Cameras and Photography Explained

"OMDS says it is shifting to become an outdoor company making imaging products. It’s a subtle shift, but also a significant one in terms of positioning the OM System brand in a different… ahem, space to the other camera-makers." --Digitalcameraworld

When marketing can't describe why their products are a better choice, they look for truth-adjacent rationalizations to explain. 

First off, I don't think any of us were aware that Olympus (and now OMDS) was an "indoor" company. True, they made some products that were used indoors, some that were used outdoors, some that were used in both locations. But to use location in terms of their current products really doesn't make a lot of sense. And oh, by the way, OMDS, does that mean I now have to use my LS-P5 digital recorder only outdoors? ;~) Apparently so, since the marketing materials say it's for "music and field" but only show it used outdoors. Ditto the journalist-oriented recorders.

Worse still, OMDS is using "Outdoor Monster" branding at times in describing what their products are for. Do I really want a monster? I don't think so, but it is true that if I do want one, I want to keep it outdoors. 

All the camera makers are scrambling for the niches they think they can still see and claim, which in turn is also scrambling their product development and user base. I can tell you that the wildlife photography market is getting "filled" and most customers can't afford to buy the big guns more than once. So good luck with targeting that. 

I still have my doubts about OMDS, even though the similar, earlier spin-out of Vaio from Sony is still going, now on it's 13th generation of laptops. Cameras don't sell in the volume laptops do. The dedicated camera market at the moment looks basically overall flat and lacking any meaningful growth. 

Of course you know what I'll write about that: the camera market lacks growth because the makers lack the ability to both properly define why you need one, let alone match user needs properly. 

But let's keep this on OMDS for a moment: imagine if they had made a True Pen, not the compact-derived Pen PL/PM variants they've tended to create. Imagine further that this was targeted as a true compact, ala the Fujifilm X100. Think it might have sold (not sure if it would have gone viral though)? The funny thing is that OMDS must be able to see for themselves that all those PL/PMs basically sold out fast when offered at a discount in the Japanese market. But they haven't really been replaced with anything, and aren't available at all in many markets, including the US. Guess they don't work outdoors. ;~) Petapixel recently interviewed OMDS execs who said they didn't think a Pen-F successor would sell. Well, it certainly won't sell if you don't make it, so good on getting that right, OMDS.

What I keep seeing is companies that don't understand cameras making cameras. Oh, they understand semiconductors and electronics and even optics, but they don't understand cameras and the way people really use them. Probably because the designers don't actually use them, nor do they talk enough to the global community that does use their cameras. 

"X100VI production should be increased in about four or five months." — Fujifilm UK manager

People seem to believe that increasing production is as simple as someone saying "just do it." It doesn't even work that way at your local McDonalds, which would almost immediately run out of food because their incoming supplies are tightly controlled and scheduled. 

No doubt the Fujifilm X100VI triggered a lot of orders. Indeed, the first thing that has to happen is someone at Fujifilm verifies the level of orders and comes to some conclusions about how many are multiple orders where people were just trying to get in line in as many places as they could. Then they'd need to look at their supply chain and see if they have to make adjustments there. Then there's predicting the overall global economy in the near to mid future. 

But let's say that everything adds up and Fujifilm decides, yes, there is a much stronger demand for that product we need to ramp up for. If, for instance, Fujifilm decided that they needed twice as many image sensors for the X100VI as they originally thought, even if they could tell the fab to double production it would be almost three months before they saw a volume change. 

The myth of semiconductors is that you "just stamp them out." In other words, put a wafer on the stepper, press the Start button, and out the other end comes a finished product. Some even think this happens in minutes. Nope. Big bummer coming for those of you who do think that. Many steps occur in just preparing the wafer, then each layer that goes on the wafer takes an enormous number of steps and time to complete, and once that is all built up, the wafer goes to the next machine. That machine does testing of every individual "chip" on it, essentially the first pass of QA. Next, the process may change location depending upon who's doing the work. Either you cut the chips off the wafer and retest, or you do the next step on the wafer: what I call "toppings" are put on (microlenses, Bayer filtration, phase detect masking, etc.). You're still not done. The results next need to go to a packaging facility, where the casing and connection pins are placed around what's been built so far. Some companies do the packaging first, and some toppings last, so some of these later steps may occur in different orders in different places. But they all have to be done, and my point is that there are multiple facilities (and even companies) involved in that. During all this work, the materials may have even piled up a lot of frequent flyer miles along the way. Korea's second largest memory chip maker, SK Hynix, just announced a new packaging facility to be built in Indiana, for instance. The fabs with their steppers, where the process of creating their chips all starts, are in China and South Korea.

