[interested_observer]

• What’s the Plan? | byThom | Thom Hogan

[NZ_Ross]

It is a very good article - I read it a few days ago.

Thom raises some good questions - you really wonder with the amount of information the camera makers must be getting via sales channels and customer feedback, that they should know the issues, and be able to formulate a credible response to them.

We live in very interesting times.

[calsan]

Probably too many people bought nice cameras who didn't really need them. They've now stopped, but the camera companies are trying to bring them back and don't know how.

[Clavius]

I don't often agree with Thom Hogan, but this time he really hit the nail on the head. It seems as if all camera makers are either doing R&D by trial & error or just re-iterate same old / same old. The ones with the deep pockets are doing it quicker and more often then the others, but they're all doing it.

What I'm missing in this blog the fact that Camera makers are failing to provide a use for todays high end cameras. They digitalised them and got everybody hooked, but forgot to do the rest. And now a lot of consumers have them but fail to see any need to upgrade or add lenses. They realise they just don't need them.

Generally there's only three major things a consumer does with their pictures. 1. Store them on their hard drive. 2. Place them on Facebook or other social media. 3. Have them printed to canvas or album. (I'm not even going to mention the silly digital picture frames.) And I'm afraid it's in that order too. Consumers are missing options there. Why get an expensive high resolution camera when the pictures out of the phone look just fine on Facebook? They even look just fine on the coarse Canvas on the wall.

Just one off the top of my head: When people come into my house they see a lot of big very high resolution prints on plexi and aluminum. It stuns them how clear and sharp they are, they stand still to look at the tiny details. It takes time to take in a large print with such details. Then they want to do that too, and they get stunned again with both the high price and the hassle that's involved in getting those done. They should never be cheap, but easier would go a long way. Why not provide easier acces to printing resolutions that match capturing resolutions? Maybe even at home in smaller formats. Especially Ricoh and Canon are in a very good position to do just that. Or (MUCH!) better digital displaying device then the digital picture frames that are currently available? Maybe even some niche ones, very high resolution monochrome E-ink panels for example.

[Rondec]

Cell phone cameras have killed compact camera sales and SLR cameras have gotten good enough that people don't need to upgrade frequently. It is really that simple. Even if you came out with a camera that had amazing image quality at iso 51,000 I think the majority of people with SLRs wouldn't upgrade.

Probably the big feature that is on its way is connectivity, but I don't know if that is going to push people to ditch their current cameras to buy new ones.

The comparison to Apple or to other cell phone makers is not an appropriate one, because cell phones have a much short life span than camera bodies and lenses. Engineer your D3200 or T2i to break in 3 years and you'll get your instant boost in sales, but at the cost of a very grumpy customer.

[mecrox]

Cell phone cameras have killed compact camera sales and SLR cameras have gotten good enough that people don't need to upgrade frequently. It is really that simple. Even if you came out with a camera that had amazing image quality at iso 51,000 I think the majority of people with SLRs wouldn't upgrade.

Probably the big feature that is on its way is connectivity, but I don't know if that is going to push people to ditch their current cameras to buy new ones.

The comparison to Apple or to other cell phone makers is not an appropriate one, because cell phones have a much short life span than camera bodies and lenses. Engineer your D3200 or T2i to break in 3 years and you'll get your instant boost in sales, but at the cost of a very grumpy customer.

I'm sure you are right though for me the big feature isn't the connectivity itself, which is nothing, but what one can do with that connectivity. That likely means lots of new software, new cloud arrangements for display and printing to physical media, and likely rewriting chunks of the camera's operating system, not a trivial task and certainly a very expensive one since accommodating video will be just as or more important than stills. The present system, which is not much more than bolting on a wifi chip, is a stop gap.

Even so, I think one has to take "by thom" with a hefty pinch of salt. One thing which held me up was his statement that "one reason why my writing about these things might seem a bit grumpy at times is that the problems I write about were known in the 90’s". Well in that case, how serious are these problems, really? Perhaps they are not even problems. None seems to have prevented a massive boom in imaging since that time.

I do agree with his comparison with Apple in one regard, however. As with a computer, with a camera one is buying into a whole ecosystem. The maker can treat you either as a valued and loyal customer or as a prisoner (by virtue of lock in). One tends to hang around while the other absconds as soon as an opportunity arises. While Apple are no saints in this department, they and other companies probably do have a better record here than the camera companies, at least recently. I've never understood why the camera companies don't make far, far more use of the internet to keep their customers on their side. Their websites could be huge and useful repositories of articles and videos about photography and generally "how to" information was well as getting the best from developing and printing your stills (or distributing videos, etc.). Instead there is often a token effort or no effort at all. Compared to the alternative - the prisoners break out en masse - a serious effort online sounds pretty good value.

