Richard's Thoughts on 2025

neuroanatomist said:

Not a direct answer, but there was a recent blog post reporting on a 2024 survey of 500 professional photographers (the majority were wedding photographers), and this was one question:

View attachment 221291

Click to expand...

If we assume average spending is in the midpoint for all groups except for the >$5000 group which I assume spent $7500, the revenue numbers proportionally are:


So proportionally even though the > $5k group is the smallest numerically, companies probably have an outsized contribution from the "big spenders" group in terms of revenue.

No surprise that companies are chasing the higher end -- fewer customers to deal with, lots of revenue to be had.

frankchn said:

If we assume average spending is in the midpoint for all groups except for the >$5000 group which I assume spent $7500, the revenue numbers proportionally are:

Group	% of Revenue Contribution
< $500 ($250 avg)	3.92
$500 - $1000 ($750 avg)	17.49
$1000 - $2500 ($1750 avg)	28.21
$2500 - $5000 ($3750 avg)	23.37
> $5000 ($7500 avg)	27.01

So proportionally even though the > $5k group is the smallest numerically, companies probably have an outsized contribution from the "big spenders" group in terms of revenue.

No surprise that companies are chasing the higher end -- fewer customers to deal with, lots of revenue to be had.

Click to expand...

It get's even more pronouced when you consider that the margin on the more expesive products is higher, which means the >$5000 pricepoint is generating the an even larger share of profit.

Camera sales used to be over 120M but primarily due to point and shoots that got wiped out due to smartphones. They dropped down to 8M before covid and just under 8M in 2023. In 2024 it looks like they'll be above 8M again. Point and shoots have seen a resurgence but that is due to higher end models like the $1600 Fuji X100VI. I'd also add that on a regional basis America, Euorpe and Japan collectively are up 4% while China is up 24%.

So we all live in markets where camera sales are increasing slightly albeit from historical lows and after years of resticted supply. It's clear the camera manufacturers will need to go from a high volume/low margin strategy to low volume/high margin one.

The industry is moving away from the hobbyist and toward the people who can use these cameras to make money and therfore justify the additional cost.

CJaurelius said:

The industry is moving away from the hobbyist and toward the people who can use these cameras to make money and therfore justify the additional cost.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think the industry is moving toward people who don’t need to justify the cost of expensive gear.

Generally speaking, photography is not a lucrative occupation. That’s easily seen from not only the typical annual gear spend above, but from sources like the US BLS that indicates the overall median income is $41K/yr, with the median income of the highest paid group (arts/entertainment) being $75K/yr. Even those are likely overestimates, since they assume full-time work and many photographers are far short of that. Obviously that’s the net profit for self-employed photographers, not the top line revenue, but revenues that can only support those incomes aren’t those that enable spending several thousand a year on gear.

On the other hand, the stereotypical doctor, dentist or lawyer with a photography hobby can afford expensive gear with no need to justify it from a return-on-investment standpoint.

As a completely anecdotal data point, my average annual spend on photo gear (just cameras and lenses, not little stuff like filters, memory cards, RRS plates/feet, etc.) has been >$10K/yr for the past four years.

neuroanatomist said:

I disagree. I think the industry is moving toward people who don’t need to justify the cost of expensive gear.

Generally speaking, photography is not a lucrative occupation. […]

Click to expand...

From the photographers that lead workshops I participated in, none of them could live from their actual images, wildlife and landscape is hard to monetize.
Their income streams in descending order of size:

1. Renting out hides
2. Photo tours, mostly to Africa
3. Workshops
4. Their actual pictures
5. Consulting for photography TV shows, e.g. being a juror

I’m curious about how many people that identify themselves as photographers need different income streams to support their passion, I imagine that “fashion photography” is only lucrative to a handful of people worldwide.

neuroanatomist said:

I disagree. I think the industry is moving toward people who don’t need to justify the cost of expensive gear.

Generally speaking, photography is not a lucrative occupation. That’s easily seen from not only the typical annual gear spend above, but from sources like the US BLS that indicates the overall median income is $41K/yr, with the median income of the highest paid group (arts/entertainment) being $75K/yr. Even those are likely overestimates, since they assume full-time work and many photographers are far short of that. Obviously that’s the net profit for self-employed photographers, not the top line revenue, but revenues that can only support those incomes aren’t those that enable spending several thousand a year on gear...

