Something to Think About

This company is listed as the largest camera store in New Jersey. There is also a similar store in NY and Toronto. It's all about how you market yourself and what people want to buy.


http://thephotocenter.com/

I have also noticed that some local camera stores are offering classes in cellphone photography.

I remember when I had purchased my wife a Panasonic FZ3 [ a 3Mp Bridge camera ] when I purchased the FZ20 [5Mp BC] for myself and visiting Denver thought it would nice to give one to my son, I had used the FZ3 for about a week before giving it to Santa for delivery a few months earlier and thought it quite tremendous.... so I visited the few B&M stores I could find. Notable was one in Littleton which had a collection of Leica III's or similar in one display case, no Panasonics at all :) ... then I went into the city to what looked like the leading photostore, they had at least two entranceways :), and asking about the FZ3 the "salesman" said in effect "Why on earth would you want black trash like that?" when he had Canikon. I simply walked out, I had no need to justify myself.

Locally I remember mild frustration in wanting a single item rather than a set and while the assistant was very willing and helpful it took a couple of weeks to discover it was not available in the country ... going on-line to B&H I found what I wanted and puirchased it in less than five minutes. What I cannot understand is why B&M while admitting they cannot match on price at least they could if they were on the ball find the item and get it for you in a matter of less than a week and charge you accordingly. The B&M staff admitted that buying on-line would be cheaper.
Another B&M store, now out of business, got me a ND filter and after a delay of several weeks told me that it was Christmas time and people needed a holiday so I didn't get it until January ....anyone wonder why I buy on-line except when my conscience pricks me that I should support my local B&M.
I did buy my first three digital cameras at B&M at the dreadful prices of the period ... $2100 for the 3.3Mp Canon P&S and $2500 for my Nikon 5700 [ a DSLR would have been $3000 :) ] The first digital was $175, a plastic toy with just a lens and viewfinder which sold me on digital.
http://i39.tinypic.com/2gsh0g1.jpg
With the 'filter holder' and scrap of 1 dioptre plastic lens to help it focus closer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glenn NK

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...lus_2013.shtml

Be sure to read the link; DSLRs Dead in Five Years.

Comments?

I find it interesting because the owner of the shop where I've been dealing with for seven years recently declared bankruptcy, and new owners have taken over.

A few months ago, there were seven outlets; the new owners closed four - three remaining - fortunately the one here will be one of the three. It remains to be seen if it will recover - they had pretty well nothing in stock for the past four months - they just received a few entry level Canon DSLR's last week.

I strongly suspect the drop in sales and resultant failure had its roots in the problems discussed in the articles linked to above.

Glenn

---

2007 survey of film photographers.

http://web.archive.org/web/200812160...Use-Film.phtml

It would be nice to see if there was a follow up survey or if an updated survey was conducted for digital photographers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

2007 survey of film photographers.

http://web.archive.org/web/200812160...Use-Film.phtml

It would be nice to see if there was a follow up survey or if an updated survey was conducted for digital photographers.

---

At the time, this made sense.

This was around the time / just before the Nikon D3 and D700 and the Canon 1D MkIII and 5D Mk II were released. At the time, digital cameras were still not capable of producing the quality images required by the pros at a "reasonable" price. I think the attitude is quite understandable. A pro, whose livelihood depends on his / her camera, is not going to ditch film until he / she is convinced that the quality and reliability are there and that it was worth investing in the new gear.

I remember discussing this with a pro who was an early adopter of the D3; he was spending around $20,000 a month on film. printing and lab processing fees. With digital, the cost to switch paid for itself in about 2 or 3 months (he needed several bodies).

I don't see anything quite that drastic on the horizon just yet, at least at the higher end of the market. The camera phones and tablets are certainly impacting the low end camera (P&S), which is really the bread and butter for a lot of the camera manufacturers.

Do I see the same thing for DSLRs? Hard to say; as the current alternatives at the entry / medium price ranges are still rather pricey (thinking of the mFT and other smaller formats).

That being said, things changed rather quickly in the following couple of years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowman

2007 survey of film photographers.

http://web.archive.org/web/200812160...Use-Film.phtml

It would be nice to see if there was a follow up survey or if an updated survey was conducted for digital photographers.

---

I did a "follow up survey" last week.;)

When I started digital photography in late 2006, the camera shop had a large rack of 35 mm film - last week I looked at the 35mm film rack - I doubt that it was 10 percent of what it was in 2006.

Kodak made the mistake of thinking they would always have 75 percent of the photographers buying film. Where are they now?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastman_Kodak

Glenn