Luminous Landscape Forum

Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: jjj on February 24, 2014, 07:34:01 pm

Title: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 24, 2014, 07:34:01 pm
Spot on essay Michael.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article
Post by: BJL on February 24, 2014, 08:48:00 pm
Nice summary.

I will just make one small defense of Pentax, which is that it shares something with Fujifilm and Olympus: having no larger format to which it wants to steer upgrading customers, Pentax takes its APS-C format model line and lens offerings to a higher level than Canon, Nikon and Sony have been doing lately. That appeals to people like me who seek a good yet small system.  If I were still interested in having a DSLR, Pentax would probably be my choice. (I am not persuaded by yet another round of rumors of Pentax returning to 35mm format; if I were, I would fear for the future development of its DA format offerings.)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: uaiomex on February 24, 2014, 09:12:22 pm
Congratulations Mike. Amazing reading depicting the state of the industry. Your rant posseses pizzaz and "cojones" too. I could not find any fault in the philosophical aspect of the article either. BTW, I always thought that Kodak was another major developer of the original Four-Thirds project.

Muchas felicidades again
Eduardo
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: mjrichardson on February 25, 2014, 01:42:13 am
Morning.

I think it's interesting how we all look at things differently, reading your piece it comes across as just unnecessary moaning, a bit like a spoilt child. We live in fantastic times photographically, there are blisteringly fast cameras, high resolution cameras, models to fit every budget from low to high and I honestly feel that if you can't make beautiful images with the technology available today then it's probably necessary to look a little closer to home. The very first thing I thought after reading the piece was "a bad workman blames his tools". I also think that just because something doesn't suit you personally, it doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to lots of other people who will use, enjoy and produce stunning images with it.

When I look at my crappy pictures, they are down to me not the placement of dials or the menu structure or the design ethos or wifi or gps. I am always amazed at what's new, faster, lighter, smaller, I appreciate the effort that goes in to developing new things and I also appreciate that we all like and need different things.

Cheers

Mat



Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: peterottaway on February 25, 2014, 02:02:53 am
Yes some people will say that Sony has lens mounts, it would be misleading but it all depends on your perspective. There is the A mount and there is the E mount and the E mount cameras can use both families of lenses.

When you look say at Nikon ,they have as well as the 1 series, Ai-s, Ai-P, AF, AF-D and AF-S and in terms of sales most Nikon cameras cannot use quite a few of those families of lenses.

It is true to say that Sony in the first few years post Minolta were wandering around looking for a genuine path of their own to follow. But it is also true to say that some elements of what Sony appears to be doing now were not available to them until the last couple of years. Again it is in the interpretation and where you start from.

A lot of people had a good laugh when Canon came out and said that they don't do retro cameras.You can consider Canon to be in Ground Hog day 1989.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: David Anderson on February 25, 2014, 03:28:56 am
I thought it a good and timely read with the perfect title.

You do have to wonder sometimes if there's a link missing between photographer and camera manufacturer.

Then again, if you let a photographer design a camera you would probably end up with the car built for Homer.. ;)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: David Watson on February 25, 2014, 03:47:17 am
Excellent essay Michael and may I say back at a level one notch above recent articles in LuLa.

If I was a camera manufacturer I would be terrified every day that someone else, someone new, or some company in another sector was going to do something that would move the market (e.g. Apple and Nokia).  You cannot blame these companies for trying new things but, as Michael correctly points out, they can be blamed for not trying.

Well done Michael!
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 25, 2014, 04:55:06 am
Morning.

I think it's interesting how we all look at things differently, reading your piece it comes across as just unnecessary moaning, a bit like a spoilt child. We live in fantastic times photographically, there are blisteringly fast cameras, high resolution cameras, models to fit every budget from low to high and I honestly feel that if you can't make beautiful images with the technology available today then it's probably necessary to look a little closer to home. The very first thing I thought after reading the piece was "a bad workman blames his tools". I also think that just because something doesn't suit you personally, it doesn't mean it doesn't appeal to lots of other people who will use, enjoy and produce stunning images with it.

When I look at my crappy pictures, they are down to me not the placement of dials or the menu structure or the design ethos or wifi or gps. I am always amazed at what's new, faster, lighter, smaller, I appreciate the effort that goes in to developing new things and I also appreciate that we all like and need different things.

Cheers

Mat

Eh?  Did we read the same article?  I don't see any moaning.  Michael was giving his opinion on the current directions the major players in the camera industry are going.  And I really don't think the analogy with "bad workmen blaming their tools" comes into it.  Quite the reverse, Michael - if you have bothered to read many of his previous reviews and essays - is of the opinion that image quality is pretty much a given these days.  But it is the design and ease of use that defines the choice and success of gear.  Michael used whatever he pleases to suit the task in hand, and is in the possibly fortunate position of being able to play with most of the worthwhile cameras in current production.  In fact it is precisely because such "fantastic times photographically" are here that it is worth seeing perhaps where certain manufacturers may be going wrong in their implementation of technology.
We don't want Canon or Nikon to stop making cameras because they missed the boat in looking at new formats.  Michael doesn't want Hasselblad going down the pan because they wasted money on ridiculous niche jewellery.

Yes, we all like different things, I don't think Michael is denying that.  But he's wondering why manufacturers, despite their huge resources, go down a cul-de-sac in design terms.  Did Sony really mean to end up with four lens mounts?  They have obviously made a mistake in planning/foresight somewhere, but it is not being argued they don't make superb cameras.

I'm not sure why you have such a negative take on the article when everything stated is probably fairly accurate and in any case just MR's opinion.  Write your own piece, or instead of being so negative write a reply that states specifically why you think say Sony or Nikon has got it exactly right, and provide some evidence to counter Michael's point of view.

Lastly, I hope you are a very talented photographer because to accuse MR of being a 'Bad Workman' shows that you do not believe in getting or showing evidence before making strong statements.  Michael is the founder of this site and he is perfectly entitled to write an opinion piece about the current state of the industry as he sees it.

Jim
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Rob C on February 25, 2014, 05:15:53 am
Yes, I enjoyed reading the article too.

I guess that a problem, when making an overview, is that it sort of removes the myopia that living within a single company forces one to have. It's easy enough to figure out where different people go wrong, but not so simple to understand the reasons why the specific and damaging decisions get made.

There's also the belief that everyone concerned with each company has that company's best interests at heart: it isn't always so. In my own experience, a very expensive one for me, it's also true that new brooms come in and want to make their mark. In my case, a new guy was put in charge of a calendar production (I'd already produced about six of them for this company) and his first act was to preclude my hiring the best models for the shoot from London agencies. Instead, he insisted on dredging what he could from the tiny, inexperienced local Scottish pool, saying that I could work harder and do just as well... it doesn't work like that (and this wasn't a finance-driven decision: it was about local politics and personal ego). Trouble is, when it doesn't work out, the guilt refuses to stick where it should. I'd be surprised to learn that such in-fighting is confined to the northern parts of the British Isles.

A similar problem to cameras exists to some extent in the car business, where a plethora of models makes little sense when they are all based on the same body. American cars did that for decades and so did some Brits. The Rootes Group did that with what I think was called the Arrow range, where the Hillman Minx, the Hunter and also the Humber Sceptre were all the same basic car with different luxury fittings (or lack of them). I worked my way through all of them, and the incremental advantages were daft: all that was needed was the bottom line Minx and the top of the marque Sceptre. I can't believe that a huge range doesn't just create added manufacturing problems.

Okay, photography is different, but it shouldn't be forgotten that for many years we had all the camera options that we ever needed in order to tackle all manner of images that we were ever likely to want to make. If anything, I suspect that the current offerings don't stretch the boundaries very far, if at all. The mistake, in my view, has been in not concentrating in making sensors the new film, instead of trying to make the whole established camera thing obsolete too in order to sell new formats and body shapes. That appears to be the problem with the 'retro' cameras: they are not, they are just stylistic shape-tokens and the same modern ideas of what's necessary are continued apace. Give me an F or F2 with a sensor and the same manual controls in the same body and why need to ask for more? That somebody might have to learn something about photography to be a photographer was never a bad thing; if anything, it was a mark of individual learning and progression, rewarding per se.

But hell, what's the point? The roller coaster continues until it stops and we all have to get off.

Rob C
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 25, 2014, 06:39:12 am
You do have to wonder sometimes if there's a link missing between photographer and camera manufacturer.

Then again, if you let a photographer design a camera you would probably end up with the car built for Homer.. ;)
I always thought Olympus's OM camera were particularly well designed and  Yoshihisa Maitani the gifted designer behind Olympus very ergonomic cameras was also a keen  photographer. And it showed.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: kaelaria on February 25, 2014, 07:45:15 am
Dude...AWESOME article, way to say what needs to be said!
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: mjrichardson on February 25, 2014, 08:11:28 am
Eh?  Did we read the same article?  I don't see any moaning.  Michael was giving his opinion on the current directions the major players in the camera industry are going.  And I really don't think the analogy with "bad workmen blaming their tools" comes into it.  Quite the reverse, Michael - if you have bothered to read many of his previous reviews and essays - is of the opinion that image quality is pretty much a given these days.  But it is the design and ease of use that defines the choice and success of gear.  Michael used whatever he pleases to suit the task in hand, and is in the possibly fortunate position of being able to play with most of the worthwhile cameras in current production.  In fact it is precisely because such "fantastic times photographically" are here that it is worth seeing perhaps where certain manufacturers may be going wrong in their implementation of technology.
We don't want Canon or Nikon to stop making cameras because they missed the boat in looking at new formats.  Michael doesn't want Hasselblad going down the pan because they wasted money on ridiculous niche jewellery.

Yes, we all like different things, I don't think Michael is denying that.  But he's wondering why manufacturers, despite their huge resources, go down a cul-de-sac in design terms.  Did Sony really mean to end up with four lens mounts?  They have obviously made a mistake in planning/foresight somewhere, but it is not being argued they don't make superb cameras.

I'm not sure why you have such a negative take on the article when everything stated is probably fairly accurate and in any case just MR's opinion.  Write your own piece, or instead of being so negative write a reply that states specifically why you think say Sony or Nikon has got it exactly right, and provide some evidence to counter Michael's point of view.

Lastly, I hope you are a very talented photographer because to accuse MR of being a 'Bad Workman' shows that you do not believe in getting or showing evidence before making strong statements.  Michael is the founder of this site and he is perfectly entitled to write an opinion piece about the current state of the industry as he sees it.

Jim

Hi Jim

Yes, I believe we read the same article, well at least I think we did! I didn't read anything positive at all in the piece, it was just a pointless rant.

As technology develops then things change, are you or Michael suggesting that Sony or Nikon or whoever should stick with the plan they made x number of years ago and regardless of what happens not deviate? New lens mounts for example must reflect new technological advancements, to say it is a negative that Sony have 4 lens mounts is absurd, if they just dropped anything other than the latest then there'd be an outcry from people who have invested in those earlier mounts. Should we complain because they are keeping all these different mounts? It would seem logical to applaud the fact that they are making advances but not forgetting those who have already invested. Who cares anyway, if they build another 10 mounts buy what suits you and that's that, Sony having loads of options won't change the images you produce with the option you choose.

The Hasselblad thing is ridiculous in my opinion, they are a business with share holders and bank balances, if there was a sufficient market for MF then there wouldn't be a need to diversify, so these new models are just overpriced, rebadged Sony's, who cares, if they sell a load to rich Chinese amateurs what does that matter to the owners or users of V or H bodies, none. The H5 is a superb camera but it would be daft to suggest it's any more perfect than any other camera, to some it will be excellent, to others it will be rubbish, it always was and always will be. I could certainly understand if they dropped MF all together but they haven't, they are still making lenses, still making cameras and pros are still using them to make incredible images.

