Interesting analysis by Thomas Hogan- II

Started Sep 20, 2008 | Discussions thread
Thom Hogan Forum Pro • Posts: 13,660
Re: I don't understand how is that any different....

Danielvr wrote:

The "complicated" you refer to is basically "mirrors and prism."

It's more. It's exchangable lenses, a backside full of buttons, menu
upon menu of settings that all have to be right for the occassion,
there are accessories that you may or may not need..

Let's see, the G1 has exchangeable lenses, a top and backside full of controls, menu upon menu of settings, and I suspect we'll see lots of accessories, too. Sorry, but I don't get your point. The G1 from a user standpoint is not going to be any less complicated than the least complicated DSLR.

And for what it's worth, I've been harping on camera control proliferation for some time. I'm really surprised that no one has taken a clean slate, iPod like, approach to rethinking how we control our cameras. That's going to have more impact than just making it smaller, IMHO.

In order SELL the m4/3 as "not as complicated" you've got quite a marketing task,

I don't see why really, except for the exchangeable lenses, which may
be a hard sell to the consumer market. But then, we should never
underestimate the consumer. There are lots of intelligent, wealthy
people out there who want to take great (better than compact) photos
without the hassle of an SLR.

Actually, it's been proven over and over that the more choices and differentiation you give the human brain in products, the more questions they ask and the harder it is for them to make a final choice. Study after study show that our brains do paradoxically the opposite of what we think. That's why a blank slate product like the iPod or iPhone does well. Both products were designed and pitched as complete breaks from all the competing products. The choice then becomes: (a) sort through all the details of all those competing products: or (b) just buy the iPod/iPhone and be done. No one, repeat, no one is doing this in the camera space. Indeed, it appears that none of the makers even understand how to mount such a project.

Really? You can't design a permanently attached lens with equal IQ?

Correct; 28-550mm superzoom lenses are riddled with issues.

Okay, I'll give you that. But someone desiring a focal range that wide is either a true consumer willing to compromise (don't make it too big!) or a pro.

So, that's how you could sell two separate lenses
to a consumer; by telling him that the slight inconvenience of
changing lenses is what will make his images stand out with their
sharpness and clarity.

I would argue against that approach. The better approach: use the X lens for parties and indoor events, use the Y lens to get better pictures at your childrens' sporting events. People don't want to be told that they have to buy extra stuff to get sharpness and clarity; they expect that with whatever they buy. They will understand use-specific marketing (if you want to tow, you'll need a truck).

Seriously! Lots of people buy an SLR kit without ever buying a second
lens.

But this is an argument for a different COMPACT camera design, not a different SLR-type camera design. 4/3 could have been used in a compact camera. I have no idea why it hasn't been.

Sound good to me, and do-able for Panasonic.

15k units a month does not equal the volume I suggested. Indeed, it wouldn't even be enough to initially fill the Big Boxes with enough stock to get started.

-- hide signature --

Thom Hogan
author, Complete Guides to Nikon bodies (18 and counting)
http://www.bythom.com

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
G L
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow