Reading mode: Light Dark

Is It Time For ala carte Camera Features

Go to last post
D

Droppingin

Senior Member
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
24
Location
South East Coast, FL, US
With all the hoopla concerning different features offered on camera models and camera ranges, I think it might be time to be able to order cameras with custom features.

The manufacturers can still offer basic models at base prices, however I would be happy to pay more for the feature set that I prefer and use. I cannot be the only person.

For example, I would like to have a 50D with the 1D series AF system, micro lens adjustments, creative modes only, cf card format, no picture styles, 1D series light metering, and maybe the sensor could be custom ordered too. I would be willing to pay $1,800 to $2,100.

I doubt this will happen for it drives the marketing people crazy because their margins/profit would be variable and sales budgeting would actually require some thinking. Actually, it requires the entire material management chain to work differently but nothing that is not done everywhere else.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
 
It's perfectly doable. It's just the next step in what is already a partly modular approach.

We have lenses that are separate modules that you buy as you need them. Flash units as well. Battery grips. Remotes. Focus screens.

In the past, there used to be extra drive motors, data backs, replaceable viewfinders.

Even the fact that you had a choice in what film to use could be considered another "module", as that's a fixed, integral part (the sensor) of a modern camera.

You could even say that cameras used to be more modular in the past.

In the computer industry, this has long been the standard way of doing things. If you order a Mac, for example, you specify how many CPUs you want, which gfx card you want, how much RAM you want, what size and speed HDD you prefer, what kind of optical drive, if you want a modem built in, and several other things.

There's no reason at all not to do the same in the DSLR world other than a slight added expense. New cameras would have to be designed to be modular inside as well, not just outside as they are today.

I'd be happy with 5-6 million pixels for an APS-C sensor, but I'd still like to have all the bells and whistles of a new DSLR such as my 40D. Today, that's impossible. In the future, perfectly realistic, but sadly unlikely.
 
The OP isn't really addressing things that are modular...this is more like software, where the top edition of Windows has a lot of features and so does the Home edition, except their intentionally disabled. With software, once you write it, you've got sunk cost and you might as well use it to promote your bottom products against the competition as well as your top.

(Unless you own the market like Microsoft and you can afford to arbitrarily cripple your OSes just to create a new category to market.)
 
As a Mechanical Engineer working in telecommunications components design, building, and manufacturing for 20 years, yes, I have a very good idea with respect to the technical aspects as well as the material handling and costing aspects.

As an engineering manager, I led the design, prototyping, and manufacturing organizations and eventually joined the Sales org to help them.

Lets take the AF system first. This is a modular component that with a common mounting configuration could be made to fit into the 1D or XXD boxes. I am not trivializing anything but know how talented design engineers are.

As the upstream poster said, many of the features are software too and these are the easiest to implement.

From my experience, it is the supply chain that has the continuous challenge of meeting varied demands while keeping inventories to cost effective levels.

I am surprised this thread did not get more interest and thought there would be forward thinking. Not saying no one else is looking forward, it could be my presentation.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
 
I would think the endless problems with reliabiility of computers would put your suggestion as to why it is possible into question. You can certainly put anything in a computer case and turn it on, but that doesn't mean that it will work properly. I know that I have had much more problems with my computers than a camera. By designing a single specification for a camera it means they can test those compenents and the associated software with it. This is one of the big reasons why Macs are more stable than other computers, they don't really offer many options. you buy a macbook and you basically get the choice of a few options like ram and harddrive size, you can't pick and choose everything.

A modular camera would be a nightmare and would require firmware that could run all of the various configurations of components.
velocio said:
It's perfectly doable. It's just the next step in what is already a
partly modular approach.

We have lenses that are separate modules that you buy as you need
them. Flash units as well. Battery grips. Remotes. Focus screens.
In the past, there used to be extra drive motors, data backs,
replaceable viewfinders.

Even the fact that you had a choice in what film to use could be
considered another "module", as that's a fixed, integral part (the
sensor) of a modern camera.

You could even say that cameras used to be more modular in the past.

In the computer industry, this has long been the standard way of
doing things. If you order a Mac, for example, you specify how many
CPUs you want, which gfx card you want, how much RAM you want, what
size and speed HDD you prefer, what kind of optical drive, if you
want a modem built in, and several other things.

There's no reason at all not to do the same in the DSLR world other
than a slight added expense. New cameras would have to be designed to
be modular inside as well, not just outside as they are today.

