Do You Have What You Need to Do Your Work?

Stephen S. wrote, of Jeff Keller's article on DPReview:

"I think one of the key points of the article is getting glossed over, and that's just how many compact cameras were actually made by Sanyo, and one thing the article missed, which is how many lens/shutter units were made by Tamron. There are comments here like 'Both had really great Schneider lenses' and 'The lens was built by Pentax' and in those cases, they were most likely cameras actually made by Sanyo, with lenses actually made by Sanyo or Tamron.

"It's also worth noting that for most of the heyday of compact cameras, Sanyo was owned by Matsushita, a.k.a. Panasonic. I think everyone caught on to nearly everyone using sensors built by Sony, but when you had cameras from Pentax, Olympus, and Casio all using the exact same lens, everyone assumed it was one of those three making the lens and the other two licensing it, but the reality is that neither of those three made any part of their cameras at all—easily confirmed by the 'made in' markings on the cameras listing a country that none of those companies ever had a factory in!

"There are so many interesting stories from those days that haven't been discussed, like when Olympus compact cameras could be hacked to produce raw files that could then be processed by software that recognized Nikon .NEF raw files. The reason they produced compatible raw files was that Olympus and Nikon compact cameras were being made in the same Sanyo factory, running closely-related firmware code written by Sanyo, running on the same Panasonic processor inside the cameras, taking an image from the same Sony sensor. Brand choice meant far less than people thought it did!"

Mike adds: Very interesting (and nicely said).

And the reason why all that was happening, I would venture to guess, was that camera companies got into digital compacts in the beginning thinking they didn't matter very much, that they were just trivial add-ons to their normal business model and therefore might as well be commodity products. That, and the likelihood that Sanyo could out-compete smaller manufacturers on cost thanks to economies of scale. And a related point: do we care, right now, who makes the tiny camera modules in our phones, or where they're made?

The history of business is always basically fugitive in my opinion. The true story goes from being a guarded proprietary secret to being run through the shredder and forgotten because it no longer matters much to the companies (we easily see how quickly companies lose interest in offerings that are not profitable, like Amazon shedding DPReview [I was not up on that at all, by the way—thanks for cluing me in] and Apple orphaning Aperture). And the people who knew the details retire, still with no reason to give the inside scoop, and then die, along with all their knowledge. The people who are authorized to tell the story are most often related in some way to PR arms of the companies themselves, who naturally want to give a sanitized, simplified, or slanted version, larded with a lot of marketing assertions past or current. 

Unbeholden and unbound
In the end, though, does it matter to us? Dedicated photographers are always to some extent outsiders, not beholden or  bound to mass-market companies and the largest cohort of their target customers. That's changed a bit since the compacts went away, of course, because now a number of old-line camera companies really are selling advanced tools mainly to mavens.

When I was young it was a common truism that the mass market helped support the specialized equipment serious photographers needed. It was natural to think so, especially because Kodak did it deliberately and openly: its profit centers subsidized many of its less profitable (and unprofitable!) services, in the same way that Ma Bell used to subsidize local phone service with high charges for long distance. But for camera companies those days are gone. The computer manufacturers making phones took away all the mass-market business from the camera companies, for the excellent reason that they were already selling the capability to share the images conveniently and more or less effortlessly. (Which, when I discovered it, c. 2014—I was a little late to that party too—was another moment of absolute wonderment.) That's a big reason why we now get presented with $6,000 cameras and $2,000 lenses.

But to get back around to the point I was making, I never thought any of that had much to do with photographers, as long as photographers have what they need to do the work they need or want to do. And that's always been my position: I just want photographers to have what they need to do their work. Not just me—all of us. Beyond that it's kind of a matter of, well, yes, there are larger forces in play—but what's it got to do with me and others like me?

Mike

Original contents copyright 2024 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. (To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below or on the title of this post.)

Featured Comments from:

darlene: "Do You Have What You Need to Do Your Work? Well, let's take a quick inventory…

**FILM**
Sinar 4x5 x2, Ebony 4x5 x2, Linhof 4x5, Cambo Wide 4x5, Pinhole 4x5, Fotoman 6x17, Hasselblad 6x6 x3, Mamiya 6, Nikon F3, Canon AE1, Minolta CLE. What's missing? Just my unreasonable desire for a 6x17 field camera.

