 |
| Seal show at the zoo. More interesting than the camera show this year. |
At the end of the year or in this case at the beginning of the next year, I usually post some personal musings about those cameras or systems which I think have the most and least promise for the near future.
All categories of digital still camera have seen declining sales over the last few years, ensuring that the entire industry is in a prolonged state of crisis, the resolution of which seems unclear at present.
Apparently the biggest selling camera in the world last year with about 4 million units, was the Fuji Instax, a budget snapshooter’s still camera which uses film (!!!!) and produces very small instant prints. Not only is the Instax the top seller it also posted a dramatic increase in sales year-on-year.
Next in sales was the Go Pro point of view (POV) video camera for recording everything you do on this earth in real time.
It seems to me that the very concept of a digital still camera is under assault from instant film, smartphones, POV video devices, expectations of instant communication, instant results and changing lifestyles.
The response of the camera-centric section of the photo industry has been mixed.
I would guess the Fuji people can hardly believe their luck in finding the Instax magic pudding** which just keeps on giving and good luck to them.
Fuji is having another bet on ‘retro’ with its X-Pro mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras (MILC) with less success. The Instax cameras are easy to use and deliver a tangible, instant result. But the X-Pro cameras are so loaded with buttons and dials many people find them really difficult to use so they don’t.
GoPro listed on the NASDAQ in 2014, valued at 2.95 billion US dollars at the IPO.
The camera companies, even Sony and Panasonic with a heavy involvement in video, missed the POV revolution. Ooops.
My best bet is that photography with conventional digital still/video cameras will shrink to a small market for enthusiast and professional photographers who are engaged by the process of capturing and outputting high quality photographs for commercial, artistic or personal usage.
These people are basically the same ones who for many years used advanced film cameras, mostly 35mm film single lens reflex (SLR) types.
The masses and snapshooters who previously used point and shoot compact cameras now use smartphones, Instax and POV devices.
If my thesis is correct, most buyers of digital still/video cameras will be at the expert/enthusiast/professional level or will have an ambition to reach that level.
This has implications for product development. It means camera companies need to produce highly specified products with very good image quality, excellent performance with still photos and video of static and moving subjects and excellent ergonomics.
There is no place for half baked, underspecified or underperforming products.
Neither in my view is there any place for MIL and FZL cameras without a built in EVF of good quality and an integral anatomical handle.
Some camera makers seem to regard handles and EVFs as optional extras. I regard this as an insult to the people who buy and use those cameras and shows disregard for good ergonomic practice.
Sure, some users say they don’t want or need a handle or an EVF.
But the right way to manage this is to include these features and fit every camera with a properly designed anatomical handle and built in EVF. Those users who thought a handle was un-necessary will get a pleasant surprise when they discover how much better a camera handles when it does have one.
Those who thought they did not need an EVF will discover one bright sunny day that the built in EVF is actually a really good idea which enables the user to see the subject when the monitor is not adequate for the conditions. They might also discover that they can make sharper photos at the long end of the zoom when viewing through the EVF.
As I see it the market for traditional digital still/video cameras has resolved itself into three main types: Digital Single Lens Reflex (DSLR), Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens (MILC) and Fixed Zoom Lens (FZLC).
The DSLR type has just about reached the limit of its capacity to evolve. It will soldier on until the MILC type can overcome its current limitations.
Development of MILCs is being held back by EVF refresh rates, problems achieving excellence in follow focus on moving subjects and shutter shock, the final solution for which is elimination of the mechanical shutter.
Both DSLR and MILC types have interchangeable lenses which are either a blessing or a curse depending on your tolerance for buying, carrying and changing lenses.
I think the FZLC type has the greatest potential for evolutionary development. These cameras use leaf type shutters which are not associated with shutter shock. Modern zoom lenses have reached a level of excellence unimaginable just a few years ago.
If my analysis is correct I would expect to see camera makers moving in two main directions:
1. In the ILC realm, making a robust transition from DSLR to MILC.
2. Developing a selection of advanced FZLCs covering the wide to super tele focal length range and with a feature set suitable for enthusiast, expert and professional users.
Let us see how each of the camera makers is doing:
If Canon has been working on some secret strategy to regain its former place as leader and innovator in the industry, right now would be a really good time to announce it, with some convincing products to demonstrate a revitalised approach.
In the DSLR realm, Canon has gone for more pixels. The resulting pixel dense sensor is revealed as prone to image degradation from mirror slap and shutter shock requiring workarounds if full resolution is to be achieved.
If Canon had some really outstanding MILCs in the works their ‘more of the same, steady as she goes’ approach to DSLRs might be understandable.
But the EOS M (Mirrorless) ILCs to date have been depressingly mediocre, underspecified and underperforming little things pitched downmarket to a user group which I suspect has moved on to other gadgets.
What about FZLCs ? In Canon world these gather in the Powershot tent and like the MILCs are relentlessly pitched downmarket with mediocre, half baked specifications, performance and ergonomics. Canon has done very well with this product line in the past but times are changing and I think the erstwhile cohort of Powershot users is moving elsewhere and not necessarily to other camera brands.
I think that if Canon continues its ‘half baked’ strategy with the MILCs and FZLCs then their products will become irrelevant to most consumers who actually decide to buy a camera.
Presumably if you want a proper camera they expect you to buy a DSLR. But the days when Canon could tell its customers what they should buy are gone and Canon needs to wake up to this, by yesterday.
