On July 1st, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a new rule that will penalize companies making false or misleading claims about where their products are manufactured. As a result, marketing departments slapping the ‘Made in USA’ label on their products, and advertising them as so, will need to prove that they are ‘all or virtually all’ made in the United States.
This change could affect certain brands in the photography world, including drone manufacturer Autel, who proudly claims certain drones of theirs are ‘Made in the USA, with foreign and domestic parts and labor’ – many of those components being manufactured in Shenzen, China, the same region where DJI, who has received criticism and even been blacklisted for its ties to the Chinese government, produces its popular UAVs.
Even if this new ruling prevents Autel from saying its products are ‘Made in the USA’ on any level, their CEO Randall Warnas told us ‘this has not been something that [Autel has] needed for [its] success, and will be fine however the ruling turns out.’
Autel’s Evo II Dual drone, which it claims is ‘Made in the USA, with foreign and domestic parts and labor.’
There’s an important distinction to be made when labeling a product ‘assembled in America’ as opposed to ‘made in America,’ as this thorough article written by Jeremiah Karpowicz of Commercial UAV Expo explains. Historically, the FTC has struggled to uphold its standards, without being able to dole out consequences. But this latest ruling could change that.
In light of the ruling, we contacted both Autel and DJI for comment. DJI chose not to comment on the matter, but Warnas said:
‘The FTC is doing the right thing by making “Made in USA” mean something, and more clarity on how this can be accomplished is appreciated. Globalization over the past few decades has been accelerated with the Internet and cell phones that keep information at our fingertips at all times. As the world shrinks, we will surely encounter more blurring of these lines that the FTC is trying to address.’
The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) initially took effect in 1994. Congress had given the FTC authority to penalize fraudulent ‘Made in the USA’ claims but it would take effect after the Commission issued an official rule. That last part never came to fruition as it turned out to be a bipartisan issue – some in Congress thought those making these fraudulent claims shouldn’t be fined.
‘The final rule provides substantial benefits to the public by protecting businesses from losing sales to dishonest competitors and protecting purchasers seeking to purchase American-made goods,’ said Commissioner Chopra.
The FTC released a notice of proposed rulemaking on June 20th and received over 700 comments—most of them in favor of of the FTC enforcing their ‘Made in the USA’ standards. Commissioners Rohit Chopra and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, joined by Chair Lina Khan, issued a statement outlining the implications of this new rule. Small businesses, who otherwise may not be able to afford legal recourse from imitators who manufacture products outside the U.S., but claim that they’re ‘Made in the USA,’ will have an advantage now that the Commission can seek civil penalties up to $ 43,280 per violation.
‘The final rule provides substantial benefits to the public by protecting businesses from losing sales to dishonest competitors and protecting purchasers seeking to purchase American-made goods,’ said Commissioner Chopra. ‘More broadly, this long-overdue rule is an important reminder that the Commission must do more to use the authorities explicitly authorized by Congress to protect market participants from fraud and abuse.’
In order to legally display a ‘Made in the USA’ label on a product, businesses must adhere to the following three components:
Final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States,
All significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States and
All or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States.
It’s unclear whether these new guidelines would prevent Autel from continuing to claim its products are ‘Made in the USA.’ Autel didn’t confirm whether or not this will change any of its plans going forward, but it will undoubtedly make Autel and others think more critically about applying the ‘Made in USA’ label going forward when global parts are used to manufacture the hardware, considering there’s now a financial penalty hanging over their heads.
The Made in the USA Labeling Rule, which will be published in the Federal Register, can be viewed here.
The post Is the Olympus Sale a Sign of Things to Come for Other Camera Companies? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Carl Spring.
A long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away, or 2014, as most would call it), when I first started writing about photography, I created an article on my photography predictions for 2015.
In that article, I wrote about how one or more manufacturers would stop producing cameras. I specifically named Olympus (and Pentax) as companies I could see not surviving long-term. My prediction has unfortunately come true with the recent Olympus sale (six years later, but I was still right!).
This history lesson shows two things:
Talk of camera manufacturers not surviving has been around forever.
Eventually, some camera companies will fall victim to the ever-shrinking photography market.
After years of rumors and denials, June 2020 saw the sale of Olympus to Japan Industrial Partners (JIP). This is the same firm that acquired Sony’s VAIO PC business back in 2014. It now seems (although it’s yet to be confirmed) that JIP will most likely be dropping the name “Olympus.”