My point about bad workmen blaming his tools is simple, the additions demanded by the consumer, better this, more that, it's all just fluff, superb and inspiring images can be made on anything, inversely, so can a load of rubbish. I don't believe my level of photography has anything to do with it, as an enthusiastic photographer I look for and see lots of inspiring images, incredible scenery, fantastic light, I have no interest in what camera was used because I don't think that I could produce the same just by owning the same equipment. I appreciate Michael is the founder of the site but on stunning inspirational images, I don't class Michael as a top photographer, I also don't class myself as one either! Running a successful site doesn't automatically translate in to being an inspirational photographer but that's my opinion, to some he could be the best ever. For me personally, I am more interested in where a shot was taken, what efforts were made to get it. I have sold images and never once had someone say, ah, I'd have bought that if only you'd have taken it with this camera or that camera, it's the shot that counts.

And so back to the article, it doesn't mean anything, doesn't push things forward, doesn't celebrate the technology we have, it's just a pointless rant. In fact I think it's funny that in the article the DF after all the negatives is saved by the great sensor, surely the images it produces are far more important than difficulty with locking and unlocking dials? Do you think that the bosses of Nikon, Canon and Sony are all sitting with their heads in their hands after reading it and saying guys, we've got it wrong, delete everything and lets start again? No of course not, it's Michaels opinion and he is in a privileged position in that he can write it and get a lot of coverage, it's a shame that he's not using that position to push things forward rather than simply rant about what's wrong. Obviously this is all my opinion, as valid as Michaels certainly and i won't even mind if you don't agree with me!

Let's celebrate the great images being produced with all these flawed cameras from out of touch manufacturers and have lots of interesting articles on getting the shots.

Mat



Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 25, 2014, 08:32:30 am
Who cares anyway, if they build another 10 mounts buy what suits you and that's that, Sony having loads of options won't change the images you produce with the option you choose.
No but customers may well avoid a company that keeps changing lens mount. Good lens are very expensive and if they need to replaced to fit a new camera, then the camera will end up staying on dealer's shelf.


Quote
My point about bad workmen blaming his tools is simple, the additions demanded by the consumer, better this, more that, it's all just fluff, superb and inspiring images can be made on anything, inversely, so can a load of rubbish.
Although good images can be made on anything, try doing conventional sports press photography for the newspapers with a Linhof or an iPhone. The right tool for the job is always germane and a well designed tool is incredibly important. Also what you may dismiss as fluff, I may regard as essential to getting the job done.

Quote
And so back to the article, it doesn't mean anything, doesn't push things forward, doesn't celebrate the technology we have, it's just a pointless rant. In fact I think it's funny that in the article the DF after all the negatives is saved by the great sensor, surely the images it produces are far more important than difficulty with locking and unlocking dials?
Well if you miss the shot because camera was poorly designed, it is not in the slightest bit relevant how good a sensor is. That was the point you have completely missed with regard to the camera's design flaws.


Quote
Do you think that the bosses of Nikon, Canon and Sony are all sitting with their heads in their hands after reading it and saying guys, we've got it wrong, delete everything and lets start again? No of course not, it's Michaels opinion and he is in a privileged position in that he can write it and get a lot of coverage, it's a shame that he's not using that position to push things forward rather than simply rant about what's wrong.
Only you seem to think it was a rant, myself and others seem to think it was more of an musing about the state of things.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Robert-Peter Westphal on February 25, 2014, 08:46:36 am
Congrats Michael,

This article is what makes it worth following your site !

Written in a objective, but very critical way ( and still being politely and at a distance ) it was fun and most interesting at the same time reading this prosa.

I hope that many more articles of this kind will follow !

Robert
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: michael on February 25, 2014, 08:49:52 am
Jim,

I'd like to return to the movie analogy that the article began with.

It's the job of a movie reviewer to let you know what they think of a particular film. Movie reviewers get their legs and reputations by having opinions and insights that more often match reality that others. Anyone can have an opinion. But someone writing for a major paper gets to keep their job because enough readers find what he or she has to say valid than not.

My opinion on the state of various manufacturers is somewhat similar to that given by a movie reviewer. Some films are like Ashtar, some are like Casablanca, and just as a reviewer of a film will tell you what they think of it, in this case I tell you what I think of a camera or camera maker.

No one asks that a movie reviewer be a film director themselves. The two jobs require different skill sets, so don't conflate my skills as a photographer with my skills as a reviewer. (Actually, I think I'm a better photographer – but then that's just one man's opinion).

But as someone who, over the years, has been asked to consult on camera design by more than a few Asian and European companies, I can tell you with confidence that no one knows anything – often including myself.

It's the wild west out there.

Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on February 25, 2014, 09:00:02 am
And because it is the wild west, there is no wonder that Canon are being conservative...
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Rob C on February 25, 2014, 09:10:28 am
It's somewhat surprising to learn that I'm a "wealthy aficionado".

 ;)


Not really; to own two digital Leicas of very recent vintage has to demonstrate either a certain degree of fiscal comfort or, even better still, an inside track to a rosy future!

The aficionado bit I take for granted as far as you are concerned; you don't need much wherewithal for that - it comes naturally.

Both ways, I'm happy for you!

;-)

Rob C
Title: Sony's ILCs need four different lens systems: which will keep developing?
Post by: BJL on February 25, 2014, 10:26:52 am
Yes some people will say that Sony has lens mounts, it would be misleading but it all depends on your perspective. There is the A mount and there is the E mount and the E mount cameras can use both families of lenses.
But there are definitely four system of lenses, since lens systems need to be adapted to format size as well as lens mount. Most people buying a camera with full 35mm format sensor have little interest in buying lenses for that camera which are designed for "APS-C" sized sensor and so which must be used with a crop. Canon and Nikon have stopped developing EF-S and DX ("APS-C") lenses at any level beyond f/5.6 zooms; their recent high quality lenses are exclusively EF and FX, designed for 36x24mm format SLRs. With Sony's share of the ILC market smaller than either Canon's or Nikon's, I doubt that Sony will be able to sustain development of a full range of lens quality in more than one of its current four combinations of format size and lens mount. Most likely, Sony's Alpha mount SLR lens system and its "NEX" format E-mount lens systems will see few or no further high quality lenses developed, with adaptors supporting use of the existing alpha-mount lenses on E-mount bodies.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 25, 2014, 11:03:11 am
Hi Jim

My point about bad workmen blaming his tools is simple, the additions demanded by the consumer, better this, more that, it's all just fluff, superb and inspiring images can be made on anything, inversely, so can a load of rubbish. I don't believe my level of photography has anything to do with it, as an enthusiastic photographer I look for and see lots of inspiring images, incredible scenery, fantastic light, I have no interest in what camera was used because I don't think that I could produce the same just by owning the same equipment. I appreciate Michael is the founder of the site but on stunning inspirational images, I don't class Michael as a top photographer, I also don't class myself as one either! Running a successful site doesn't automatically translate in to being an inspirational photographer but that's my opinion, to some he could be the best ever. For me personally, I am more interested in where a shot was taken, what efforts were made to get it. I have sold images and never once had someone say, ah, I'd have bought that if only you'd have taken it with this camera or that camera, it's the shot that counts.

And so back to the article, it doesn't mean anything, doesn't push things forward, doesn't celebrate the technology we have, it's just a pointless rant. In fact I think it's funny that in the article the DF after all the negatives is saved by the great sensor, surely the images it produces are far more important than difficulty with locking and unlocking dials? Do you think that the bosses of Nikon, Canon and Sony are all sitting with their heads in their hands after reading it and saying guys, we've got it wrong, delete everything and lets start again? No of course not, it's Michaels opinion and he is in a privileged position in that he can write it and get a lot of coverage, it's a shame that he's not using that position to push things forward rather than simply rant about what's wrong. Obviously this is all my opinion, as valid as Michaels certainly and i won't even mind if you don't agree with me!

Let's celebrate the great images being produced with all these flawed cameras from out of touch manufacturers and have lots of interesting articles on getting the shots.

Mat


Mat

Thank you for clarifying, but I do suspect it is you who are now having the rant.  I think probably Michael, certainly me and possibly all the others who have posted above are in exact agreement with you over the picture being far more than about what equipment made it.  I couldn't agree more.  Picture quality in its broadest sense is hardly dependant anymore (was it ever except for perhaps sport and wildlife) on the gear. You appear to be assuming that because the article is critical of some of the manufacturing decisions made by some companies that the writer is suggesting that we cannot make good pictures with their products.  We can, it's just that making something that is awkward to use makes no sense.

Just to take the Sony lens mount issue though.  Many photographers invest a lot of money in lenses and wish to use them for many years.  However camera technology moves at a very fast pace.  We want our lenses to be usable on several generations of camera body as the technology improves.  Lenses evolve much more slowly.  Photographers are using 20 year old lenses on new digital bodies, but almost nobody is using ten year old digital bodies.  I bought two very expensive Canon lenses (24-70 and 70-200) in 2003 to go with my then state of the art 1Ds.  The camera is long ago obsolete - still perfectly usable but slow and clunky to use.  I can buy the latest Canon bodies and still use those lenses.  Who would invest thousands of pounds on Sony lenses if they perceived that Sony may change mounts in 2-3 years?  Everything has a lifespan, but Sony is still finding it's way on this issue.  To mention this is not being critical - but it is commenting on a very real problem.  Despite their own problems, both Canon and Nikon at least have kept the faith with their lens mounts, perhaps this being the reason they are still keeping up with the new comers.

Regarding the Df - after many years with FM2's the Df was the Nikon DSLR I had been waiting for.  Despite being a Canon man for 12 years it could even have persuaded me to go back to Nikon.  But the first time a few months ago I picked up a friends Df I immediately thought no! It just looked like an FM2, but also threw away many of the advantages of a modern DSLR like a 5D or 1Ds/Dx.  It is miles too big to start with.
Then a few weeks later I picked up an Olympus EM-1 and wow!  That is the successor to the FM2 and perhaps will be my next camera - especially as I already have a pile of Micro 4/3 lenses.  It will need learning I know.

Just to summarise my feelings, I want a camera to become invisible when I use it.  My old 1Ds3 is like part of my body - it's intuitive to me.  New technology, like video, comes along and quickly becomes desirable or necessary to my way of working.  It needs to be implemented in a way that with familiarity, can again become invisible.  I believe MR and most experienced photographers feel the same and that is why MR's reviews and articles concentrate on the usability of cameras - he is not talking about technical image quality anymore.

This site has always been quite heavily into the 'gear' and you have to come to it with that in mind.

Jim
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: dennbel on February 25, 2014, 12:19:51 pm
Eventually, in the near future I imagine, Google Glass will take as good an image as any camera and lens combo. You'll just have to say what you want exposure, crop, focal length, and voila!, you'll get the perfect image! :D :D ;D
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: OldRoy on February 25, 2014, 12:58:39 pm
Q: "Why should the camera business be expected to be any different?"
A: Because the number of variables are minute in comparison with film making.
Roy
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: amolitor on February 25, 2014, 01:52:48 pm
All I got out of it was 'Nikon did the Df, which was not a success, therefore Nikon is a bunch of idiots' followed by 'Fuji has done a whole bunch of different things, many of them duds, therefore Fuji is a bunch of geniuses'.

Which seems, when looked at carefully, to mean that Michael likes Fuji and does not like Nikon.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on February 25, 2014, 02:12:00 pm
...Yes, we all like different things, I don't think Michael is denying that.  But he's wondering why manufacturers, despite their huge resources, go down a cul-de-sac in design terms...

Well, Michael answered that question himself in this article: nothing ventured, nothing gained.  A lot of times, you don't know if it's a cul-de-sac until you get there.  This is somewhat the point of the title of article.  These companies are simply trying different experiments and see what works.  Nothing wrong with that.  It's all fun to use these stumbles as punching bags every once in a while, but it would be sadder to see them stop trying.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 25, 2014, 02:18:17 pm
This was an overdue rant straight to the point.
Lets hope some people will listen.
Usually things fail because of the simple stuff done wrong - not the complicated.
Michaels article pointed that out nicely.
Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: hubell on February 25, 2014, 02:37:08 pm
It's somewhat surprising to learn that I'm a "wealthy aficionado".

 ;)

The only way out is the liberal use of duct tape. [G]
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: michael on February 25, 2014, 02:44:04 pm
Q: "Why should the camera business be expected to be any different?"
A: Because the number of variables are minute in comparison with film making.
Roy

Really? As someone who has worked in both fields, I don't know that I'd agree.