Leica has announced the SL, which I think is a small step in the right direction namely
a) The 24 x 36 mm ‘full frame’ sensor and
b) MILC.
But the implementation is terrible with a large heavy body, even larger and heavier lenses, poor ergonomics, a user interface borrowed from the medium format S model where it was not a great success, low pixel count, no E-Shutter, no EFCS and a price for the body and one lens which would buy a rather nice new motor car.
One commentator suggested that Leica buyers are amateurs “caught in the Leica reality distortion field”. That sounds about right to me.
Nikonhas just announced the D5 and D500 DSLRs which look to me to be the ultimate expression of the DSLR genre, with excellence at just about everything a DSLR can do. But ‘ultimate expression’ also means ‘end of the line’, so what is next ?
Maybe Nikon has also been working on a secret strategy for future product development and if so now would be the time to demonstrate it, like real soon, ASAP.
Nikon chose the ‘one inch’ sensor, (actually 13.2 x 8.8mm, diagonal 15.9 mm) for its entry into the MILC world (hence the name ‘1 Series’).
Not to mince words I call this as a mistake. The 15.9 mm sensor is much better suited to the FZLC style of camera. How can I say this ?
Look at the Sony RX100, and RX10, Canon GX series and Panasonic FZ1000 and TZ100.
These are all FZLCs wrapped around a 15.9 mm sensor.
Look at the photo of a Nikon V3 with 10-100mm lens adjacent to a Panasonic TZ100. Each uses the same sensor size. Each has a 10x zoom with very similar focal length range. The TZ100 has a built in EVF, the Nikon V3 does not.
The ‘1 Series’ is not a convincing MILC platform.
But that sensor size can form the guts of an excellent and versatile set of FZL type cameras.
 |
| Picture courtesy of photosize.com Photosize did not have the manual zoom 10-100 mm lens for the 1 Series in its files so I mocked up approximately the correct size using the 30-110 mm lens as a starting point. The picture which says more than words. On the left the recently announced Panasonic TZ100. On the right the Nikon 1 V3 with 10-100mm lens. Same sensor size, same 10x zoom range. The smaller TZ100 is better specified than the V3 in having a built in EVF. The V3 with 10-100 mm lens is more than twice the size (as length x width x height) and costs more than twice as much. Game over for the 1 System I think. |
I think Nikon needs to abandon the ‘1 Series’ and either join the Micro Four Thirds consortium or come up with a MILC using an APS-C (diagonal 28 mm) or ‘Full Frame’ (diagonal 43 mm) sensor which can take Nikon forward into the mirrorless future. I think they need to do this pretty darn quick or there might not be any future for Nikon.
Nikon’s Coolpix line has been enjoying some success in the last year especially with the P900 and its amazing 83 x zoom. But Nikon needs to get serious about the Coolpix line just like Canon needs to get serious about the Powershot line. Both lines need a very big upgrade to their specifications, features, speed, performance and user interface. They need to become front line products not second stringers to the DSLRs.
There are plenty of rumors that Nikon will make several, maybe three FZLCs using the ‘one inch’ sensor. We shall see. I hope they do this properly and make these premium products with built in EVF and fast processor for excellent performance.
Olympus has a nice and well regarded line of Micro Four Thirds MILC models, a well reviewed waterproof/shockproof compact and not much else. Maybe they will survive if M43 becomes the default ILC format for amateur photographers.
I think they need to rework the Stylus 1 with a ‘1 inch’ sensor to at least keep up with the whole ‘1 inch’ FZLC movement.
Panasonichas been firing off M43 and FZLC models in profusion with a POV device and a smartphone with 1 inch sensor thrown in for luck. I wish they would steady the ship, settle on just three M43 lines and get more selective about the FZLCs which I think could be the main camera type for Panasonic.
My prescription: fewer lines, fewer models, better, more user oriented products.
Samsungappears to have decided that the return on cameras is not worth the considerable investment. Probably a smart decision.
Sonyis making waves with the A7 cameras, or more precisely with one of them, the A7R2. They don’t seem to be moving forward much with other lines though so who knows what Sony has in store for the future.
Notwithstanding the uncertainty which always accompanies Sony’s adventures in camera world, one would have to say the A7 project is ‘promising’. We shall see if it eventually grows into a mature product line with a full set of professional calibre zoom lenses.
So which cameras or systems do I think are the ‘most promising’ this year ?
Well frankly, I have difficulty nominating any of them.
Micro Four Thirds (mainly Olympus and Panasonic) might carve out a niche for itself with enthusiast amateurs and a few pros if they can sort out the usual MILC issues: shutter shock, EVF refresh, follow focus on sport/action.
Panasonic might do all right with its FZLCs. Canon, Nikon and Sony could do likewise if they presented the market with fully specified products delivering excellent performance.
Sony might build momentum with the A7 series full frame MILCs and I hope they do.
But I wouldn’t bet on any of them.
Which are the ‘most puzzling’ ?
Apart from Leica the continued existence of which I find completely baffling, I would have to say the profusion of half baked products from all the manufacturers in all categories is really puzzling.
What are they trying to achieve ?
Which group of consumers are they trying to attract ?
It seems to me they are all excessively preoccupied with ‘the product’ when they should be paying far more attention to ‘the customer’.
As usual we shall see what the coming year brings.
** ‘The Magic Pudding’ is a reference to a classic book by Australian author Norman Lindsay published in 1918.
Đăng nhận xét