So Fujifilm doesn't just call up Sony Semiconductor and say "we'd like double the number of image sensors this month, please." Moreover, if someone calculates wrong—and remember that the image sensor is the most expensive part in the camera—you also can't just call up and say "sorry, we only need half of what we just asked for." 

In other words, changing production capacity in any meaningful way for a camera is a careful process where risk is examined closely and you're dealing with multiple suppliers you need to keep happy. 

Since Fujifilm also uses that 40mp image sensor in cameras other than the X100VI, you might say that they could just pull parts destined for another product. But what if the X-T5 or X-H2 also has high demand? And what if you were going to announce another camera with that image sensor? Heck, is it possible that a recession or worse might happen before you can get more units to market?

I've known for 40+ years via first hand experience that demand that is significantly higher than expected is an "all hands emergency" and requires extraordinary managerial coordination to work through. And that doesn't come without risk. For instance, what if a competitor such as Nikon introduced a similar compact camera with their 45mp sensor in the time before Fujifilm could get all those new image sensors they asked for? 

All this brings me back to one thing, though. Really good product management requires that you be close enough to your customers to fully understand potential demand well prior to launch. All the Japanese companies tend to be pretty conservative in their forecasts and not particularly well connected to their potential customers. Fujifilm already knew they were having clear troubles meeting X100V (the prior model) demand, but their bet was that 15k units a month of the new camera would solve that. They were wrong. And now we'll wait for several months before we see just how much they've managed to increase production.

I'd say that the potential for "overshoot" is pretty high here for Fujifilm. It's a bit like captaining a huge oil tanker: it just doesn't change direction fast, and if you misjudge, you can't instantly correct. 

To continue that analogy, Fujifilm has been sailing a different direction with their compact camera and achieving excellent success. All the other captains seem to not have noticed. None have moved any ships that same direction. All seem to be dealing with their own ship crisis at the moment ;~). So I think Fujifilm will probably be fine with increasing production. But we'll still have to wait for it.

I recently attended the conference of wedding and portrait photographers for the first time. I'm not either, so despite that having been an annual event for well over a decade, I tended to look the other way and go to conferences that were in my wheelhouse. 

However, I'm a committed life-long learner, and it was well past time for me to look at what photographers in other arenas are doing. 

Here are some of the things I learned during the week.

1. Viewfinders are over-regarded. At first I was a bit stunned to see how many well-regarded professionals were never looking through the viewfinder of their camera, but instead always using the Rear LCD. However, when you think about it, one of the things that the wedding and portrait photographer have to do is keep intimate contact with their model. Looking through a viewfinder basically puts a slab of metal/plastic between model and photographer and is distancing. You can keep eye contact and demonstrate things like the head position you want so much easier if you don't have a camera at your eye. 
   
   Of course, this means two things: (1) you need a Rear LCD that tilts for vertical images; and (2) you need a Rear LCD that is bright and detailed enough to see what's going on (and you probably shouldn't wear sunglasses trying to view the Rear LCD, as most are TFT). A lot of cameras fail on one or both of these things. Which led to at least one speaker I saw who used a pivoting HDMI monitor in the hot shoe, which can be cumbersome. And I thought gimbals were awkward and heavy when held in front of you.
   
   
2. Some photographers are ingenious. Give them a lemon, and they will instantly make lemonade. Give them a grape, and they're stomping wine. One fellow from South America who's been on a limited gear budget since forever was still using a medium format Hasselblad film camera. But he needs timely photos for his Instagram account. His solution? Use a smartphone to photograph the big top-facing focus  screen of his film camera, and post immediately, deliver film results/prints later.
   
   It was fascinating to watch him at work. Quite obviously, he took very few photos with the Hasselblad (every film image costs real money to create and process). But he did a lot of work with the smartphone promoting the few images he did take. In essence, he was juggling marketing and final delivery at the same time. Those are two very different mindsets to be in at the same time, and it was interesting to watch as he managed to multi-process them.
    
3. Models aren't mind readers and can get paranoid. I already knew this going in, but a whole week of observing and practicing it really reinforced it. 
   
