"Trickle Down" is a disreputable idea because of its notorious use in politics, but a lot of formerly hard-to-reach or out-of-reach goodness is, in fact, trickling. Whether "upwards" or "downwards" probably depends on your definitions.
Consider: Porsche recently celebrated 50 years of its fabled 911. Cognoscenti consider the high water mark of this long run to be the 1973 911 Carrera RS 2.7 (a picture here). "RS" stood for Rennsport, meaning "racing sport." That car, now beloved of collectors, developed 210 horsepower, ran 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and did the quarter mile in 14.5 seconds (specs according to Autocar).
So, consider: today you can buy an off-the-shelf, nuthin' special Volkswagen Golf GTI that will do...hmm, zero to sixty in 5.8 seconds and the quarter mile in 14.4 seconds. And it will stop faster than the '73 Carrera RS, and gets much better gas mileage, not to mention that it pollutes a lot less. And it is much safer and stands less chance of killing you if things do go wrong. You might counter that the GTI drives the wrong wheels, which is true, but c'mon, at least it has its engine in the right place. Horsepower for the base GTI? I probably don't need to tell you. Two hundred and ten.
The GTI costs $25,000 and the Porsche only cost $14,000, but $14,000 in 1973 dollars adjusted for inflation is nearly $75,000. So we can say the '16 GTI costs a third as much as the '73 Carrera RS and get away with it.
Or consider the Parasound Halo P5 (above). Parasound is a brand with a talented designer (John Curl) working on the statement products, but it's considered to straddle the divide between mid-fi consumer products and the lower reaches of the high end. The P5 is a remote control stereo preamp with defeatable tone controls, bass management, a very fine motorized Alps pot volume control, a phono section with both moving-coil and moving-magnet inputs, and it provides a headphone amp, and it's got an excellent Burr-Brown DAC for computer audio, built-in. In the 1990s you'd pay $5,000 for a preamp that sounded as good—one that was almost certainly noisier, did not have a balance control much less a remote, and offered far less functionality ("minimalist" was the justification then). The Parasound costs less than a good standalone DAC from the '90s (which would have been sold as half of a CD player and would have performed much worse than the DAC in the Parasound). The P5 costs $1,095.
Of course, you could argue that the meaning of these products is fundamentally different, because what people are interested in is relative status, not absolute performance. You can't buy cutting edge performance in a GTI and you can't buy prestige or bragging rights in a second-tier Parasound. Granted.
Part of the problem of such products is that trickle-down, carried to its logical conclusion, effectively destroys whole market segments. Bugatti, a premium brand of the same company that built the aforementioned VW and Porsche (and taking over an old but unrelated name, like Cosina did with Voigtländer), just introduced a new "halo" car, the Chiron. The Chiron has a top speed of 261 MPH and will do 0-60 in less than 2.5 seconds. It has 1,500 horsepower and will cost $2.7 million. In other words, it's totally pointless. It's just for showing off...nothing else. There are probably only a few places in the whole United States where you can get out of first gear legally, and, most likely, few buyers will accelerate at maximum speed more than a few times during their ownership of the car. It doesn't do anything practical that people need a car to do, which doesn't matter because almost no one can afford one anyway. The only practical thing it offers is status. In the new "two-tier" Western world—one society for the super-rich and one for everyone else—car aficionados now take their toys to private racetracks to exercise them. It's the only place they can be driven where the cars aren't loafing. Status is really all that's left—that has any real meaning, anyway—for a high-end car to offer.
Today's top-end preamps are analogous to the Bugatti, costing approximately as much as the down payment on a middle-class house and requiring many times that much investment in associated equipment. The average person can't play anyway, but finds that plenty enough sonic goodness has trickled down to much more pedestrian devices.
I have to say I don't know how this is going to play out in the camera market. Trickle-down is happening so fast it's more like a cascade—no less a personage than Thom Hogan recently intimated right here on TOP that the new 1"-sensor Nikons are not consumer cameras!* There are still a lot of things that big, serious, expensive cameras will do that little one's won't or can't, but the window of relevance for them seems to be constricting noticeably, and fast.
