HOWL! Where I See Camera Makers Going (with apologies to Allan Ginsberg)

[Luke]

There are things I like and things I dislike about every single camera. The things I dislike I used to assume were a waste. But a small vocal group of enthusiasts can hardly be a bellwether for what the other 99.9% of camera buyers want or seek in a camera.

I'm fairly certain that every one of these camera companies (the ones that we think are making boneheaded moves) has a group of smart, educated people (and trained in their specific field of finding out what customers want and the best way to deliver it to them) and I'm sure they act in the best interest of their companies because that is how they keep their jobs.

So while I have no use for GPS modules, and Jocko has no use for the ability to change lenses, and John has no use for a blue camera and Nic wanted one with more modern controls and RubySusan wants one that will more easily bracket exposures (one of the reasons I sold off a few cameras myself) and on and on, the camera makers can really only try to give use 10-15 different models each year to try to cover thousands of different possible combinations of wants and desires.

So with all of our disparate wants, it's no wonder we've got the camera companies Chasing rabbits, pullin' out their hair and howlin' at the moon (I prefer Hank Williams to Ginsberg)

 

[Ray Sachs]

So with all of our disparate wants, it's no wonder we've got the camera companies Chasing rabbits, pullin' out their hair and howlin' at the moon (I prefer Hank Williams to Ginsberg)

Heh heh. Yeah, me too. But I was never really one for poetry without the music, so I'll take Hank or Dylan or Joni any day. I respect great poets, but its sort of like opera - a fine art form that I personally just never got off on...

-Ray

 

[Yeats]

My opinions on color cameras have received some rather negative reaction, lol -- because people thought I was ridiculing the idea of a color camera, rather than WHY manufacturers are making them.

Skinned devices are a different deal, and so are devices that sell in such mass quantities, and therefore are manufactured at lower cost, that the "price of color" is small. But the investment by a seller of cameras in a range of colors is a big deal if you're in business. In America, where camera sales have steeply declined, such tactics look like desperation rather than innovation.

I know what you mean about innovation not following demand and it's a good point -- but does it really apply to a brightly colored camera? Especially in light of your comment about how other things on cameras aren't being advanced.

Frankly, some design standardization by a manufacturer that results in lower cost production -- and mirrorless lends itself well to this -- could result in much larger sales even though per-unit profit would be lower. Getting more folks into your product with a really good price point for a great product is REAL innovation but Sony appears to be the only one pushing down there. If they continue to do with cameras what they did with some other products and combine that with their vertical integration (making their own sensor) they can really rule in many segments of the camera market long term.

Which I will mourn as I don't like Sony handling, lol.

But, see, America isn't the the primary market for cameras, so the feeling of "desperation" isn't necessarily accurate. Asia and the EU are greater consumers of digital cameras, and cameras ownership is growing in China and India.

Camera color is something of a hot-button topic in Pentaxland, as Pentax has been offering DSLRs in a variety of colors for a few years, and currently offers the K-50 in over 100 color combinations. Few of these are available in North America; they are reserved for the Asian market.

From a market-growth POV, is there really a point to dramatically innovate in the DSLR world? The market is speaking - on Instagram.

 

[entropic remnants]

But, see, America isn't the the primary market for cameras, so the feeling of "desperation" isn't necessarily accurate. Asia and the EU are greater consumers of digital cameras, and cameras ownership is growing in China and India.

Camera color is something of a hot-button topic in Pentaxland, as Pentax has been offering DSLRs in a variety of colors for a few years, and currently offers the K-50 in over 100 color combinations. Few of these are available in North America; they are reserved for the Asian market.

From a market-growth POV, is there really a point to dramatically innovate in the DSLR world? The market is speaking - on Instagram.

The camera companies other than basically Nikon or Canon really aren't making profits in their camera divisions. THAT's why it's desperation. It's not just about the USA -- I just happen to be IN the USA, lol.

Instagram has no real worth. It's like a big electronic Holga where good shots or bad can be submerged in trite special effects. Bet that raises some hackles, lol. But that's how I feel. So, there is no sense in getting a really good camera for Instagram is there? It's not part of this argument and is better saved for talking about cell phones! There are no doubt some folks that are actually artists on Instagram -- but I can't bear to wade through such a pile of low-res, filter-laden shots, lol.

You don't address the underlying flaws to this marking in your arguments: too many confusing or misleading choices, too many company resources spent in developing and marketing "me too" models, too many options for vendors to stock, and no real contribution to camera development or photography. So, in essence, the color thing is entirely about marketing. My arguments are entirely about photography.

I'll concede that for many, a camera is simply another decorative way to express their personality, and is really less about making images, and more about how the individual is perceived. Whether it's cars, clothes, or cameras we all know such people and it may well be that they are the MAJORITY of the market.

If so, that's a sad thing for photography. But I remain unconvinced that confusing body iterations and fancy colors spell ANYTHING good for photography.

 

[Yeats]

The camera companies other than basically Nikon or Canon really aren't making profits in their camera divisions. THAT's why it's desperation. It's not just about the USA -- I just happen to be IN the USA, lol.

I don't see a correlation between camera colors and desperation. For centuries, "Far East" countries have utilized and celebrated bright colors far more than in the USA & Canada. It's cultural, and IMO makes perfect sense that camera makers tap in to this sensibility, especially given the minimal cost of R&D.

Actually, profits for Nikon & Canon aren't good, either. The recent worldwide economic malaise has certainly hurt. I don't believe the availability of different color cars, power tools or hand tools was a result of desperation, and I don't believe that about cameras, either. It makes sense to cater to a market. But all this is merely IMO - neither you nor I know.

Instagram has no real worth. It's like a big electronic Holga where good shots or bad can be submerged in trite special effects. Bet that raises some hackles, lol. But that's how I feel. So, there is no sense in getting a really good camera for Instagram is there? It's not part of this argument and is better saved for talking about cell phones! There are no doubt some folks that are actually artists on Instagram -- but I can't bear to wade through such a pile of low-res, filter-laden shots, lol.

You've actually just stated my point, lol. Consumers are the happy-snappers posting food pics on Instagram, etc. Just another way to socialize, and cell phone cams are good enough to accomplish this. I've never been on Instagram, the Instagram pics posted on other sites just look too "yech" for me.

You don't address the underlying flaws to this marking in your arguments: too many confusing or misleading choices, too many company resources spent in developing and marketing "me too" models, too many options for vendors to stock, and no real contribution to camera development or photography. So, in essence, the color thing is entirely about marketing. My arguments are entirely about photography.

I don't find the choices confusing, any confusion regarding "misleading choices" is a result of marketing spin, and is simply part of the machine in all commerce... may as well rail against the blue sky. I believe that innovation - from a still-photo POV - in the world of "serious" cameras is nearly dead. In a world of me-too-ism, marketing spurs profits, and profits are what it's all about.

Cameras have historically been "me too" items, anyway. Given equivalent lenses, film and developing, the pics are very similar. The key piece of hardware is the nut actuating the shutter.

I'll concede that for many, a camera is simply another decorative way to express their personality, and is really less about making images, and more about how the individual is perceived. Whether it's cars, clothes, or cameras we all know such people and it may well be that they are the MAJORITY of the market.

Aye, and that bums me out.

If so, that's a sad thing for photography. But I remain unconvinced that confusing body iterations and fancy colors spell ANYTHING good for photography.

I'm not optimistic. I sincerely hope you are "right" more than I am.

 

[pdh]

but I can't bear to wade through such a pile of low-res, filter-laden shots, lol .

Oh I dunno ... Might be better than wading through all the hi-res filter-laden shots I suppose ...

 

[Biro]

I suspect what's going to eventually (or perhaps not so eventually) happen is that smartphone cameras will completely overwhelm the bottom half of the camera market (for perhaps all types of cameras - P&S, mirrorless and DSLRs) leaving "more serious" mid- and upper-market cameras for enthusiasts and professionals. That wouldn't be so bad in a general sense. But it may very well mean we'll have markedly fewer (but perhaps higher quality) choices. It's the price tag on those choices that has me concerned.