As you might expect, I received plenty of reaction to my "Camera Redefined" essays last week.
First up, noted Nikon Pro and celebrity photographer John Ricard wrote to tell me "when I want to send a D3 image to Twitter while I'm on a shoot, I use my iPhone to photograph the D3 screen. Then I use Photoshop Mobile to adjust, PhotoMarkr to add a watermark, and I send the iPhone image directly to Twitter with another app. It's insane that I can't do these things with my D3--especially when you consider that the iPhone has one button, but the D3 over 20." John gets it. I guess I can add him to the wait list for my redefined camera along with dozens of other pros. Note that some may think this is a simplistic or silly thing to want to tweet from a pro camera. It isn't. Today's pro needs to stay connected and market themself constantly. By keeping his clients aware of what he's working on today, John is keeping himself at the forefront of their minds, not waiting for them to call with work. John's example is but one of hundreds I'm collecting (by all means, let me hear your idea of what a modular, programmable, communicating camera would do for you).
A few more comments about your comments:
- Complexity. Some of you worried that modularity, programmability, and communications adds complexity to the product we're using today. Yes and no. DSLRs by definition are already modular (but not in all the ways we want them to be), programmability doesn't necessarily mean that a user needs to program it (though I would advocate that we should be able to if we want to), and setting up communications can be a real chore (witness the WT-4). In my career in high tech, I took such things as challenges to solve, not hurdles to stop me from trying. Indeed, as part of the process I went through prior to writing these essays, I took the D3000 user interface and rebuilt it to accomodate my proposed future camera changes. I'd argue that my design is actually more direct and simpler than the existing D3000. Simply put (pardon the pun), complexity is only there if you put it there.
- Price. Some of you worried that prices for a modular system would be higher than a non-modular one. Yes and no. First, modularity itself shouldn't add any tangible cost to the higher end products (though it might to low-end ones). Connectors and packaging are inexpensive components compared to sensors and electronics, though a sensor/digital module would have to be precise to keep alignments correct. But consider the following: a D3s for US$5300 versus a D3m body for US$2400 and an S sensor module for US$2900. Suddenly, body backups or upgrades seem less expensive and more desirable. (If you wonder where the body price comes from, check the price of the F6.) Basically, modularity gives the user the choice of when to upgrade basic camera capability versus image quality capability.
- Viability. A few of you questioned what was in it for the camera makers (a good question, actually, because if there's nothing in it for them they won't do it). This one's difficult to answer without a very complicated spreadsheet and a raft of survey results to refer to. But there's one simple answer, I think: camera prices are headed down. I know it doesn't seem like that from the price of the D3x, but if you look at CIPA's average revenue per unit figures over the past few years you see it immediately. The normal Japanese company reaction to declining revenue per unit is to engineer out cost. An alternative approach--and a better one in my book--is to find a way to increase unit volume and add incremental sales based upon that volume. In other words, instead of selling a widget for US$100, you sell a widget for US$80 and widget accessories for US$40. Modularity doesn't work exactly like that, but it's a relative to the strategy. Done right, you end up with more revenue and more profit on the same basic camera unit sales volume.
- Capability. As I noted, the Japanese camera companies haven't exactly distinguished themselves in software, and what I proposed requires a clearly competent software capability. I don't know how to answer this one other than to say that perhaps the Japanese companies need to look more outward for software expertise. The Nikon-Fujitsu firmware venture is just "more of the same." A Nikon-Silicon Valley venture might not be. Put another way: the software expertise required is out there, it just isn't currently where we need it to be.
- It's not really open. "Open" comes in many forms. I'm not advocating open source, however. I simply don't think the camera companies would even consider it. Moreover, since we're dealing with a real time base system OS here (think multitasking), it's important for the manufacturer to have full control over what is going on at the hardware level. What I mean by Open Kamera is a system that is programmable and extendable, and that those functions are well documented, well supported, and available to third parties. We can talk about open source later. Right now we need a big step towards a basic kind of "open." Without it, the camera makers are going to find themselves playing in smaller and smaller ponds.