# Digital Camera Features



## Nomad57 (May 12, 2014)

Sometimes, when I see how a product is made, and see how it works, I just have to wonder what the manufacturer was thinking. I bought my first digital camera, a Canon A480, five years ago. It basically did what I expected of it. Recently, I decided to get a newer version, the A1400, and got some surprises. One of the first was that on Auto, the images on the 1400 are not as good as the A480, because it selects a higher ISO (and a correspondingly faster shutter speed). I had to resort to Program mode to get similar results. Also, my A480 came with two cables, one to connect to the computer, the other to connect to a TV. When I connected to a TV, the signal was transferred from the LCD to the TV screen, and I could view any still image or movie I had recorded on the TV. I could also view any movie on the TV while it was being recorded. This offered two benefits: it conserved battery life, since the LCD was now dark, and it allowed me to see the image that was being recorded, while it was being recorded, allowing me to check composition, and so on, when I was in front of, rather than behind the camera. The A1400 does not do this. It only allows playback on the TV, but not monitoring the recording. The LCD remains on. Not so much an issue, with the amount of battery power the A1400 has, but is surely an issue with Lithiums. I don't know what they were thinking. I mean, after all, the whole point of plugging the camera in (with the now optional accessory, $30 cable), is to transfer the image to the TV. I started looking for other Canon cameras that might do this, and found none. I looked at some Nikons, and they don't do it either.

I was thinking about getting a better camera than the A1400, and spent a couple of weeks doing research. In many cases, the reviews suggested that the current model is not as good as the model it supersedes. The A1400 is not as good as the A480, the ELPH 340 is not as good as the ELPH 330. The SX170 is not as good as the SX160. The SX280 is not as good as the SX260. The G16 is not as good as the G15, and so on. The battery life issue came in for severe criticism, as did the Movie Digest feature, which seems to be universally detested. If they were going to come up with this harebrained "feature", why didn't they have it take the three seconds of video AFTER the still shot? The way they have it rigged, essentially amounts to a three second shutter lag. What were they thinking? (A question posed by quite a few reviewers.) Another issue that I have discovered is that when I contact a manufacturer with a question about a camera, the answers I get don't always make sense.

Cameras are supposed to get better with each new iteration, instead, the reverse seems to be happening. Who are these people who come up with these ideas, and what are they thinking? 

Nomad


----------



## KmH (May 12, 2014)

Where is it written that cameras have to get better with each new iteration?

Manufacturers have to keep the selling price competitive and/or at about the same price point as the older camera.

The market for digital cameras has gotten a lot smaller as more and more mobile devices have had still and video cameras added to them.
At the same time the cost of other goods has gone up and people have less disposable income they can use to buy cameras.

If camera manufacturers want to stay in business they have to remain profitable.
One way to remain profitable is to sell for the same price a product that costs less to make.


----------



## goodguy (May 12, 2014)

As an owner of a Canon G15 I can tell you from what I read while the G15 and G16 are very close cameras the G16 has few additions and slight advantages over the G15, I definitely would say the G15 is better then the G16.
I had the Nikon D7000 and replaced it with the D7100 and I can tell you the D7100 is a better camera, its not a world of improvement but it is better then the D7000.


----------



## Nomad57 (May 12, 2014)

KmH said:


> Where is it written that cameras have to get better with each new iteration?



I don't suppose it's written anywhere, but electronics in general supposedly improve as technology marches on. I would have imagined that five years later, a new camera would be at least as good as the previous one, if not better. I was able to cope with the A1400 because I use Program mode indoors. I would imagine that some users who rely on Auto (I understand many do) might be disappointed in the result, and return the camera.



KmH said:


> Manufacturers have to keep the selling price competitive and/or at about the same price point as the older camera.



Can't argue that.



KmH said:


> The market for digital cameras has gotten a lot smaller as more and more mobile devices have had still and video cameras added to them.



That's what the fellow at the camera shop told me on Friday. He said 90% of images taken today are on smart phones.



KmH said:


> At the same time the cost of other goods has gone up and people have less disposable income they can use to buy cameras.



Yes, the cost of other goods has gone up, (has it ever). Electronics seem to be the exception.



KmH said:


> If camera manufacturers want to stay in business they have to remain profitable.
> One way to remain profitable is to sell for the same price a product that costs less to make.



That is true, but removing features that people do want, and adding features that people do not want doesn't seem to be the best way to remain profitable.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards,

Nomad


----------



## Nomad57 (May 12, 2014)

goodguy said:


> As an owner of a Canon G15 I can tell you from  what I read while the G15 and G16 are very close cameras the G16 has few  additions and slight advantages over the G15, I definitely would say  the G15 is better then the G16.



The G15/G16 seems like a good way to get decent photos, with some  control over the exposure, without lugging a DSLR around. I own a film  SLR, and I've missed out on shots because I didn't have it with me.




goodguy said:


> I had the Nikon D7000 and replaced it with the D7100 and I can tell you  the D7100 is a better camera, its not a world of improvement but it is  better then the D7000.



I was surprised when I read some reviews about Canon DSLRs and they did  not review as well as some Nikons. If I ever change my minds and opt for  a DSLR, Nikon is the first place I'll look.