Click to expand...

Can't remember the youtuber to give credit to, but one said (paraphrasing), "If you are a talented photographer, and you work hard, long hours, and you are a people person, you can make hundreds and hundreds of dollars a year."

neuroanatomist said:

I disagree. I think the industry is moving toward people who don’t need to justify the cost of expensive gear.

Click to expand...

I agree, but I'd argue it was always the case that most people didn't need to justify the cost because photography was a hobby. Certainly for P&S and most Rebels, those were bought by everyday people. The justification was great pictures.

Phrasing it differently, I would say photography enthusiasts have been forced upmarket. At the low end there isn't much a smartphone can't do, so you want bigger and better gear to see a difference.

neuroanatomist said:

As a completely anecdotal data point, my average annual spend on photo gear (just cameras and lenses, not little stuff like filters, memory cards, RRS plates/feet, etc.) has been >$10K/yr for the past four years.

Click to expand...

Dare I say it but I think you're probably an extreme outlier. Participating in this rumors forum as actively as you and buying almost every lens available is something very few people do.

Not saying the spend is outragiously high or judging in any way - some people spend a lot more on their hobbies (boats, planes, cars, etc) - but I do get the impression that there's not a lot of gear you don't have

vikingar said:

Dare I say it but I think you're probably an extreme outlier. Participating in this rumors forum as actively as you and buying almost every lens available is something very few people do.

Not saying the spend is outragiously high or judging in any way - some people spend a lot more on their hobbies (boats, planes, cars, etc) - but I do get the impression that there's not a lot of gear you don't have

Click to expand...

I’m well aware that I’m far from representative. Let’s just say there’s not really any camera gear that I really want but don’t have, with the proviso that I’m talking about gear that’s actually available to purchase (e.g, not the non-existent TS-R 14mm, and maybe its unnamed siblings).

neuroanatomist said:

Obviously that’s the net profit for self-employed photographers, not the top line revenue, but revenues that can only support those incomes aren’t those that enable spending several thousand a year on gear.

Click to expand...

Also, a lot of (even quite high-end) commercial photographers just don’t need to upgrade their gear that often. The Tin House Studio YouTube channel has some interesting perspectives on that: the guy who runs it is a high-end commercial photographer in the UK and, while he has a very complicated Cambo technical camera now, shot images for worldwide ad campaigns for years with a pair of second hand 5Diis…

alFR said:

Also, a lot of (even quite high-end) commercial photographers just don’t need to upgrade their gear that often. The Tin House Studio YouTube channel has some interesting perspectives on that: the guy who runs it is a high-end commercial photographer in the UK and, while he has a very complicated Cambo technical camera now, shot images for worldwide ad campaigns for years with a pair of second hand 5Diis…

Click to expand...

Completely agree. A friend and local portrait/event photographer I know uses a pair of 5DIII bodies. Just one more reason Canon is likely more focused on agencies and affluent amateurs than typical ‘pro photographers’. Also, being a ‘pro photographer’ is just one of her 3-4 jobs.

koenkooi said:

From the photographers that lead workshops I participated in, none of them could live from their actual images, wildlife and landscape is hard to monetize.
Their income streams in descending order of size:

1. Renting out hides
2. Photo tours, mostly to Africa
3. Workshops
4. Their actual pictures
5. Consulting for photography TV shows, e.g. being a juror

I’m curious about how many people that identify themselves as photographers need different income streams to support their passion, I imagine that “fashion photography” is only lucrative to a handful of people worldwide.

Click to expand...

I agree... but the workshop leaders still need to show their examples of high quality images and processing techniques before they could sell any workshops. They may make some money from the images but they are mostly for advertising of their image-producing skills.
Frankly, there aren't a huge quantity of people in this segment... <20 for Australia for instance.

On a previous workshop on a long drive between shooting locations, my passenger and I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and a good leader/owner could make >USD500k dollars a year net conservatively accounting for all costs.
As the tours were worldwide and they didn't actually have a house to go back to, they could choose their tax jurisdiction for their company.
They were even starting to outsource themselves to tour leaders working for them so making the business one step away from the coal face. They always had a "local guide" in any case doing the logistics leaving the marketing etc to the leader.