I'd be happy with 5-6 million pixels for an APS-C sensor, but I'd
still like to have all the bells and whistles of a new DSLR such as
my 40D. Today, that's impossible. In the future, perfectly realistic,
but sadly unlikely.
Click to expand...
 
well that might go a bit far, but i could see maybe they have the basic FW and then for some fee the one with MF adjust and all the other purely FW stuff

and i could see the less expensive current model and then another pro-focus set for the 5D and xxD series.

jsuyt for curiosity why get it without picture styles, they do no harm
Droppingin said:
With all the hoopla concerning different features offered on camera
models and camera ranges, I think it might be time to be able to
order cameras with custom features.

The manufacturers can still offer basic models at base prices,
however I would be happy to pay more for the feature set that I
prefer and use. I cannot be the only person.

For example, I would like to have a 50D with the 1D series AF system,
micro lens adjustments, creative modes only, cf card format, no
picture styles, 1D series light metering, and maybe the sensor could
be custom ordered too. I would be willing to pay $1,800 to $2,100.

I doubt this will happen for it drives the marketing people crazy
because their margins/profit would be variable and sales budgeting
would actually require some thinking. Actually, it requires the
entire material management chain to work differently but nothing that
is not done everywhere else.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
Click to expand...
 
I think your expectations are a little out of line with reality. You want a completely customised camera that costs less than the current offerings?? Basically a 1d series camera in the 50D build for half the cost of a 1 series camera? I would expect that the cost would be at least 50% greater for any given configuration since the companies would need to totally redesign their manufacturing systems to be able to offer a custom build. Look at dell vs buying a similar laptop in the big box stores.

I could see them move towards offering maybe 2 options for a camera like a high MP sensor or a low MP sensor in a 1d series body, or like they have now with the 50d/5D and 1D/1Ds both the same cameras with crop or full frame sensor.
Droppingin said:
With all the hoopla concerning different features offered on camera
models and camera ranges, I think it might be time to be able to
order cameras with custom features.

The manufacturers can still offer basic models at base prices,
however I would be happy to pay more for the feature set that I
prefer and use. I cannot be the only person.

For example, I would like to have a 50D with the 1D series AF system,
micro lens adjustments, creative modes only, cf card format, no
picture styles, 1D series light metering, and maybe the sensor could
be custom ordered too. I would be willing to pay $1,800 to $2,100.

I doubt this will happen for it drives the marketing people crazy
because their margins/profit would be variable and sales budgeting
would actually require some thinking. Actually, it requires the
entire material management chain to work differently but nothing that
is not done everywhere else.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not getting what you're suggesting. You want the manufacturer to build a custom camera with different hardware features? How would they debug and support such a system? How would they roll out firmware updates? It seems to me they'd be inviting a logistical nightmare and customers would suffer...

I guess I'm not saying it isn't theoretically possible...but it does seem impractical.
 
No, I never said the following: > > I think your expectations are a little out of line with reality. You want a completely customised camera that costs less than the current offerings??

In fact, I stated that I would pay more for a customized camera.

Also, I suggested a few items that might be modular, not truly a customized camera but one with optional features that I would use. Thus far, I do not think I would ever use video but you know what, use it or not, we pay for it one way or another.

As far as firmware updates, I do not think that would be a significant challenge. All they would have to do set the software to recognize what modules or features that are in the camera and it would only update those. Therefore, one update could cover all the different configurations out there.

I note that rather than consider the possibilities of the concept, most thought of only the problems. Again, I worked in manufacturing for many years with thousands of part numbers, highest level part numbers that is, and the amount of software companies that do manufacturing systems out there is enormous. There would be no "re-inventing the wheel."

I am speaking from experience that this is very feasible. I am in no way suggesting that everyone that pooh-pooh'ed the idea is ignorant however, the arguments against are not problems in today's manufacturing environment in respect to both engineering and the supply chain or materials management. Of course it would take a year or so to implement starting with one or two models and then test the market.

I am not suggesting a camera with 15 to 20 optional features. Consider a 50D with maybe about 4 to 7 options.

BTW, nothing against Picture Styles, I just do not use them; shoot raw 98%. And maybe that was a poor example I used.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
 
I think it is totally unrealistic idea. If is was realistic some camera manufacturer would be doing it already. Logistically it is a nightmare. You are essentially building each camera as a custom camera. The cost would be prohibitive. As it is no camera manufacturer offers anything remotely like this because they would go broke trying to do so.
--
Canon 50d - Canon 100-400 IS - Canon 18-55 IS

http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/
 
There are lots of parallels in consumer products.