The sad loss of Olympus shows that digital cameras are an ever-decreasing market and begs the question:
Is Olympus a one-off? Or is the Olympus sale a sign of things to come?
Unfortunately, it will not be long before we no longer see the name Olympus on a camera.
A small caveat
For this article, I will simply concern myself with digital camera divisions. I know that companies such as Nikon and Canon have huge businesses outside of cameras, but that doesn’t mean they won’t close their digital camera divisions if they become financially unviable.
What is happening to digital camera sales?
Digital camera sales are still in decline.
To give you a sobering statistic, over 98% of all digital cameras sold are smartphones. As cameras in phones continue to improve, the small percentage of compact digital camera sales will more than likely continue to shrink to zero.
But there will always be a market for more serious digital cameras. Such cameras are aimed at those of us who enjoy photography beyond a snapshot. For those who photograph either for a hobby or an income, there will always be the need for a larger camera with more advanced features.
That said, figures are continuing to trend downward and are not looking good. There are Japanese analysts who are saying that, unless the industry rapidly changes, it will begin to collapse. How true this is depends on several factors, but one thing is for sure:
We are heading toward rock bottom.
The quality of phone cameras means the compact camera market is shrinking rapidly.
The Corona effect
A recent report by Slackline showed that the camera industry has been hit incredibly hard by COVID-19. The camera market came in at number three on a list of the top 100 fastest-declining e-commerce categories in 2020 (only beaten by luggage and briefcases).
The reason for this is obvious:
People are not traveling or attending events for which they could justify the purchase of a new camera. Add to this many professionals who are simply not upgrading due to a major drop in income, and you are seeing a perfect storm for any camera company that may be struggling financially.
The perfect holiday camera, if only we could go on holiday.
We are about to hit rock bottom
Back in 2019, Canon president Fujio Mitarai talked about the continuing drop in sales and the expectation that, in two years, the market would drop by around 50%.
Canon estimates that the total market will be about six to eight million prosumer and professional cameras. In 2019, when Mitarai made his statement, the sales of interchangeable lens cameras were estimated to be around 10 million.
When you see figures like that, it is hard to imagine every camera brand still being able to compete.
But who will dominate? And who will be left to follow the route of Olympus?
King Canon
A while back, I said that Nikon & Canon could go the way of Kodak.
But right now, it definitely doesn’t look like Canon is going anywhere. Figures published by Nikkei show that, in 2020, Canon owns 45.4% of the market.
Canon was late to mirrorless technology, and many (myself included) thought the EOS R and EOS RP were subpar compared to what Sony was putting out. However, Canon had huge success with the 5D line, as well as cameras such as the 7D. This meant that many were still happy with their bodies and would only be purchasing lenses, flashes, etc.
It was a misstep by Canon to underestimate mirrorless, but honestly, it didn’t hurt them too much. The sales of the EOS R and RP showed that Canon has a loyal and longstanding fanbase.
Add to this the release of the EOS R5 and EOS R6, as well as their success (overheating aside), I cannot see Canon losing its market share in the next 12-24 months. So if Canon is safe, who is most at risk?
Canon’s hottest release, the R5, sees the company continuing to dominate the market.
We need to talk about Pentax
Pentax’s stubborn refusal to move away from the DSLR is a potential sign that they may be heading for significant trouble in the very near future.
In 2020, the company’s statement of “Pentax believes in the future of DSLR photography” seems crazy. The sale of DSLR cameras has dropped massively since 2017.
Reading that first statement, you may think I am bashing Pentax’s managerial decisions, but I feel the problem may lurk a little deeper.
You see, I don’t think Pentax currently has the budget to develop a mirrorless camera from scratch. They have reached a point where they would need significant time and effort to do this, which comes at a significant cost.
Also, part of their recent brand statement was this line:
“When you take a picture with a single-lens reflex (SLR) camera, the light passes through the lens and, in turn, the optical viewfinder. You view the image directly with your eyes, and feel it with your heart.”
This reminded me of Fuji’s “Pure Photography” vision at the launch of the X-Pro3. Could this mean that Pentax is aiming for a niche of customers who will want to continue to use DSLRs? It certainly could be a strategy, but I am not sure how this will work in practice. I don’t think there will be enough DSLR sales to allow this to work. Even if it does, it will seemingly lead to tiny R&D budgets.
Whether it is down to budget or that Pentax truly believes in their vision and wants to create a niche, who knows? One thing that we do know is that the market has moved to mirrorless. By refusing to move with it, Pentax looks too far behind to come back, which is sad to see.
I truly feel that, as a company, Pentax will slowly fade into obscurity and then close its camera division.
Will the decision to stick to DSLRs hurt Pentax?
Could one of the big companies follow?
The obvious point this leads to is whether one of the bigger companies will eventually fall. I think it is a case of, “While that is unlikely, nobody is too big to fail.”
The way Nikon has been overtaken in camera sales by Sony signifies a shift in the market. Nikon is set to release a new flagship mirrorless camera very soon, which will likely keep them comfortable for a while.
Here’s the longer-term question, though:
Will the market sustain three major players?
If the answer is “No,” then you would have to say, simply based on recent performance, Nikon looks to be the most likely to fade away.
I feel the Fab Five of Canon, Sony, Nikon, Fujifilm, and Panasonic are here to stay. All of them are releasing amazing cameras and pushing things forward.
However, I feel that, over time, the market will be dominated by Canon and Sony, with Nikon starting to compete with brands such as Panasonic instead of the new Big Two.
That said, if the leaks about the upcoming Nikon releases are true, I may have to eat my words.
The high-end specialists
The decline in sales to professionals due to COVID may be posing big issues for brands such as Hasselblad and Phase One. These companies’ main market is almost exclusively professionals who need the very best quality images. Again, the coronavirus issues will be having an effect on sales.
Could this be enough to topple one of these companies? I honestly don’t know, as they play their cards very close to their chests. But there was something I found during my research for this piece that did make me think that all may not be perfect in Hasselblad land.
In a 2019 interview, Hasselblad’s head of sales for Europe, Uwe Moebus, said: “There are fewer professional photographers and it is getting harder and harder for professionals to make decent money.” He then spoke of the desire for amateurs to start using Hasselblad.
These comments hint at a shrinking market for Hasselblad and its need to diversify. With COVID, we will have to assume that this will not have gone as well as hoped and could be the sign of problems to come.
Does Hasselblad really need the amateur market?
Video is key if you want to keep up
While photography seemingly continues to decline, the video market is continuously buoyant in comparison.
This is due to YouTube being the new TV and the large number of YouTube channels popping up everywhere. There is also a market for crash cams in major film production. The idea of destroying a brand new camera is heartbreaking for most of us. However, when on a Hollywood budget, a relatively cheap camera that can be used with little regard to its survival (except for the memory card) is perfect for the job. This is a growing market for camera manufacturers.
The fact that Netflix has approved the use of the Panasonic S1H as a production camera creates a market that goes way beyond photographers and YouTube creators.
Sony has always been great with video; it is a huge reason for their success. The release of the 12-megapixel a7S III shows Sony releasing mirrorless cameras for video first (if not almost entirely). Obviously, this has become a hot topic (bad pun intended) with the Canon EOS R5. As a stills camera, everyone agrees it is a masterpiece. However, Canon marketed it almost solely based on its video features. All of the complaints, problems, and potential boycotts are based on this.
When shooting in 8K, you can extract a 35-megapixel still frame from the footage. In a field such as headshot photography, where you are looking for the perfect expression, you can now capture 30 shots per second, continuously. Shoot a minute of video, skim through until you find the perfect expression, then export the frame as a large megapixel file. This may well become the future for certain types of photography.
Sony’s video-first stance is clear to see.
How a decreasing market will be bad for consumers
Those of you reading this are probably part of the shrinking market segment that will continue to buy interchangeable lens cameras.
However, while the market and consumer needs will dictate which companies survive and which fall, the fact is that the Olympus sale will impact the whole industry.
While I feel that technological developments will continue, budgets for research and development will be cut. Fewer camera sales mean less ability for the engineering departments to push new technology. This may lead to a future with new models having smaller, more incremental updates rather than exciting, huge leaps forward in camera technology.
Again, I feel the future will be driven by video and the developments will come from Sony’s and Canon’s high-end cinema lines.
The thing is, though:
In purely photographic terms, what more do we actually need?
Is it really that bad?
Well, this has all been doom and gloom. Is there any silver lining?
The fact that, even when the market hits the predicted bottom, there will be enough money for several manufacturers to continue working with still gives us hope. The camera launches in 2020 have been spectacular and show no signs of stopping despite the Olympus sale.
