High-end cameras make epic comeback despite smartphone ubiquity

[zohaibahd]

The big picture: For over a decade, it seemed like standalone digital cameras were on the verge of extinction. As smartphone imaging capabilities soared, point-and-shoot models fell out of favor with the general public. Total digital camera sales plummeted by a staggering 93 percent from their peak. But upon closer inspection, a surprising renaissance is unfolding in the premium camera market.

While entry-level cameras have all but disappeared, elite models are making a strong comeback, as highlighted in a report by The Economist. The report notes that brands like Leica, Fujifilm, and Nikon have shifted their focus to high-end offerings – and it's paying off.

According to the Camera and Imaging Products Association, the average selling price of a new camera has tripled over the past six years. Their latest data shows that total global camera shipments from January through May 2024 increased nearly 12 percent year-over-year, reaching over three million units – the highest level in three years. This growth is largely driven by sustained demand for premium mirrorless cameras, which now outsell DSLRs 5-to-1 worldwide as that format continues to decline.

One of the biggest beneficiaries of this premiumization trend is the German brand Leica. Their latest model, the Leica Q3 full-frame camera, retails for a staggering $6,000 (and that's before optional add-ons like a $245 thumb rest). Despite the hefty price tag, demand has been so intense that there were six month waiting lists when it launched in 2023. In fact, Leica reported record sales last year, with revenue reaching 485 million euros, up nine percent from the previous year's 444 million euros.

Fujifilm has experienced similar demand for its premium X100 line. When the latest $1,600 model was released in February, it quickly sold out worldwide.

Ironically, what's driving this renewed appetite for expensive cameras is the ubiquity of mobile photography – at least according to Nikon President Muneaki Tokunari.

"We are now in an age where smartphones and digital cameras can coexist," explained Tokunari in a recent Japanese interview with Yomiuri. As he sees it, smartphone cameras gave a wider population a taste for creative photography as a passion rather than mere utility.

"I think smartphones have broadened the base of photography. As a result, our high-end models, which are at the top of the camera pyramid, are selling well," he added.

The enthusiasm for high-end gear among younger, culturally savvy audiences certainly supports this theory. Videos showcasing Fujifilm's iconic X100 series have garnered millions of views on TikTok. Premium cameras have become as much a fashion statement as professional tools.

Permalink to story:

High-end cameras make epic comeback despite smartphone ubiquity

 

[Uncle Al]

I used Leica many years ago and while I liked the brand, they just didn't have anything that set them apart from Nikon or Canon other than being way over priced with limited features. Just goes to show how some people associate a name with value ....

 

[VariableSpike]

The Leica is a massive fashion statement piece, which is evident by the form over fubction design and smattering of "look, brand, fashionable!" marketing, anyone actually buying cameras considering their performance and so on wpuld probably grab something like a Sony a7 series or similar for less

 

[LetTheWookieWin]

It’s nice to have a portable camera in my smartphone, but I love my Canon DSLR. Being able to use interchangeable lenses that fit a specific style is incredibly useful. Also, my camera is 11 years old and still works great for photos. My lenses, if I care for them properly, will last at least 2-3x longer and can be adapted to mirrorless cameras from Canon and Sony.

 

[Neatfeatguy]

Got my daughter a Sony A6400 last year (by all means it wasn't an expensive camera in terms of being a digital camera, but still nearly cost a grand so to me that's expensive as hell). She's got a couple of nice lenses for it now and she loves using it over her phone. Picture quality is so much better on the camera over any of the phones we own.

I remember when film cameras started phasing out and digital cameras were coming in - I got a 4.1mp (or something right in that range) for the wife and she loved it because at that time cameras on phones were about as good as me drawing an image and I suck at drawing. Then eventually cameras on phones started to become as good (or better) as lower costing digital cameras and it was only extremely expensive digital cameras that still outdid phones. Then phones became so good with pictures about 10 years ago that digital cameras started to phase out on the lower end and only high end ones remained and it was more of a niche thing for people that weren't professionals.

Now you have phones that seem to be maxed out at what they can do and digital cameras are overtaking them again. Sure, you may have to spend $800+ on even a lower-end camera (which is about the price of a higher-end cell phone these days), but the images with the right lenses look so much better over what any phone can do now. Plus the fact that you can record with the cameras, swap out memory cards (which a lot of phones don't offer anymore, it's annoying), get so many attachments, doodads and gadgets for them that it puts phone cameras to shame.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Not really surprising… smartphones are as good or better than any “cheap” standalone camera… so the only way camera companies could survive was to sell high-end cameras.

The problem was, they had to market them for more than “professional “ use - otherwise there wouldn’t be enough demand.

