gavinlg
Veteran
An interesting snippet from an interview with a Japanese panasonic exec:
(http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.handelsblatt.com%2Funternehmen%2Fit-medien%2Fphotokina-panasonic-plant-den-strategiewechsel%2F7142980.html)
I thought it was really interesting for panasonic to admit that the market and the money is now in pro/semi-pro gear, and that the old consumer point and shoots are no longer a viable place to sink r&d and advertising money into.
We're going to be seeing some seriously wow cameras in the next few years - the shift has already started, with Fujifilm and Sony leading the pack, which brings me to my next point - are the tables for the major players about to turn? Sony and Fujifilm are certainly leading the mirrorless evolution whilst Nikon and Canon seem to be cautious of protecting their DSLR lines.
Any thoughts?
(http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.handelsblatt.com%2Funternehmen%2Fit-medien%2Fphotokina-panasonic-plant-den-strategiewechsel%2F7142980.html)
I thought it was really interesting for panasonic to admit that the market and the money is now in pro/semi-pro gear, and that the old consumer point and shoots are no longer a viable place to sink r&d and advertising money into.
We're going to be seeing some seriously wow cameras in the next few years - the shift has already started, with Fujifilm and Sony leading the pack, which brings me to my next point - are the tables for the major players about to turn? Sony and Fujifilm are certainly leading the mirrorless evolution whilst Nikon and Canon seem to be cautious of protecting their DSLR lines.
Any thoughts?
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Very interesting. I think the Consumer Electronic companies are going to be very tough to deal with as they get serious. They can innovate without the shackles of "past-think" and they have very deep pockets. As an added benefit...many are in the semiconductor industry so they can really innovate all the way from sensor to design.
Should be interesting to see how the big boys, Nikon and Canon, respond over time.
Should be interesting to see how the big boys, Nikon and Canon, respond over time.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
How much better can the cameras actually get? There are now a multitude of cameras where ISO 3200 is taken for granted and several that are pretty decent at 6400. Image quality is very high, metering is amazing and focus is near fool proof. (some may disagree with this 
)
All that's left to do now is bugger around with the form!
)All that's left to do now is bugger around with the form!
Chris101
summicronia
Seems like a good idea, but personally, I dunno:
The plethora of alternatives and choices bogs down my photographic creativity. Use this lens or that lens ... My gear has taken the shape of a bunch of cameras, the majority of which have one lens. The rest, have at maximum, three lenses, but I usually leave 2 of those in the drawer when I use that camera. My last and only Leica had only one lens, yet I fit it into any situation.
Considering that the more choices I have, the slower I go, then the logical outcome of infinite choices is that I would do no photography at all!
The plethora of alternatives and choices bogs down my photographic creativity. Use this lens or that lens ... My gear has taken the shape of a bunch of cameras, the majority of which have one lens. The rest, have at maximum, three lenses, but I usually leave 2 of those in the drawer when I use that camera. My last and only Leica had only one lens, yet I fit it into any situation.
Considering that the more choices I have, the slower I go, then the logical outcome of infinite choices is that I would do no photography at all!
gavinlg
Veteran
This is what is especially interesting to me - the camera companies that were previously successful due to their mechanical design and optical competence are at a serious (theoretical) disadvantage compared to the mega-electronics companies like sony/fujifilm/samsung who have access and the money to developing their own technology from sensor through to the body and lenses.... We've already seen leica using older sensors in their flagship cameras and Nikon relying on Sony for their sensors... Could it be that the tides are going to turn and the mega-electronics companies are going to become the new camera specialists?
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
Seems like a good idea, but personally, I dunno:
The plethora of alternatives and choices bogs down my photographic creativity. Use this lens or that lens ... My gear has taken the shape of a bunch of cameras, the majority of which have one lens. The rest, have at maximum, three lenses, but I usually leave 2 of those in the drawer when I use that camera. My last and only Leica had only one lens, yet I fit it into any situation.
Considering that the more choices I have, the slower I go, then the logical outcome of infinite choices is that I would do no photography at all!
Did you know that in carefully controlled laboratory tests single rats were put in cages with multiple food dispensers located all around their confines. Almost invariably they starved to death while trying decide which container to eat from!
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
You never know, I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. A company like Panasonic could choose to just swallow up one of the big boys one day to gain certain competencies quickly in the Pro market.
One company to also watch out for is the current consumer darling who had photography on their radar when their fearless leader died last year. Steve Jobs was very outspoken with his staff about photography (and TV) being the next areas to conquer. They had numerous meetings with Lytro and who knows what's in the works. There may be a massive paradigm shift coming for all we know, lenses and cameras might change into something we can't even really comprehend as current serious hobbyists and photographers.