In terms of photography, I really feel we are in a position where technology can no longer give us huge improvements. Maybe a stop more dynamic range here, a little less noise there.
But as a photographer, what else do you need right now? Autofocus systems are amazing. Noise at high ISOs is fantastic. Frames per second are almost video-like. We don’t need new technology; we need more creativity, and that is still solely down to the one who pushes the button.
The post Is the Olympus Sale a Sign of Things to Come for Other Camera Companies? appeared first on Digital Photography School. It was authored by Carl Spring.
How far would you go to profess to the world your love for photography? Would you live inside a house that looks like a camera or name your children after popular camera brands? If you’re 49-year-old Indian photographer Ravi Hongal, the answer to both of those questions is ‘yes.’
Detailed in this short video from Caters Clips, Hongal spent over £75,000 (roughly $ 95,000) turning his family’s home into a photography tribute. The house features a window lens, a film strip balcony railing, an oversized SD card and even a speedlight that doubles as a security lamp. Although not shown in the video, Hongal has also adorned the inside of the house with camera-inspired rooms.
As if the house wasn’t enough, Hongal and his wife also named their three sons Canon, Nikon and Epson. If that’s not dedication, we’re not sure what is.
Fujifilm X-Pro2 cameras being moved along the production process inside Fujifilm’s Sendai, Japan factory.
Last week, South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Japan is planning to set aside $ 2.2 billion of its $ 993 billion emergency COVID-19 stimulus package to help Japanese companies move production out of China, a move with potential ramifications for numerous Japanese camera and lens manufacturers.
According to the report, the $ 2.2 billion would be split into two different funds. Roughly $ 2 billion will go towards assisting Japanese companies move operations back to Japan, while the remaining $ 200M will help companies move production into other countries, in what is likely an effort to help diversify supply chains that aren’t domestic.
Rather than purely speculating on the matters, we decided to contact executives at a few Japanese camera and lens manufacturers to find out what their thoughts are on this facet of the emergency stimulus package.
General Manager of Fujifilm’s Optical Device and Electronic Imaging Products Division, Toshihisa Iida, had the following to say when asked about the SCMP article and its potential impact on Fujifilm’s operations:
‘Manufacturing in China has changed a lot over the years. It faces many challenges such as parts and labor availability, increase in overall cost, [the] US-China trade issue, and most recently, COVID-19. We still depend heavily on China to source electronic and mechanical components, but we started sourcing from alternative vendors from outside China as well.
[Business continuity planning] is always a very important agenda in our business strategy. We learned from disasters such as earthquakes and floods in the past, and keep our eyes open to prepare for any situations to secure the supply chain. COVID-19 is no exception.’
As for its current production operations, Mr. Iida says ‘Fujifilm already owns factories outside China (e.g. Japan and the Philippines)’ and has also subcontracted factories. ‘Production quality in all of the factories [is] being monitored to achieve the same standard,’ he says. ‘We look at all the important elements for production, such as capacity, cost, lead time, and [allocation of] the products to the aforementioned factories in order to deliver the products efficiently.’
Here, finished X-Pro2 bodies manufactured inside its Sendai, Japan factory await final checks before being boxed up for shipping.
Despite the Japanese government’s record stimulus package, Mr. Iida remains unsure of its impact on Fujifilm’s production, saying ‘It’s too early to say whether we will move our production from China, and if we do, how much will be shifted to Japan or elsewhere, but we will continue to monitor the situation and take action if and when necessary.’
All in all, it seems the production shift initiative might not have as much of an impact on the photography industry as some might’ve hoped. Aside from not being heavily publicized, the state of the industry even before the COVID-19 pandemic wasn’t great and investing in a contracting market isn’t exactly assuring, even with a convincing stimulus opportunity to make use of.
President Trump has said U.S. companies that sell components to Chinese tech firm Huawei will be allowed to continue to do so.
In remarks at a press conference during the G20 summit in Japan, Trump said that he had told the Chinese leader Xi Jinping that Huawei would be allowed to buy U.S. goods once again. ‘We send and we sell to Huawei and tremendous amount of product that goes into the things that they make, and I said that we would keep selling that product’ the president said in answer to a question from the press.