Kudos to them for tricking the average populace into thinking that they need these cameras

The truth is, of course, that about 99% of the population won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo shot with an iPhone vs a $10,000 mirrorless camera… but hey, rich people got to spend their money on something, don’t they?

 

[Win7user]

I bought a Cannon Power Shot, 16mp camera years ago. Pictures are great. Don't remember how much it cost exactly, but I know it was less than $50.

 

[wiyosaya]

No smart phone camera can match a good dedicated camera with good glass. Its the laws of physics that govern the picture quality. Smart phone cameras are convenient, but there are times when I wish I had my Canon 7D with me.

 

[yRaz]

No smart phone camera can match a good dedicated camera with good glass. Its the laws of physics that govern the picture quality. Smart phone cameras are convenient, but there are times when I wish I had my Canon 7D with me.

I live near a place that's popular for talking wedding/prom/graduation photos. You don't see professionals taking pictures with iPhones. Despite whatever the broccoli headed zoomers might have you believe, a smartphone is no substitute for a professional camera. People talk about how the processing on the smartphones means they can take better pictures. We have "smart" cameras. Pair the same "smart" features on your phone with a full-frame sensor and a real lense, you'll always get a better image. Heck my Sony A7iii takes better pictures with a kit lense than smartphones with all their smart features.

 

[Squid Surprise]

I live near a place that's popular for talking wedding/prom/graduation photos. You don't see professionals taking pictures with iPhones. Despite whatever the broccoli headed zoomers might have you believe, a smartphone is no substitute for a professional camera. People talk about how the processing on the smartphones means they can take better pictures. We have "smart" cameras. Pair the same "smart" features on your phone with a full-frame sensor and a real lense, you'll always get a better image. Heck my Sony A7iii takes better pictures with a kit lense than smartphones with all their smart features.

I don’t think anyone will argue that a “pro” camera is better… the argument is about who actually NEEDS a “professional” camera.
If I was paying someone to take photos at my wedding, I’d be pretty peeved to see them bring an iPhone… but… I probably wouldn’t notice the difference either.

Photography is subjective - much like audio quality - and only a select few can actually see/hear a difference at the high end.

Marketing these cameras is all about appearances and making people think they “need” the extra quality.

 

[yRaz]

Photography is subjective - much like audio quality - and only a select few can actually see/hear a difference at the high end.

No, it's actually measurable unlike audiophile nonsense. It has to do with how light refracts in a prism and a larger physical sensor naturally has less noise than a smaller sensor.

 

[Squid Surprise]

No, it's actually measurable unlike audiophile nonsense. It has to do with how light refracts in a prism and a larger physical sensor naturally has less noise than a smaller sensor.

Yes… the science part…. It’s how the observer sees the photo - that’s subjective… you could take a picture of the exact same thing from the same angle/distance with an iPhone and “pro camera” and the vast majority of people wouldn’t be able to see the difference.

 

[yRaz]

Yes… the science part…. It’s how the observer sees the photo - that’s subjective… you could take a picture of the exact same thing form the same angle/distance with an iPhone and “pro camera” and the vast majority of people wouldn’t be able to see the difference.

Oh, an iPhone, I take back everything I said.

 

[wiyosaya]

I don’t think anyone will argue that a “pro” camera is better… the argument is about who actually NEEDS a “professional” camera.
If I was paying someone to take photos at my wedding, I’d be pretty peeved to see them bring an iPhone… but… I probably wouldn’t notice the difference either.

Photography is subjective - much like audio quality - and only a select few can actually see/hear a difference at the high end.

Marketing these cameras is all about appearances and making people think they “need” the extra quality.

Then again, isn't it Marketing that makes people think they need an iPhone, too? Just look at all the commercials that try to make cell phones look "sexy". I laugh at those commercials. They are great comedy, IMO.

 

[Theinsanegamer]

Not really surprising… smartphones are as good or better than any “cheap” standalone camera… so the only way camera companies could survive was to sell high-end cameras.

The problem was, they had to market them for more than “professional “ use - otherwise there wouldn’t be enough demand.

Kudos to them for tricking the average populace into thinking that they need these cameras

The truth is, of course, that about 99% of the population won’t be able to tell the difference between a photo shot with an iPhone vs a $10,000 mirrorless camera… but hey, rich people got to spend their money on something, don’t they?

The only way you cant tell the difference is if you're legally blind. From lighting to small detail on objects when you zoom in, even thebest phones hold no candle.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Oh, an iPhone, I take back everything I said.

lol, used iPhone as an example - any smartphone will do.

Again, I’m not arguing that a pro camera isn’t better - just that most people don’t need one and can’t tell the difference between them.

 

[yRaz]

lol, used iPhone as an example - any smartphone will do.

