Without giving anything away about the announcements that are coming in the next week or so, I'm going to point out something in advance of my Photokina reporting that ought to be obvious, but apparently isn't. Certainly not to the camera makers.
For a long time I and others have pointed out that there was nothing "broken" about camera controls in the film era. Give me direct control over changing aperture, shutter speed, and exposure compensation. Provide obvious ISO setting so we don't overlook it (even in the film days, we wanted that, because we didn't always remember to reset it when we changed films). Give me an accurate 100% view of my composition and focus. Make the shutter release respond as quickly as possible. Done. The only major control that digital added that needs to be fully exposed is white balance.
A lot of us griped when the aperture went from lens ring to a dial on the camera body, though we quickly adapted. It was still direct control, after all. While each manufacturer had a slightly different take (Nikon's has been button+dial since the N8008 in 1988, so about 25 years), they all had pretty direct controls that were easy enough to adapt to.
So why is it that we keep getting new digital cameras with missing dials, missing buttons, completely different interfaces, hidden controls, Game Boy controls, crippled viewfinders, and more? It's a bit as if the camera makers don't believe in their own well-proven designs. (The cynic in me says that it is just too many engineers on payroll left to their own devices to "iterate" any and everything, otherwise they wouldn't have a job.)
But it isn't just controls that were well proven over the years. Certain lenses should be de rigueur. Diopter adjustments on viewfinders are a necessity. Terminology is well established. Certain capture sizes are desired simply for historical consistency (e.g. full frame or as close to it as possible).
So why is it that every time a camera company accidentally rediscovers one of those things that the press and user base praises them to high heaven? Woo hoo, Fujifilm has put an aperture ring back on lenses! Hey, and they've got dials and an optical viewfinder, too! (Oops, they forgot the diopter adjustment ;~). Woo hoo, Company X is introducing a new full frame camera.
Realistically, the core of the higher end camera market is comprised mostly of folk who used film cameras (or at least remember their dads using them). Why would the camera makers think that we'd like all-electronic monstrosities with user interfaces that are new and untested?
Here's the sad truth: market leaders Canon and Nikon keep those core users on an upgrade leash. Oh, they've got the basic camera designs you want, right down to the G1x/G12 and P7700, and they roll them as updates so that you'll buy a new one every time the internal technology gives you something you didn't have before (bigger sensor, 36mp, video, etc.). If they can keep you buying every few years, that keeps their core sales up.
The reason why we get these oddball things like the Nikon 1 or Pentax Q or even the Sony pellicle mirror DSLRs, and the reason why we're about to get Android cameras and a host of other things that don't fit the term "traditional" is that the camera makers are looking for new users. Those of us who grew up on film SLRs are a dying breed. We happen to have a lot of disposable income (and often a lot of time to devote to our photographic passions), so the camera makers keep discovering that when they pop something out that is "retro" in any sense, we respond.
But the camera companies need new users because new users are the only way they can obtain growth, and they are now as addicted to growth as any public companies are. Unfortunately, they may be too late to that game, as camera phones recognized the real shift in generational use of images and have been catering to that from day one. We're seeing camera makers (Nikon and Samsung so far, but about to be joined by a host of others) suddenly make cameras that are essentially camera phones without the phone. The only card the camera makers have to play here is larger sensor and bigger lens, but there is no real barrier keeping the phone makers from going that route, so the camera makers really don't have any real way of holding off the phone onslaught other than to join it.
That won't stop the camera makers from casting their lines for any fish they can hook. The oddball concept cameras still are coming out of R&D, and we're still seeing the camera makers chase any trend, real or imagined. For example, you might note that one trend is "tough" compacts. Gee, you think? How many times did customers have to replace their compact camera because blowing dust or sand got into the lens cover blades and stopped the camera from operating? ;~) Another trend some companies are following is the "hey, what's with that GoPro thing?" fad.
The funny thing is this: the camera makers just don't seem to understand the young, yet they think they can make products for them. The truly young have lived with ubiquitous software all their life. They're inventing things like Instagram and Flipbooks, et.al., because the camera makers aren't (not to mention that they often don't use a conventional camera, but rather their camera phone). How good are the camera makers at software? Uh, pretty terrible, actually. A teen in his room at his parent's house with Xcode stands a better chance of making a significant contribution to photography software than do any of the camera companies.
What we're seeing is a split in the market. If you'r'e under 30, you think of cameras and photos differently than if you're over 50. All the camera makers are over 50 ;~). Yet they continue to try to design for the young while missing obvious things their loyal, older market strongly desires. Does a full frame camera really have to weigh two pounds? (Answer: no. You can create a full frame camera at half that weight without giving up anything if you really try.) Do we really need buttons and controls moved around? Are we really videographers? Has any camera company given us software that truly answers our needs in the digital world?
So let's see. I'm going to start a camera company from scratch. I'm going to design two cameras: one for the younger crowd, one of the older. The younger crowd gets communicating and programmable with modern controls (allof which can be programmed). And it's waterproof, records video, focuses quickly (because the younger crowd moves fast) and operates well in low light (gotta get those bar photos on Spring Break). The older crowd gets, oh, say an FM3a body with a 24mp FX sensor. It works just fine with older film lenses as well as newer autofocus wonders. I'll put an LCD on the back and add Live View because our eyes aren't getting better, but I'll leave most of the control functions as they are on the FM3a.
Did I just hear two cheers? ;~)
Yes, it's about that easy. You wouldn't know it from most of the gyrations the camera companies are making, though. Prepare for an up and down week of announcements.