Then again, Nikon and Canon might continue to kick everyone's ass
Fun times to love photography.
maddoc
... likes film again.
I think that the mainstream (consumer cameras) shift slowly away from the classic single function (can take photos) or dual functions (can take stills and video) design to the multi functional design aka smartphone. Instant in-device editing capabilities, geo-tagging, wireless connectivity and on-line sharing seems to be more interesting for many than waiting for (qualitatively) better prints that can only be shared in person.
For example why not designing an integrated lens-sensor module that could be clipped onto the back of a smart phone and ads low-light / higher fps / higher resolution to the smart-phone but leaves (touch-screen) user-interface and storage in the smart-phone itself ?
For example why not designing an integrated lens-sensor module that could be clipped onto the back of a smart phone and ads low-light / higher fps / higher resolution to the smart-phone but leaves (touch-screen) user-interface and storage in the smart-phone itself ?
kdemas
Enjoy Life.
Hmmm....using the dock connector for connectivity. Not a bad idea at all Gabor and the add-ons could be 3rd party. A Leica or Zeiss add-on module for your iPhone or Samsung smartphone powered through Instagram, Hipstamatic or a serious camera app.
**golf clap** Nice concept.
btgc
Veteran
Apple is interesting phenomena. Their products are bought because they "just work" (well, except models which work with hiccups but Apple aren't unique with this). This is good for people who have dedicated their lives to being good. Good at everything, just like their parents wanted. But then there are other people who don't care a lot for positive image nor they need others liking them. They want to live their lives not their parents. Nor life of loyal customer of a company, "a major one". From this prospect there's no much reason to wish old players continue to stay on market. Some people want to buy products from same old company their parents used to buy from, and some aren't bothered if former microwave maker suddenly becomes a camera maker. So good to live in a changing world!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I hope this means they'll stop dumbing-down their m43 line...and maybe hire someone who is passionate about User Interface design. They're not hard to find, no need for "five+ years experience; degree in UI; proven blah blah blah"; get someone, have a chat with them and present their case...who(m)ever can eloquently state the case as to why one of their current offerings needs interface refurbishing, they have their guy or gal. UI departments need their Simon Cowell in-chief.
Paul Jenkin
Well-known
Interesting times ahead.
Chances are that Panasonic is not alone in realising that the consumer electronics market is beyond saturation point and that there's no money to be made trying to sell a slightly tweaked point and shoot in a different colour to people who are happy with the one they bought 3 months ago.
As a consequence, manufacturers move up the food chain and into the market space which I suspect most of us on here occupy. That's great - for a while. We reap the benefits of some innovative / radical thinking and improvements in low-light shooting, web connectivity and the like.... And then this market is saturated and we've no "need" for anything better, quicker, lighter, more ergonomic.
All this time, Panasonic and its contemporaries will also have been trying to let the technology enhancements trickle down into their consumer models to spark a bit of growth and profit there and the pendulum starts to swing back towards "consumers" from semi-pros / enthusiasts.
Eventually, the photographic electronics sector is in the same position as TVs, phones, etc. and more and more companies have to merge to save expenses and survive.
All this time, Nikon (a tiny company compared to many of its competitors) and Canon keep building cameras that actually do a job - rather than simply being aspirational "toys". In my opinion, FWIW, there's more to be said for being considered and taking time to build cameras aimed at professionals as the likes of Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc did in the 70s onwards.
How many of us actually need most of the gizmos that are now standard features on our digital cameras? Very few is my guess. Perhaps there's a buck to be made manufacturing a digital camera that looks and operates just like a Nikon F3. No silly menus of filters for thsi, that and the other, just a good solid (maybe even manual focus) camera that puts total creative control back into OUR hands and makes cameras less like computers.
I've got a Nikon D700 at home. It's a great camera but my wife (just getting into photography) uses it most as I'm thoroughly enjoying using 35mm, MF and LF film gear. Am I tempted to buy a D800, D4 or a D600? No thanks. What could they do for me that my D700 can't. Nothing of any consequence.
Chances are that Panasonic is not alone in realising that the consumer electronics market is beyond saturation point and that there's no money to be made trying to sell a slightly tweaked point and shoot in a different colour to people who are happy with the one they bought 3 months ago.
As a consequence, manufacturers move up the food chain and into the market space which I suspect most of us on here occupy. That's great - for a while. We reap the benefits of some innovative / radical thinking and improvements in low-light shooting, web connectivity and the like.... And then this market is saturated and we've no "need" for anything better, quicker, lighter, more ergonomic.