Further remarks suggested the change had been in part due to pressure from U.S. suppliers who were banned from selling their goods to Huawei rather than any material difference in Trump’s position regarding national security concerns around the tech giant’s relationship with the Chinese government. Trump said that the U.S. companies were ‘not exactly happy that they couldn’t sell.’
President Trump has appeared to soften his tone on Chinese communications giant Huawei, suggesting that he would allow the company to once again purchase U.S. technology https://t.co/4YNJCyKLTg pic.twitter.com/jr45f40ghP
— CNN International (@cnni) June 29, 2019
It isn’t clear at this stage what this means or whether all those previously trading with Huawei will be able to begin doing so again. Trump implied that it was ‘Silicon Valley’ firms that he was referring to, and said of the products ‘it’s very complex, by the way, highly scientific.’ This doesn’t really allow us to determine whether the ban is lifted on all the products sold from the U.S. to Huawei or whether he is referring to physical components or software—such as the Android operating system.
The Huawei affair comes against a background of growing trade tensions between the U.S. and China, as President Trump imposed import duties on a range of Chinese products in a move he claimed was to protect U.S. industry and to counter the country’s ‘unfair’ trade deal with the Chinese. In May Trump also banned all U.S. businesses from dealing with Huawei as the company was deemed too close to the Chinese government and a security threat. It isn’t clear what has changed to reduce the threat level of the company’s activities, or whether the change of mood is more to do with internal pressure on the U.S. government from domestic firms losing business because of the ban. More will be revealed.
On Monday, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS) sent out an alert that was first obtained by CNN. It states that drones manufactured in China are a ‘potential risk to an organization’s information.’ The products ‘contain components that can compromise your data and share your information on a server accessed beyond the company itself.’
‘The United States government has strong concerns about any technology product that takes American data into the territory of an authoritarian state that permits its intelligence services to have unfettered access to that data or otherwise abuses that access,’ the alert continues.
‘Those concerns apply with equal force to certain Chinese-made (unmanned aircraft systems)-connected devices capable of collecting and transferring potentially revealing data about their operations and the individuals and entities operating them, as China imposes unusually stringent obligations on its citizens to support national intelligence activities,’ the alert adds.
While the report doesn’t name a specific company, Shenzen-based DJI, which dominates the U.S. and Canadian drone markets with close to an 80% share, according to a market sector report from Skylogic Research, is of utmost interest.
While the report doesn’t name a specific company, Shenzen-based DJI, which dominates the U.S. and Canadian drone markets with close to an 80% share, according to a market sector report from Skylogic Research, is of utmost interest. The manufacturer’s drones were recently banned in the US Army several years back, despite no clear evidence of spying or data transfer from the aircraft being presented.
Still, concerns about hacking or the siphoning of data remain at the forefront. The USDHS alert follows an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump, prohibiting U.S. companies from using any telecommunications equipment from Chinese company Huawei. An escalating trade war between the two countries doesn’t help matters and also raises suspicion on the timing of this latest USDHS alert on drones.
The United States leads the world in the number of drone platforms being developed. China comes in a close second place. If the trade war continues to escalate, many upstarts and manufacturers in the U.S. are going to face unexpected challenges with their supply chain if they built their platforms around any Chinese components, as sUAS News points out.
DJI responded to the USDHS’ alert, the full statement is below:
‘At DJI, safety is at the core of everything we do, and the security of our technology has been independently verified by the U.S. government and leading U.S. businesses. DJI is leading the industry on this topic and our technology platform has enabled businesses and government agencies to establish best practices for managing their drone data. We give all customers full and complete control over how their data is collected, stored, and transmitted. For government and critical infrastructure customers that require additional assurances, we provide drones that do not transfer data to DJI or via the internet, and our customers can enable all the precautions DHS recommends. Every day, American businesses, first responders, and U.S. government agencies trust DJI drones to help save lives, promote worker safety, and support vital operations, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We are committed to continuously working with our customers and industry and government stakeholders to ensure our technology adheres to all of their requirements.’
Marketing departments work to develop products that people will want. They aren’t always trying to make the best product for you, though.
Camera companies are not your friend but they’re also not trying to trample on your dreams. It seems like an obvious statement, but a misunderstanding of how markets and marketing work sometimes leads to exactly this sort of misconception. A look at the role marketing plays can help explain why ‘your’ brand sometimes makes decisions you hate.
