Camera industry in the dumpster - article

[jjj]

Andrew,

As someone that has worked in the industry for almost 50 years, has run several public companies, has worked as a senior national manager for one of Japan's largest consumer electronics conglomerates, I can tell you that for all of their billions, for all of their market research, and for all of their smart people, many if not most of these companies are clueless when it comes to the needs of serious photographers and pros.

I have been in product planning meetings where focus groups of specifically invited photographers, all with vast experience and credentials, are asked by these companies for their feedback and input on a new product, and then when the product in question appears 12-18 months later, the simplest suggestions are not included and major shortcomings, which were openly discussed, are still there.

Call it hubris, call in corporate blinders, call it management stupidity, but the camera industry is nowhere near as attuned to the top segment of the marketplace as you seem to give them credit for.

And anecdotally, I was speaking with a colleague today who, as I do from time to time, does alpha and beta testing for a few companies. He was telling me about an upcoming camera which he was alpha testing which has a major flaw, which he noticed the first day, and which when he reported it was told..."Really? We never noticed that".

In other words, you think I was "offensive" in some of my comments. I think that you, on the other hand, over estimate the good sense of many of the companies when it comes to designing the products that knowledgable photographers need. Their lame track records proves it.

Michael

To add to this, my [very busy] local camera shop is forever informing Canikon what their customers keep asking for and no attention is being paid to what is very useful market research/feedback from  the very people they are trying to sell to.

[jjj]

Andrew, I think you're not taking into account the fact that people need cameras. That is, they will buy them even if they're not particularly good, because they need the machine. To argue that the camera company people are actually wizards whose massive market research produces the best possible overall outcome is simply wrong -- major companies screw up all the time, and persist in their problems, even when EVERYBODY knows that it's wrong. And they still, as you put it, manage to shift a lot of whatever they're selling, because people need them...until something better comes along. Ask the once-dominant cell-phone makers Blackberry and Nokia about that.

Absolutely. I tend to choose products, all too often not by the 'which is the best criteria' but by the frustrating 'which is the least crap, least annoying product'. Small cameras were the prime example of this in photography. Compact and pocketable 35mm film cameras were as good as a big SLR as they could use the same film, but there hasn't been a digital equivalent to say the tiny Olympus XA rangefinder as of yet.
The recent Panasonic GM1 seemed to be getting there, but the design is so flawed that two minutes playing with the camera showed it was a waste of space. A great example of a massive, very rich company putting out a product with glaringly obvious problems.

[jjj]

There are lots of fallacies in play here, and in similar discussions across the internet (they all pretty much look the same).

Another one is that a great *product* is something that does its job very well. Let us examine a great product, the iPhone. This is a great product, make no mistake. This is a triumph of product design. And, this is important: It does NOTHING well. It is a mediocre phone, a terrible web browser, a terrible email client, and not a very good camera. There is literally NO FUNCTION it performs particularly well. Add to that, it's too big, simultaneously too small, its battery life is terrible, the UI is sketchy, and a host of other issues.

Why is it a great product?

Because it performs the right suite of functions *well* *enough* and in a form factor that is *good* *enough* to hit an enormously large market. The iPhone defined a new market, which now has several more or less indistinguishable players, and it has destroyed or damaged at least two completely separate multi-billion dollar markets. That's a *hell* of a product. And it isn't good at anything. Think that over a bit.

I think what you forget is that the iPhone was a vast improvement over previous phones and yes its camera may not be as good as a DSLR, its web browser may not be as good as the one on your desktop or that image tweaking software is not as good a photoshop, but none of them fit in your trouser pocket. And that's what it did so very well, it replaced numerous bulky, heavy complicated objects with something quite small and easy to use.
I DJed some while back with CDJs[+mixer+coffin case] which weighed 40+kg, I can now DJ with my phone and did so a while back when I had a sound card issue with my laptop. The laptop DJ setup will fit in a backpack so is way smaller than a coffin case, but still not quite pocketable. Heck I'll often mix music in the car on long journeys [as a passenger] and this putting a multifunctional computer in your pocket is what the iPhone really did.
A computer that could make phone calls too.

[amolitor]

I think we are in total agreement, jjj.

The iPhone isn't particularly good at anything it does, you say it yourself. But the combination of features and form factor make it a great product, in spite of the fact that it's not particularly good at anything. It is *good* *enough*.

[jjj]

I think we are in total agreement, jjj.

The iPhone isn't particularly good at anything it does, you say it yourself. But the combination of features and form factor make it a great product, in spite of the fact that it's not particularly good at anything. It is *good* *enough*.

Not quite in agreement. It is infinitely better than the device that does not fit in your pocket and that you do not have use of. So in fact very good indeed. 

[hjulenissen]

I think we are in total agreement, jjj.

The iPhone isn't particularly good at anything it does, you say it yourself. But the combination of features and form factor make it a great product, in spite of the fact that it's not particularly good at anything. It is *good* *enough*.