All this time, Panasonic and its contemporaries will also have been trying to let the technology enhancements trickle down into their consumer models to spark a bit of growth and profit there and the pendulum starts to swing back towards "consumers" from semi-pros / enthusiasts.
Eventually, the photographic electronics sector is in the same position as TVs, phones, etc. and more and more companies have to merge to save expenses and survive.
All this time, Nikon (a tiny company compared to many of its competitors) and Canon keep building cameras that actually do a job - rather than simply being aspirational "toys". In my opinion, FWIW, there's more to be said for being considered and taking time to build cameras aimed at professionals as the likes of Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc did in the 70s onwards.
How many of us actually need most of the gizmos that are now standard features on our digital cameras? Very few is my guess. Perhaps there's a buck to be made manufacturing a digital camera that looks and operates just like a Nikon F3. No silly menus of filters for thsi, that and the other, just a good solid (maybe even manual focus) camera that puts total creative control back into OUR hands and makes cameras less like computers.
I've got a Nikon D700 at home. It's a great camera but my wife (just getting into photography) uses it most as I'm thoroughly enjoying using 35mm, MF and LF film gear. Am I tempted to buy a D800, D4 or a D600? No thanks. What could they do for me that my D700 can't. Nothing of any consequence.
steveclem
Well-known
I'd buy it straight away and put the rest up for sale (with a couple of exceptions,G.A.S is a bitch to let go of).
peterm1
Veteran
The business model adopted by camera companies for prosumers has pretty much always been to release a camera, then a year or 18 months later when that market has been tapped, to release a cheaper prosumer version containing many of the more expensive ones features to appeal to another segment. And of course they also release a bunch of much cheaper cameras for those who don't know and F stop from an shutter button and who dont really care.
But they have to keep innovating or die. You are only as good as next months sales so the production lines have to keep rolling and this means they have to keep dreaming up new features that can be used to convince people that the camera they bought last year is now a pirece of junk which should be thrown in the bin in favour of the latest and greatest. But of course this tension drives innovation - new lenses, new software, new cameras and new ways to make them. It really is a bit of a connundrum for them - and typifies what in some senses wrong about our throw it away society. At least it produces some great photographic kit.
And now the consumer electronic companies are in the melting pot too. Which I suppose means the pace will only get faster.
But they have to keep innovating or die. You are only as good as next months sales so the production lines have to keep rolling and this means they have to keep dreaming up new features that can be used to convince people that the camera they bought last year is now a pirece of junk which should be thrown in the bin in favour of the latest and greatest. But of course this tension drives innovation - new lenses, new software, new cameras and new ways to make them. It really is a bit of a connundrum for them - and typifies what in some senses wrong about our throw it away society. At least it produces some great photographic kit.
And now the consumer electronic companies are in the melting pot too. Which I suppose means the pace will only get faster.
BobYIL
Well-known
The period of traditional mechanical design and manufacturing is over. Camera factories are not filled with tools and dies to manufacture parts of shutters or cocking-advancing mechanisms. Shutters are under the monopoly of companies like Copal, specialized in designing and manufacturing shutters for any brand name. To dare to compete with them is like suicide. You advise your specifications, they do it for you, no matter whether you are Nikon, Canon or Leica.
The period of traditional optical design and production is over. Lenses do not need to comply to strict vignetting, aberrations, distortion or other criteria anymore; proprietary programs enbedded in camera software take care of them and reduce them down to negligble limits which was never the case with the traditional methods. Also grinding lens elements in conventional machinery has been replaced with the automated processes, to enable an aspherical lens cost under $500 which would otherwise cost $5.000.
The period of conventional camera design is over… For sensor you are at the mercy of the sensor manufacturer; for processing circuitry the same again. The new cameras must be filled with so many features, no matter whether you need them or not. They want you to "update" and "upgrade" yourself while using it, by assuming "what if the user or his wife would need them one day?".
Short: Camera design and manufacturing are not anymore for traditional companies. Sometimes to introduce a new series of products like the FF-series of Nikon or Canon may require funding equivalent to Leica AG’s total revenue.
Day by day we note what it takes to become a “player” in the camera business.. It really is becoming enormously hard to find a crack in the market to fill to survive.. The Sendai plant of Nikon is turning out D800/E cameras at a rate of 15.000 every 15 days; i.e. the yearly production quota of Leica.
As for the mirrorless FF from the big-players: It is rather a revenue calculation, an account based on the ratio between “how much to be invested” and “what will be the return”; none of them takes Leica as competition… And who knows, there could be some beta-prototypes already on the test benches.