   The number one rule is to show your models what you're doing. While they'll try to make sense of what you're telling them, showing them the result lets them see it and helps them understand what you might be attempting. That's especially true when you're working with complex lighting situations that delivery a "mood" or "style" to the image. They can't see the results of what the light does unless you show them. Moreover, it's a confidence booster for the model that you're getting something good out of the dance the two of you are doing. And when you ask them to do something that seems silly or exaggerated to them and then show them an image that works, they get less stressed that they might be doing "too much" and just work with you rather than against you.
   
   I saw a number of professional models who I'd say had low self esteem, or at least lower esteem about what they can do than they think is true. Many seem to be unsure if they're actually giving you what you wanted (this applies to casual portraiture with non-models, too). Thus, showing them instant results from time to time starts to break that down.
   
   But models are paranoid in other ways, too. In the past I've watched some photographers approach brides, grooms, business people, sports athletes, and just casual subjects to do something like adjust the drape of some clothing or hair or accessory. What usually happens is what I call "the cringe." The subject doesn't know why you're approaching and what you're going to do and suddenly your hand goes up unexpectedly toward a part of their body they weren't expecting. The pro photographers doing this for a living get past this problem in two ways: (1) announce what it is they're about to do before doing it; and (2) more importantly, keep their hands up and in front of them as they approach so that the subject sees them and isn't surprised by them. It's a small thing, but a really important one. 
   
   
4. Models don't like to smile. Apparently modeling school has taught all the professional models that scowls and seriously constipated looks are what make them money. Personally, I find that sort of expression to make them more rigid and unrelaxed, even if that's similar to the facial expression I want.
   
   The best approaches I saw always "loosened up" the subject prior to asking for specific looks. I actually found myself taking "smile photos" by making jokes and bantering with them before I tried to move a model more toward any more serious look I really wanted. I noticed the following again and again: if the model just immediately goes to their established "serious look" they've apparently been trained to do, that seems to always appear more forced and tense than if you work them towards it instead. I dealt with this issue with actors back when I was a filmmaker, so it wasn't a surprise to me, and I fell naturally back into my old "director's chatter." Still, it made me realize that I hadn't been doing as much of this lately with some recent athlete photos I did. It's sort of the trust thing: you're building a relationship first, then using that to get a result. You don't just go straight for the result.
   
   
5. Improvisation and trial and error takes too much time. Two of the key elements of the conference are the "shooting bays" and the "photo walks." In the former, a pre-established light and set is available, and the model just pops in and you get right to working for your image. In the latter, some of the instructors are pretty dialed in with their ability to replicate a lighting situation in pretty much any environment, and you get to photographing quickly. But some of the instructors—including one who's a well-known pro in a major market—spend so much time trying to replicate a lighting look by trial and error that I can't imagine that the agency clients feel good about all the time that takes. Good thing his images have a (somewhat) unique look to them. Because it takes him far too long to achieve them in any new environment. 
   
   Meanwhile, another well-known pro (from the same big market) wanted her models to do some specific things. But she had already worked all the details out, had the props, and had tried the (semi) improvised things she wanted them to do beforehand. Thus, she was right to the picture taking and small adjustments, not fiddling with knobs, dials, locations of things, and more. Given that you tend to pay for models and locations for their time, the less you're trying to figure things out, the less it's going to cost you. 
   
   If you're ever lucky enough to take portraits of someone famous, you need to understand the difference between improvisation and pre-realized. Generally, you're usually only given a few minutes with said folk, whether they're just another semi-famous-today athlete or book author on a promotional tour or someone truly famous to whom access is guarded like gold at Fort Knox. They all expect to walk in, give you just enough time to take a few photos, and then move on to whatever is planned for them next. You really have to have your lighting and set(s) good to go before they walk in and get right to the image making. Improvisation at that point, let alone trial and error, will probably result in a disgruntled subject who'll never give you the time of day again, as well as poor images that never make it to print.
   
   It's one thing to improvise a model's facial expression or body/hand position, it's another to start with too much of a blank slate and have an expensive prop just sitting around doing nothing while they wait for you to get something set up or fetch another prop. 
   
   This is actually the reason why I prefer to have a studio I control. I can spend hours, days, or even weeks fiddling with lighting and sets and stand-ins to see what's possible and whether that might be what I might want. Then, when push comes to shove and the bride, model, or famous person walks in, I'm ready to get right to the photo making. As Paul Simon once said, "improvisation is too good to leave to chance." 
   
   
6. Angel wings are real. Another thing I sort of knew, but I was a bit surprised to see how prevalent, elaborate, and expensive some of these model props such as angel wings have become. Enough so that there were entire booths of them at the WPPI expo.
   