Different animals of course, and only used by way of analogy, not to be used literally.

Michael
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Dan Vincent on February 25, 2014, 02:53:56 pm
I don't really think the "sony has four lens mounts" thing holds up if compared against other makers. Canon has EF/EF-S and the EOS-M mount, Nikon has the various permutations of F-mount (DX, screw drive, older style lenses, and on and on) and the 1 Series. Nikon really has the same problem for their DX users as well. It is unfortunate.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: hubell on February 25, 2014, 03:01:43 pm
As I get older, I find myself less and less willing to accept the drudgery of carrying a 35 pound pack of high end camera equipment and lenses, and yet unhappy about accepting the compromise in image quality that a smaller kit would entail. If only someone would build a camera with medium format image quality (or close to it) that would fit in the palm of my hand and have a set of lenses that were comparably sized. Well, Sony has done it. That, to me, is the only truly groundbreaking product produced by any of the camera manufacturers, who just keep regurgitating endless iterations of the same old stuff. Yes, the selection of native FE lenses is very limited at this point, but the two primes  that Sony has released so far are simply unbelievable. I would so much rather walk around with the FE 55 f/1.8 bolted to my camera (with the 35mm FE lens in my back pocket) than have 23 zoom lenses to choose from for one of the M43 cameras. God forbid that Sony decided that it couldn't break the mold and had to build the A7 with an A mount.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Zerg2905 on February 25, 2014, 03:17:37 pm
There is a little story about one KV-2 tank during WW2... Just FYI, the KV-2 hardly was an innovation in 1941. However, when the innovating Germans wanted to cross that bloody bridge, the KV-2 said. "Niet!". When the "friendly discussions" ended, a couple of dozens of "innovators" were burning. The conservative KV-2 took about 135 hits and went home. The morale of the fable: sorry folks, but I think Canon knows what is doing. P. S.: with their crude machines built in large numbers, Russians won the war. And even if geopolitics changed today, you don' want to mess with them. So far, Canon is not quite Kodak or Xerox. And Sony knows this.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Telecaster on February 25, 2014, 05:05:19 pm
All I got out of it was 'Nikon did the Df, which was not a success, therefore Nikon is a bunch of idiots' followed by 'Fuji has done a whole bunch of different things, many of them duds, therefore Fuji is a bunch of geniuses'.

Which seems, when looked at carefully, to mean that Michael likes Fuji and does not like Nikon.

C'mon, that's fanboy-style exaggeration. Michael owns & uses Nikon gear. And Fuji gear. And Olympus gear. Etc. His article comes from the perspective of someone familiar with lots of different equipment. When you have that perspective, the desire to cheerlead any particular brand diminishes. That doesn't mean you possess pure objectivity—nobody does—but it takes much of the tribalism in owning photo gear out of the picture. So to speak. I'll take that broader perspective any day.

-Dave-
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: peterottaway on February 25, 2014, 07:25:43 pm
As I get older, I find myself less and less willing to accept the drudgery of carrying a 35 pound pack of high end camera equipment and lenses, and yet unhappy about accepting the compromise in image quality that a smaller kit would entail. If only someone would build a camera with medium format image quality (or close to it) that would fit in the palm of my hand and have a set of lenses that were comparably sized. Well, Sony has done it. That, to me, is the only truly groundbreaking product produced by any of the camera manufacturers, who just keep regurgitating endless iterations of the same old stuff. Yes, the selection of native FE lenses is very limited at this point, but the two primes  that Sony has released so far are simply unbelievable. I would so much rather walk around with the FE 55 f/1.8 bolted to my camera (with the 35mm FE lens in my back pocket) than have 23 zoom lenses to choose from for one of the M43 cameras. God forbid that Sony decided that it couldn't break the mold and had to build the A7 with an A mount.

I am in a similar situation. Although I must admit that when I initially purchased my A7r it was with the intention of simply using the A mount adapter. Whether Sony produced a comprehensive list of lenses was not one of my highest priorities. But having used the camera for a few weeks and also  the FE 24-70 / 4.0 zoom for the last few days I can see little point in worrying about what Sony does with the A mount from here on in.

Using the A7r with the 24-70 zoom is like coming back to using my old Olympus OM 2n. Have been cleaning and dusting my A mount lenses and even though I have been using them for many years, they now just seem big and heavy and even somewhat clumsy in comparison. I just can't see much point in lumping around my CZ 16-35, Minolta 28-70 and 80-200  or for that matter the 85 / 1.4 unless I really have to. I can still see  a reason for using my 70-300 on my Nex 7 and the 70-400 on the A7r but for the rest I will be looking to see what new FE lenses Sony or Zeiss will produce.

Those of you who are wedded to D4 / D800 or EOS 1 fine, I certainly don't need or want them. And I suspect a lot of others will come to the same conclusion.


Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: kevin weil on February 26, 2014, 01:30:27 am
While Michael is describing the effect on the camera business, this is something that is true in just about every industry that does product development, whether its software, computer technology, cell phones, manufacturing, etc.

I work in software product development in a technology sales company.  Not in the traditional sense like Microsoft.  I've been doing this before there was a world wide web. 

I disagree with the fundamental conclusion that "no one knows anything" explains why so "many dogs are produced".  It's not something you can lay on the product planner - that role is usually not in charge of any particular project's funding.  Neither are the teams of individuals in charge of gathering industry best practice and customer experience feedback. Frequently the role in allocating funding for a project does not have control over the capacity and simply buying more capacity to develop is not always possible or practical.

It's also a case of companies with such a varied product portfolio (Sony, Panasonic, for instance) that they've developed a scatter gun business model like PC makers.  You make a vast variety of different products and you'll cover a targeted percentage of the addressable market to make money for shareholder - lets not forget what these public companies are in business for.

Occasionally these companies can not only recognize a trend but accurately predict and produce something transformational (for them anyway), such as Sony's A7R.   However they are never going to be able operate their camera business on its own.  Like any company diversified like this each business has to carry its weight.  They may have P&L responsibility but they also are accountable to revenue targets.

It's not surprising that Michael has a fondness toward Phase One.  They have a small team that can laser focus on the camera business and their product.

What I'm hoping to see is some of these companies like Phase One take notice to what I think is a similar company but in the automobile business - Tesla Motors.  Their stated philosophy is that over time they will be able start producing more inexpensive models but maintain the same quality level.

The cameras business just needs more of these small business innovators to make the niche market more accessible...

Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Jonathan Cross on February 26, 2014, 04:49:42 am
Excellent article, Michael - it got me thinking.  I am a Canon user, and one who believes that that, if I can get my brain and eye bits right, a good image is dependent on not only the body (inc sensor) but also the lens.  Good glass tends to be big and heavy.  I do have a Leica 35mm Summicron on a Fuji X-E1 and love it - they seem made for each other and the lens is a lovely size.  I do wonder how big the lens would be, however, if it had all the electronics and motors to enable auto focussing and body controlled aperture, let alone be a zoom.  People often talk about having good smaller, lighter, bodies but if one uses good glass with all the electronics, there is a danger that it will feel unbalanced and not be a happy experience.  I will be interested to see how big and heavy the new Fuji weather sealed zooms will be.

In defence of the manufacturers, they may be between a rock and a hard place, on the one side the demands of the customers for the best in a small package at the cheapest price and on the other by the physical limits, particularly re lenses, of producing high quality that is easy to use, versatile and light.  The market is looking very mature, and the only way a manufacturer can grow is by eating into someone else's market.  Many are satisfied with smart phones' output that can produce good images in favourable conditions and demand for consumer cameras may well be going to slow, if it is not doing already.  If I was a manufacturer I would be scratching various bits of my anatomy wondering how to satisfy more demanding users and make a profit to fund development.

Perhaps Google should persuade Phase 1 to fit their systems into spectacles. 

Ah well, must be off to a photographic exhibition to look at the Fufi X-T1, us users are never satisfied.

Jonathan
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on February 26, 2014, 07:27:55 am
Well, to be honest, Michael's piece was a bit "extremista", so it is only fair for people to reply with polarized and exagerated opinions. If we stick to the facts, and not opinions, camera sales are declining, in all segments, including DSLRs. It is a concern for all camera companies, and I am sure they have inteligente staff looking at the causes and trying to mitigate the trend.

Canon being still number 1 in sales, it is only natural for them to be conservative in their product introduction and development. The fact that they are still number 1, in spite of all the funerals that have been predicted, only attests to the brilliant strike that was the introduction of the EF lens mount and EOS series of cameras all those years ago. Anyone that used a EOS camera, or even a T90 20 or 25 years ago, can pick up a EOS camera today and feel familiar with it instantly. Brilliant design, IMO.

Perhaps the fact that Canon have been under less pressure to change, or to make radical innovations, is due to the fact that to keep being successful, they are the ones that need to change less? All the other companies are trying to carve a place for themselves, or trying to catch up with Canon. And that is the reality.

Of course they can go under and go belly up, but if Canon seriously enters the mirrorless market, they have the potential to make a dent on other mirrorless companies. I think that overall, their approach has been more consisten compared to others. Fujifilm are doing wonderful things in the X system, but eventually they too felt the necessity of making a "DSLR look-alike" XT-1, and will be introducing f2.8 zooms. Why? because they hope that people will buy them in significant numbers, because people still feel that DSLRs are better and "proper" cameras...
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Ray on February 26, 2014, 07:28:49 am
Crikey! You really are all gear heads. I thought I was a bit obsessive. But I'm not, by comparison with you lot. Get a life for Christ's sake!  ;D
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Jim Pascoe on February 26, 2014, 11:11:34 am
Crikey! You really are all gear heads. I thought I was a bit obsessive. But I'm not, by comparison with you lot. Get a life for Christ's sake!  ;D

No Ray - you are obsessive about gear.... ;D
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Ben Rubinstein on February 26, 2014, 12:23:15 pm
Funny how Hasselblad H cameras quoted as "offered nothing more than incremental enhancements over previous versions" even with the advent of True Focus, possibly the best innovation in AF in the past two decades is compared to P1 whose DF has had zero innovation whatsoever but the connection with Mamiya which has produced this embarrassment to a modern company "shows a company that understands what it needs to do to survive and grow in a specialized segment of the marketplace.". Sorry but it's laughable.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: michael on February 26, 2014, 01:07:07 pm
Sorry, but True Focus is just a gimmick in my view.

True, Phase is long overdue for a new camera, but in terms of lenses and backs they're second to no one.

Michael
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on February 26, 2014, 01:32:17 pm
...
True, Phase is long overdue with anew camera, but in terms of lenses and backs they're second to no one.
...

Most likely the number of photographers where these differences between modern MFDB systems really really matter so much is minimal anyways.
IMO most things in general fail because of simple stuff like forgetting spare batteries, not fastening the tripod correctly,
focusing or framing the wrong way, seeing and thinking in a convoluted way, hating or loving the assistants or models (they call it "talents", right?) or whatever ....
And I'm pretty sure you'd shoot great images even with a Zeiss Ikonta, Holga,  Brownie, Pinhole, Colt Revolver or a cellphone, even in Antarctica ... but I'm carrying coals to Newcastle ...

I'm quite happy to see more stuff like Alains articles or the recent article about flying toasters ...

Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Telecaster on February 26, 2014, 02:16:42 pm
Speaking of innovation and disruption, one of Thom Hogan's latest pieces addresses this in relation to the across-the-board declines in sales of interchangeable lens cameras.

http://www.dslrbodies.com/newsviews/warning-bells-sound.html

I'm rooting for someone to come along and take a rototiller to the photo industry. Don't know who it'll be, don't know what the "killer app(s)" will be, but a true resurfacing of the landscape—which, despite all the turbulence over the past dozen or so years, never really happened with the advent of electronic photography—is IMO overdue.

-Dave-
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Schewe on February 26, 2014, 05:11:55 pm
Well, to be honest, Michael's piece was a bit "extremista", so it is only fair for people to reply with polarized and exagerated opinions.