Have a look at the auto industry. In the US, the US based makers stuff their packages down consumers' throats. There is still variability to an extent, you can have the luxury package, or not but you get the leather seats only with the sun roof and the automatic transmission.

On the other hand, in Europe, BMW let's you buy just about every option imaginable but one at a time. Navigation, check. Don't want the upgraded seats and wheel rims with that? No problem.

Funny, BMW didn't go out of business yet but GM is well on it's way.

Perhaps there is a way to make it work and deliver a product that the consumer will perceive as having additional value - particularly if all you have to do is offer the features in software - and pay extra for that value.

Think about it...
Paul
 
I have a lot of experience in manufacturing as well... microprocessors and computer systems. Problem is, the modularity you seek, while perhaps technically feasible, is very expensive to implement, both in terms of product cost and in validation/testing. Implementing the various modules, not to mention the firmware variants needed to support them, would be a very costly proposition and would drive up the price point for such a camera well beyond what you'd likely be willing to pay. What's more, someone pursuing a more monolithic design which is richly featured, might not offer the flexibility but would deliver a lot more "bang for the buck" in their product than a configurable camera. Said another way, for what you're paying to implement all that modularity, I could add a ton of additional features.

Also, there are real space constraints for electronics in cameras. Once again, the modularity you seek takes space for connectors, daughterboards, etc. Whatever you consume for that takes away from other capabilities your competitors might be targeting.

Anyway, it's certainly an interesting idea, and there may end up being certain capabilities that could lend themselves to a modular approach. However, I'm guessing that it will be a while, if ever, that we'll see that in a consumer camera system.

J.
Droppingin said:
No, I never said the following: > > I think your expectations are a
little out of line with reality. You want a completely customised
camera that costs less than the current offerings??

In fact, I stated that I would pay more for a customized camera.

Also, I suggested a few items that might be modular, not truly a
customized camera but one with optional features that I would use.
Thus far, I do not think I would ever use video but you know what,
use it or not, we pay for it one way or another.

As far as firmware updates, I do not think that would be a
significant challenge. All they would have to do set the software to
recognize what modules or features that are in the camera and it
would only update those. Therefore, one update could cover all the
different configurations out there.

I note that rather than consider the possibilities of the concept,
most thought of only the problems. Again, I worked in manufacturing
for many years with thousands of part numbers, highest level part
numbers that is, and the amount of software companies that do
manufacturing systems out there is enormous. There would be no
"re-inventing the wheel."

I am speaking from experience that this is very feasible. I am in no
way suggesting that everyone that pooh-pooh'ed the idea is ignorant
however, the arguments against are not problems in today's
manufacturing environment in respect to both engineering and the
supply chain or materials management. Of course it would take a year
or so to implement starting with one or two models and then test the
market.

I am not suggesting a camera with 15 to 20 optional features.
Consider a 50D with maybe about 4 to 7 options.

BTW, nothing against Picture Styles, I just do not use them; shoot
raw 98%. And maybe that was a poor example I used.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
Click to expand...
 
Paul Ch. Kierkus said:
There are lots of parallels in consumer products.

Have a look at the auto industry. In the US, the US based makers
stuff their packages down consumers' throats. There is still
variability to an extent, you can have the luxury package, or not but
you get the leather seats only with the sun roof and the automatic
transmission.

On the other hand, in Europe, BMW let's you buy just about every
option imaginable but one at a time. Navigation, check. Don't want
the upgraded seats and wheel rims with that? No problem.

Funny, BMW didn't go out of business yet but GM is well on it's way.

Perhaps there is a way to make it work and deliver a product that the
consumer will perceive as having additional value - particularly if
all you have to do is offer the features in software - and pay extra
for that value.

Think about it...
Click to expand...
I have thought about it. You are comparing apples to oranges. If it was doable it would have been done. Think about it...
Paul Ch. Kierkus said:
Paul
Click to expand...
--
Canon 50d - Canon 100-400 IS - Canon 18-55 IS

http://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/
 
Add some zeros to those prices!
--
Bob

'I can look at a fine art photograph and sometimes I can hear music.' - Ansel Adams

Canon 40D, 70-200mm f4L IS, 28-135mm IS, Sigma 17-70mm f2.8 Macro, 100-400 mm f4.5L IS Sony R1, Canon Pro1

 
As I said, maybe it is time for something like this. From reading these forums there are always differing opinions about what people want in a camera. Try reading what is written.