With the small group/high cost workshops, they get a lot of return participants who are high net-worth individuals. Cash cow after a certain point of time.

vikingar said:

I agree, but I'd argue it was always the case that most people didn't need to justify the cost because photography was a hobby. Certainly for P&S and most Rebels, those were bought by everyday people. The justification was great pictures.
Phrasing it differently, I would say photography enthusiasts have been forced upmarket. At the low end there isn't much a smartphone can't do, so you want bigger and better gear to see a difference.

Click to expand...

I was all for using the best tool on you at the time and current camera phones are remarkable compared to the past.

The processing and instant sharing can't be beat but the image quality is still a severe limitation. I combined a bunch of iphone 15/16 images with my RP/R5 images to process at the same time and the difference could not be more stark and very visible even at small social media sizes.
Maybe we are going full circle similar to audio tape to CD (high) to mp3 players (low but portable) to streaming low quality to now high quality AAC streaming.

neuroanatomist said:

I disagree. I think the industry is moving toward people who don’t need to justify the cost of expensive gear.
Generally speaking, photography is not a lucrative occupation. That’s easily seen from not only the typical annual gear spend above, but from sources like the US BLS that indicates the overall median income is $41K/yr, with the median income of the highest paid group (arts/entertainment) being $75K/yr. Even those are likely overestimates, since they assume full-time work and many photographers are far short of that. Obviously that’s the net profit for self-employed photographers, not the top line revenue, but revenues that can only support those incomes aren’t those that enable spending several thousand a year on gear.

Click to expand...

I think that weddings are the main genre still generating reasonable income as couples are still prepared to shell out some big dollars and there are a reasonable volume per year. Stressful and a lot of work pre-post the event. It would be interesting to see what the hourly rate would work out to be.

There are still differences between developed and developing countries though. The dollar level for equipment would be commensurate with the local revenue. Lower revenues in developing countries can still be comparatively wealthy locally.
A very commercial decision for what equipment they woud buy and be profitable from. Choosing a RF28-70/2 vs 24-70/2.8 or 24-105/2.8 vs 24-105/4 vs 24-105/4-7.1 vs second hand EF lenses.

neuroanatomist said:

On the other hand, the stereotypical doctor, dentist or lawyer with a photography hobby can afford expensive gear with no need to justify it from a return-on-investment standpoint.
As a completely anecdotal data point, my average annual spend on photo gear (just cameras and lenses, not little stuff like filters, memory cards, RRS plates/feet, etc.) has been >$10K/yr for the past four years.

Click to expand...

Canon are in multiple segments but I agree that their most profitable buyers are the cashed up prosumers.
Your spend has got me thinking but then I don't want to look closely at the numbers for me! I will offset it by saying that I have sold everything I don't "need". Just one lens still waiting for a buyer now.

David - Sydney said:

On a previous workshop on a long drive between shooting locations, my passenger and I did some back-of-the-envelope calculations and a good leader/owner could make >USD500k dollars a year net conservatively accounting for all costs.

Click to expand...

Might be something to consider when I retire and can afford to live off a lower income.

koenkooi said:

I’m curious about how many people that identify themselves as photographers need different income streams to support their passion, I imagine that “fashion photography” is only lucrative to a handful of people worldwide.

Click to expand...

That'd be correct... very few fashion photographers make a living out of it, even less now that most of the big mags have disappeared.
I know a great photographer - she shoots big name models for big name brands and big name mags (think Vogue, Bazaar, etc.). She used to use a Hassy MF, but had to "downgrade" to a 5D mkIV a few years ago. When she is using MF now is because Phaseone sponsors her.

Like @neuroanatomist wrote, I believe that the well-off hobbyist client is not a segment that can be ignored.

Having said that, fashion photography is not a gear-first type of photography. The quality of the team, of the clothes and of the location matters much more than the type of camera being used. Even if we look at gear specifically I would argue that the lightning equipment matters more than the lenses that matter more than the camera

David - Sydney said:

I agree... but the workshop leaders still need to show their examples of high quality images and processing techniques before they could sell any workshops. They may make some money from the images but they are mostly for advertising of their image-producing skills.
Frankly, there aren't a huge quantity of people in this segment... <20 for Australia for instance.

Click to expand...

Another advantage is that the people running these workshops generally have a bit of spare time to shoot for themselves whilst they are there... in locations and times that they are being paid to be in. ie opportunities to generate good images for competitions and advertising.