**DIGITAL**
ALPA STC, SWA, TC; Phase One P45; Hasselblad 907x; Sigma SD1 x2; Fujifilm APS-C x3. What's missing? Only my equally unreasonable desire for a 60-MP full-frame for digitizing film.

"I think I'm set…for now. Just waiting on that 6x17 field camera. 😊 "

Comments

[robert e]

It's strange to think back from this perspective. What strikes me now is the sheer variety of form factors that were tried, including a couple that sorta hinted at smartphone cameras to come. I forget now who marketed it but there was a reasonably successful line of minimalist pocket cameras that were just slabs, a little larger than a deck of cards but the same shape, and incorporated essentially a periscope to achieve a reasonable focal length without a protruding lens, or an external lens at all, which, come to think of it I guess technically made it a reflex camera.

But in general, form factor was as big a deal then as image quality for many, and for some a bigger deal, and there were a lot to choose from. Today? Just a handful of styles in a variety of sizes, as far as I can tell.

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

The one thing that I still want that leaves me scratching my head. I can buy an Apple Watch or an IPad and pay an additional $10 per month for 5G service - the device has it's own mobile connection.

But if I buy a $6,000 camera I need to connect to wifi in order to then move images. Why is it that a professional camera can't have its own 5g connection?

[Omer]

Yes, sharing is an added reason to use a phone camera. But for most folk phone cameras are also good enough for the image making they're doing while using scarce funds for rent and food.

[Dave]

The idea of a smart camera isn't new:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV3kGWn9G24

In the comment section of that video, @6ryphon had commented, "To me, the biggest gripe with more modern digital cameras is that they feel like computers instead of actual cameras."

@LupusAries had an interesting response to @6ryphon:

''. . . any device that is connected to the internet can be hacked, so having a device that is offline adds a literal firewall. ...The only reason for the instant upload that he talks about that Android pitched would be photojournalists or journalistic photographers . . . that would need to instantly transmit their images out of a high risk situation. However what's usually the first target in war . . . and the first thing the Government shuts down in case of unrest or an uprising against it? Yep, the cell network!"

"Now this also adds a bit more sinister reason against connectivity; any cellular device needs to be registered; it needs to be linked to a name, address and number. . . . It would make it ridiculously easy for any such police state to then identify who was using professional level cameras, or any other serious cameras, to make arresting them much easier."

And there's been another attempt, more recently:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgQ-zl-Orvc

[Scott]

@John -

Because the traditional camera companies insist on defining their business as making the “best” lenses and camera bodies, rather than solving our real problem: capturing images and distributing them. That’s why the phone manufacturers have won the war - because they stumbled on the truth of what the market wants.

[Patrick Perez]

I'm a little surprised that darlene hasn't gotten a 5x7 camera (or 3) and a Horseman rollfilm back.

I jest in good spirit.

Patrick

[Moose]

JOHN B GILLOOLY asks:
Why is it that a professional camera can't have its own 5g connection?

Dunno, perhaps because it would cost even more with a 'phone built-in?

But I don't care, either, 'cause stuff I shoot with my "real" cameras never goes public without processing. Cameras just don't "see" the way my eyes do; I want to show what I saw when I took the pic, not how the camera has captured it. Sometimes, they are much alike, often, not.

Also, I do a lot of ProCap bursts and of focus brackets. 90 focus slices over 5G??

My OM-1 bodies, and some earlier ones, (Panny, too?) can send the pix to a phone as taken. I don't do that, so don't know how well it works.

[Jeff]

How are the $6,000 cameras not a death spiral for the camera companies? As prices keep going up more people switch to the ever more capable cell phones, kids won't buy regular cameras, dslr users won't spend a huge amount of money to buy new mirrorless, mirrorless users won't upgrade, etc. etc.

[Moose]

Jeff asks:
"How are the $6,000 cameras not a death spiral for the camera companies?"

If the alternative is a certain death from selling at losses, perhaps risking a strategy of selling fewer cameras but at a profit, is relatively attractive.

I've written here, long ago, with examples of the economics of mass production. Didn't do any good; people still assume prices are unrelated to cost.

The relationships 'tween development costs, tooling/statup, parts, production run size, expected sales, expected average selling prices, cost of sales, etc. are quite complex.

Changes is sales volume tend to have what seem from outside to be outsized changes in cost, and thus what may need to be charged to avoid sales at a loss.