Making a profit is not the same as profiteering
Brand loyalty sometimes prompts people to forget that every significant camera company is a large, profit-driven corporation. The fact that they make tools for a very personal, expressive, creative purpose and are often staffed by people who really care about photography (even in the marketing departments), shouldn’t obscure the fact that they’re trying to make money. But that isn’t the same thing as profiteering: it’s in their interest to make products that you want. And it’s the marketer’s role to work out what that product would be.
Marketing isn’t the enemy
Product development isn’t about virtuous engineers who create lovely things and evil marketing people who take them away. It’s usually a back-and-forth to create models that suit a specific audience without overwhelming them with tools and features they don’t necessarily want or producing cameras they can’t afford.
It’s true that, without the input from marketers, engineers can produce Formula One race cars. However, most people find a Ford Focus, Honda Civic or BMW 3 Series much more affordable and considerably more convenient for collecting the weekly shop. Still, if you wait long enough, some of that Formula One know-how may well make an appearance in your family hatchback.
It’s a process called market segmentation: identifying large enough groups of people with similar enough needs and disposable income, then making models specifically for them. If you get it right, you end up with a range of cameras that appeals to a broad range of people and makes it obvious to each buyer which model is best for them. Most of us aren’t racing drivers, after all.
It might not be for you
The upshot of this is that not every model is aimed at you. You may have read my car analogy and found yourself thinking ‘I’d never drive a Ford Focus.’ But, whether that’s a matter of taste or because it doesn’t suit your needs, this doesn’t mean the Focus isn’t a good product.
It is common to assume that your needs are universal or, at least, typical. However, just because you find a feature to be indispensable doesn’t mean that everybody else does. It follows then, that a company may not be wrong to remove it. So before you find yourself stating “no xxxx, no sale,” it’s worth thinking whether the product in question is aimed at you and whether it might be a good fit for other people. It could be that the sale to you was never expected.
Just because you find a feature to be indispensable doesn’t mean that everybody else does
For instance, there are a lot of people who are very vocal about the absolute necessity of viewfinders, but if you look back to the days when people actually bought compact cameras, you’ll notice that the majority of them didn’t have one. Most manufacturers would offer one or two models simply to capture the refusenik dollar, but the vast majority of users bought the cheaper model without one and did the same when replacement time came around.
D7500: desirable or debacle
The D7500 is a great example of the challenge of market segmentation. By resuscitating its high-end Dx00 line, suddenly the D7200 successor has to fit between two models rather than sitting as the best APS-C camera Nikon offers. Cue cries of outrage from people who decide that the features omitted to squeeze it into the gap were absolutely essential. To them.
Nikon reintroducing its high-end Dx00 series, means the D7500 is targeted at a slightly different group of people compared with its predecessor.
Nikon will have done its market research and presumably it’s concluded that most D7x00 users don’t want, need or use a second card slot or lenses that need metering tabs. It may also have concluded that most users who still want these features will either also want/need the other additional features that the D500 offers and will, however grudgingly, pay the extra money to step up, or decide that they can, regretfully, live without them and buy a D7500 anyway. After all, companies don’t try to pitch their products at the price you want to pay, they set them at the amount you’re willing to pay.
Companies don’t try to pitch their products at the price you want to pay, they set them at the amount you’re willing to pay
The other way of looking at it, of course, is that the D7500 is a faster camera than the D7200, with a bigger buffer and 4K video capability as well as some AF upgrades. So there are likely to still be plenty of people who’d never buy a D500 but who will find the D7500 offers them an awful lot of camera at a price they’re willing to pay, just as the D7200 did before it.
This isn’t to say marketing departments and market are always right, though. Confuse the customer or play things too conservatively, and you risk your company’s whole future.
Getting the message across
A clear example of unclear messaging is Sony’s a6x00 series. With its a6000, a6300 and a6500, Sony makes three fairly different cameras for fairly different users, yet there are lots of people confused about which models ‘replaces’ which and how Sony can justify apparent price increases.
The problem seems to be that the physical similarities and the naming convention are enough to convince some people that they are successive, rather than complementary, sister models. Step back and look at the pricing and the differentiation of feature sets though. The a6000 is the mass-market, circa $ 700 model. For a bit more money you get a better viewfinder, 4K video and faster shooting in the a6300. Then, at an even higher price point, you get the in-body stabilization, touchscreen control and deeper buffer of the a6500.
