photos far exceeds their cost (especially after adjusting for inflation) Early on we used film, $ for film and $$ for processing unless you did it yourself. Plus printing costs.

With an phone, costs are minimal except for the cost of the phone.

 

[SteveReid]

Young people are buying and using cell phones and the future clubs will be called Device Photo Clubs. Cell phones cost less than a Z9 they don't understand!

 

[MikePapple]

It is honestly something I have thought about too. I am a little younger than you and have noticed the same. I helped my friend’s teenage son learn photography last year, but he couldn’t afford anything to go along with his hand me down D3100 and kit lens. With the prices of just about any camera now, it takes a somewhat serious investment to get into photography. A decent point and shoot camera is close to $1000 as are entry level cameras such as the Z50. I think without the more entry level market, less people are going to get into the hobby. I occasionally see some “younger” people that are somewhat serious into photography, but many of my photography friends tend to be older.

For landscape/wildlife photography it only takes about $20,000 to get into it. And about $20,000+ for trips each year...

 

[janas]

WOW! What kind of digs? Are you a fan of Exploration Unknown? I love that show! I find it fascinating people have patience to do it, I would be the guy wanting to run an excavator no patience for detailed work like that lol.

I too get the excitement for excavation..I'm not an archaeologist, but I admire their patience and dedication.

 

[RichF]

While I agree the primary differentiators are things like lenses and burst rates, etc, I'm not sure I agree with IQ. The difference between the quality of a good DSLR and the tiny sensor on a phone is noticeable and significant. Obviously, it doesn't matter too much if you'll only ever be looking at the images on a phone, but compare a low(*ish) light shot between the two and it's not even close. At least not in my experience

Hard to compare true IQ from a phone to anything else. Images from phones are highly processed by the phone's firmware. Not sure that raw files are truly raw. iPhone portrait mode has an artifically shallow DOF even in Raw due to image processing.

 

[O]

CHANGE is happening IN,

Cost, People, Technology, Internet.............

Yes the average age of members in many camera clubs appears to be climbing, here as well, and in cases memberships have fallen across the board, be it because of any of the above reasons.

A smart phone is a extraordinary sophisticated tool, its vertically integrated from the manufacturer to the user, to the wholly grail and mother ship the internet.

Just a simple example,

I do professional surfing events as just one of my shoots, i would have a runner go to the Van use the lap top to download and stream selected JPEGs to the required stakeholders, yeee, good gig, well it used to be.

Now i see quality drones riding virtually parallel above ahead or around the surfer or action, streaming video clips or stills directly in real time.
So standing on the beach with a 600mm lens and exotic camera gear has become a little, well not really wanted or purposeful anymore.
The stakeholders are asking for video footage, they actually don't want stills anymore because the platforms like Instagram, Tik Tok and U Tube who all want video so they can slot in adds like TV.

One of the greatest versatile little tools for so much of that is you guessed it the Smart Phone that fits into the control console of the drone.....and the rest we all know.

Another example

People watching, you see a couple with a very young child 2 or 3 in the park, the child is walking around the flowers talking laughing, the parents are not out with a DSLR or Mirror less camera with a lens, there not taking stills on their phone, they taking a video on their and in this case I Phone, why the preference for video, well firstly it has sound of their child and movement, its all so powerful especially with the instant connection and evoking of emotion and so superior to a static frozen image called a photo, the video it has a living subject or sound, a moving record moment, instantly streamed to the grandparents or up loaded on social and instantly shared. Hence the camera industry has moved to hybrid cameras and is focusing on connectivity and streaming, they have no choice.

Another example

There are cases where professional nature and wild life photographers are actually doing video and pulling good perfect fit for purpose moment still images from that video, yes believe it not even on the Z9 LOL. This are is getting better and better and will become the norm in the near future.