Not for nothing, but I can't think of a better person to have a clear view of the camera industry from a photographer's point of view than Mike. Heck, I have a lot of cameras…Canon, Phase One, Panasonic LUMIX and Sony (RX100II). Comparing my paltry number of cameras to the cameras Mike has shot with in just the last few years…other than some "professional reviewers" who do you know that has the range of experience in shooting so many cameras? Certainly, nobody else on LuLa (although Kevin is starting to become a camera junkie).

If anybody has a clear view of the weaknesses and shortcomings of all these cameras (and the companies than make them) it's Mike…the real shame is that in this industry, the camera companies don't talk closely with people like Mike BEFORE they commit to a new camera design…

But hey, you all are entitled to your opinions (regardless of how wrong they may be).

:~)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Paulo Bizarro on February 27, 2014, 02:28:14 am
Not for nothing, but I can't think of a better person to have a clear view of the camera industry from a photographer's point of view than Mike. Heck, I have a lot of cameras…Canon, Phase One, Panasonic LUMIX and Sony (RX100II). Comparing my paltry number of cameras to the cameras Mike has shot with in just the last few years…other than some "professional reviewers" who do you know that has the range of experience in shooting so many cameras? Certainly, nobody else on LuLa (although Kevin is starting to become a camera junkie).

If anybody has a clear view of the weaknesses and shortcomings of all these cameras (and the companies than make them) it's Mike…the real shame is that in this industry, the camera companies don't talk closely with people like Mike BEFORE they commit to a new camera design…

But hey, you all are entitled to your opinions (regardless of how wrong they may be).

:~)

Thanks very much for allowing me to have na opinion:) Indeed Michael has used many cameras over the years, from many brands, and of course I always read his pieces with interest. I have also been following his website for over 10 years, so I have a pretty good idea of where is coming from. That said, his article was controversial; my experience is based on shooting Canon EOS for more than 20 years (and other systems, including mirrorless). From my perspective, I am glad that Canon continues to make boring and non-innovative cameras like the EOS 6D, and at a good price too. I am also glad that Canon continues not to innovate with lenses, as I think the existing ones are fine for my requirements.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Hans Kruse on February 27, 2014, 04:15:53 am
Canon was mentioned as less innovative than Nikon. I disagree as I find them rather equal in that respect. Btw. I'm shooting both Canon and Nikon!

And I can't really see the big fuss about mirrorless for full frame as the lenses more or less dictates the weight and size of a camera system covering a reasonable range of focal lengths as e.g. a landscape shooter will need. And both Canon and Nikon has mirrorless on their cameras, it's called live view  ;D

Both DSLR and mirrorless sales is going down and from what I have seen mirrorless even more than DSLR. I think the big reason is that many find their smartphones good enough for casual shooting and they don't bother about the difference in quality for posting on the web. But what do I know?  ;)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 27, 2014, 07:49:05 am
And I can't really see the big fuss about mirrorless for full frame as the lenses more or less dictates the weight and size of a camera system covering a reasonable range of focal lengths as e.g. a landscape shooter will need. And both Canon and Nikon has mirrorless on their cameras, it's called live view  ;D
A bit hard to hold up to the eye though, when using live view!
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: dreed on February 27, 2014, 10:11:51 am
There's something that I kind of wish Michael had of linked to in this story and that is how startups (especially in Silicon Valley) get funding to do a lot of "things", many of which go nowhere. Is this in any way similar to what we see in the microcosm of the photography industry?

to put it another way, someone would have needed to present a business case to whatever part of Nikon decides to fund new camera development that resulted in the Df. Do they have the same level of rigor in their internal funding or do they accept more risk or...?

Just churning out the next D859 or 5D Mark CXVIII would likely not be subject to the same rigor. Upgrade some parts, tweak the firmware, tweak the body so that it physically different in some way and turn the handle.

I suppose the reason I mentioned startups above is that when you seek funding for a startup, you never really know how well it will or won't take off. Sometimes people just get lucky without a plan, sometimes you can have an excellent plan and idea and it flops. Some amount of it is calculated risk but really, nobody knows what will happen. Just like what Michael is alluding to here.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: fike on February 27, 2014, 04:22:47 pm
This is an interesting discussion, but I think people are losing the broad perspective as they defend their favorite brands. 

It is absolutely true that "No one knows anything."  I work for a semiconductor company, and it is not an exaggeration to say that 8 out of 10 chips don't make a profit.  Those other two chips make tons of money.  Why do they have to make so many chips to find a winner?  It is simple, we can't predict what the market will need/want in two to seven years when the chip will be ready to ship in volume.  Camera design cycles aren't six month cycles.  They are probably closer to three of four years for a major new design.  That is some serious divination required by the design and product teams.

Finally, don't presume that when Michael says "no one knows anything" that he means he could do any better.  We are engaged in "Monday Morning Quarterbacking" here, and we all know it.  ...As a matter of fact, the football analogy is probably pretty good.  You know all those betters who set the odds for games and predict outcomes...they achieve only slightly over 50% accuracy (I think it is about 55%), and that is enough to consider them very good.

If sensor-size really becomes irrelevant to image quality, and electronic viewfinders achieve focus-speed parity with optical viewfinders, that will be a truly disruptive innovation that may just sink the big boys--CaNikon.  I tend to believe that in industry the timid will eventually be outflanked and made irrelevant--like Kodak, Polaroid, Xerox, etc....  But until that happens, I know that Canon and Nikon executives will continue to take home big bonuses, so they have that going for them. 
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Pelao on February 27, 2014, 04:32:00 pm
Good essay Michael. Consistent with your previous postings on similar topics.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Wayne Fox on February 27, 2014, 05:14:25 pm
You know all those betters who set the odds for games and predict outcomes...they achieve only slightly over 50% accuracy (I think it is about 55%), and that is enough to consider them very good.
 
As an aside and irrelevant to this discussion but a curiosity that I just learned recently, Vegas odds are not about predicting winners and losers.  If you eliminate the point spreads and just see how often the favored team wins, their percentage is very high.  But their goal is creating a system that is only slightly favored toward the house (thus most betting is against point spreads) just like all the other games of chance.  So 55% is pretty much what they are after.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 27, 2014, 09:38:28 pm
It is absolutely true that "No one knows anything."  I work for a semiconductor company, and it is not an exaggeration to say that 8 out of 10 chips don't make a profit.  Those other two chips make tons of money.  Why do they have to make so many chips to find a winner?  It is simple, we can't predict what the market will need/want in two to seven years when the chip will be ready to ship in volume.  Camera design cycles aren't six month cycles.  They are probably closer to three of four years for a major new design.  That is some serious divination required by the design and product teams.
Record companies, publishers and film studios basically release a lot of content, most fails, but a small percentage make enough to pay for everything else and then some. Basically the 'experts' don't have a clue as to what will succeed. This is why the scriptwriter William Goldman was moved to comment that 'no-one knows anything'.
The businesses are best described as throwing shit against the wall and hoping some of it sticks!  :-\
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: John Camp on February 28, 2014, 12:16:19 am
The idea that "nobody knows anything" in regard to building new cameras is not right, IMHO -- I think there is broad agreement across the net about certain things that almost everybody knows. For example, we all know that we need good clear menus. We all know that certain camera functions should be readily available, we all know that buttons, etc., should not be difficult to manipulate, that the viewfinder should show an image of reasonable size, that some system should be available to make LCDs at least somewhat visible in bright light (especially when there is no viewfinder), that a serious camera should have a viewfinder with a diopter adjustment, and so on. These things are not only known, but are reasonable expectations, and have really nothing to do with how much ahead of time designers must be working to produce a camera: the size of human fingers doesn't change much in five years, nor do differences in average visual acuity. So these are known, basic functional elements of design. What is mystifying is that they are so often violated. And they are (everybody can make their own lists, so I won't do it here.) It's not the esoteric stuff that causes me problems, it's like having to remember which way you toggle the tiny little buttons to get to a common function that you need right now, and not two minutes and fifty seconds from now. What's mystifying is not that nobody knows anything, but that they disregard what everybody knows.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: pedro39photo on February 28, 2014, 08:18:22 am
great article Michael ! a great picture about the industry present point....
Its boring times, i wish that new brands shake the market. like Blackmagic in video.
A Blackmagic DMF camera...a dream ?
Thanks
Pedro
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Robert Roaldi on February 28, 2014, 08:44:38 am
We might tend to analyze things too statically when we're confused by how a company can make seemingly weird decisions, when it seems obvious that they should know better. Companies evolve over time and decisions involve different people, the fact that they happen to work for the same corporation may not mean anything. The people on the design teams probably change a lot, they get promoted, they retire, etc., so it's no surprise that they often get things wrong in new ways. In my working life (software development in my case), I rarely saw a reliable transfer of knowledge from old staff to new staff. In fact, I witnessed just the opposite. I saw mostly ego-gratification, i.e., "I'm new and smart and I know best who cares what those old guys think." So the tendency is for tried and true ideas to be forgotten all the time. (Sometimes old ideas should be discarded, of course.) There may even be a tendency for modern corporations to be too slim and trim, "efficient", which necessarily means turfing out that corporate memory.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Rob C on February 28, 2014, 09:21:51 am
We might tend to analyze things too statically when we're confused by how a company can make seemingly weird decisions, when it seems obvious that they should know better. Companies evolve over time and decisions involve different people, the fact that they happen to work for the same corporation may not mean anything. The people on the design teams probably change a lot, they get promoted, they retire, etc., so it's no surprise that they often get things wrong in new ways. In my working life (software development in my case), I rarely saw a reliable transfer of knowledge from old staff to new staff. In fact, I witnessed just the opposite. I saw mostly ego-gratification, i.e., "I'm new and smart and I know best who cares what those old guys think." So the tendency is for tried and true ideas to be forgotten all the time. (Sometimes old ideas should be discarded, of course.) There may even be a tendency for modern corporations to be too slim and trim, "efficient", which necessarily means turfing out that corporate memory.


That's probably the best and most accurate analysis so far.

Rob C

Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: fike on February 28, 2014, 09:51:47 am
We might tend to analyze things too statically when we're confused by how a company can make seemingly weird decisions, when it seems obvious that they should know better. Companies evolve over time and decisions involve different people, the fact that they happen to work for the same corporation may not mean anything. The people on the design teams probably change a lot, they get promoted, they retire, etc., so it's no surprise that they often get things wrong in new ways. In my working life (software development in my case), I rarely saw a reliable transfer of knowledge from old staff to new staff. In fact, I witnessed just the opposite. I saw mostly ego-gratification, i.e., "I'm new and smart and I know best who cares what those old guys think." So the tendency is for tried and true ideas to be forgotten all the time. (Sometimes old ideas should be discarded, of course.) There may even be a tendency for modern corporations to be too slim and trim, "efficient", which necessarily means turfing out that corporate memory.

Very insightful and thoughtful comment.  The march of time does not always mean progress.  We constantly relearn lessons...sometimes we evolve...sometimes we devolve. 
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 28, 2014, 10:35:51 am
We might tend to analyze things too statically when we're confused by how a company can make seemingly weird decisions, when it seems obvious that they should know better. Companies evolve over time and decisions involve different people, the fact that they happen to work for the same corporation may not mean anything. The people on the design teams probably change a lot, they get promoted, they retire, etc., so it's no surprise that they often get things wrong in new ways. In my working life (software development in my case), I rarely saw a reliable transfer of knowledge from old staff to new staff. In fact, I witnessed just the opposite. I saw mostly ego-gratification, i.e., "I'm new and smart and I know best who cares what those old guys think." So the tendency is for tried and true ideas to be forgotten all the time. (Sometimes old ideas should be discarded, of course.) There may even be a tendency for modern corporations to be too slim and trim, "efficient", which necessarily means turfing out that corporate memory.
A sadly common practice in film studios is when a new head comes in, all the predecessors projects are binned as they must be crap/to protect fragile egos.

