Discussion in 'Mirrorless Cameras' started by soufiej, Jan 9, 2015.
Do you now?
I understand why Ford has a 29 vehicle line up to start from. And why the basic F-150 has a five vehicle base even before you get to F-250's, F-350's, or King cabs and why you can choose seven different engines and five different transmission in just a F-150.
At times, don't you wish cameras were sold like that?
If you have to ask, you'll never understand.
I REALLY don't understand why people give BS responses like that. Don't you folks have something better to do with your time?
Maybe it's not a BS response. In your post (#38) you've laid out the reasons why it works that way for trucks. It does work exactly that way for any other consumer-oriented product, with manufacturers looking to maximize their market share and sales by putting together as many extensions to the basic lines as they can. Cameras are no different. The key issue for the manufacturer is whether the marginal cost of including a variation can be recovered in sales. If that wasn't happening, they wouldn't be doing it.
Well, no, a BS response is still a BS response and the one above is pure BS. Someone with absolutely no knowledge of anything could have posted that response. A six year old could have done as well and probably would have been thinking they were being "smart". You don't have to read a thread to post that answer. You get on the forum on a Saturday, see a thread and go right to the "respond" key. IMO that is BS - and worthless.
Without trying to be simplistic, marketing of any consumer product is the result of several factors all aimed at one in particular. I don't have a degree in marketing but my observations would indicate marketing is about sex. Sex is the #1 driver of marketing and, if you equate sex with your product, you will win the marketing wars. Sex isn't always marketed as sex but is often times marketed as power - big V8 engines which can literally rip tree trunks from the solid earth and drag the remains to your liar to supply fuel for warmth and for cooking your next conquest which you can also drag from the deepest segments of the forest to present to your frail female companion waiting at home for the hunter gatherer to sustain her - or that you can possess the icons of power which are mentally equated with sex. Camera marketing to the male of the species (which is the primary market for expensive equipment of any kind - he who dies with the most toys, right?) is centered around, what? Long lenses with great powerful zooms and big apertures, right? That doesn't scream "SEX" to you? Large, heavy, male oriented (read: impressive) equipment with interchangeable parts to suit every conceivable situation and position (Kama Sutra?). Once again, SEX! Sharpness which is the same as power to get the job done. Sex. "KING CAB" or "EXTENDED CAB". Sex. Even the color choices in an F-150 say sex; Caribou, Magnetic, Race Red, etc. BIG screen televisions. POWERFUL, high wattage amplifiers. Until I see a camera marketed as "free range, hormone and antibiotic free", I'll believe cameras are no different than most of the world.
Technology is a trickle down affair. It comes in first in the Top of the Line (sex) product as an enticement to have something other, lesser individuals cannot afford to possess. Exclusivity is just another synonym for SEX. Next, technology becomes affordable - because we all want to be like the person who has exclusive rights to sex partners - by diversity in production. It's much less expensive per unit to have technology manufactured in the hundreds of thousands than in the thousands. Marketing projects the image of needing the technology and the availability of the technology whether it actually benefits the end user or not. If you have any camera magazines from the 1990's, look at the technology which has been supplanted by a new feature since that time. Lots of features come and go on cameras. With the rise in popularity of smart phones has come the decline in sales for certain segments of the photographic market. Right? What would be a possible way to counter a smartphone's "always ready" (sex) availability? A more available camera, no?
How would, say, Ford respond to a dip in sales in a certain segment of their line? They would introduce a new feature - a lift gate which opens when you stick your foot under a sensor and they would sell that feature. (Just as Kelloggs would introduce a new breakfast cereal with chocolate marshmallows and sprinkles to gain a footing in another market segment - that of irresponsible parents who allow their five year old to select food items.) Does that feature make the vehicle perform any better? No. Performance costs money, features are cheap. They might introduce a new segment of vehicles into their line - a "crossover" vehicle. Crossover what? No one is telling.
However, the basics of sales are feature, benefit and then operation. What's the feature? How does the feature benefit the buyer? How does the buyer operate the feature? Discuss a television or audio component with most salespeople. They will sell the buttons and knobs and geegaws on the unit and the remote, then the connectivity and the features. They will seldom mention quality of performance, mostly because mass market electronics fall rather short on performance when tasked to do their most basic functions.
Sell the sizzle (sex), not the steak.
That is where I was at when I began this thread. I saw lots of sizzle and very little cow.
In that context, your original post makes sense. However, while "sex" is an important aspect to appeal to desire, it certainly isn't the only one. Just as Freud seems to have overdone the phallic primacy in his psychoanalysis, saying that "sex" is at the root of all marketing is also overstating the case. Humans (even the male ones) are rather complicated creatures, and there are plenty other attributes that can be (and are) exploited in trying to create attraction and desire - power, belonging, class aspiration, cultural norms, and so on. I HAVE done studies in marketing both at the university and post-graduate level and I HAVE been a product marketer with several companies that were pitching their products to both consumers and businesses. I also do sales and taught sales techniques, and the process of creating a "buying" situation in the mind of a potential customer is not just a matter of pushing the appropriate buttons.
