Southern Vermont

Convergence vs. Divergence

Convergence has become a buzzword in the camera world. The simple definition in this specific case is the convergence of still and video capabilities in one camera. This excellent article by Michael Reichmann on the Luminous Landscape fully explains this trend:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/convergence.shtml


Convergence has been adapted by the major manufacturers in a big way. Except for the top of the line cameras, both Canon and Nikon are introducing live view and HD video in their DSLR’s as they are upgraded. A Panasonic GH1 is being used for a full length movie. Nikon and Canon DSLR’s have been used for music videos and advertisements. So convergence is already at a point of acceptance. Where it exactly goes is still uncertain, but new and exciting areas will develop in the future.

However, just as important for the camera world is what I choose to call divergence. Divergence is where the camera companies develop camera formats or platforms that increase diversity or differentiation in the camera market.

The digital age has seen extensive contraction in the industry. Minolta, Konica, Contax, Bronica, Polaroid, and Rollei are gone, either absorbed by another company or simply going out of business.

To help vitalize the camera industry, the manufacturers must choose different development paths, to differentiate their products to appeal to various market constituencies. Without this push for platform innovation, rather than innovation inside a platform, the industry will continue to contract.

Fortunately for the photographer, divergence has already started to happen.

Divergence occured first in small sensor cameras. It has started to happen in the medium, full-size and medium format markets.

Sigma stuck their neck out and started the trend toward divergence by introducing two large sensor compacts, the DP! and DP2.

Panasonic and Olympus have introduced their micro 4/3rds cameras

Most important, Leica, with their newly announced products, have reaffirmed their M camera, and have introduced two new products in divergent categories. See theonlinephotographer.com:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/09/leicas-back.html

All these things are happening at the top of the camera product world. Plenty of products are available in small sensor cameras, but this divergence is happening at the top of the market, which is important.

Why is it important? Because it offers still photographers more choice.

The camera industry has been driven by divergence.  From the very start, innovation has been driven by changing camera formats.  It's really only been in the past 50 years that one format came to dominate: 35mm.

Digital capture changed that. Small sensors originally ruled due to the limits of the technology and expense of producing large sensors. As volumes increased, prices decreased and the technology was improved. APS-C cameras were introduced. Now full-size 35mm equivalent sensor cameras are reaching prices that were once unimaginable. And sensor sizes continue to increase in in the medium format segment as well.

Photographers have found small, medium, and full size sensors all offer advantages and disadvantages, and each draws differently. Small sensors provide large depth of field and allow for pocket size cameras that produce reasonable quality. APS-C and micro4/3rds cameras provide better quality files than small sensor cameras. Full-size sensors offer better than film quality and the file size to allow large prints. Sensor and camera platform maturity means the manufacturers can tackle the “edges” of the camera market. Examples of “edge” cameras are the Olympus EP-1, Panasonic GF1 and Leica X1. All this can only be good for camera consumers.

This divergence/differentiation which we see now will continue. Samsung has unveiled their APS-C-size sensor compact. Larger sensors WILL become cheaper. Someday there may be a full size sensor compacts like the Leica M that WON’T cost $7000. Someday, not that far away, the small sensor camera markets will be fragmented and reduced by the use of increasingly better camera phones. New products and sensors will be introduced that will render obsolescent what we are just accepting as mainstream. Bring them on!

To the Campground

Corey Ledet

Bags and Blouses

Why Bling May HAVE to be the Thing that Ensures the Future of the DMD

In a previous rant published on The Online Photagrapher, I hinted at the problems small volume manufacturers face competing in an open market.  In that context, Mike Johnston's Decisive Moment Digital will never be cheap.  Ever.  Cheaper?  Yes.  But in today’s dollars, a new DMD will never be cheaper than an entry level digital SLR.  

Why?  