The other thing worth bearing in mind is that smart people can also be incredibly stupid and/or insular. I've also seen and heard about really childish behaviour by members of the boards of multinationals, behaviour more suited to kids in the playground.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: E.J. Peiker on February 28, 2014, 10:39:20 am
One of your best essays ever Michael, it's rare that I agree with you (or others) 100% but in this case I could not agree more.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on February 28, 2014, 10:42:21 am
The idea that "nobody knows anything" in regard to building new cameras is not right, IMHO -- I think there is broad agreement across the net about certain things that almost everybody knows. For example, we all know that we need good clear menus. We all know that certain camera functions should be readily available, we all know that buttons, etc., should not be difficult to manipulate, that the viewfinder should show an image of reasonable size, that some system should be available to make LCDs at least somewhat visible in bright light (especially when there is no viewfinder), that a serious camera should have a viewfinder with a diopter adjustment, and so on. These things are not only known, but are reasonable expectations, and have really nothing to do with how much ahead of time designers must be working to produce a camera: the size of human fingers doesn't change much in five years, nor do differences in average visual acuity. So these are known, basic functional elements of design. What is mystifying is that they are so often violated. And they are (everybody can make their own lists, so I won't do it here.) It's not the esoteric stuff that causes me problems, it's like having to remember which way you toggle the tiny little buttons to get to a common function that you need right now, and not two minutes and fifty seconds from now. What's mystifying is not that nobody knows anything, but that they disregard what everybody knows.
I think you have missed the point John. Even if everyone knows that good films make more money, clear camera menus make more sense and so on, the problem is deciding how to go about doing those tasks and that is where people know nothing. Not to mention the fact that people have very different tastes or expectations of what is important/necessary.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Isaac on February 28, 2014, 12:08:05 pm
The idea that "nobody knows anything" in regard to building new cameras is not right

It's just hyperbole (and presumably intentional).

the size of human fingers doesn't change much in five years, nor do differences in average visual acuity.

Averages don't buy and use cameras - individuals do, and broader demographic groups trend.

Would you guess that women and men have similar hand-size and dexterity?

It's not the esoteric stuff that causes me problems, it's like having to remember which way you toggle the tiny little buttons to get to a common function that you need right now, and not two minutes and fifty seconds from now.

We've been through this before -- the stuff that causes you problems probably isn't the stuff that causes other people problems, and the common function you can't remember how to access probably isn't that common for someone else. For that level of "personal fit" use a camera with configurable buttons and menus.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Telecaster on February 28, 2014, 02:49:53 pm
In my working life (software development in my case), I rarely saw a reliable transfer of knowledge from old staff to new staff. In fact, I witnessed just the opposite. I saw mostly ego-gratification, i.e., "I'm new and smart and I know best who cares what those old guys think." So the tendency is for tried and true ideas to be forgotten all the time.

Absolutely. Yet also: I once worked for a creative & successful company which then ran off the rails—and into bankruptcy—with breathtaking speed after those of us who'd been part of that success moved on to new things. It wasn't that we were so brilliant (we weren't) and the newer folks incompetent (they weren't) but rather that our particular frictional and yet highly productive way of working together was discarded. We were a brief bright flash rather than a long slow burn.

-Dave-
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Dave Millier on February 28, 2014, 06:19:07 pm
I can add one more wrinkle to his chain of stories of corporate un-knowledge.  I've worked for the same organisation for 29 years in various capacities (all of them fairly junior positions, not the high flying type).  For most of that time I've been in IT in one role or another, mostly related to internal systems. 

In those years I've seen a fair churn of staff, particularly in decision making positions. One the insights I've gained from all this management-watching is that energetic, ambitious managers always want to do something new that demonstrates their worth. Nothing particularly wrong with that. However, I've also noted that the organisation as a whole is very, very poor at remembering its own history.  So I repeatedly see major projects being launched in a blaze of propaganda (with everyone expected to sign up to them in blood) that management believe will save the world but that I remember having been tried before and failing.

One example that springs to mind is something called the "staff allocation system".  This in-house system (much maligned by staff who have to use it) has been repeatedly upgraded without a great deal of improvement. Management believe this is a new and vital system that must be made to work. Bizarrely, not one of them has any idea that over the last 20 years, the organisation has created and abandoned 5 similar systems. No one from the previous efforts remains in an influential position, all the senior staff are more recent. But ought to be no excuse.  We keep good records, a simple literature search would reveal the truth but they don't even look. The organisation as a whole seems utterly incapable of learning from the past mistakes it has made or even remembering that it made them. 

Those few of us who've been around a while live in constant amazement at this combination of attitudes amongst senior, highly intelligent and successful managers. Overconfidence, over exuberance, lack of scepticism, hubris, all these seem endemic in our leaders.

Absolutely. Yet also: I once worked for a creative & successful company which then ran off the rails—and into bankruptcy—with breathtaking speed after those of us who'd been part of that success moved on to new things. It wasn't that we were so brilliant (we weren't) and the newer folks incompetent (they weren't) but rather that our particular frictional and yet highly productive way of working together was discarded. We were a brief bright flash rather than a long slow burn.

-Dave-
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: peterzpicts on February 28, 2014, 07:35:23 pm
Spot on as usual Mike,
I must speak up for Yamaki-san and Sigma.
Sigma's Global vision line seems to be hitting a sweet spot as far as a balance between performance and price. True that.
However I think we need to put the SD1 pricing debacle in perspective with the benefit of hindsight.
Looking at time lines it appears Michihiro (Yamaki Senior) was suffering from Ill health evidenced by his passing about 6 months after the release of SD1.  Kazuto-san has eluded to the initial yield of the Merrill generation chips was so poor, maybe one or two per wafer that their costs would make the SD1 not manufactureable. I suspect the decision was made to ship it at the cost of manufacturing.  Allowing Michihirio to ship the highest resolution camera short of MF as his capstone achievement for the short time until the D800 appeared.
Obviously in the intervening time the wafer processing issues were worked through and props should be given for the corrective actions taken with the release of the Merrill versions.  I thought the gift points towards Sigma gear for the few who ponied up for a SD1 a nice peace offering.
Paul
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Fine_Art on February 28, 2014, 10:18:44 pm
Eh?  Did we read the same article?  I don't see any moaning.  Michael was giving his opinion on the current directions the major players in the camera industry are going.  And I really don't think the analogy with "bad workmen blaming their tools" comes into it.  Quite the reverse, Michael - if you have bothered to read many of his previous reviews and essays - is of the opinion that image quality is pretty much a given these days.  But it is the design and ease of use that defines the choice and success of gear.  Michael used whatever he pleases to suit the task in hand, and is in the possibly fortunate position of being able to play with most of the worthwhile cameras in current production.  In fact it is precisely because such "fantastic times photographically" are here that it is worth seeing perhaps where certain manufacturers may be going wrong in their implementation of technology.
We don't want Canon or Nikon to stop making cameras because they missed the boat in looking at new formats.  Michael doesn't want Hasselblad going down the pan because they wasted money on ridiculous niche jewellery.

Yes, we all like different things, I don't think Michael is denying that.  But he's wondering why manufacturers, despite their huge resources, go down a cul-de-sac in design terms.  Did Sony really mean to end up with four lens mounts?  They have obviously made a mistake in planning/foresight somewhere, but it is not being argued they don't make superb cameras.

I'm not sure why you have such a negative take on the article when everything stated is probably fairly accurate and in any case just MR's opinion.  Write your own piece, or instead of being so negative write a reply that states specifically why you think say Sony or Nikon has got it exactly right, and provide some evidence to counter Michael's point of view.

Lastly, I hope you are a very talented photographer because to accuse MR of being a 'Bad Workman' shows that you do not believe in getting or showing evidence before making strong statements.  Michael is the founder of this site and he is perfectly entitled to write an opinion piece about the current state of the industry as he sees it.

Jim

Yeah, I was going to jump on this post as well. I thought I better  read down a few posts first to see who has beat me to it. The only sour grapes is from the poster.

#1) Michael is right in his analysis of the products.
#2) Michael is right in his opinion of how the companies are performing.
#3) the probability your photography can hold a candle to his is close to 0.

In particular the comments on Sony are exactly the problem I had with what they are doing. Their sensor technology is the best, I don't think anyone doubts that. Their camera division seems to be taking a ride on that, selling crippled solutions that will force you to buy again. Hence I went to Nikon which has an impressive product in the D600/800. I refused to ever buy a DT lens so if Sony gets their act together by a few years time, I might buy another sony.

I bet others can look at his words on the manufacturer they deal with and say, yeah, he nailed it.

Andy Grove, the ex CEO of Intel wrote a book on the difficulty of seeing the "inflection point" of the business. He used that phrase in the sense of the mathematical point on a graph. I think decision node is better. It has more in common with a decision tree than going from concave up to down or vice versa. The significance of his point stands, everyone is limited by their interpretation of what the have experienced. Others see the world differently. Building a product based on your expectations may not work. What is worse is the whole landscape is changing so by the time that product is ready who knows what else is going on. Yes, it is a very complicated situation, far more complex that controlled science in a lab.

If I was nitpicky I would suggest a small change to the title Noone knows everything they need to. That may be more precise but it loses the ability to make the point Michael made without explanation. So his choice of words is the best.

Michael still has it!
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 01, 2014, 12:20:17 pm
In particular the comments on Sony are exactly the problem I had with what they are doing. Their sensor technology is the best, I don't think anyone doubts that. Their camera division seems to be taking a ride on that, selling crippled solutions that will force you to buy again.
That was Sony's business model in video and that sort of attitude is why RED ended being started as Sony weren't the only ones.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: graeme on March 02, 2014, 07:25:46 am
'smart people can also be incredibly stupid'

Yes they can, especially when they step outside their area of expertise and assume that their smartness will be enough.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: iau on March 02, 2014, 08:45:53 am
Reading the comments about the Nikon Df reminded me about something that I experienced this week. I just got the new Fuji X-T1. Great looking camera and love the feel/controls. BUT I accidentially bump the video button and started filming while carrying the camera. This happens without me knowing it.

I wish Fuji had done what Nikon did with the Df and skipped video. If they couldn't  they should at least make it possible to disable and configure the button to something useful for me. I can't even remove the symbol for1080p HD in the viewfinder. Such small things can be very annoying when everything else seems to be so well done.
Title: avoiding accidental video operation without "treating dandruff by decapitation"
Post by: BJL on March 02, 2014, 10:59:50 am
... I accidentially bump the video button and started filming while carrying the camera. This happens without me knowing it.

I wish Fuji had done what Nikon did with the Df and skipped video.
That would be "treating dandruff by decapitation", in the words of Frank Zappa. [EDIT: "dandruff" not "acne"; I misremembered the quote.]

Some far more reasonable solutions are:
- to allow the video button to be reprogrammed to a different function or disabled entirely
or
- to have no dedicated video button but instead access video as a mode setting, using the usual shutter release button.

For example, I have my "red dot" button do AEL/AFL; on the rare occasions when I want video, I access it through the mode dial.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 02, 2014, 11:01:31 am
That would be "treating acne by decapitation", in the words of Frank Zappa.
Spot on. ;)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: BJL on March 02, 2014, 11:07:01 am
Pity I wasn't spot on in my quotation!
Title: Wrong about Pentax (No one knows anything article.)
Post by: TeeKay on March 02, 2014, 02:12:19 pm
Mr. Reichmann writes about Pentax that "their DSLRs, while quite nice machines, don't really blaze any new ground".

The optional Bayer-AA-Filter for the K-3 is pretty new ground blazing, AFAIC.

All cameras without Bayer-AA-filters today are not fit for purpose for certain situations as they will cause moiré and colour artifacts that irrevocably destroy information.

Having a permanent Bayer-AA-filter was the only remedy so far.

The Pentax K-3 uses its sensor-based shake reduction mechanics to introduce a very small amount of blur whenever the photographer asks for it in order to avoid aliasing.
There are even two levels to choose from.

And BTW, a camera does not need to be outstanding in any one discipline. I'd rather choose a camera that is great in all aspects for a very affordable price than one that is outstanding in one area but only good in others and costs and arm and a leg. A true photographer is not looking for a new ground blazing camera. A true photographer looks for a tool that is right for the intended application area. The small and weathersealed bodies by Pentax are very fit for a number of purposes. That they now also beat the competition in frames-per-second or low-light AF capabilities are welcome extras, but by no means requirements.
Title: Re: avoiding accidental video operation without "treating dandruff by decapitation"
Post by: ndevlin on March 03, 2014, 09:18:06 am
That would be "treating dandruff by decapitation", in the words of Frank Zappa. [EDIT: "dandruff" not "acne"; I misremembered the quote.]
I'm going to disagree on this one.  Video, unless done right, is utterly useless.  Very few camera makers do it right.  I would much rather skip the extra button and the extra ports on the camera, than have a 'feature' I will literally never use. 