[Winder]

For a few years digital technology was advancing fast enough that every couple of years we were seeing a significant improvement in in IQ and resolution. I think we have reached a temporary plateau. The IQ and performance of a camera like the K-5II is more than enough for 90% of the DSLR market. Camera manufacturers are struggling to bring compelling improvements to the next generation. People have no reason to upgrade and keep the line trending upwards.

Maybe the next technology will be organic sensors? Sony and Panasonic are betting 4K video is going to drive sales. Manufactures are going to keep adding features and hoping for the magic bullet. Canon scored big when it introduced HD video to the 5DII. HD video became the "must have" feature for many. For Canon, the sensor and IQ are average, so its the lenses and the support that drive their brand.

[Rupert]

Interesting article, and mostly on target. Camera makers in general seem aloof and not connected to their base, as he mentioned. The exception seems to be Fuji, making cameras as asked for by their base, and giving them full support. They are selling their X cameras as fast as they can make them. Are they doing everything right? Nope, but they are trying harder than anyone else I see.
The coming Fuji organic sensor might indeed change the way we think about sensors, as they have already done with their most excellent EVF in the X-T1.
Regards!

Note: This was not a paid advertisement by Fuji....but if they want to send me the first new X30 I will certainly accept it!

[Rondec]

I'm sure you are right though for me the big feature isn't the connectivity itself, which is nothing, but what one can do with that connectivity. That likely means lots of new software, new cloud arrangements for display and printing to physical media, and likely rewriting chunks of the camera's operating system, not a trivial task and certainly a very expensive one since accommodating video will be just as or more important than stills. The present system, which is not much more than bolting on a wifi chip, is a stop gap.

Even so, I think one has to take "by thom" with a hefty pinch of salt. One thing which held me up was his statement that "one reason why my writing about these things might seem a bit grumpy at times is that the problems I write about were known in the 90’s". Well in that case, how serious are these problems, really? Perhaps they are not even problems. None seems to have prevented a massive boom in imaging since that time.

I do agree with his comparison with Apple in one regard, however. As with a computer, with a camera one is buying into a whole ecosystem. The maker can treat you either as a valued and loyal customer or as a prisoner (by virtue of lock in). One tends to hang around while the other absconds as soon as an opportunity arises. While Apple are no saints in this department, they and other companies probably do have a better record here than the camera companies, at least recently. I've never understood why the camera companies don't make far, far more use of the internet to keep their customers on their side. Their websites could be huge and useful repositories of articles and videos about photography and generally "how to" information was well as getting the best from developing and printing your stills (or distributing videos, etc.). Instead there is often a token effort or no effort at all. Compared to the alternative - the prisoners break out en masse - a serious effort online sounds pretty good value.

I don't think connectivity is really the answer to selling more cameras. But I just don't know what else camera companies can offer. APS-C cameras, even with kit lenses, are "good enough" for most folks. Nikon and Canon are banking on the idea that people will want full frame cameras as then next step up in image quality, but for most people, they just don't need that extra stop of image performance. I agree with Thom that having more filters doesn't seem like the answer, but certainly smarter in-camera processing could help folks who hate post processing or, don't even own a computer.

I agree with you on the education thing. The goal of every camera company should be to get their users out of green mode and doing more things.

To me, the struggle is how to get the software in the camera to perform more like photoshop. Whether or not that is possible on such a tiny screen and with the size processor that is in the camera is beyond me, but post processing is where I see the biggest jump in image quality.

[monochrome]

For many, many years I upgraded my desktop PC and software every 18 months. Then I went to laptops and an external monitor, and upgraded the laptops every 24 or so months. That became 36 months.

I run my ethernet network on a 7 year old cast off parts PC running WinServer 2003 mainly to handle the internet On-Server behind the router and for RAID storage. Between multiple wired and wireless cable boxes, a streaming video device, HD cable TV's, Router, WAP's, VOIP landline, cell phones, Eye-Fi cards, tablets and laptops for 5 people, wireless/wired printers and the remaining Adobe desktop, IP and DNS handling has become a complicated chore that I'd rather pay someone else to do for me than spend evenings working out myself. I read every day about the Internet of Things. I can't see how it's going to happen any time soon.