What's undeniable is that almost week by week, smaller, cheaper cameras do more and more of what once required more of everything—expense, engineering, weight—to do. I admit I've become fascinated lately in trying to figure out comparisons across time, and I don't have the stockpile of cameras on hand to really figure that out. But the questions are almost as interesting as the answers. How long, for instance, until a Micro 4/3 camera equals medium-format film from, say, 1991? (Maybe Ctein can speak usefully to that one.) How long before a 1"-sensor camera equals the first consumer FF in easily-achievable quality?
And, in that hothouse of development, how long will the market for high-end cameras hold out?
Mike
*His comment, on the "New Canikons!" post, was "Yes, Nikon has had a spotty (and poor) record in consumer cameras. These [i.e., the new Nikon DL compacts] are not consumer cameras ;~)."
Original contents copyright 2016 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
Carl: "My Micro 4/3 cameras can make captures that I can print at 15x20 inches that are better in almost everything (subject brightness range is the exception) than 15-inch square prints from color negative film shot in a Hasselblad in the late '80s. It doesn't seem possible, but it is."
Andy Kochanowski: "Mike, not at all sure what all of the post means, possibly because I am seven hours ahead of you working in Israel for the week. But I do know a few things, and those are as follows: the VW GTI is possibly the world's best car for the money. My family owns/drives three of them. But it ain't no Porsche. The best Porsche now is the Cayman GTS, which is much faster than the '73 RS and more engaging than any current 911. Yes, there will be those who disagree, but they are ignorant fools and their opinion is not worth the pixels it's written on. Because I have a Cayman GTS and it's the bees knees. I've also owned and driven early '70's 911's, and no, the GTI can't hold a candle except on paper. All my typing is occasioned by your mention of Parasound, which I also happen to possess. What the heck can't I do anything original?"
Elizabeth Warren has done great research in this field. To summarize: gadgets, a single car, clothing, and food have all gone down significantly in price since the 70s. Whereas necessities: 2 cars for a 2 worker household, medical bills, housing, and education has skyrocketed by equal amounts.
So even if Americans eschewed those things that are seemingly wasteful, the economy would still be in the shitter because it's the inelastic items that have gone up, while wages have stagnated.
Posted by: Ben | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 02:31 PM
"How long, for instance, until a Micro 4/3 camera equals medium-format film from, say, 1991?"
Actually IMHO already does. When I bought a m4/3 as a compact "bicycle camera system" (for my main work I reach for the A7r), after a while of using it in my usual hunting grounds, I noticed an eerie similarity in terms of quality to previous shots I took in the same place with the Fuji GS645 a few short years ago, on Velvia with heavy tripod etc.
If you're curious you can check my results here (against Velvia scanned at 8000dpi).
http://www.addicted2light.com/2016/01/16/how-good-are-16mp-olympus-om-d-e-m10-kit-zoom-14-42-ii-vs-fuji-gs645-fujichrome-velvia-50-iso/
The crops are from images resized for a 1m wide print, so not actually 100%, and that is a good thing because the film shots at 100%, without a ton of sharpening, looked plain awful.
We sometimes forget how far we've come in terms of sheer technical quality... That said, even if it doesn't show in my test (these are unprocessed raw scans, besides from b-shots not from selected ones) the Velvia still wins in my book for the sheer beauty of color tonalities and the natural way in which, even in such an high contrast slide film, the highlights roll out graciously (compared to a digital sensor).
Posted by: Luca | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 02:59 PM
Instead of "trickle down", I'd call it the democratization of technology. It's awesome that one time luxuries are available to most!
Posted by: Art in LA | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 03:12 PM
Every day someone comes-up with new technology to replace the old fashioned. This is happening in all fields. Cars are better/faster/safer, my iPod 4G has 2600 songs on it, but fits in my pocket--try that with your vinyl collection.