They can also do reconnaissance trips that would be tax deductible for future workshops!

dennishensphoto said:

I'm still hoping for an R9 Small FF body without the viewfinder bump, no potential news on this?
This would be an ideal travel setup with the rf 28, 50, etc

Click to expand...

I'd also love it! Ideaally built, placed, and priced similar to Nikon Zf but in Rangefinder style.

Canon will learn from its unimaginable mistake with the Canon EOS R100 and include a touchscreen

Click to expand...

I never cared about "rebel style" cameras and didn't bother checking R100. It's a surprise to me such a camera is designed without a touch screen.

I think the demographic here skews to the older side. When you read articles about the big camera expos the executives from the companies clearly identify video and "content creators" as the future. And here people are talking about BLS data for photographers. None of the people I know under 40 are fashion or wildlife photographers nor are they looking to be one.

The vast majority of the people I see with expensive camera gear are making photo/video content for primarily for social media and websites or for their own Youtube channels. Sure Tool might shoot wildlife photos occasionally but to call him a photographer is pushing it. He makes his money off of his Youtube channel.

I can post thousands of Youtube channels of 20 -30 year olds with tens of thousands of dollars of camera gear. Young people are doing podcast where they have three $4000 cameras set up to record from multiple angles. Hobbyist aren't buying an A cam and two B cam's with the sensor so they match easily when colorgrading their footage.

Open most people's Instagram and you'll see it's endless scrolling of video and it was built originally for just photos. There are countless business advertising to customers and they need viral "content" that resonates.

Nikkei did a study on the household penetration rate of cameras last year and it is still declining.




So you have fewer houeholds with cameras even though sales have started to go up. It's clear regular people continue to need cameras less and less and they are increasing sales and revenue by selling more expensive cameras to the same people over and over, which is most likely people making money off them and not hobbyist.

Again when the R1 and A1II were announced the hobbyist complained meanwhile the professionals are lining up to buy them and the A1II is essentially the exact same camera with a better body, precapture and an AI autofocus chip. To a hobbyist they will produce the exact same picture/video. Why do you think Sony limits 3rd party lenses to the 15fps? Because it's clear hobbyist don't need to shoot 30 fps and aren't paying $4300 for a camera like the R5mii and a $2300 lens.

If you're not making money there isn't much reason to upgrade from the R5 to the R5mii. But if your making a living off of your content the price to upgrade is well worth the price of admission.

CJaurelius said:

And here people are talking about BLS data for photographers. None of the people I know under 40 are fashion or wildlife photographers nor are they looking to be one.

The vast majority of the people I see...

Click to expand...

A government aggregation of data for the largest economy in the world is of less significance than 'the vast majority of people [you personally] see'? Sure, good luck with that. It's cute that you've convinced yourself that your observations are universally applicable.

CJaurelius said:

Again when the R1 and A1II were announced the hobbyist complained meanwhile the professionals are lining up to buy them and the A1II is essentially the exact same camera with a better body, precapture and an AI autofocus chip.

Click to expand...

The complaints are primarily from some of those YouTubers you think are so important. Wait, let me guess...you have the full demographic information on who is buying the R1 and A1III...probably your YouTuber friends told you all about it.

CJaurelius said:

I think the demographic here skews to the older side. When you read articles about the big camera expos the executives from the companies clearly identify video and "content creators" as the future. And here people are talking about BLS data for photographers. None of the people I know under 40 are fashion or wildlife photographers nor are they looking to be one.

The vast majority of the people I see with expensive camera gear are making photo/video content for primarily for social media and websites or for their own Youtube channels. Sure Tool might shoot wildlife photos occasionally but to call him a photographer is pushing it. He makes his money off of his Youtube channel.

Click to expand...

There is no doubt that Canon etc are focused on hybrid cameras and they don't show up as dedicated video cameras. Phones are good for video in good light and used for a lot of content. The question is what their next purchase is to improve their content quality. Video is getting more eyeballs whether tiktok or instagram.

I have the impression that the Powershot V10 just hasn't had the cut through that as it should have. Not sure if it is the unusual form factor or not.

I believe that Canon should have a G series powershot and/or R200 with no EFV which has good thermal controls to address this market.
I've used some Sony lowish end gear and they just overheat for streaming where there isn't good air conditioning which is really annoying.