The 6 Month Product Cycle

#1 ian

It's not the out-of-date that bothers me, but the fact that it seems commonplace to use a lot of the same internals (operating system, cpu, etc.) and just add a few extra features to newer models (ignoring physical changes like batteries, CCD, zoom range etc.) and totally snub the previous generation.

If the older systems had firmware updates to allow them to have *some* new features when a new product came out then that wouldn't be so bad, but I have yet to see a 'decent' firmware upgrade arive, such as improving histogram views (3-channel ?) or adding a 'blown highlight' mode to a camera that didn't have it before.

I'd rather that the cameras cost a little more (10 to 50 quid, depending upon target market) and the manufacturers ported as many changes as practical back to older systems than simply plunging on ahead with the next version and leaving the customers who have already supported the firm behind.

This might explain why I always try to buy a camera just as the newer model hits the shelves - it's marked down as obsolete and I can be sure that there isn't one just around the corner that I'd prefer

12:23 pm - Wednesday, July 7, 2004

#2 seanB

Overall, short product cycles are good for the consumer.

The short product cycles are currently driven by fierce competition between manufacturers to win market share in a very competitive market. The next two years are probably critical to each manufacturer to establish itself as one of the major digital camera makers and grab a large chunk of the
market.

I also feel the digital camera market is maturing. Whilst new models keep coming out, the changes are incremental rather than earth shattering. So if you own last years camera, it is unlikely to perform much worse than this years new model. Image quality and resolution seems to have reached a plateau
with the current generation of CCD sensors so competition is now based on other features such as zoom range, image stabilisation, etc.

I would like to see more competition in the Digital SLR field. Canon is a clear leader, with Nikon 2nd. Whilst Olympus, Pentax, Minolta, Kodak, Sigma, Fuji all seem to be a long way behind. Which is bad news for consumers.

cheers
Sean

12:29 pm - Wednesday, July 7, 2004

#3 ed nixon

I agree with Sean about competition driving a lot of what is happening in the digital photography market. But I also think there is a harvest going on in the sense that manufacturers are attempting to recoup as much as possible as soon as possible of their R&D investments.

I think this sector is immature when you compare it to the personal computer marketplace. The signs of maturation are already there, however. Upgradable firmware, standardized hardware components, competitive alliances among companies, whether old/new combinations (lens experts with electronics) or electronic integration experts with name brands (dslr internals with standard body configurations.)

Things will become really competitive in favor of the consumer as the amount of upgradability of equipment increases, or increased amount of field installable specialized component. In other words, when the amount of standardization leads to a "platform" concept with a visible upgrade path similar to the integrated chipset / motherboard configurations available now in PC workstations and servers.

Examples? The ability to upgrade a 6 mpx sensor to 8, 10 or 12; swapping in specialized sensors for specialized applications, e.g., infra-red, monochrome only, etc. Ironically, given its financial woes, Kodak is a leader in the respect with its upgradable pro-level DSLR and its Canon or Nikon lense mount versions.

This may be a view of the professional level of the industry, however. It's not clear that the consumer segment will be able to change in this way, but something will have to give if these cameras are to ever really replace the hybrid electronic/film devices currently populating the high-end, professional segment.

...edN

1:16 pm - Wednesday, July 7, 2004

#4 Mad@TT

It's not a problem with cameras becoming obsolete... I still use my two year old fuji all the time and it's still the same as it use to be. The only thing that changed are my expectations of what a camera should be like. Most people I know are just as happy with their old cameras as they were before a new model arrived.

I love short product cycles since the prices keep going down and maybe someday I can buy myself a new camera that will have most things I need at a price I can afford.

1:48 pm - Wednesday, July 7, 2004

#5 Michael Gottlieb

The first thing you have to recognize,is that a digital camera is NOT a camera in the traditional sense;it is a computer with a lens.

When I bought the first Mac to be sold,the shelf life of a computer was one year;it is now thirty days.This is starting to happen with EVF digital models.

The first digital camera I bought is a Fuji S602. All of the subsequent Fuji EVF models do not produce a better image quality,and in some cases,worse.

All that has changed is a steady increase in price,noise,and bagatelle.

By packing more pixels on the same sized chip,all that is really changing is a noise increase,without improving the image quality. So diminishing returns has been reached.

Any given 6.0 meg D-SLR can outperform all of the current 8.0 meg EVF models currently in the marketplace, and the D-SLRs usually cost the same.

I predict what is going to be shown at Photokina this September,is a full frame Kodak/Sigma/Foveon SLR. My other prediction is the prices of consumer and prosumer models,as well as the D-70 and Digital Rebel, will drop substantially after this Christmas.

Something else to consider: the image quality of the Canon Mark II and the image quality of the 11.0 meg Canon are almost impossible to tell apart. That is going to put price pressure on those two models. The extra $4,000 does not really buy anything more,so diminishing returns has been reached in that market,also.

If there are any quantum changes,it will be in either a full frame Foveon or software.

The continual introduction of new prosumer models is just following the computer market model.

9:34 pm - Wednesday, July 7, 2004

#6 RickfromBama

Price wise for the consumer,it's a good thing. Competition always lowers prices. Sadly it also increases the marketing hype. Best example:digital zoom. An idea which was almost worthless to start with and IS worthless now. I have a feeling the marketing hype will only get worse as the feeding frenzy for consumer dollars continues. "Buyer Beware" is fast becomming good advice for new digital cameras. You wouldn't believe some of the foolishness I've heard from salesmen at one nationaly known electronics store lately. As for me,this week I plan to buy a used digital camera from a store I've done business with for years. Am I afraid my camera will be out of date? No,I know it will be when I buy it. I don't care. I'm all about taking pictures and enjoying it. I'll let the worry warts fret about keeping up with the Jones's.

1:49 am - Thursday, July 8, 2004

#7 Michael Gottlieb

Ian is absolutely correct.

When the Fuji S5000 first came out,and I saw the test results,I was dismayed.

So I went to the 'net,and found a Fuji S602 for almost half of the original retail. The results are great.

I did the same thing with my Leica Digilux 1. I found out the Digilux 2 was more than double the price. I once again went to the 'net,and found a Digilux 1 for the same price as the Panasonic companion model,plus no additional charge for shipping.The Digilux 2 has lower noise,but a shutter lag of about 1.5 sec. The Digilux 1 I bought, has virtually no lag, so it's wonderful for photographing street candids and my cat.

The higher noise I can clean up with Nik Dfine!

That's the only way to beat the game, and a game it is.

4:39 am - Thursday, July 8, 2004

#8 John Villegas

I think it is a sign of a healthy economy where competitors persistently continue to produce the best product for the best value. As long as the older versions don't lose technical support for the poor folks like me who wait for the new releases just to buy the old releases that have the "bare-bones" features, I don't see any problem with it.

5:28 am - Thursday, July 8, 2004