Fuji has discontinued it's Instax pack film, making my Toyo monorail even more obsolete. So I think that the iPhone 7 will be my only camera, plus a NEX 5n with a pinhole lens.
CaNiSony isn't making anything that temps me to open my wallet. A classic case of you snooze you lose!.
Posted by: c.d.embret | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 03:28 PM
"Today's top-end preamps are analogous to the Bugatti, costing approximately as much as the down payment on a middle-class house and requiring many times that much investment in associated equipment."
And, indeed, the emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: G Dan Mitchell | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 03:58 PM
In his 2013 interview on LuLa, Ctein predicted a 100meg to 1gig camera in 10 years. Even the experts can't predict the rate of change - let alone the trickle down effect. But whether it's high resolution sound or light, we need to consider the sensory resolution of the user. Michael, I hesitate to suggest that at your age you get an audiogram before you invest in a higher end audio package. The same for your eyes and a newer high resolution camera. We are fast approaching the limits of our senses. See the new 8K video (TV) that is being proposed. It's time to concentrate on content - whether it's music or photographs.
[You probably don't remember, but a number of years ago I reviewed the Sony A900 and the Nikon D3 when they were new. I concluded that the A900 sees much better into the distance than my eyes do, and the D3 sees much better into the dark than my eyes do. The illustration pictures were a dog in the distance at a dog park, and a fence in the woods at dusk. Those I can still see! (In my mind's eye.) --Mike]
Posted by: Ken Sky | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 04:04 PM
Trickle down seems to happen in some categories more than others. The other effect, which I've called "cheapification," happened to low-mid range audio products in the eighties and nineties, especially with anything portable. When I was around 14 in 1980 a family from Japan stayed with us, the dad a good friend with my dad. They arrived with gifts, including an incredible, all metal, Aiwa portable cassette player. It recorded in stereo even, and sounded great. Little did I know that this was basically the high water mark for Walkman style cassette player quality, even before the Walkman appeared in local stores.
I noticed the same thing happen as the years passed by, that the lower end was getting junkier and junkier, and scam brands like Emerson started to sell all over. Things didn't recover until the iPod and other mp3 players came along. It seems to almost coincide with the bottoming of Detroit quality as well, maybe for similar reasons, I don't know.
Posted by: John Krumm | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 04:23 PM
In the digital domain advances in imaging capabilities can be attributed to the enormous processing power and huge storage capacities which were predicted by Moore's Law. These same advances enable profound technological game-changers like driver-less cars and Artificial Intelligence that can beat the world's best Chess and Jeopardy players.
Klaus Schwab, an engineer and economist, writes that we are entering the Fourth Industrial Revolution and describes the profound impact that these new technologies will have on our lives.
Imaging markets have dramatically changed, point-and-shoot film cameras have been replaced by smartphones, smaller sensors have become capable image-makers, and we can store terabytes of images on a $150 hard drive.
Pretty amazing stuff, and the best is yet to come.
Posted by: Robert Hudyma | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 06:20 PM
Ah, but can you really trust those Volkswagen numbers?
:-P
Posted by: SF Murph | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 06:28 PM
My micro-4/3s cameras can make captures that I can print at 15x20 inches that are better in almost everything (subject brightness range is the exception) than 15-inch square prints from color negative film shot in a Hasselblad in the late 80s. It doesn't seem possible, but it is.
Posted by: Carl | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 06:31 PM
I think the real question on the future of cameras is defined by this. The light Camera, a extremely interesting movement in computational photography moved into the camera. This may be a camera on computer steroids. And of course I have one on pre-order.
https://light.co/camera
Posted by: Robert Harshman | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 07:06 PM
I'd say that right now Micro 4/3 has equaled medium format. I gave up my Hasselblads a few years ago when the GH3's hit the market. I tested my Hasselblad and my 80 on the film I was using at the time, Portra 800 against my Panasonic using the camera's square aspect ratio and a 20 1.7 and it was no contest. The Panasonic was sharper, the colors were nicer, the files had less grain/noise, and there was a better tonal range. I was stunned. I used an Imacon to scan the film, so there's no issue with the scanner either. At 24 inches square, the prints look fantastic. Shortly after that the Hasselblads went on a shelf, and a year later on to Ebay. I haven't looked back. The GX8 brings us even further along.
