Dear Mr. Leach,
I too read the blogger to whom you refer. In your editorial comment, I feel that you downplay many of his observations.
1) It is my understanding (from his posts) that only Nikon and
Canon's camera divisions are profitable. While there is a proliferation of wonderful products from sources such as Panasonic, Fuji, Olympus and others, they aren't making any money.
2) Micro 4/3 equipment is clearly delightful and evolving rapidly, but the blogger points out that it is fairly listless in our marketplace and isn't making anyone money. (I bit for a similar Nikon V1 purchased at fire-sale prices that didn't help anybody because I didn't want to haul around a bunch of stuff and it is surprisingly "good enough.")
2) Economic downturn is less and less of a justification for slumping sales. If you haven't noticed, the stock markets are at record highs. Many of us who can rationalize the purchase of quite expensive equipment have enjoyed a "dividend" from that change over the last couple years. My daughter, a successful fine artist, has gone from a real slump to the best year of her career--her mildly affluent clientele is loosening up their purse strings. I recognize that that is anecdotal, but I believe that those who can and will purchase or upgrade DSLRs have few and diminishing incentives to do so.
As far as user input is concerned, over the years we have moved on to auto-focus and auto-exposure. Less user input has worked fine--ask a sports photographer if he would like to go back to manual focus. For my part I do some very satisfying work with MF digital using the exposure algorithms built in by the engineers.
My rationale for slowing DSLR sales is this: For nearly everyone they are already "good enough." The product is quite mature and now only promises incremental improvements. Few such changes warrant upgrading except for professionals. The money would be better spent taking some composition classes at an art college.
The bottom of the market is indeed being cannibalized by smart phones. Give them another generation or two and they will become astonishingly good for most users.
The fallback position can't be that interchangeable lenses are a defining distinction. Integral zoom lenses get better by the day. Who needs to carry around a lot of kit unless they are going on safari?
My point may be this: your amusement might be distracting you from identifying personal complacency. The blogger whom you challenge doesn't seem to be a gladfly. Rather, he frequently points out the challenges to legacy manufacturers of a rapidly changing marketplace, goading Nikon in particular to get its act together on customer relations. The greatest concern is to whether or not there are enough serious photographers to support quality product lines. Medium-format film camera manufacturers were surely eaten by the marketplace. Much as we like the legacy producers, they will be strained to evolve if they are to survive.
Best,
Michael Stockhill
Polson, MT