There's really no need for new hardware anywhere in the system, and hasn't been for 18 months. Picture quality, speed and voice fidelity are good enough that incremental improvement isn't useful. Upgrading in some cases (iPhone) often means obsoleting tens of accessories (D-BG5 anyone?)

I think that's some kind of imperfect analogy for cameras in general and dSLR's in particular.

[monochrome]

I agree with you on the education thing. The goal of every camera company should be to get their users out of green mode and doing more things.

At one time a Pentax camera user guide had a 'How to hold your camera' page, and how to focus, too. Including photos.

There is a brief tutorial on the Japan site showing why and how three prime lenses can deliver different photos than the kit zoom - that's a good start.

[Rondec]

Interesting article, and mostly on target. Camera makers in general seem aloof and not connected to their base, as he mentioned. The exception seems to be Fuji, making cameras as asked for by their base, and giving them full support. They are selling their X cameras as fast as they can make them. Are they doing everything right? Nope, but they are trying harder than anyone else I see.
The coming Fuji organic sensor might indeed change the way we think about sensors, as they have already done with their most excellent EVF in the X-T1.
Regards!

Note: This was not a paid advertisement by Fuji....but if they want to send me the first new X30 I will certainly accept it!

I don't see it. Fuji may be catering to their base, but they are still a tiny player that doesn't even register on the sales rankings and end up getting lumped into "Other." At this point, if I wanted mirrorless, I don't know why I would choose a Fuji over a NEX A7 or, an Olympus.

[Winder]

I don't see it. Fuji may be catering to their base, but they are still a tiny player that doesn't even register on the sales rankings and end up getting lumped into "Other." At this point, if I wanted mirrorless, I don't know why I would choose a Fuji over a NEX A7 or, an Olympus.

They don't show up because they aren't in the high volume market. My local brick and mortar store pro sells a lot of Fuji. I stopped by a couple of weeks ago and while I was checking out I saw 12 X-T1 boxes sitting on the floor behind the counter. All of them were pre-orders that they are still trying to fill.

Fuji doesn't market the x-system to the soccer moms and the high volume market. They are going after the professionals and they are having a lot of success. Its going to take a few year to build a base and recover the R&D costs of developing the X-mount, but the future is really bright.

I would chose Fuji over Olympus and I love Olympus products. IF Olympus would produce a FF mirrorless I would be standing in line.
I would chose Fuji over Sony for several reasons. Sony makes great sensors, but their cameras under perform compared to the rest of the market. I hate their menus and ergonomics. They produce new cameras faster than they fix the firmware of existing cameras.

To me Fuji has the best combination of size, IQ, ergonomics, & performance. Fuji is still releasing firmware updates for the discontinued X100. Fuji has done an excellent job of improving products based on customer feedback.

[normhead]

Cameras enjoyed a brief boom with the advent of digital. But my guess is, it's pretty much over. I used to say my next camera would be a 24 Mp APS-c. AT this point my next camera will be a 16 Mp ultra-sensitive camera of some variety. 24 Mp for me is overkill, even with my 30x20 prints. 16 Mp was functionally as good... and 24 Mp while a step up isn't what I thought it would be. Now I'm looking for full dynamic range at 25000 ISO on an APS-c sensor so I can push my shutter speed way up for freezing action, or shoot in early morning or late evening light.

I can say without fear of contradiction, Pentax is not going to make this camera and at this point the Sony A-7s is the only possible option. And it's viewfinder sucks in low light as does it's auto-focus, as far as I know. So, I'm probably not looking at another camera in the next 5 years, unless Pentax or someone else surprises me.

If I'm a typical consumer, the camera companies are in for a tough ride. But to be honest, that's the way i was in film. I've bought more cameras in the last 10 years than I bought in the 50 years before that. Things are starting to stabilize again, and are starting to go back to "normal". The digital craze is pretty much over and it's about to return to the ho hum that existed with film cameras for years. I'm not sure why folks miss the fact that digital caused a bump in the curve that had to end sometime. I just hope these guys (camera company execs) are realizing the craze is per and are ready to get back to "business as usual." I suspect those who can't trim down their operations to function in the new reality while maintaining R&D are doomed.

[Clicker]

The masses have found their camera in a mobile phone or tablet...the niche is still there but they all don't upgrade every new model. This is causing the rift in the manufacturer's perfect world...they can build it but "it" is no longer a traditional camera. Samsung is probably on the right path of integrating mobile and camera into one unit, Apple and Nokia are working on the perfect size....this is now the mass market for photography.