The period of traditional optical design and production is over. Lenses do not need to comply to strict vignetting, aberrations, distortion or other criteria anymore; proprietary programs enbedded in camera software take care of them and reduce them down to negligble limits which was never the case with the traditional methods. Also grinding lens elements in conventional machinery has been replaced with the automated processes, to enable an aspherical lens cost under $500 which would otherwise cost $5.000.
The period of conventional camera design is over… For sensor you are at the mercy of the sensor manufacturer; for processing circuitry the same again. The new cameras must be filled with so many features, no matter whether you need them or not. They want you to "update" and "upgrade" yourself while using it, by assuming "what if the user or his wife would need them one day?".
Short: Camera design and manufacturing are not anymore for traditional companies. Sometimes to introduce a new series of products like the FF-series of Nikon or Canon may require funding equivalent to Leica AG’s total revenue.
Day by day we note what it takes to become a “player” in the camera business.. It really is becoming enormously hard to find a crack in the market to fill to survive.. The Sendai plant of Nikon is turning out D800/E cameras at a rate of 15.000 every 15 days; i.e. the yearly production quota of Leica.
As for the mirrorless FF from the big-players: It is rather a revenue calculation, an account based on the ratio between “how much to be invested” and “what will be the return”; none of them takes Leica as competition… And who knows, there could be some beta-prototypes already on the test benches.
nikkor-watching
Established
I did not interpret the article as specifically promising for consumers. Tomozawa was simply expressing his admiration for the high profit margins in camera systems. And that is because companies have a hold over compatibility. They can suck you in with something fairly cheap and further on release something with an improved specification for more money and continually move away from compatibility with third party suppliers.
I don't see that they have any particular improvement in mind that I need. Now if they could do a 6fps body, usable 25600 ISO with image stabilisation in the sensor that takes the lenses I already have, I would consider it for a substantial price advantage. But then they'd have a hard time selling me lenses.
I don't doubt they will approach lens manufacture like the worst third party suppliers to keep high margin mass production anyway. Moulded not ground glass, glued into place, with the zoom ring held on with double sided tape like some Sigmas I have heard. All with infamous sample variation. And that isn't tempting to me.
I don't see that they have any particular improvement in mind that I need. Now if they could do a 6fps body, usable 25600 ISO with image stabilisation in the sensor that takes the lenses I already have, I would consider it for a substantial price advantage. But then they'd have a hard time selling me lenses.
I don't doubt they will approach lens manufacture like the worst third party suppliers to keep high margin mass production anyway. Moulded not ground glass, glued into place, with the zoom ring held on with double sided tape like some Sigmas I have heard. All with infamous sample variation. And that isn't tempting to me.
Teuthida
Well-known
cameras stopped being mechanical devices and became computers 10 years ago. Same product cycles as laptops, same marketing gimmicks.
Just expect to either 1) buy a new one every two years if you feel the need to chase the technology curve, or 2) use the camera for 5-6 years until a critical part fails and the buy a new one.
This is why I find it somewhat absurd to buy a digital M.
Just expect to either 1) buy a new one every two years if you feel the need to chase the technology curve, or 2) use the camera for 5-6 years until a critical part fails and the buy a new one.
This is why I find it somewhat absurd to buy a digital M.
Benjamin Marks
Veteran
I dunno. It seems like the floodgates are going to open on FF digital offerings, which is something I have been waiting for for years. However, there is no question that the short product cycle has a darker side. I was looking at my Nikon D3 yesterday and thinking: well, those 12 MP files are more than adequate for what I do. More than adequate? When I got the camera I was gob-smacked with the image quality. . .just blown away. Now? Well I don't really need more resolution -- how many eyelashes do I need to count on portraits anyway? But the D800 is just over my horizon, beckoning like. . .like . . . like something that beckons.
My concern is that we have entered a technical cul-de-sac with digital, despite its blindingly quick rate of change. Think about the changes that came to the photographic industry between 1970 and 1980 and then those between 2002 and today. It is just astonishing how fast things have - ahem - developed. But what we have in our hands is becoming more like a disposable consumer good and less like a lifelong tool.
My concern is that we have entered a technical cul-de-sac with digital, despite its blindingly quick rate of change. Think about the changes that came to the photographic industry between 1970 and 1980 and then those between 2002 and today. It is just astonishing how fast things have - ahem - developed. But what we have in our hands is becoming more like a disposable consumer good and less like a lifelong tool.
Dirk
Privatier
I totally agree. In fact, the more features, the more confused and turned-off I get. A simple manual focus F3-type camera with a big, 100% viewfinder is all I need or want.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
Did you know that in carefully controlled laboratory tests single rats were put in cages with multiple food dispensers located all around their confines. Almost invariably they starved to death while trying decide which container to eat from!
Ha ha ha!! Great!