Death of the digital camera
There's an interesting article in the latest Time. The guts of it is that digital camera development has reached the end of the line. The human eye can't discern resolution greater than five or six megapixels - which is where mainstream models are at now - so punters have lost interest in upgrading.
The 51% digicam sales growth we saw in 2004 will flatten to 10% this year, says IDC, and go negative by 2010.
Worse (for manufacturers), margins will get leaner as 'consumer electronics powerhouses like Samsung, Panasonic and BenQ flex their distribution muscles'.
To which I say: bollocks. Granted, the go-go days of mass growth are over, as most households have now made the transition from film to digital. But there's still a lot interesting, growth-driving features to come. For example, check out the GPS add-on from Sony that Bruce Buckman reviews in our coming October issue. Look for GPS to be built-in with future models. And everybody's going to want the option to know where a photo was taken. It's guaranteed to drive a fresh round of upgrades. Then how about a built-in 3G chip for sending your pics directly to Flickr.com? That's a couple of years in the future, but it'll be another must-have. DSLR is a hot, high-end, high-growth niche that's growing fast right now (check out Bruce's review of the Lumix 1 - from Panasonic, now less - in our September issue). And better video options will be a huge driver in the near future. It aint the end of history yet.
PC World is New Zealand’s top selling computing and technology magazine.
Comments
Yes, you can print A3, A1 all you like and any MP may struggle with that depending the print size and also on the sensor issue as well. Such as SLRs are better than digicams on the same MP count.
But really, amateurs do not print A3. The majority of the photography industry are made up of amateurs not professionals.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2006 8:16 PM
People keep camera's for years, and care nothing for bells and whistles.GPS won't make any measuable impact on camera sales. Face it, people have the camera's because they are worth having, a new feature doesn't make their existing camera any less worthwhile.
Of course, If like most modern junk they are designed to die within a few years....
Posted by: Anonymous | September 3, 2006 11:17 PM
As per my initial post I think the Time article was mostly off-beam. In terms of resolution that a human eye can perceive, the logical interpretation is a 6x4 held at arm's length, which is how most look at photos. Also: Bruce, you're so fired.
Posted by: Chris Keall | August 31, 2006 10:53 AM
The previous comment re resolution is spot on, and is the first thing I thought of when reading the 5-6 megapixel statement. The other thing is the "love of bells and whistles" factor. I have a better digital camera than I "need" (Canon S2IS), and mostly use it for point and shoot stuff, but it's great having the additional functionality when you want to do more than that.
Posted by: Ted Groufsky | August 31, 2006 10:30 AM
I saw on Monday a print made with a 5 megapixcel camera and enlarged to 2 metres by 3 metres.
It was not as good as 35 mm.
For that size you needed 10mp plus.
Posted by: Roger | August 31, 2006 8:19 AM
I'd have to agree. What "resolution" the human eye "discerns" totally depends on what how the image is displayed, and at what distance the human eye is viewing the image.
Extra resolution is about lots of things -- the ability to print larger prints, or crop down a small portion of a print and still print large.
That quote is from the Time article, and it essentially misses the point, which is that increases in resolution still pay off benefits in how the photographer is able to use the image, beyond where we currently are.
However, for the bulk of casual snappers, these factors aren't too important. The slow down in the sales of digital cameras is inevitable, given that we've seen a massive and ongoing switch from film to digital which has powered the boom, but which ultimately must succumb to market saturation and modest improvements in technology.
This doesn't mean the digital camera is dead. it merely means it has matured as a technology, which is a very different thing.
Posted by: Bruce Buckman | August 30, 2006 6:23 PM
@The human eye can't discern resolution greater than five or six megapixels@ - at what print size? I daresay if you printed that at A3, you would notice.
Posted by: Anonymous | August 30, 2006 11:36 AM