If I ever do video seriously, I will chose a good video (or video enabled) camera, which will not be the same as my stills camera.  In the meantime, my iphone does quite adequate video for my 'needs'.

Just my 2c. I agree Nikon ,may have left it off as a gimmick, but it's not a wrong choice. The price on the Df, however, is obnoxious.

- N.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 03, 2014, 11:50:27 am
Nick, I'm going to both disagree and also agree with you about video on DSLRs.
If you just want to shoot some amateur video footage then yes a dedicated small chip video camera or even an iPhone is more ergonomic/practical. But if you are interesting in film making then cameras like the 5Ds are just fine and dandy.
A camera body in the film world is simply a small part of a more complex rig of equipment. It is basically no more than a recording device with a lens mount, on/off switch and the ability to change exposure settings. And just because some folks here do not use the video, does not mean many others do not. I never use P or S mode on my camera and A mode once in a blue moon as I shoot manually nearly all the time, yet I've ended up in modes other than manual on numerous occasions as the 5DII didn't have a lock on the very easily moved mode dial. A lock on the 5DIII solved that problem, as would a similar solution with 'rec' buttons on DSLRs or better completely customisable buttons.
An included feature that a few people do not use, very rarely stops people buying cameras. Missing features like video however will stop many more from making a purchase.

I've never understood why camera makers/software designers are so reluctant to allow customisation. It will get rid of a huge numbers of complaints re ergonomics as people can set up their kit to suit their often quite specific needs and everyone wins.  ;D
Title: Re: avoiding accidental video operation without "treating dandruff by decapitation"
Post by: BJL on March 03, 2014, 01:35:14 pm
That would be "treating dandruff by decapitation" ... Some far more reasonable solutions are:
- to allow the video button to be reprogrammed to a different function or disabled entirely
or
- to have no dedicated video button but instead access video as a mode setting, using the usual shutter release button.
I'm going to disagree on this one.  Video, unless done right, is utterly useless.  Very few camera makers do it right.  I would much rather skip the extra button and the extra ports on the camera, than have a 'feature' I will literally never use.  

If I ever do video seriously, I will chose a good video (or video enabled) camera, which will not be the same as my stills camera.  In the meantime, my iphone does quite adequate video for my 'needs'.
Nick,

I respect your high standards, and your preference to use two separate, dedicated, optimized tool kits for still and video photography (or rather to reject any intermediate option between that optimal tool and iPhone video snapshots).
However, that is irrelevant to the fact that:
- the sensor and other electronic hardware of the Df could easily support a video capability that many people would find useful (if only to allow them to record both still and video images while wandering through Scottish forests without having to carry twice as much gear: one irony of those Df adds was that in places, the motion of the scene added much to the idyllic impression),
and
- enabling those inherent video capabilities would have a negligible adverse impact on cost or ease of use for stills photography.
As I said in the post you  are responding to, no extra button is needed, so why did you repeat that criticism? For example the Pentax K-5 takes the option of just adding one "video" notch on the mode dial, using the normal shutter release button to activate video recording.
The price on the Df, however, is obnoxious.
Indeed: and this is probably in part due to the disabling of video capabilities (along with rejecting the user-inteface developments enabled by modern electronic controls that the majority of SLR users clearly prefer). Adding video could have broadened the potential customer base, leading to increased sales volume and so shifting down the most profitable retail price level. You always pay a premium for distinguishing yourself from the "herd" of the marketplace in a way that brings no benefit beyond identifying your egregious tastes.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: ndevlin on March 03, 2014, 01:44:51 pm
I know what you're saying, but video, imho, is not for dabblers.  Unless the camera can do professional-level video in all respects (sound, codec, etc) to me it's pointless.  My videographer friends who dabble in stills always wonder why the camera makers bother with video. Canon, Sony and a few others apparently often get it right, which is why the 5DIII is a popular video tool. But on things like the Df, why?

But yes...it's omission was almost certainly a marketing decision.   Less-for-more  ;)

- N.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: BJL on March 03, 2014, 02:19:56 pm
Unless the camera can do professional-level video in all respects (sound, codec, etc) to me it's pointless.
Indeed: you are talking about your personal preferences for video; I am talking about the fact that a great many potential customers have different opinions, and that Nikon's decision has made the Df obviously inferior for many photographers while not making it one iota better for you or any other "pure photographer" --- unless you can explain how having a "video" position on the mode dial that you can choose never to use significantly impairs your usage of a camera for stills photography.

Given your comment that "my iphone does quite adequate video for my 'needs'", I am puzzled why you would prefer to have to pull out a phone for such needs, rather that switching your DSLR to video mode if you happen to have it with you.

One again, the bottom line for me is that no one has demonstrated any practical disadvantage to proving video capabilities if done in a suitable way, like the Pentax K-5 approach of having no dedicated video button or switch.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 03, 2014, 03:15:29 pm
I know what you're saying, but video, imho, is not for dabblers.
Have you not seen YouTube!?! :o

Quote
Unless the camera can do professional-level video in all respects (sound, codec, etc) to me it's pointless.  My videographer friends who dabble in stills always wonder why the camera makers bother with video. Canon, Sony and a few others apparently often get it right, which is why the 5DIII is a popular video tool. But on things like the Df, why?
Because photographers sometimes like to grab some footage and have no interest in carry a full on professional video camera.
The reason cameras maker incorporate video is because on the whole the end user really likes it and it sells cameras. Previously people who were not film makers would have to buy a video camera as that was the only option. Once digital pocket cameras added video then for most people that was all they need. Just like a phone can do pictures that satisfy the vast majority of folks photographic needs.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: bcooter on March 03, 2014, 07:52:41 pm

I know what you're saying, but video, imho, is not for dabblers.  Unless the camera can do professional-level video in all respects (sound, codec, etc) to me it's pointless.  My videographer friends who dabble in stills always wonder why the camera makers bother with video. Canon, Sony and a few others apparently often get it right, which is why the 5DIII is a popular video tool. But on things like the Df, why?

But yes...it's omission was almost certainly a marketing decision.   Less-for-more  ;)

- N.

My wish is just to see a maker not predetermine a market.

I think that's what Michael's essay is about.    I know from a lifetime of projects, the projects that worked had inspiration, the willingness to adapt to the situation and a goal to produce the best work that could be done on the day.

No segment oriented thought, no playing to a single age, ethnic, geographical, monetary market only.    Just produce the best still, movie, commercial, utube, flicker, instigram piece  you can and you'd be amazed that how many people it will pull from every demographic.*

Same with cameras.

I think the whole DF thing is a marketing ploy.  I like Nikons, the film versions more than the digital models, but in an era of declining sales, I don't see the point in hobbling anything.

It seems to me that since olympus was first out of the block (other than Leicas M series) with a digital camera that had some of the look of a traditional film camera everyone followed suit.  Nikon, Sony and Fuji.

But the DF is what it is and it's not for my work, though if the Sony A7 had the codecs, the autofocus of the Panasonic gh3/4 and the still capabilities of the Olympus em5/1, Sony would have gotten my money, because when you combine the pana and the oly given they use the same lens mount, you really have one system that works well in both still and motion imagery.

If only the olympus would hardwire tether to a computer, then they'd be about perfect, but the A7 is all over the map.

Lots of lens options, but few new native lenses, xlr inputs for sound, headphone jack to monitor, but a small 28mbs codec in 2k.

Also the autofocus sensors don't  cover the whole sensor which confuses me with a mirrorless camera and these aren't features that aren't out there now, they're just features that are either limited due to price or omitted to rush a product to market . . . or worse Sony is afraid to get into territory that covers their higher priced cameras.

Digital cameras aren't film cameras, but could learn a few lessons from what worked in the past, what would work today.

From the past, having an f stop ring on the lenses and a shutter dial on the body is simple and doesn't take any thought as to which dial does what.

Right angle grips that have all the controls on the grip (including being able to move the focus points) are smart and have been around a long time.

For new think, the Fuji Xti viewfinder that does a second screen for spot focus is ingenious, mirrorless, if good and you take the time to get used to it can an amazing aid.

A mix of modern and old, like the olympus add on  finder that goes horizontal to vertical gives you options that most medium format cameras don't even offer today.

IMO

BC

*of the projects we've produced that didn't have great success were always because they were limited to a certain segment or over thought.   In other words they were limited by a set of rules before we even started.   Nothing great ever comes out of fear which is a form of limiting a service or product.


Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 03, 2014, 08:35:11 pm
*of the projects we've produced that didn't have great success were always because they were limited to a certain segment or over thought.   In other words they were limited by a set of rules before we even started.   Nothing great ever comes out of fear which is a form of limiting a service or product.
Or from committees, but then fear is probably the issue there too.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 03, 2014, 08:43:58 pm
Digital cameras aren't film cameras, but could learn a few lessons from what worked in the past, what would work today.

From the past, having an f stop ring on the lenses and a shutter dial on the body is simple and doesn't take any thought as to which dial does what.
Even better have aperture on lens as you suggest and shutter speed around lens mount like the OM cameras. Way better than the fiddly dial on top of camera. Which sadly the X-T1 has emulated.

Quote
Right angle grips that have all the controls on the grip (including being able to move the focus points) are smart and have been around a long time.
And if you are going to have right angle grips, make sure all the controls are in exactly the same place as when the camera is horizontal. Unlike on the X-T1, which is it's other serious demerit. A shame as I really liked the camera otherwise, particularly the viewfinder.

(http://blogs-images.forbes.com/marksparrow/files/2014/01/Fujifilm_X-T_back1.jpg)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: John Rausch on March 06, 2014, 08:21:02 pm
The big problem with that shutter speed dial is the old ones ranged from B to 1,000 or 2,000 and had 1/2 stop (sometimes) increments. We now expect 1/3 stop increments and a shutter speed up to 4,000. That's a who bunch of clicks for a reasonably sized dial.

On the X-T1 the dial only clicks in at full stops and the command wheel is used to "fine turn" +/- 2/3 stop. I find it annoying and often go back and forth between the two controls. It would be a very crowded and likely unreadable dial to cover that many positions.

With a large unmarked wheel with the shutter speed reading out on an LCD (better idea, an e-ink display, on even when the camera is off) you can spin it around as much as necessary to get the shutter speed you want. Plus, you can set in the menu settings the increment you want to use, 1/2 or 1/3 stop.

Someone tell me how this can work on a single physical dial.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on March 06, 2014, 08:48:53 pm
Even better have aperture on lens as you suggest and shutter speed around lens mount like the OM cameras. Way better than the fiddly dial on top of camera. Which sadly the X-T1 has emulated.

Good in theory, until you need to quickly switch mode or do any sort of customization (as Michael mentioned in his article).  It can be done, but the confusion it brings is not worth it.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 06, 2014, 09:08:03 pm
Good in theory, until you need to quickly switch mode or do any sort of customization (as Michael mentioned in his article).  It can be done, but the confusion it brings is not worth it.
Eh? What has that got to do with mode changing? Or not being able to customise? Several compacts have already implemented lens mount dials, like the old Olympus shutter control and they are indeed customisable.
Having the aperture control on camera actually increases customisation options as it frees up a dial on camera body.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on March 06, 2014, 11:21:26 pm
Eh? What has that got to do with mode changing? Or not being able to customise? Several compacts have already implemented lens mount dials, like the old Olympus shutter control and they are indeed customisable.
Having the aperture control on camera actually increases customisation options as it frees up a dial on camera body.

I did say it can be done.  Let's see if we are talking about the same thing.  Say if you have an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial, each set individually.  If you want to set the camera to P mode, you have to rotate each ring to the Auto position. 