   The real thing to learn here is that fads can have substantial wings (pardon the pun). After visiting the booths, I started asking around among the wedding and portrait photographers at the conference whether or not they were getting requests for these things, and the answer was a unanimous yes. That's one of those good news/bad news situations. The elaborate prop required and the skill to get that rendered well can bring you in extra bucks. But everyone's now doing it, so it's getting difficult to market that as something that you can uniquely do.
   
   Which brings me to a realization (I've had similar ones before): the trick is to be the one who's creating the fad that goes viral and being the only one that can provide it initially. I think if I were in the portrait/wedding photo business I'd be asking a lot of questions of my potential subjects about how they really see themselves. Are they an animal? A mythical creature? A superhero? What? Because if I could truly capture that in their portrait they'd be showing and sharing it faster than I could even bring up my Instagram account. Your customers are your best marketing, and I'm absolutely certain that applies to portrait and wedding work. 

"Due to the declining number of users, we have decided to terminate the Map view service in NIKON IMAGE SPACE on May 20, 2024 (scheduled).” —Nikon email to NIS users

First off, that’s terrible wording. What PR department in the world would use that first clause? And is that users overall, or users of the feature? 

But more important is this: did you even know that Nikon has a free cloud-based image storage system? Do you have any idea what the features of that system are and why you might use it? 

My guess is no to both questions. When I ask around among Nikon users, about the best I get is “I’m aware it exists, but I don’t know why I’d use it.” Heck, if you type the name into Wikipedia you get "The page 'Nikon image space' does not exist.” That’s a pretty good indication that Nikon itself doesn’t know what the thing is for or how to start building out promotion of it, and that no user seems to think it important enough to create the page themselves.

Nikon Image Space (NIS) is part of the SnapBridge system, though apparently not managed or controlled by the same group. SnapBridge can pull images from your camera to the phone, then forward them on to NIS if you have everything configured properly. From there, you can share those images in multiple ways. Why sharing isn’t built into SnapBridge itself is another story for another day, and why Nikon Wireless Transfer Utility or even Nikon Tether can’t push images to NIS is yet another story for another day. Seems I have a lot of potential stories to write ;~).

The problem, of course, is a common one within Nikon: anything that doesn’t generate a lot of beans doesn’t get past the bean counters. Within development, it’s called resource starvation. Corporately, I’d call it lack of insight. 

There’s no doubt that the primary way images are viewed today is by sharing. As I outlined back in 2007 to 2010, that can be done in a variety of ways, from ftp to email to Web site to social media network and a host more options. If your device creates images and they need to be shared, exactly how do you help your customers do that? 

The camera companies today still seem to think that the sneaker net is all they need to provide. You used to take the film out of your camera, then with your sneakers on take it to a film lab for processing. Sneaker net. Today, you take the card out of your camera, then with your sneakers on take it into your den to the computer for ingest. Silly stupid relic. It’s as if camera designers don’t live in the present, let alone think what the future may be like. 

NIS is failing—and not for the first time—because Nikon doesn’t know what it’s for, doesn’t know how to market and sell it, and doesn’t spend the resources to make it do what it needs to. Today’s email illustrates pretty much all of those things, and that clause up front essentially says “we’re failing.” Thanks for the truth, Nikon, but that still doesn’t solve the user problem, does it?

Update: by the way, the real reason why the map function was removed is because Google changed their API and Nikon apparently hasn't gotten around to changing how to integrate with it. They're using "number of users" as a deflection for their own laziness in keeping their software up to date. But this isn't the first time this problem has arisen: when Musk took over Twitter and started making API changes/restrictions, the Twitter sharing component within NIS broke and no longer is there. Instead of keeping features working, Nikon's modus operandi is to remove them. Eventually the software becomes useless, and the software gets cancelled. What a way to run a software business, eh? 

As everyone gets more time to think about Nikon’s announced acquisition of RED, it’s been interesting to see how many more questions keep getting asked, as opposed to being answered. 

If you think about it, Nikon acquired RED to answer a question: when is Nikon going to get serious about video? Buying RED answers the broad question: Nikon’s now going to have a dedicated video lineup, centered around a well-established top performer. 

What I and others are wondering, though, is about the smaller details. 

RED is an innovator and very leaky. It meets regularly with and embraces customers. RED is also an intellectual property (IP) bully.