Again, I’m not arguing that a pro camera isn’t better - just that most people don’t need one and can’t tell the difference between them.

Fair enough. I will argue one point, though. Instead of playing with settings on a phone, play with those settings on a "real camera" as I'll call it. It is an enjoyable experience.

If you have the opportunity to try it then I recommend you take full advantage. If not, I hope all your phone pictures turn out well.

 

[kiwigraeme]

A good mobile camera, is probably really good for certain styles of photos , eg street/people/market photography where the content , story is King. People will happily look at street scenes from NYC 1970s , London 1960s etc
here the Photographer is everything in their selection and story telling.- Ie many famous photographers who mainly used a simple camera with a fixed 50mm or 35mm lense

But you want those great portraits of your kids with out of focus background , superwide , super depth , high speed, birds, long exposure etc. I think now for those with money so many good cameras, lenses, equipment ( tripods, light boxes/reflectors , closeup tools ), plus online and software tools , instant feedback , instant online help in forums etc

 

[Squid Surprise]

Fair enough. I will argue one point, though. Instead of playing with settings on a phone, play with those settings on a "real camera" as I'll call it. It is an enjoyable experience.

If you have the opportunity to try it then I recommend you take full advantage. If not, I hope all your phone pictures turn out well.

I bought myself a DSLR (Sony a500 I believe) about 15 years ago because my smartphone at the time couldn’t take action shots of my kindergarten students. I loved it - still use it at school for special moments like grad or assemblies… but I’ve found for about 99% of my photographic needs, my iPhone works fine.

If you’re serious about photography, there is no substitute for a good mirrorless or SLR camera… but many people just want to LOOK serious about photography - those people are just throwing their money away.

 

[SRB]

I have shot photos starting with MInolta SLR Film cameras through my current Sony A99 II full frame. While smartphones are good for most pictures, and handy, almost all of what makes them so great to people is all of the post image processing built into them to make them much better that what the sensor sees. I get it, the audio analogy works perfectly. High end stereo sales dropped like a rock after the invention of compression and 200 songs on a disc/memory card, streaming. Also, the sound from some of the speakers they think are just fine hurt my ears. I have always been amazed how the younger crowd always valued convenience over sound quality. Camera post processing is good enough.

Hopefully, this is a sign that quality does matter.

BTW, I doubt that my eclipse pictures I shot with my A99 and a 500mm lens could be duplicated with a smartphone.

 

[p51d007]

I used Leica many years ago and while I liked the brand, they just didn't have anything that set them apart from Nikon or Canon other than being way over priced with limited features. Just goes to show how some people associate a name with value ....

All just for that little red DOT on the camera. <wink>

 

[p51d007]

I've been taking photos since I was a kid in the late 60's. My dad was at the time, a photographer for a local small town newspaper. My job was to rock the negatives in the developer bath, then put them in the stop bath, rinse them and clip them to dry. (I can still smell the chemicals!)
I bought my first SLR in 1980, my second one in 1994 when the shutter & film advance just flat gave out. (I went to an airshow and shot 14 rolls of 36 exposure film once). The camera company I ALWAYS went to, had a dedicated film lab that monitored and changed out their chemicals on a regular basis (unlike the one hour photomat places). I finally switched over to digital in the early 2000 with a smaller camera, then bought an "all in one" Panasonic FZ50), then a Nikon D-5000 and then a D-7200 which I still use.
If I'm going somewhere to take photos, I'm going to grab my bag with my camera, 4 lenses, filters, flash, tripod etc. I'm sure NOT going to count on my phone with it's SUPER TINY camera sensor. It just cracks me up with the megapixel race. 200MP squeezed into a super tiny area, will create NOISE in lower light photos because the signal to noise ratio will be higher, then the phone camera software will try to get rid of the noise, then the AI software will try to "fix" it.
Dedicated cameras still have a purpose, it's just people like CONVENIENCE, not having to "learn" how to shoot photos. Heck, I don't even use the automatic modes on my camera. ISO, shutter, f/stop, I just set them manually because that's how I learned.

 

[Mr Majestyk]

As a wildlife photographer I can't find away to attach my 800mm lens to my S21 yet so I lug a giant camera around.

 

[captaincranky]

Then again, isn't it Marketing that makes people think they need an iPhone, too? Just look at all the commercials that try to make cell phones look "sexy". I laugh at those commercials. They are great comedy, IMO.

I've never seen an Apple ad that "made me laugh".

They annoy the living sh*t out of me, as I scramble for the mute button while averting my eyes.

 

[captaincranky]

As a wildlife photographer I can't find away to attach my 800mm lens to my S21 yet so I lug a giant camera around.

Am 800 lens mm dwarfs the DLSR body as it is. Think how intimidated the poor phone would feel.