Let's say you have a custom function button that you program into shutter priority, high iso plus electronic shutter.  When activated, do you still need to rotate the aperture ring to A?  Now you have a design decision to make, and either one would be confusing.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 07, 2014, 04:14:08 am
I did say it can be done.  Let's see if we are talking about the same thing.  Say if you have an aperture ring and a shutter speed dial, each set individually.  If you want to set the camera to P mode, you have to rotate each ring to the Auto position.
Why? Stick in on P and then you are sorted. Why would it be any different from when aperture and shutter speed are controlled by dials elsewhere? Cameras are not mechanical any more.

Quote
Let's say you have a custom function button that you program into shutter priority, high iso plus electronic shutter.  When activated, do you still need to rotate the aperture ring to A?  Now you have a design decision to make, and either one would be confusing.
I think you are thinking of how cameras worked 20+ years ago. The aperture ring controls aperture when in manual or AP mode, otherwise it either has no function or maybe you can assign it one if you want.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on March 07, 2014, 12:50:17 pm
...I think you are thinking of how cameras worked 20+ years ago. The aperture ring controls aperture when in manual or AP mode, otherwise it either has no function or maybe you can assign it one if you want.

Yes and no.  It's a general user interface issue.  What you are saying is that the behavior of the aperture ring changes depends on the mode you are in.  This type of user interface is generally a bad idea.  The function of a switch/dial/button should always be consistent.  Otherwise, you then have to check other status before you can trust what the aperture ring tells you.  If you have a shutter dial and a separate iso dial, then you have two other things to check before you can be sure.  It is conceivable that in a rushed situation, you might mistakenly think you have the right settings by looking at these rings/dials.  That's why I said in my original post, this can be done, but can be confusing.

One solution is to make all these rings/dials motorized.  When you kick the camera into auto mode, the camera actually turns these rings/dials into the proper settings.  But that might be more trouble than it's worth.

Another solution is to build a little high res screen into each ring and dial.  This way, they will always display the right settings.  Hmm, I like this solution.

One can of course go the other way, and relinquish all external controls and wrapped all that into a LCD touch screen.  When designed properly, it could drastically change the way cameras are operated.

Or, you can just talk to your camera aka Siri (or Samantha, but don't fall in love with her).  Later, we will also have mind controlled cameras (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVhggGSjXVg).

Sorry, I got carried away designing the next camera. :)
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 07, 2014, 04:55:18 pm
Yes and no.  It's a general user interface issue.  What you are saying is that the behavior of the aperture ring changes depends on the mode you are in.  This type of user interface is generally a bad idea.  The function of a switch/dial/button should always be consistent.  Otherwise, you then have to check other status before you can trust what the aperture ring tells you.  If you have a shutter dial and a separate iso dial, then you have two other things to check before you can be sure.  It is conceivable that in a rushed situation, you might mistakenly think you have the right settings by looking at these rings/dials.  That's why I said in my original post, this can be done, but can be confusing.
Not saying that at all. If you are in say Programme mode you don't need to alter the aperture ring. Same goes for SP. But if the user wants to, customisation of the control should be allowed, particularly if all controls are endless because then they are more versatile.
Besides what you say should not be done is exactly how all my Canons work. Currently on my Canons, the front dial is the shutter control in manual + SP, but if I use AP then it's the aperture control and in P it moves both variables up /down. The Aperture dial in manual is the exposure comp dial in other modes. I think you underestimate how adaptable people are.

I'm also a bit baffled by folks who keep going on about the ease of looking at top of camera to see settings on retro dials, when all the setting you need are visible in viewfinder, which is where your eye will be when taking photos surely.  :P
Now if you are in fact looking at top of camera, a single location with 7-10 accurate settings including exposure, rather than 5 scattered and not so accurate settings is to my mind more ergonomic.




Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on March 07, 2014, 07:57:50 pm
Not saying that at all. If you are in say Programme mode you don't need to alter the aperture ring...


I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.  Just to be clear, so what you are saying is that the aperture ring on the lens (like what it used to be 30 years ago) can say I'm on F8, but really I can be on F4 because I'm in P mode, correct? 
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: John Rausch on March 07, 2014, 08:47:14 pm
I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.  Just to be clear, so what you are saying is that the aperture ring on the lens (like what it used to be 30 years ago) can say I'm on F8, but really I can be on F4 because I'm in P mode, correct?  

There are two types of aperture rings, those with f/stop markings, the 35mm for example, and those without markings, the 18-55 for example. A third type of lens, the XC models have no aperture rings.

The aperture rings are not mechanically coupled, so the aperture setting CAN be different than what is shown on the type of ring with markings. Same for shutter speed and ISO for that matter. This behavior is not the same for all Fujifilm bodies.

The X-M1 has a mode dial and when it is set to P, S, M or the auto modes, the aperture is set by the body independent of the physical setting on the aperture ring. The aperture ring does not have to be on A(uto).

On the X-E2 and X-T1 (the only ones I have experience with) there is no mode dial, though the camera has the P, A, S and M modes and calls them that, they are inferred by how the aperture ring, aperture switch and the shutter speed dial is set. On XC lenses, the lenses is put into auto my moving the aperture setting past the highest possible setting.

So, on the X-T1 and X-E2 an aperture ring with markings WILL show the aperture and on the X-M1 is will not show it unless by coincidence.

But, there is an exception, the remote camera app can control the aperture, shutter speed and ISO and the settings can all be different than what they physically indicate.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 08, 2014, 12:50:55 am
I have a feeling we are not talking about the same thing.  Just to be clear, so what you are saying is that the aperture ring on the lens (like what it used to be 30 years ago) can say I'm on F8, but really I can be on F4 because I'm in P mode, correct?  
Well, if you are in P mode, should you really be worrying about aperture?   :P. That's what AP or manual is for. And to repeat myself, why aren't people looking through viewfinder if they are taking photos?

How a camera worked 30 years ago is not how cameras need to work now, cameras were very limited in how they could operate as controls were fixed in their functionality.
Trying to do retro for the sake of it is very poor design, if it impedes functionality.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on March 08, 2014, 02:08:40 am
How a camera worked 30 years ago is not how cameras need to work now, cameras were very limited in how they could operate as controls were fixed in their functionality.
Trying to do retro for the sake of it is very poor design, if it impedes functionality.


Thank you.  Having those aperture rings and shutter dial simply complicates things.  Pretty soon, buttons will go away too.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 08, 2014, 05:19:12 am
Thank you.  Having those aperture rings and shutter dial simply complicates things.  Pretty soon, buttons will go away too.
and the misreading award of the day goes to......as does the forgetful award as
you replied to a post of mine further up the page where I was talking about where to place aperture/shutter dials. 

I also notice that you conveniently ignored the fact that Canon, the most popular brand by a long way has successfully implemented a design paradigm that you claim 'is a bad idea'
Title: I like using the available fingers and thumbs of both hands for settings
Post by: BJL on March 08, 2014, 12:12:00 pm
I would just like to say that for me, the ideal way to control multiple settings (manual focus, zoom, aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation, etc.) is to make use of the available fingers and thumbs of both hands in a way that can be done with my eye to the viewfinder, and is uniform between lenses. My left hand has enough trouble keeping track of where the focus and zoom dials are on various lenses while supporting most of the weight of the camera, so I greatly enjoy not having to also keep track of the location of an aperture ring (let alone an added shutter speed ring!) with that hand; instead I much prefer having the controls for aperture, shutter speed, EC etc. under the thumb and one finger of my right hand, and always in the same position whatever lens I am using.

Sometimes, a change adopted universally by multiple competing companies is just a matter of technological progress allowing new and better ways of doing things. To the old dogs whose decades of experience have made them highly adept with the methods of the all-mechanical era and so are more comfortable with that than with learning new tricks: "get over it", as Michael likes to say.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: trichardlin on March 08, 2014, 01:57:50 pm
and the misreading award of the day goes to......as does the forgetful award as
you replied to a post of mine further up the page where I was talking about where to place aperture/shutter dials. 

I also notice that you conveniently ignored the fact that Canon, the most popular brand by a long way has successfully implemented a design paradigm that you claim 'is a bad idea'

Haha, thanks for the award.  I'll proudly wear it.  I have never won anything in my life. :(

Now, if you are talking about the type of rings on Canon G1X lens, that's not a dedicated aperture ring we are talking about.  It's just a control ring.  Functionally, it's just another dial whose function is fuzzy.  You don't know what it will do until you check your mode dial, or after you turn it. 

If I remember correctly, we were talking about interface designs where there are dedicated aperture rings, etc. and the pros and cons of these "dedicated" controls.  A recent example is the Fuji X-T1 that got reviewed here at LL.  One of the advantage, as you already know, is that you can see your camera settings even before you turn it on (hasn't someone already mentioned that?, sorry I can't recall).

Anyway, no need to beat a dead horse.  I'll stick to my mind controlled camera.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: GrahamB3 on March 09, 2014, 11:55:25 pm
5 pages of comments, and nobody (from an admittedly cursory reading of the posts) points out the obvious?

Sony has 2 still imaging mounts. "A" mount, and "E" mount. There's no "FE" mount, and the only "quiz" is why isn't there any fact checking occurring in LuLa articles?

The E mount throat diameter is 46.1mm. To put this in perspective, Nikon's F mount is 44mm. Leica's M mount is 44mm. Sony E mount's 46.1 mm is well able to accommodate a full frame sensor, but isn't  large enough to facilitate in body image stabilization.

The Minolta/Sony A mount is 49.7mm. Sufficient size to accommodate IBIS.

Sony's markets 2 mounts. The A mount is medium-full size, with IBIS. The E mount, both full frame and aps-c, is a compact, short flange-depth system. The E mount depends on lens-based stabilization, and is able to mount any lens from any system. I find Sony's design philosophy suits my photography perfectly.

Graham
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Isaac on March 10, 2014, 02:31:42 am
5 pages of comments, and nobody (from an admittedly cursory reading of the posts) points out the obvious?

Sony has 2 still imaging mounts. "A" mount, and "E" mount. There's no "FE" mount, and the only "quiz" is why isn't there any fact checking occurring in LuLa articles?

On the first page of comments:

Yes some people will say that Sony has lens mounts, it would be misleading but it all depends on your perspective. There is the A mount and there is the E mount and the E mount cameras can use both families of lenses.

But there are definitely four system of lenses, since lens systems need to be adapted to format size as well as lens mount.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: ndevlin on March 10, 2014, 09:48:27 am
Thank you.  Having those aperture rings and shutter dial simply complicates things.  Pretty soon, buttons will go away too.

Couldn't disagree more strongly.  Having aperture controlled by my otherwise bored and useless left hand leaves my all-important right fore-finger free to hit the shutter button, rather than leaving its post and fiddling with the infernal 'front dial'. 

I don't really care what the aperture ring controls, but it was good design, albeit born of necessity.

- N.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 10, 2014, 11:19:02 am
Couldn't disagree more strongly. 
I don't think he really means that. It was written instead of a sensible response as trichardlin has made some silly assertions and assumes we are all as dumb as a bunch of spanners. Any examples that demonstrate otherwise get ignored.
No idea he copes with a keyboard and software with different shortcut commands. Maybe he has a different computer for each programme to keep things simple.  ;D
Title: preferences in aperture setting: left hand vs second finger of right hand
Post by: BJL on March 10, 2014, 11:41:47 am
Having aperture controlled by my otherwise bored and useless left hand leaves my all-important right fore-finger free to hit the shutter button, rather than leaving its post and fiddling with the infernal 'front dial'.  
If your left hand is bored and useless, apparently you rarely focus manually or use zoom lenses. For me, focusing is more often the thing that I do immediately before pressing the shutter release, not changing the aperture, so maybe these differences in preference depend on usage style. (ADDED: on further thought, I suppose that even with a zoom lens, choosing focal length is usually done earlier in the process, and so  is not so important to the ergonomics of making settings quickly just before the critical moment, so zoom vs prime is maybe not such a major consideration.)

Also, some cameras with on-body aperture settings allow using the ["otherwise bored and useless"] second finger of the right hand to operate the front dial, allowing the "trigger finger" to stay in place: that is my favorite layout.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Rob C on March 10, 2014, 11:49:47 am
Bring back the F! No, the F2: it was a teeny bit more rounded, and less sharp in the hand to carry all day.

Actually, the release button on my F once unscrewed, and ever after I found myself checking, checking, checking... felt like a friggin' playwright.