Nikon is mostly an iterator and basically leak free. Customers are kept at arms length. Nikon is also an IP trader. 

While all of us can envision how some small changes could make RED’s product offerings fit into Nikon’s, it’s those corporate culture differences that are difficult to imagine how they will work themselves out. In other words, the actual integration of the two companies seems to be rife with potential culture problems. 

On the product side, for example, RED not only gives Nikon a video division, but the RED products will integrate nicely with the Mark Roberts Motion Control automation that Nikon acquired several years ago. RED cameras already can be remotely controlled, but putting them in MRMC arms then gives you full remote control of everything. RED these days has moved to CFexpress from CFast, another Nikon-friendly product point. Yes, there’s the issue of lens mount (currently Canon RF on RED cameras), but that’s not a physically difficult thing to change, it just has some logical tendrils that will need dealing with. 

However, on the cultural side? Big questions loom. But I have no way to guess how they’ll work out. 

What I can do is use my imagination as to what would be the best thing to happen on the product side.

What Nikon can bring to RED is lenses and focus technologies, perhaps AI abilities, and access to IP that Nikon trades for. RED’s volume might not justify using Nikon manufacturing, but there are material and process advantages available if it does. Moreover, RED started as a fast-moving rebel, but more recently has had to cement it’s way in a more structured, mature market. Nikon has deep resources, including access to more money at lower terms than RED is likely to have, and that can be used to re-invigorate RED’s innovation. 

What RED can bring to Nikon is a new set of customers with a potential for growth, in a market that Nikon had slowly moved away from. RED brings Nikon instant credibility in the serious video and cinema market, something that would have cost many many millions and years to try to do from the mirrorless hybrid platform. RED has a set of established video cameras and accessories that can continue to be sold and improved, as they’re highly competitive. Though as far as I can tell, the revenue from those products is probably less than US$200m a year, so it’s not going to be a huge impact on Nikon’s bottom line initially. Whether or not the engineers and patents RED brings to the acquisition are meaningful to Nikon is unclear. Finally, RED has two global shutter image sensors that could be used in other products (though they draw more power than the sensors Nikon is currently using). One thing that isn’t part of the deal are the RED Studios, which are owned by a separate company.

Okay, so how do we square those last two paragraphs together? 

From my background and experience, I believe Nikon should keep RED basically intact and keep them pushing upwards towards Arri level. RED has lost a bit of its innovation and rawness—pardon the pun—in recent years, so it would be nice to see those resurrected to target every level of Holly Wood and the Streamers (sounds like a band name). Add in some of Nikon’s lens, focus, and bandwidth tech and there’s plenty of room for growth from the Komodo to beyond the Raptor. In other words, treat RED at the product level much like Nikon has treated Mark Roberts Motion Control. (Ironically, Nikon has had to add gears to existing F-mount lenses for MRMC.)

On the Nikon side, there’s clear need to bridge to the RED products from the Z8/Z9 hybrid capabilities. Perhaps take the RED Komodo image sensor and build the Sony FX type of body (dedicated video, not hybrid stills). Or take the Z8/Z9 image sensor and build a RED-type box to slot under the Komodo. There’s also clear need for Nikkor video lenses. Those things alone would keep a lot of folk in Tokyo very busy for the time being, letting other integrations take their time to flesh out. 

Done right, lenses and a tweener camera would mean a clear growth path for Nikon Imaging/RED revenues. 

The tricky part is actually on the customer side. Reduser.net, the primary RED support forum (75k members), seems to be not so keen on the acquisition, fearing that the RED they bought into and know will go away. Likewise, Nikon Z System (and DSLR) users aren’t keen on buying a bare bones 8K video body that starts at US$18,000, either (think more like US$25,000 for a usable system, sans lens). These are two very different customer bases that want and need two different types of product. 

There’s a big gap between those customers. Moreover, those that are buying existing things in that gap tend to be younger, demanding as close to the top end performance with as close to the bottom end pricing as possible. 

Bottom line: I don’t think the acquisition changes much of anything for Nikon’s current camera customer. Certainly not in the short term. Meanwhile, I don’t think it changes much of anything for RED’s current cinema/production camera customer. Certainly not in the short term. What I do think changed is that Nikon has found a natural addition to help grow the overall company, while RED has found deep pockets that will help them continue their dreaming. 

Nikon has gotten smart about acquisitions and new business after decades of Precision versus Imaging managerial in-fighting. Good on you. 

Now, where’s that Z50 II, Z6 III, and more lenses?