I mean which would be more pleasing to the vast majority of people looking at a static frozen image of a bird in flight or watching it actually flying and doing what it does naturally along with possibly sound, Instagram i was told rank video clips at 1000 to 1 views compared to a still shot.

There is a general movement of chnage for many reasons............. i guess we go with it it or let it go.

The camera makers like Nikon Sony Canon to mention a few are all moving along with it hence the hybrid gear of today.

For the traditional still photographers they will fit into a smaller and smaller niche area, even wild life nature etc.

Many still photographers are looking an embracing video and rebuilding their systems to process and view.

A Twist

My girlfriend and I went and saw the amazing Taylor Swift concert hosted in California, we watched it here in OZ at our huge G MAX cinema, it was like we were there, we had far better viewing than actually being at the concert physically, the cameras were on stage and all around Taylor and the dancers with amazing interaction you couldn't get live being there. One thing, there were NO photographers we noticed, maybe we were to engrossed in the concert, there was a lot of drone footage, i guess it had to be drones.
On line now when booking tickets to see a major concert you have the choice of seats, or streaming, streaming to your home theater system, that said many new homes now have standard a built in home theater or entertainment room. Elon Musk's 40,000 more satellites he wants up there better get done in a hurry LOL.

The world is changing, in many case for the better equally in many cases not so.

Video killed the radio star, video is now killing the still photography star.

Becoming a videographer or not is for many the question, the video gear product range expanding over still gear in B and H and on the internet alone talks volumes.

Is it right, good, wrong, or for everyone, who knows, we all have choices and passion for what we like to do.

My self i am doing less to little still photography, thinking about video, but have expanded my passion for cooking, mostly plant based foods, or sea food.

Still photography as we know it will always have a place, but its use by date is clearly getting shorter and shorter with all the change that is happening relegating it possibly into a smaller niche area over time.

Only an opinion

 

[PhotoLover]

While I agree the primary differentiators are things like lenses and burst rates, etc, I'm not sure I agree with IQ. The difference between the quality of a good DSLR and the tiny sensor on a phone is noticeable and significant. Obviously, it doesn't matter too much if you'll only ever be looking at the images on a phone, but compare a low(*ish) light shot between the two and it's not even close. At least not in my experience

Low light shots ... depends! Given a static low light scene, the handheld night mode in the recent smartphones is quite good, and I think will produce *better* pictures than a dSLR unless you haul out a tripod and take a long exposure. Versus just ... taking out your smartphone.

Now, obviously if there is motion in the scene, the dSLR tends to win easily.

 

[O]

If i were a manufacturer in the camera industry i would focus on what i do best and if that is making lenses so be it, i would make lenses that are smaller lighter sharper to fit or fully compliment video, Nikon seems to be working towards that area of smaller lighter as is Canon especially with their looming 200-800.

Corner to corner optical performance accurate colour, image stabilization, silent ZOOM and precise fade in and out performance is critical.
Camera body subject eye tracking is more important for video.
Power, connectivity, tracking, is essential more so for video, resolution comes from stacking as seen in the ZF, the R and D and end results is long standing in the smart phones.

Interesting times, can you imagine better sharper light glass in drones what it will do, zoom is the drone it self flying closer, quality primes will be important or two stage lenses, ie built in Tc ? who knows. Still photography by comparison has only one viewing dimension.

Nikon should use their PF element technology and or license it to Ziess for drones, the window is open, carbon fiber lens body's ?.

Ziess and Leica glass is well respected for F5.6 and under exceptional performance historically.

Its only a matter of time before smart phones will introduce a range of detachable lenses, not what the big three need to deal with, ok there is a difference to conventional 35mm IQ it depends on what your reviewing footage on, but that's not the issue, its the up coming newer generation harpooned when they were young to live on platforms wont want the expense of 35mm.

The other thing i would do is break the alliance to 35mm its so so has been, Nikon's glass is very well hand in glove suited to that change already.

Interesting 2024 2025 2026

Only an opinion