Rob C
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: ndevlin on March 10, 2014, 04:55:12 pm
No idea he copes with a keyboard and software with different shortcut commands. Maybe he has a different computer for each programme to keep things simple.  ;D

Best camera I've used in years is the 645D which has a separate, dedicated button or control for virtually everything. It was _fantastic_ to use.  Modal. Menus. Blow.

Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 14, 2014, 11:58:55 am
But as someone who, over the years, has been asked to consult on camera design by more than a few Asian and European companies, I can tell you with confidence that no one knows anything – often including myself.

As someone that actually worked in one of those Asian companies that manufacture products and worked with the product teams, I would say you simply don't know the business nor how cameras are designed. You certainly don't understand the economics:

Quote
It's clear to everyone in the industry that the future lies in mirrorless technology, but the two market leaders have DSLRs as their current bread and butter products.

The mirrorless segment is losing ground faster than DSLRs. Apparently, everyone in the industry is confused. And you can refer to the infographic in your latest post which shows that. The digital revolution made such changes to the usual product lifetime that it became increasingly harder to get a return on investment. Customers want newer, faster, better, but are unwilling or unable to pay for it. With a increase in products and faster product cycles, there are actually more products competing for fewer customers. And if stock does not sell out fast enough, then the losses are huge.

While I am sure you know what you like in a camera, it is actually a lot harder when you are designing for a world market with different criteria for what makes a "good" camera. There is also constraints within budgets and the fickle demands of the consumers--you say simplify the cameras and then when Nikon does that with the Df you complain it is too simple and others complain it is not simple enough. People ask for X, but then don't buy X when it is released.

There is a very dedicated group of people making cameras today that have a lot of experience and talent. The fact they don't suit your personal opinion is neither here nor there--there are plenty of people that actually like their cameras and are very attached to them. The camera market is shrinking, but that is not because of a lack of well designed products nor the ignorance of the camera designers.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: michael on March 14, 2014, 12:18:44 pm
Not every company or designer is incompetent. I was not imply that. There are some very bright people out there. I have worked with many of them.

But there are also some clueless ones. And as for their business acumen, all one need do is look at the sad state of their balance sheets to see that many, if not most, haven't a clue on how to climb out of their financial hole.

So, bottom line, I have to disagree with your disagreement.

Michael
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 14, 2014, 12:25:13 pm
Really? Your post seems to imply the companies and designers are incompetent.

As for the financial situation, you have no solution for them either.

And I disagree with you as well. But like you said, no one knows anything...
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: michael on March 14, 2014, 12:35:31 pm
No, that may be what you read, but it's not what I wrote.

If you look closely, I was drawing an analogy, and using a phrase that has been applied to the film industry.

I worked for one of the major Japanese companies in a senior management position some years ago, in their pro video division. There were some of the smartest people I've ever worked with, and also some clueless ones. Regrettable, it was the latter who most often wielded the decision stick.

Michael

Michael
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: ErikKaffehr on March 14, 2014, 12:52:37 pm
Hi,

There was a boom, now we have saturation. Also, world economy is weak. On the other hand, new markets emerge and new technologies are still ahead. But, the industry needs to work harder.

Best regards
Erik


No, that may be what you read, but it's not what I wrote.

If you look closely, I was drawing an analogy, and using a phrase that has been applied to the film industry.

I worked for one of the major Japanese companies in a senior management position some years ago, in their pro video division. There were some of the smartest people I've ever worked with, and also some clueless ones. Regrettable, it was the latter who most often wielded the decision stick.

Michael

Michael
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 14, 2014, 01:56:55 pm
Well, I worked with still film and digital cameras and scanners, not video. I have come to a different conclusion. Sure there are differing levels of talent, but that stratifies with the importance of the product. You cannot keep all the projects with the aging elite. You need to develop the talent.

No, you did not slam everyone. But I do find you like to pick your winners and losers. You slam the Japanese for not innovating and then give a passing mark that Phase should be coming out with a new camera soon. They have been coming out with a new camera for a long time. Locking dials on the Df are really horrible? It seems you are just looking to complain--we certainly get you don't like the Df. Ironically, your latest post calls for simplification in cameras. BTW, things like GPS cost money to put in a camera and since the point of the Df was to simplify and they also needed to control costs, it actually makes sense they dropped the GPS from the body.

You also seem to be a bit confused about how the market developed. Lets take your Sony example. Manufacturers use existing film system mounts for two really good reasons. First, it allowed them to make DSLRs without having to go to tremendous expense of making new lens lines and some of the lines were very extensive. It also lets customers use their existing lenses and nothing angers customers like when they think the company is not supporting them. It was a win for both sides. Sony bought Minolta as a step into DSLRs as well to grab some existing customers. APS became the dominate format for amateurs because of cost. It was also cheaper for the manufacturers to start developing APS lines while having 35mm lenses available. No one, manufacturers nor customers, were going to wait for affordable 35mm sensors. It is also cheaper to make APS lenses and so, when they had APS products, they made lenses to fit--if you thought you might buy a 35mm camera, you should not have bought APS lenses. (APS also needed wides which would have been really hard to make with a 35mm image circle.) Sony had the foresight or luck to make the NEX mount large enough to handle a 35mm chip, but knew it needed to be an APS camera as they were unsure if that would be a consumer camera or an enthusiast camera. They certainly adapted and changed as the market shifted, even driving new markets. Sony has now decided to make another risky move to a FF NEX or a7 series camera. Cameras are expensive to produce as well as lens lines--they do have an a-mount adapter for their DSLR customers. So you are going to have to wait for the lenses. But if this venture fails, then Sony needs to pull out. Lets hope consumers like the cameras and buy them. That is how it works. But the mount development is far from random.

Hasselblad is an outlier, at least their space-shot series. That project was clearly from someone outside the industry that felt they knew how to make cameras better. All that example says is you need more than an MBA to work in the camera industry. I also think you will find this venture will fail miserably. And Hassleblad has not been the first to make this mistake. But this is hardly indicative of the market or industry.

I am sorry, but I simply do not see your premise that "many camera dogs" are produced. Nor that the industry has their heads stuck in the sand. The shrinking industry may well be beyond their control simply because people don't want cameras--you can't make people buy what they don't want.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: theguywitha645d on March 14, 2014, 02:00:39 pm
But, the industry needs to work harder.

At what point in history has the camera industry been more innovative than in the last ten years? Or even five years?
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: michael on March 14, 2014, 02:14:12 pm
Absolutely – the past 10 years have been the most innovative. At least in terms of digital sensor technology. But not necessarily cameras per se.

But if you read what I wrote, you'll see that even this isn't enough reason to give them a "pass". They have produced some truly wretched designs, and need to be called on the carpet for it.

It's not all black and white, and I didn't imply that it was.

Michael
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jrsforums on March 14, 2014, 03:01:53 pm
Absolutely – the past 10 years have been the most innovative. At least in terms of digital sensor technology. But not necessarily cameras per se.

But if you read what I wrote, you'll see that even this isn't enough reason to give them a "pass". They have produced some truly wretched designs, and need to be called on the carpet for it.

It's not all black and white, and I didn't imply that it was.

Michael


Envisioning a product, such as a camera or computer, takes looking into a crystal ball 4 to 5 years before the products birth and trying to determine the market requirements and technology that will be available.  Then building a creation plan that deals with all the changes, opinions, business conditions along the way.  Sometimes it works, sometimes not so much.  Those who succeed are successful creators most of the time.

One thing that is true....it is a lot harder to create than to criticize.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: jjj on March 14, 2014, 03:04:55 pm
One thing that is true....it is a lot harder to create than to criticize.
I'd say it's also a lot easier to create than to get unimaginative people to realise you've come up with a good idea and thus get it made.
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Rob C on March 14, 2014, 03:40:13 pm
I'd say it's also a lot easier to create than to get unimaginative people to realise you've come up with a good idea and thus get it made.



And baby, that applies not only to CAMERAS! I remember driving home almost in tears of frustration from some meetings with clients, good ideas crushed and new formats of design squashed because the old was 'us'! And as I guess will happen or has happened with cameras, initial rejection will become acceptance and enthusiasm when it comes from a different source, by which time it's forgotten that you'd already suggested whatever it was a couple of years back, and so you become yesterday's news.

No wonder folks become brickies, plumbers and sparks!

Rob C
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Christoph C. Feldhaim on March 14, 2014, 04:30:09 pm


And baby, that applies not only to CAMERAS! I remember driving home almost in tears of frustration from some meetings with clients, good ideas crushed and new formats of design squashed because the old was 'us'! And as I guess will happen or has happened with cameras, initial rejection will become acceptance and enthusiasm when it comes from a different source, by which time it's forgotten that you'd already suggested whatever it was a couple of years back, and so you become yesterday's news.

No wonder folks become brickies, plumbers and sparks!

Rob C

Yup - people want security, not creativity.
No risk - no fun - so now you know where the fun has gone ...
Cheers
~Chris
Title: Re: No one knows anything article.
Post by: Telecaster on March 14, 2014, 06:57:12 pm
Yup - people want security, not creativity.
No risk - no fun - so now you know where the fun has gone ...

IMO we're all walking, talking contradictions. We want security and we value creativity. We crave certainty but we're also inquisitive. We work to maintain the status quo in some areas while hoping for & even trying to drive revolutionary change in others. We can be brilliant in some areas and complete brickheads in others. This last one applies to camera designers & makers too.   ;)

-Dave-
Title: Re: Sony's ILCs need four different lens systems: which will keep developing?
Post by: Isaac on March 24, 2014, 01:07:57 pm
Most people buying a camera with full 35mm format sensor have little interest in buying lenses for that camera which are designed for "APS-C" sized sensor and so which must be used with a crop. … I doubt that Sony will be able to sustain development of a full range of lens quality in more than one of its current four combinations of format size and lens mount.

It may be that some of those people already have lenses designed for "APS-C".

It may be that some of those people find it convenient to use lenses designed for "APS-C" on their full 35mm format sensor.

Quote
"I do find that 36mp is too much for most work, almost 207mb saved as a tiff!  I'm now using the Sony 10-18mm F/4 on it, and get much more realistic files, 15.3mp in crop mode, for a saved tiff of nearly 88mb.  I usually dump the RAW and full size tiffs when the job is finalized, but that may be weeks.  Most of my work is for either commercial websites or Real Estate, so 36mp is  too much; you only need about 2000 tack sharp pixels wide, a really good lens with 12-16mp is fine.  I'd recommend the A7 for most people (http://kurtmunger.com/), that's what I'd buy if I had to do it over."
Title: Re: Sony's ILCs need four different lens systems: which will keep developing?
Post by: BJL on March 24, 2014, 01:17:41 pm
It may be that some of those people already have lenses designed for "APS-C".

It may be that some of those people find it convenient to use lenses designed for "APS-C" on their full 35mm format sensor.
Agreed; but that is mostly about existing lens that people already own, not Sony putting the effort into further development of such lenses, or of users of 35mm format cameras choosing to buy lenses that are only useful with a heavy crop.  Some uses might arise, but not enough to contribute much to sales of "APS-C" crop lenses to users of 35mm format cameras.  For a hint of the future that I expect, look at how Canon and Nikon have stopped developing anything beyond f/5.6 zooms for their EF-S and DX formats, and then factor in Sony's lower sales volume and revenues (despite a lot of online optimism, Sony is nowhere close to challenging for #2 in the ILC market.)
Title: Re: Sony's ILCs need four different lens systems: which will keep developing?
Post by: Isaac on March 24, 2014, 10:20:36 pm
For a hint of the future that I expect…

I suppose we ought to note that Sony have 4 full-frame E-mount lenses for sale, with another ready to ship 04-15-2014; and 17 crop E-mount lenses.

The store website shows 24 full-frame A-mount lenses, and 12 crop A-mount lenses. There already are more Sony E-mount crop lenses than Sony A-mount crop lenses.

I don't know what they'll do in the future.

The $13,000 500mm f/4.0 Super Telephoto Lens is on back-order expected to ship 04-10-2014 -- I wonder how many have been made and who's buying them and how much profit Sony make on them?