If it is time, some company will do it as it is being done in countless other consumer products. To bad cars cannot do it for they would go broke trying; right.

If you are going to disagree, offer a logical argument rather than merely being pedantic.

Twenty years of manufacturing engineering and common sense tell me it is possible. I may be wrong. Have you ever heard of bar coding. Every single top level part, a XXd for example, number is assigned a number with its own bill of materials. All the products travel through the same assemble process, the assembler scans the bar code, it tells them what parts go into it and voila, a semi customized unit. Man, that is impossible.

There might be some sarcasm in my post for you.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
 
--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
 
The software I admit is not my specialty but I have seen this done everyday in computers with periodic updates. These are sent out to all similar models with varying configurations in hardware and chips. Therefore, I would not anticipate that large of a challenge for cameras.

With respect to the mechanicals, I am confident it could be done without raising component costs to limiting degree. Absolutely there would design changes to implement universal mounting of, lets say, the AF module allowing one to order a XXD with the 1D AF system.

To say it once again to be clear, I am only suggesting that some thing less than a handful of optional features be selectable. This would be the only way for this method to be cost effective.

It may not be advantageous now but I think it will come to that. I certainly hope. I respect your experience too but my manufacturing experience tells me yes. I do agree that building non-flexible, one-size-must-fit-all cameras is easier, but eventually, or at least possibly, customer demand will force a change.

One of these days a competitor is going offer one or two features that are optional or selectable and away we go; the competition will have to follow suit.

Anywho, thanks to all that posted constructively.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
 
What people are missing with examples like cars and computers is the extent to which those items are made out of completely modular parts.

You don't have to change the engine on a car when you upgrade the seats.

With computers, the parts are not only modular, they're completely standardized: it's called commodity hardware because the stuff EVERYBODY uses is done with the same standards, and there are well-defined rules for how the different pieces interact. That's why you can upgrade your video card, or add RAM, or a new hard drive.

Some parts of a camera are modular, of course: flashes, and lenses. Unsurprisingly, you can "build to order" with these parts, to a certain extent. But when it comes to the sensor and processing, really, you don't have a commodity hardware situation. Canon doesn't want to have to do the R&D to create a 15MP 50D sensor and a 12MP 50D sensor. Sensors aren't commodities, so there isn't enough of a market for them to justify the extra R&D. (And Canon doesn't WANT their sensors to be commodities - they're the company's key IP!)

It's pretty amazing that people are complaining about the un-modularity of cameras, when between the Rebels, 40D, 50D, and 5D, you have a tremendous number of options.
 
You're right I said that your expectations are out of line. You talked about basically a 1D series camera fully customized for 1800-2100. I was suggesting you might want to at least double that figure. You will be getting less value compared to a one-design camera so expect to pay much more. Especially when the camera companies would need to completely redesign their manufacturing processes and likely rebuild the factories.

Personally I wouldn't be willing to pay more for a customized camera. It would just cost too much to be worth it. If the camera companies said it would double the price to get a custom camera would you still be interested???
Droppingin said:
No, I never said the following: > > I think your expectations are a
little out of line with reality. You want a completely customised
camera that costs less than the current offerings??

In fact, I stated that I would pay more for a customized camera.

Also, I suggested a few items that might be modular, not truly a
customized camera but one with optional features that I would use.
Thus far, I do not think I would ever use video but you know what,
use it or not, we pay for it one way or another.

As far as firmware updates, I do not think that would be a
significant challenge. All they would have to do set the software to
recognize what modules or features that are in the camera and it
would only update those. Therefore, one update could cover all the
different configurations out there.

I note that rather than consider the possibilities of the concept,
most thought of only the problems. Again, I worked in manufacturing
for many years with thousands of part numbers, highest level part
numbers that is, and the amount of software companies that do
manufacturing systems out there is enormous. There would be no
"re-inventing the wheel."

I am speaking from experience that this is very feasible. I am in no
way suggesting that everyone that pooh-pooh'ed the idea is ignorant
however, the arguments against are not problems in today's
manufacturing environment in respect to both engineering and the
supply chain or materials management. Of course it would take a year
or so to implement starting with one or two models and then test the
market.

I am not suggesting a camera with 15 to 20 optional features.
Consider a 50D with maybe about 4 to 7 options.

BTW, nothing against Picture Styles, I just do not use them; shoot
raw 98%. And maybe that was a poor example I used.

--
Its easy to be a holy man on a mountain top.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top