Posted by: Mike | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 07:26 PM
Hyabusa. 1300 cc motorcycle. It redlines in FIRST gear at 130 km/hr. You can't legally redline that beast on any public road in Canada. You can redline it on a race track, and people do that (with cars and bikes) that are otherwise 'street legal'.....but....oh, and the front brakes are so powerful you can easily do a stoppie (lifting the back wheel). That is a machine that if you don't treat it with great respect, it can easily kill you.
Death by trickle down? :)
Posted by: John Robinson | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 07:55 PM
I am currently purging excess gear - I'm done with GAS, regardless of new trickle down. There's only one significant thing in the X-Pro2 that I need over the X-Pro1. And even that (improved AF) isn't compelling enough to buy the X-Pro2 at the introductory price.
OK, I feel little teeny tiny GAS. But enough has already trickled down for me to stand pat.
Posted by: Earl Dunbar | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 08:11 PM
Honestly, I'm tempted to split my camera collection in two: A modern "point and shoot" for the times when it's all about content, rendering and technology be damned, and times when I want the unmistakable influence of the camera on the images. In other words maybe all I need is a good point and shoot and a medium format film body, which IMO has yet to be truly imitated by digital.
What's this all mean? I dunno. No suspect most of us never really needed anything new all along, and we've just been sucked into the marketing that's surrounded the transition to digital. Now that the market is mature it's becoming increasingly clear that we have what we need and we've had what we needed. Guess we'd better go take some photographs.
Posted by: BH | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 08:18 PM
I wouldn't call the new camera upgrades 'trickle down'. That impllies the recipients are getting the largely unwanted left overs of the high end product users. What we are seeing in cameras is the result of the high rate of technological and engineering advances. The changes are similar to, and related to, the comparable changes in the personal comouter. Remember the Arari and Commodore 64? Today you can hold literally thousands of times more capabillity in your hand for a similar or lesser price (tablets are cheap!), A Nikon D70 and D750 weren't/sren't that different in price (with inflation considered). But how much more you get for your dollar. There are multiple drivers for this rapid upgrading. Competition is a big part, especially with the cellphone camera here. The customer pool is smaller and pickier. Demand for more capability from high end users and specialty markets, which while small in volume give manufacturers more boasting points in new camera design also adds to the change. As for me, I don't worry about it, I just sit back and enjoy it.
Posted by: Richard Newman | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 08:31 PM
This is an interesting analogue, especially given the current political discourse about inequality in the USA and abroad, however much like your recent post "Change your head"' I think as far as photography goes its about the work and end product not the means. Whether you have unlimited cash for high end equipment, or not, doesn't matter that much as this is a great time to be a photodog...or enjoy alot of music.
Posted by: Jim R | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 08:34 PM
It's always been about the music, the destination*, and the picture—
never the sound system, the car, or the camera.
*Greyhound had a valid point, though...
Posted by: Dave in NM | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 08:54 PM
My Sony RX10ii camera is 95% of the image quality of my Nikon D750, in the real world of handheld, working photography. The revolution already came, they just haven't written the press release yet. I use the RX10ii for pro jobs that I would have used bigger DSLRs for only a year or two ago.
Posted by: kirk tuck | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 09:46 PM
"And, in that hothouse of development, how long will the market for high-end cameras hold out?"
For similar function, Smaller and more convenient always trumps bigger and less convenient Even when Bigger has a quality advantage.
To be sure, there will always be some folks who will pursue every quality advantage. But they are never the majority. This is especially true when the "good enough" option is truly sufficient.
I grew up shooting 8x10 Ektachrome in the studio, 4x5 for Tri-X & Hasselblad for People ( color or B&W) Nikon & a bit of Leica for 35mm.