Low production volume.  The market for the DMD is small. I’m guessing of course, but I believe the total market for a DMD is no more than 2% of equivalent DSLR sales.  The CIPA figures for 2008 indicate sales of approximately 9.7 million DSLRs.  That means sales would be a bit less than 200,000 units.  In a generous mood I might accept a figure of 500,000 units per year for the first year or so.  We might use as an example the Leica/LeitzMinolta/Minolta CL which sold approximately 85,000 units over three years in the mid ’70’s.  Given double the world’s population, and a wealthier world population, lets quintuple that figure, at which point we end up with 140,000 per year.  So the 200,000 figure seems reasonable.  The important point is that the DMD demand is really for people who want a DMD.  Many potential buyers will opt for high end compacts such as the Canon G11, the Panasonic LX3 or a superzoom.  And others will prefer an entry level DSLR because of it’s better image quality or a clearer upward mobility path for lenses or for simply the prestige value of using an SLR.  In sum, the market for the DMD is limited.

Lack of shared components across multiple product platforms. The GF1 shares some components with the G1/GH1(the Olympus shares none, or very few with its siblings), but cramming the same components into a smaller package is more, not less expensive, because a new, smaller, more highly “packed” design is necessary to accommodate the original components and special considerations must be made to effectively remove heat generated by those components.  Since the DSLR body is inherently larger, swapping components, or migrating technology down the product line, is easier due to fewer design constraints.

The current manufacturers of DMD type cameras lack high priced and high margin platforms that would otherwise make large contributions to the camera division’s bottom line.  Canon and Nikon can rely on higher profits from their upper end DSLRs to cushion the lower margins of their entry level products.  Conversely, Olympus and Panasonic must create higher profit margins with the EP-1 and the GF1 than might otherwise be the case if they had a larger portfolio of high margin products.  When Olympus and Panasonic fill a niche market, it cannot be done at a lower margin.  They cannot pad the product line with a lower margin item simply designed to enhance the overall brand image, the way a Nikon or Canon might be able to do.

So why may “Bling have to be the thing”?  Because the bling factor of the retro cool EP-1 and the color kaleidoscope GF-1 may attract a significant percentage of the 110 million buyers of compact cameras (2008 figure from CIPA), or even cellphone photographers, that want to upgrade to a better camera.  And if that happens, the production volumes of our DMD’s will be kept up. With that, the costs may eventually come down some, and perhaps the viability of the DMD will be secured.  It seems Olympus was wise to this issue, because the #1 feature listed for the EP-1 in their global press release was “A dignified exterior design”, and of course Panasonic has a variety of colors for certain markets.  So even if you prefer basic black for your DMD, be happy with those who feel bling is the thing.


Note: after writing this I found a press release from Panasonic that pegs GF1 production at 15,000 units per month, or 180,000 per year.

Sigma Envy

On Saturday, Mary and I were at the Rhythm and Roots Cajun/Zydeco Festival in Rhode Island for a bit of dancing and music.  I took the Sigma DP2 along to take some snaps, with the hope of an occasional decent shot.  

My photography was average at best, but I was surprised by the amount of Sigma Envy I basked in throughout the day.

At each stage there were photographers, mostly using Canon DSLR's with the 70-200 zoom in white (that combination is like a badge that says "I'm a serious photographer").  Well, in order to get close I had to get close, real close, and I naturally, but politely, pushed myself past the Canons.  Man, did I get stares.  Or rather my camera got stares.  It's a bit pimped out with the filter barrel and the lens shade, and the hulking, bug-eyed Voightlander VF.  Also, the Franiec grip covers the Sigma label, so it's BLACK!  

But twice, while standing by the stages, 2 different photographers who were inside the lines (!) asked me to come back with them to get a better shot.  One knew it was a Sigma and asked if it was a DP1 or DP2, the other simply asked what kind of camera it was.  Both asked to take a look through the VF, and both asked what I thought of it.  Although long conversations were difficult because of the volume of the music, both guys made it clear they thought it would be more fun shooting with the Sigma vs. their Canons.  

Oddly, I thought if I were getting paid I'd take their 5D's with the 70-200 instead, but that's another story.

The Price of Being Small and Taking Risks

Mike Johnston, corporate president of The Online Photographer conglomerate, was foolish enough to publish a rant of mine.  It's here:

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/07/the-price-of-being-small-and-taking-risks.html

Rocky Bed

Goldenrod

Just Plain Madness

Weed Fireworks