The pattern isn’t so different from that of Nikon’s D5x00, D7x00 and Dx00 series, or Canon’s 77D, 80D, 7D Mark II lineup, yet it’s one that causes a lot more angst and uncertainty.
Canon, competition and complacency
Then there’s the behavior of Canon, which is often criticized for making ‘uncompetitive’ models. Don’t they get it?
There’s something to these charges, perhaps. Companies with less market share will try to cram extra features in or set more aggressive prices to catch the eye of customers who’d otherwise gravitate towards market leaders. There isn’t the same pressure on the market leader to do the same.
People may decry the Rebel series as being dull or underspecced, but they’re a good enough fit for their target audience that Canon still sells a bucket load of them, irrespective of whether another brand offers a better feature set or that a mirrorless camera might be more convenient. And for many of their users, they are very good cameras.
But there’s risk in such caution. Ignore your smaller competitors for too long and you risk discovering they’ve eaten your lunch. While I’d take Sony’s claims of being number 2 in ILCs with a fair amount of salt*, it’s fair to say that the company that brought you the Walkman and the Playstation is also making significant inroads into the high-end camera market.
I don’t believe the continued absence of 4K from most of Canon’s models is purely a question of market segmentation. Or of complacency.
It seems unlikely to me that Canon hasn’t noticed this, which is why I don’t believe the continued absence of 4K from most of its models is purely a question of market segmentation. Or of complacency. Yes, Canon wants videographers with a project budget to buy into its Cinema EOS system. But the absence of 4K across much of the company’s lineup and the heavily cropped, yet still rolling-shutter prone, implementation on the EOS 5D IV (a camera nominally targeted at video shooters) suggests the company is also facing technological challenges in providing it.
The EOS 5D Mark IV (now available with Log gamma) is Canon’s most video-centric DSLR and yet its 4K capture is somewhat limited by significant rolling shutter. It seems extremely unlikely that this has been done with an eye on Cinema EOS sales.
Similarly, I doubt that Canon intentionally held back the dynamic range (DR) on the EOS 6D II to push people to buy the EOS 5D IV. It’s much more likely that it was cheaper to iterate on an existing design or to spread the cost of an older, coarser production line over one last generation of sensors because they don’t think the end user will mind. Or, at least, not enough to stop them buying the camera.
It’s worth not making the mistake of thinking that one brand must to offer a feature just because its rivals do.
As we tried to stress in our write-up, DR is not the sole significant factor in image quality, and the addition of Dual Pixel AF will represent a major benefit to a lot of 6D II buyers. So it’s worth being careful not to fall into the ‘no xxxx, no sale’ trap or making the mistake of assuming that one brand must offer a feature or capability just because its rivals do. Maybe the vigorous defenders of Canon’s honor are correct. Maybe the 6D II will be good enough, given the camera’s price. The alternative is that more competitive rivals will step in and dislodge the Canon from its dominant position. Ultimately, the market will decide.
You can’t always get what you want…
It can be frustrating to watch a camera company create products that don’t quite fit your need, worse still to see another brand offer something that’s closer to what you want, especially if you have enough money tied up in lenses to preclude swapping system or when it means having to spend more money to get the feature you want.
However, let me make a suggestion. Think about the camera you owned five or ten years ago, what it could do and how much it cost. Now have a look at the one you currently own.
If you feel that your current camera is a better match for your needs and skills than the one it replaced, that’s thanks to, not in spite of, the efforts of the marketing department. And, with this thought in mind, why not wander outside and make use of that capability? Because that’s what the engineers and marketers were all working towards.
*I’m not questioning whether the claim is true, just querying its significance. Outselling Nikon in terms of value of sales over a very select period, immediately after a stretch of not being able to supply cameras, when you’ve released several high-value cameras much more recently isn’t quite the same is saying “Sony is #2 now.”
Samsung, Sony, Panasonic and 3D technology company X6D have announced they will devise a standard for 3D glasses. The ‘Full HD 3D Glasses Initiative’ will develop and license Bluetooth radio frequency (RF) communication protocols as well as standardizing the various infrared (IR) systems that have been individually developed. Glasses incorporating the standards will be available in 2012 and should be compatible with 2011 TVs. Although the move is primarily movie-related, the standardization is likely to offer some confidence for shooters of 3D material worrying which viewing system to invest in. News: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Comments Off on Major 3D industry companies look to standardize glasses
You must be logged in to post a comment.