Analyzing the success of a product is a bit like analyzing the success of a piece of music. We can apply all kinds of statistics, musical theory, etc to Beethovens 5th symphony. We might find that he did this and that, and speculate what contemparies felt when they heard it. We might even construct a "Mozart generator" that generates music that resemble Mozart.

The original iPhone did something different from competing phones at the time. It was a big commercial and cultural success. Now, repeating that success is hard (either for Apple or Samsung).

If anyone are interested in _my_ speculations, I'd dare to say that the combination of a working touch interface, a UI experience that made people happy (to such a degree that they could never stop fondling it), availability of apps and media, and a nice physical design were key factors at the time. Add to this that the Apple name had a certain aura or status, and that they seem to excel at clever marketing.

The bad judgement by Nokia & friends was that they judged the iPhone on established phone quality metrics (sound quality, radio quality, camera quality,...), aspects that the iPhone may not have been particulary good at. Being a disruptive product, it was able to compete in a different arena than the established players, something that seems necessary in order to shake up an established product cathegory.


How can this be related to cameras? Perhaps that Sony or Samsung at some stage may hit the lucky formula that obliberate Canon and Nikon that seem contempt at refining stuff. Or they may not. Oh, and the winning factor of a successful $500 - $1000 camera may not be DR at base ISO or MTF50 or some other techie spec. I sure don't know what the magic part will be but I sure hope it is something more imaginative than a crude facebook integration.

-h

[Isaac]

... I think you're not taking into account the fact that people need cameras.

Do people "need" more camera than they now have in their phone?

... a certain aura or status, and that they seem to excel at clever marketing.

"When iPhone finally launched in June 2007, consumers lined up for days for the chance to purchase one and over 500,000 units sold on the first weekend."

pdf "What factors contributed to the success of Apple’s iPhone?"

but just look at the statistics below.

2013 for ILC seems much like 2011 -- were some really attractive DSLRs and mirrorless cameras introduced in 2012 that prompted high sales?

In any event, that's not the the market that Japan Inc., is concerned about any longer. Those sales were eaten by smartphones some time ago.

Aren't "[t]hose sales" the "45% drop in shipments of compact cameras" (and the majority of the "40% drop in shipped cameras") shown in the graphic?

[1] - Most cameras are better than most photographers.

[2] - Most cameras frustrate their owners with too much complexity and unneeded and unused functionality.

[3] - Most cameras are highly flawed in one way or another, but their users just don't understand how and why.

[4] - It doesn't matter what camera you have if your photography has nothing worthwhile to say.

I'm not sure if you were thinking in the broadest terms or more narrowly about "enthusiasts" and professional photographers, but:

1) So most cameras are good enough

2) My wild guess is that most cameras are used on auto everything and the owners are untroubled by the functionality they don't use

3) If owners don't understand how or why their camera is flawed, then maybe they don't encounter the flaws and the camera is good enough

4) I daresay the baby photos say something so vital that the parents actually bought a dedicated camera (in addition to their phone camera)

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I think most cameras are good enough to make a perfect print in A2 (17" hight). Ctein said it essentially in an interview with Michael Reichmann some while ago.

Some of us may have a higher goal. That is no reason to denounce others.

It is easy to f___k up. A couple of years ago I was in Yellowstone, shooting at small apertures to get long shutter times. So I got diffraction, Two years ago I went back with a variable ND filter, got no diffraction, but lack of DoF killed my pictures.

Striving for excellence, we balance on the edge, mistakes come easy. And it may take a few years before getting another chance.

A good eye for light and composition may matter far more than knowledge, experience or equipment.

Best regards
Erik

[Isaac]

Some of us may have a higher goal. That is no reason to denounce others.

Agreed. When we talk about "the camera industry" that covers a lot of different needs and goals.

[jjj]

It is easy to f___k up. A couple of years ago I was in Yellowstone, shooting at small apertures to get long shutter times. So I got diffraction, Two years ago I went back with a variable ND filter, got no diffraction, but lack of DoF killed my pictures

Have you tried focus stacking? Not normally used for landscapes, but why not?

[ErikKaffehr]

Yes, I do that, of course.

http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/29-handling-the-dof-trap?start=5

Best regards
Eik

Have you tried focus stacking? Not normally used for landscapes, but why not?

[Isaac]

Have you tried focus stacking? Not normally used for landscapes, but why not?

What makes you think focus stacking isn't now "normally" used for landscapes?

For example, see page 144 "Expanding Depth of Field" in Digital Landscape Photography, Michael Frye 2010 -- and this picture.

... but why not?

Even on a still day, there can be enough breeze to cause noticeable movement moment-to-moment.

[daws]

...Call it hubris, call in corporate blinders, call it management stupidity, but the camera industry is nowhere near as attuned to the top segment of the marketplace as you seem to give them credit for...

Bingo. Detuning from the marketplace is a common corporate disease.