MF Digital has replaced 8x10 , 4x5, and some 2 1/4
FF Digital has replaced the rest of 2 1/4 and all of 35mm
APS-c & m4/3 can both provide better technical quality than 35mm film and some 2 1/4 as well.
So sufficiency is covered. Most folks will choose the smallest lightest tool that does the job because the photograph is more important than the tool used to make it.
A smaler group who need super high speed, or super high resolution still choose a larger heavier tool.
But as you point out 'There's a whole lot of trickling going on".
As Apple has found out, all the money is in volume. Professionals are more trouble than they are worth (as customers). Likewise most Camera companies make money on non 'professional' cameras. They need volume.
There will always be a small market for ultimate quality so MF should be ok. But FF either has to get cheaper & lighter or it may get squeezed, especially as phones and more competition erode the sales volume that has always paid the bills.
Trickle trickle.........
Posted by: Michael Perini | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 10:09 PM
In the most part it's trickle up, though.
Most consumer goods technology now originates in and for the mass market which, despite the ridiculous, disproportionate wealth share of the uber rich, still dwarfs the market for rich persons' toys.
Posted by: Nigel | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 10:09 PM
Mike, you asked, "how long will the market for high-end cameras hold out?" I think you answered it above. "Status is really all that's left". There may be limited practical reason to have a super-expensive camera, but it will sure be nice to have. However, almost anyone in a Western society admires and recognizes that super cars mean lots of disposable income. But cameras? Most non-photographers don't understand. I recently retired from a research lab with about 150 scientists/engineers/ technicians. Many were young hires. I bet no more than 5 or 10 had even the slightest idea what my Leica M2 was.
Posted by: kodachromeguy | Tuesday, 01 March 2016 at 10:51 PM
There are now 24 MP APS-C cameras that will print 24x36" easily, with a good lens on them... That was 6x9 cm Velvia territory not long ago. Thursday morning, one of those cameras hits the shelves in a rangefinderesque design (yes, I know it's not a true mechanical rangefinder)with a gorgeous lens lineup.
So far, the problem with 24 MP APS-C has been that it has come either in low-end mirrorless bodies with lousy lens lineups (Sony A6000) or in DSLRs where the best lenses are full-frame and have odd focal length equivalents on APS-C. In many ways, the best argument for 24 MP full frame over APS-C has been the lenses, not the image quality. All but a few of the best Canon, Nikon and Sony lenses are full frame, and are either needlessly bulky on APS-C, have odd fields of view, or both (the exception is long telephotos, which are always big (whatever their format), and getting "longer" is generally seen as an advantage).
Fuji's X-Pro 2 will offer Texas Leica image quality in a package smaller than a usual Wetzlar Leica, with a lens line to match (top quality from 15 to 600 mm equivalent). No, it's not Micro 43 equaling medium format film, but it IS something not much bigger equaling medium format film (the sensors are already there, but held back by lenses much of the time).
If you prefer trim little film-era SLRs to rangefinders, Fuji will soon introduce an X-T2 "SLR lookalike" that looks more than a little like an old FM2 with a bit of a grip on it, takes the same gorgeous lenses designed for the sensor size and offers the same image quality plus 4k video.
If you're willing to put up with big lenses on your small body, there's every indication that the image quality of the Sony A7rII skips right past medium format to rival 4x5 film under many circumstances.
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 01:10 AM
It’s impossible to argue with Carl’s observation that, from a purely technical perspective, prints made from a Micro 4/3 camera are superior to those made from color negative film shot with a Hasselblad in the late ‘80s.
But the gestalt of photographing with a Hasselblad, which I used from the early to the late ‘80s, has never even been approached (let alone surpassed) by any other camera system, film or digital, that I’ve owned.
For anyone who believes that the physical activity of picture making can offer its own rewards, the progress afforded by digital technology is dubious indeed.
Posted by: Jonathon | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 05:50 AM
I'd just like to know where I can buy a 73 911 2.7RS, today, for $75,000 (in today's money)...
Posted by: roll,walter,roll | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 07:31 AM
"How long will the market for high-end cameras hold out?"
Probably about as long as the market for high-end cars. For how long will they be relevant is a much harder question to answer. There will always be a market for Leica M cameras even if Sony's or some other maker's cameras are demonstrably "better" than the Veblen goods.
When will normal guys like me finally ditch their bulky DSLRs? Probably quite soon as I do not need 14 fps with autofocus and I cannot see any other reason for buying a DSLR today, especially if I can use my lenses with full automation on a modern smaller body.
Posted by: Andrew Hughes | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 07:49 AM
Photographers do not make "Captures" they make photographs, digital has split photography into techi pixel people and photographers. As a pro photographer I worry about the image not the gear. Any camera I own will be used on manual setting which is why I now use Fuji to get an aperture ring, speed dial and ISO access without a menu selection.
Posted by: Glenn Brown | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 07:53 AM
I'm a personage now? ;~)
[You were always a personage. Now you're an august personage. --Mike]
Posted by: Thom Hogan | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 08:56 AM
So you're saying if I haven't purchased any serious audio gear in the last 20 years that I need to get some new stuff? Interesting ...
Posted by: dustin | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 11:29 AM
I think the gestalt is where Fuji has found their great success. They offer medium-format (and, with the X-Pro 2, probably the upper end of medium format) film image quality in a gorgeous little camera that is just plain pleasant to work with - they even offer a choice of "classic Leica" or "classic old Nikon".
Too many cameras today feel like you're taking a picture with a computer, and Fuji (Olympus as well) are fighting back against this. They offer the technical quality, but the experience in addition. One can argue whether the experience of Hasselblad, Leica or Nikon is preferable, but most photographers would prefer any of the three experiences to the menu-driven experience of so many cameras today. Note to any Fuji or Olympus designer reading this: consider a cubical camera that feels like a Hassy...
Posted by: Dan | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 12:05 PM
To anyone who has unwanted Hassleblads sat gathering dust - please sent them my way...I have a good home and a new life waiting :-)
But dam, those out of camera Fuji film simulation jpegs are very seductive!
Posted by: David Cope | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 01:36 PM
The only times I really feel I need my big heavy pro DSLR these days is in potentially dangerous to equipment environments or when REALLY big enlargements are required.
Last summer I fell down a cliff wall, yes I'm prone to such things ;), and my D700 only suffered a small dent. It functioned perfectly after the fall. Me not so much. I suspect my Panasonic m4/3 camera would have been reduced to small pieces.
For the most part when I'm not shooting film (gasp) my Panasonic GX7 does 90% of my work.
Posted by: Eric Rose | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 01:42 PM
The point eludes me.
Obvious answer to your last question: forever. Example, I give you the Alpa body you referred to a couple of weeks ago, a machined slab of aluminium(?) priced at ~2500.
Posted by: Dennis | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 02:18 PM
This just goes to show that sound equipment is as boring now as it was in the 70s...zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: Dennis | Wednesday, 02 March 2016 at 03:09 PM
There is another type of trickle down that applies for Porsche cars. The classic aircooled 911 may have gone up in price but good second hand versions of the first water cooled cars (996 model number) can be had for reasonable money now. Even better for the fiscally challenged are the early Boxsters. A good early 986 can be had in the UK for as little as £5,000. Just think about that, a 200+ bhp car with the correct wheels driven and the engine in the very best place. You even get two boots and a soft-top for when the sun shines.
[Not so here. I just checked eBay motors, and there are a few in the $12-15k range, but most are $20-40k (£14-28k) and some more exotic things are $50k and more. Oh well, I always said if you guys didn't drive on the wrong side of the road I would probably already have moved to Britain by now. As it is I would be killed as a pedestrian, never mind driving. --Mike]
Posted by: Phil Cook | Thursday, 03 March 2016 at 04:45 PM