As usual when I post information that is more industry analysis than photographic technique (see next article), I get the complaints about "why does it matter?"
It matters, for sure.
Let's rewind back to the 90's, when the same exact thing was happening to the camera industry. Film SLRs and compact cameras were in decline (and some companies introduced "bridge" cameras thinking that was the solution). Why? Because instant photography and disposable cameras were where all the picture-taking volume was. Customers began buying convenience at lowest cost. The same thing is true today of digital: smartphones are the same disruptor that disposable cameras were, and we're seeing the same buying pattern happen, just as I predicted almost eight years ago.
So let's say it's 1998 and you're not completely satisfied with your current gear. There's something missing that's holding back some aspect of your photography. Maybe it's a lens, maybe it's a wireless remote, maybe it's a camera feature you really want that you'll think will help your work. So, do you buy a new Canon, Minolta, Nikon, Olympus, or Pentax? Canon had most of the market and was filling gaps in their lineup. Nikon had the second biggest chunk, and was mostly filling the gaps in their lineup, though they had a digital ace up their sleeve. Minolta and Pentax were slowing development and had significant holes in their lineups. Olympus started abandoning one thing (SLRs) and pursuing another (bridge cameras).
Don't think that those decisions by the camera makers were being made lightly. They all wanted to survive, and they picked different strategies for how they thought they'd do so. Not all of them picked well. The same will be true this round.
We're at a stage in digital where supremely competent gear is already available. If we were to freeze all camera and lens development today and introduce no new products ever again, what would you do? A lot of you reading this--in fact, I'd guess that most of you reading this--are serial acquisition junkies. The next camera, the next lens, the next feature, the next technique you acquire will take you to the next level. Perhaps. I thought I was a pretty good photographer ten years ago, but better gear has forced me to work hard to be even better, so I'd have to consider myself a serial acquisition junkie, too.
So what would I pick if all future cameras and lenses were canceled? Pretty much what you see at the bottom of the column on the right. But I wouldn't be 100% happy, because cameras and lenses still aren't quite what I really want. To get better, I'd really have to work harder on my focusing, for instance. There are issues with all those cameras in the focus area (though the recent firmware update on the D4 certainly made a tangible change for tracking focus).
So I challenge you to this little game: you can't buy anything photographic ever that doesn't exist today. Do you just stay with what you have, or do you shuffle your gear to a different set? Why? If you can answer that question you start to see where you think you need more help from the tool, rather than just more practice with the tool. That's actually a technique pointer, folks, though I got there through the back door, not the front. Knowing when the tool is doing the heavy lifting and when you have to is a first step towards getting better photographs.
Seriously, try the experiment. No new photography gear will ever be made; you're limited only to what exists today. Do you have the right tools already or not? If you do have the right stuff, great, just go out and photograph, and don't worry about new gear unless something comes along that will substantially alter what you can do. Put all your time and energy into "being there" and using better discipline and technique. In other words, travel and workshops and practice.
But this is where things get interesting: there are groups of photographers who are waiting for something. Their tools aren't completely optimal. I tend to put the DX wildlife photographers in that category, but there are plenty of other subsets where people will say they've still got gear gaps. It's amazing how many of those turn up in the crop sensor DSLR realm, which is one reason why I've been harping on that subject so much lately: are the crop DSLR makers really going to let the DSLR era go away without filling in all the gaps and possible sales they could have made? Apparently.
This, too, impacts trying to teach or write about technique. Basically, for me to help those folk struggling with the gaps, I can either: (a) try to come up with ways to learn to live with the gap; or (b) suggest where they go next where there's less of a gap to impede them. If you've been paying close attention, I've been spending time on both my sites doing just that. I must do much more, certainly, but I haven't missed that need. But I also needed to explain how we got to that spot and why I'm doing what I am.
For now, you have homework: try my little experiment and see what you come up with. Working from home, the office, the studio, or a vehicle, I'd be using the D800/D4 combo and the set of lenses I already have. Wandering out into the backcountry, I'd be using the D800 or the OM-D E-M5 with my current lens set, and which I'd use would depend upon how far I was getting from the trailhead and how tough the trail was. And my RX-100 would be in my pocket most of the time. In other words, given what's available out there today, I have what I need, and can simply spend my time photographing and working on improving my technique with what I've got. Are you in that same place? And if not, why not?
Coming next: what would frustrate me if I had to work with my current gear forever. That'll help us figure out where I need to spend my technique time.