The future of APS

On 17 Dec 2003 16:35:39 -0800, (Peter Lawrence)
wrote:

Ah, that's debatable...

If camera companies did decent market research:

A. The APS format would not have flopped. (Or would not have been
launched in the first place)

Perhaps for the only time, here I'll defend APS. When it came out,
APS was a pretty good shot at meeting market demand. Consumers
wanted a camera that was smaller and easier to use. Check. A
majority didn't make enlargments greater than 8x10. Check. They
wanted the system to correct for less than perfect lighting. To the
extent permitted by physics, APS tried. Toss in a little sizzle with
panoramic shots (bogus as they are), mid-roll change and index prints
and APS had a lot going for it.

However, in other areas, the crystal ball was foggy. I don't think
any of the manufacturers expected throwaways to be so successful, nor
for the price to drop so drastically. Nor did manufacturers adjust to
the internet boom, and what that meant to the way people used images.
Nor did they guess how quickly digital make it to the mainstream.

B. Camera manufacturers would be thriving. (Most, with the notable
exception of Canon, are struggling.)

No matter how good your market research, you're still pretty much
at the mercy of fads and fashion. Face it, to many "enthusiasts" or
"prosumers," myself included, a camera is a discretionary purchase.
The market for cameras competes for hobby dollars with other geek
toys. Much of those dollars shifted away from still cameras to
Camcorders and computers.

There are some camera companies that seemed to ignore the marketplace
and have suffered as a result. Polaroid is the obvious example. That
occurs in all industries.

C. Most cameras would be much simpler to use. (Many amateur
photographers still struggle to take decent pictures on a consistent
basis.)

Well, let's see. Since I first used a 35mm camera, the following
ease-of-use features have become commonplace (more or less in order of
introduction):
-- Built-in light meters.
-- Zoom lenses.
-- Autoexposure (later with program mode)
-- Electronic Flash (with light level control, later TTL)
-- Autofocus
-- Film Speed Encoding
-- Automatic Film Loading (real with APS, sort of with 35mm)
-- Computerized adjustment of prints.
-- Image Stabilization/Vibration Reduction/Anti-shake.
All this, and the inflation adjusted price of a camera, film and
developing has dropped considerably. The Brownie Starmite II I first
used claimed the same "one-touch photo" capability as a modern point
and shoot, but with fixed focus, a choice of exactly two light levels,
and an uncontrolled flash. (Calling an AG-1B flashbulb "fixed output"
is too generous.)

The camera manufacturers can tweak a lot of controls, but they can't
adjust the nut behind the viewfinder. They change the laws of
physics. They can't change the mapping of three dimensions into two,
nor can they make a camera that is simultaneously small enough to fit
into a pocket and large enough to avoid red-eye with an on-camera
flash.

But give the average person on the street a modern APS or 35mm
point-and-shoot, and under most circumstances the shot they take will
be reasonably well exposed and in focus. That's a long way from what
previous generations had to accept.

--
Michael Benveniste --
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.