Regards,

Nomad


----------



## robbins.photo (May 12, 2014)

Nomad57 said:


> I don't suppose it's written anywhere, but electronics in general supposedly improve as technology marches on. I would have imagined that five years later, a new camera would be at least as good as the previous one, if not better. I was able to cope with the A1400 because I use Program mode indoors. I would imagine that some users who rely on Auto (I understand many do) might be disappointed in the result, and return the camera.



Like most things they focus on the things that people say they want in newer iterations. They can't always improve on every single feature from the previous model.



> That's what the fellow at the camera shop told me on Friday. He said 90% of images taken today are on smart phones.



Well 60% of the time those guys are 100% right about their statistics. 



> That is true, but removing features that people do want, and adding features that people do not want doesn't seem to be the best way to remain profitable.



Well it's pretty easy to think that because you like/value a feature that everyone does - but a lot of times that just isn't true. A complex device like a camera is always going to be full of trade offs. Want longer battery life? That either means running fewer bells and whistles and using a smaller LCD screen or going with a bigger battery making the camera larger and heavier. Pretty much everything in a camera works that way, you have to rob Peter to pay Paul. So you try to put in the stuff people want (according to actual market research) and the stuff that will convince them to buy your new camera instead of just keeping their old one.


----------



## goodguy (May 12, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well 60% of the time those guys are 100% right about their statistics.


----------



## goodguy (May 12, 2014)

Just to add one more this, something you will not see in all the reviews of cameras or lenses and thats the simple fact that the one thing you need the most to create amazing pictures is SKILLS
Yes I tend myself to read these reviews and I constantly upgrade my equipment and better equipment does help but truly I found the really good pictures I get is not because of a pro grade lens or high MP camera but because of me.
So get the best camera you can afford but at the end of the day its you who will create the amazing pictures I am sure you aspire to create.


----------



## Nomad57 (May 13, 2014)

goodguy said:


> Just to add one more this, something you will not see in all the reviews of cameras or lenses and thats the simple fact that the one thing you need the most to create amazing pictures is SKILLS.



I knew that. I knew a guy once, who bougth an expensive camera, but couldn't be bothered to learn even elementary photography, or even read/comprehend the manual. His pictures were terrible, even though the camera had program AE.



goodguy said:


> Yes I tend myself to read these reviews and I constantly upgrade my equipment and better equipment does help but truly I found the really good pictures I get is not because of a pro grade lens or high MP camera but because of me.
> So get the best camera you can afford but at the end of the day its you who will create the amazing pictures I am sure you aspire to create.



Actually, I don't really aspire to create amazing pictures, just decent ones. The best camera that I can afford is not something I would want to carry around. My current one fits in a pouch that attaches to my belt, weighs 210 grams including the pouch, and I'm fairly happy with it.

Regards,

Nomad


----------



## Nomad57 (May 13, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Well 60% of the time those guys are 100% right about their statistics.



So true. He did say something that didn't ring quite true.



robbins.photo said:


> Well it's pretty easy to think that because you like/value a feature that everyone does - but a lot of times that just isn't true. A complex device like a camera is always going to be full of trade offs. Want longer battery life? That either means running fewer bells and whistles and using a smaller LCD screen or going with a bigger battery making the camera larger and heavier. Pretty much everything in a camera works that way, you have to rob Peter to pay Paul. So you try to put in the stuff people want (according to actual market research) and the stuff that will convince them to buy your new camera instead of just keeping their old one.



That is certainly true, but keep in mind, that I wasn't only writing from my own perspective. I was referring as well to some of the user reviews I had read, particularly about the Movie Digest feature, which everyone seems to hate. Of course, that "feature" can be deactivated via the slide switch on the back of the camera, but users complained about the amount of real estate that was wasted on a useless feature.

I still think that removing the ability to transfer the image from the LCD to the TV when you plug a camera into a TV was not their best idea. After all, that's the whole point of plugging it in.

Regards,

Nomad


----------



## robbins.photo (May 13, 2014)

Nomad57 said:
			
		

> That is certainly true, but keep in mind, that I wasn't only writing from my own perspective. I was referring as well to some of the user reviews I had read, particularly about the Movie Digest feature, which everyone seems to hate. Of course, that "feature" can be deactivated via the slide switch on the back of the camera, but users complained about the amount of real estate that was wasted on a useless feature.
> 
> I still think that removing the ability to transfer the image from the LCD to the TV when you plug a camera into a TV was not their best idea. After all, that's the whole point of plugging it in.
> 
> ...



Ok, well keep in mind that the reviews you are reading are posted mostly by tech-savvy users and they also only an extremely small percentage of people who use the camera. Also keep in mind that high tech features might be nice selling points but they also create inherint problems that do affect the overeall profitability of the company. Adding the ability for a device to interact with a network is great - it's a wonderful feature.. well for people who know enough to set it up and use it properly.

But for every 1 person who does, you probably have 20 or 30 who don't - and that generates a whole lot of calls to tech support. That requires you to hire additional staff to handle the calls, so your looking at additional salaries, more benefits, additional overhead - etc. So it's all a balancing act really, you want enough "tech features" that the camera will sell well but you don't want to include stuff that is going to create a lot of confusion or generate a lot of questions from the uninitiated that will cost you money in support costs later on.


----------



## petrochemist (May 14, 2014)

goodguy said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > Well 60% of the time those guys are 100% right about their statistics.



I certainly wouldn't put it as high as that! They might be 75% right half the time, but only the very best stores would manage >90% right half the time.


----------