From "3 Companies that Failed to Listen"...

Businesses that have experienced high-growth can get myopic and full of themselves. Some make the big mistake of failing to listen to the marketplace....

Blackberry, which just reported a $4.4 billion loss and a 56 percent revenue decline for its fiscal third quarter, believes it knew better what consumers wanted in smart phones. As a result, it took Blackberry six years to come out with a phone that better fit the growing demand for cheaper phones with apps and more powerful operating systems – a market being served by Apple and manufacturers of Android devices. An article in The Globe and Mail quoted an unnamed Blackberry stakeholder:

“The problem wasn’t that we stopped listening to customers,” said one former RIM insider. “We believed we knew better what customers needed long term than they did.”

[jjj]

What makes you think focus stacking isn't now "normally" used for landscapes?

It is rarely a necessity. Whereas with say macro work is it far more useful.

Even on a still day, there can be enough breeze to cause noticeable movement moment-to-moment.

I also wondered about that, but I suggested it to someone using long exposures, so may not be relevant.

[Isaac]

It is rarely a necessity. ... I also wondered about that, but I suggested it to someone using long exposures, so may not be relevant.

We want to have our cake and eat it too!

In that example, the foreground poppies are sharp and the background stream is smoothed.

[jjj]

We want to have our cake and eat it too!

That saying bugs me every time I hear it, as it should be the opposite way around for it's accepted meaning. As a stickler for careful wording Isaac I'm surprised at you.    It really should be "we want to eat our cake and still have it"

In that example, the foreground poppies are sharp and the background stream is smoothed.

But if it was windy then they would be blurred regardless of focus stacking or using a smaller aperture, if using a long exposure.

[Isaac]

In that example, the foreground poppies are sharp and the background stream is smoothed.

But if it was windy then they would be blurred regardless of focus stacking or using a smaller aperture, if using a long exposure.

If you were a photographer, you wouldn't be so puzzled that a photograph could be taken with a short exposure to freeze the in-focus foreground poppies, a second photograph taken with a short exposure focused on the stream-side flowers, and a third photograph taken with a long exposure focused on the background stream; and then combined into a single picture ;-)

[Telecaster]

Do people "need" more camera than they now have in their phone?

On my current expedition it seems virtually everyone has a smartphone and is using it as a camera. Me too! Probably heard the word selfie used two dozen times today, mostly by kids (spring break) and often as not in a mocking or sarcastic vein.     I took a series of panos with my iPhone this afternoon that are up there with any I've ever done. Nothing really meticulous about it...just a bit of previz, tap the shutter button, pan left to right, tap the button again, done. The results are really good. At one spot I was doing this, with my Oly E-M1 around my neck, when I noticed another guy, Nikon SLR around his neck, doing the same thing. We made eye contact and started laughing.

BTW, the product mix I see here beyond smartphones leans heavily towards larger compacts and mirrorless. Almost no small compacts...you can see the effect smartphones have had on those. Some SLRs but very few large ones. One guy had a pair of Nikon D610s, each with a big zoom (and a partner willing to carry half his stuff). It's an international crowd, well represented by citizens of Asian countries, so there ya go.

-Dave-

[hjulenissen]

I think that the iPhone reference is only partially relevant. It says a lot about what happens with consumer products. The general smart-phone success says a lot about what happened to simple compact cameras. But neither tells the full picture about enthusiast cameras (where most of us have an interest?).

A $1000 "iCamera" may or may not be commercially successful. It certainly won't please the hardcore techie "in control of all aspects of photography" types. Rather, it might have a state-of-the-art (but nothing more) 1" sensor, a dumbed-down interface (producing "great" images with minimal user intervention), nice design/UI and some unexpected usability/connectivity/integration features.

This still does not answer the question: what are Canon and Nikon and Sony & friends to do with the >$500 enthusiast camera segment? Should they continue refining existing system cameras (add 1/2 stop of DR here, 10% more megapixels there), jump on the retro-wave, jump on the "camera wants to be a smartphone" wave, try to rethink everything (upsetting 50 y.o. gray-haired photographers), give up on stills and go all in on video?

I have a feeling that there is some unexplored territory on the low-level lens/sensor/capture side that may or may not appeal to Photographers (big P). Stuff that either is too expensive or never got out of the research labs. More exciting stuff than facebook integration or smile-detection. Lytro may not be it. Kinect may not be it. But surely modern tech + mass-production should enable us to move away from the limitations of film and into a brave new world where altogether different kinds of images are possible (not only "more accurate").

-h

[jjj]

If you were a photographer, you wouldn't be so puzzled that a photograph could be taken with a short exposure to freeze the in-focus foreground poppies, a second photograph taken with a short exposure focused on the stream-side flowers, and a third photograph taken with a long exposure focused on the background stream; and then combined into a single picture ;-)

I'm aware that that can be done, but to repeat myself, it was a solution for Erik - who said he wanted to shoot with a long exposure.