It used to be that vendors, at computer or consumer or business shows thought that the way to get traffic is to hire some scantily-dressed buxom models, and they would be successful. Reality was that while they had traffic, it usually was the wrong kind of traffic that did little to boost their business objectives. What IS important in marketing and sales, is the understanding of the PERCEPTION of the potential client. So much effort is spent on moulding that perception to something that is favourable to the vendor. Why do people continue to buy brand-name products when the no-name brands have the identical ingredients, perform as well or better, and cost less? Because the brand identification gives these customers the PERCEPTION that they are buying a better product (and better in this case doesn't just mean the product, but the whole "experience").
For a while the number of megapixels was one value prominently displayed on the packaging for cameras. Those who knew their stuff, KNEW that this was just one of the factors in the performance of the camera, but to those who didn't, it was an easily-understood number that in their perception, represented the "quality" of the camera. Same for the Super-Zoom.
Most people don't have the time and patience to analyse their own needs and research which products best satisfy those needs - that's why we get so many "What's the best lens for weddings?" questions. People in general are trying to simplify their buying decision to a few key points that they think they understand (price being one of the more important ones), and then based on their perception (that word again!) on what they think the key attributes are, they will make their buying decision. The challenge to marketers is to identify those key points (often through focus groups) and then highlight those in all the marketing, packaging, and sales efforts. And since people can be usually segmented into discrete groups, there's usually a product just for that group. Which is why we have twenty-plus version of Cherios.
I shoot mirrorless. I migrated from FF to MFT and now I shoot Fuji APS-C mirrorless. I tried out MFT just as a pocket type camera to camera around more easily than my 1Ds or 5D. Not only was it more convenient, (obviously, GF1 vs. 1D), but the image wasn't all that bad. When I moved up to the EM5, hell, the differences in IQ at 11x14 and smaller and under ISO 1600, were not significantly different. I started shooting MFT and my FF started gathering dust. Yeah, there was a problem with action and tracking, but pumping the AF button on single frame combined with lighting fast focus made capturing action photos faster than manual focus (SLR) but a bit slower than a dSLR. Essentially, more work for less keepers han a dSLR, but certainly adequate for many/most hobbyists.
One day I eyed the Fuji X-Pro1. I thought to myself ... "Man, that is one sexy camera." I bought it based purely on looks. After reviewing my first shots I said to myself "Wow, these image look like film ... beauty and brains." But the XP1 was a slow camera. Everything it did was slow compared to the EM5 or 1D.
After a year with the XP1 Fuji introduced the X-T1. That is one fast camera, it does everything fast, 1D fast. It still gives me film-esque images, much nicer to my eye than the digital-ish files from the EM5 and EM1. The XT1 doesn't track action, but if you keep the subject in the focus reticle, the camera will refocus quickly enough for sequential shooting (I have an eight frame sequential shots of a young running soccer player). For action, the AF isn't as good as a pro dSLR, but at less than half the weight and 1/6th the cost I think it does okay ... but there is always room for improvement.
I'm now parting out and giving my FF and MFT system to my kids and friends. Fuji is still lacking long and fast lenses, but the lenses they do have, are all exceptional and at a minimum 'L' lens sharp. The EVF is something one has to adjust to. There are many positives and many negatives ... negative for me is the refresh rate isn't seamless especially at higher FPS ... the positive is being able to see your exposure in real time.
The biggest negative for APS-C Fuji as compared to the MFT is lens size. Both systems have similar sized bodies, the Fuji and EM1 are not significantly different in size and weight. But the lenses for the MFT are significantly smaller the the lenses for the much larger APS-C sensored Fuji cameras. There is nothing to be done about that ... it is what it is. I find the Fuji system, small size with APS-C sensor, wonderful filmesque IQ and great high ISO capabilities (I haven't any problems shooting 3200 and in a pinch 6400 is workable), a great compromise between FF and MFT.
Nothing that I necessarily disagree with in that post ... other than Gary A's, "One day I eyed the Fuji X-Pro1. I thought to myself ... 'Man, that is one sexy camera.' I bought it based purely on looks."
The only thing I really have to say in response to your post is marketing is not the same as sales. Marketing is meant to get potential buyers into the showroom - or on the webpage - while sales is, as the car guys say, meant to get the bumper across the curbing. Sales is a one on one experience while marketing is not. Most technology is still marketed towards males. Sales can be evenly split between the genders - though seldom is. Though one could argue even the marketing pitch for "organic" and all that goes with it is about taking care of your family which is just another extension/variable/reminder of sex.
IMO a good salesperson qualifies the client's stated desires. Though what the client says they want and what actually motivates them to buy are not always the same. I always attempted to establish the client's priorities and, if it became clear they had not done so prior to the sales meeting, then we would work on what was important, what was less important to not important at all and at what cost the client assumed these things were available. If they were coming from pre-existing equipment, what were they expecting from the new equipment that their present gear wasn't delivering. You're right that many buyers - not just "shoppers" - have little idea what they want from ny particular thing. They have been motivated by marketing and, as I said, most technology is marketed to males. Most sales encounters are not closed by way of selling sex but that doesn't mean the perturbations of sex, along with it's many derivatives which I listed above, is not what is running through the male mind as they make a buying decision. Or, as Gary puts it, "Man, that is one sexy camera."
In my defense, lol, the body felt really good also, solid, not to big, not to small ... just one good looking camera with a great feeling body. (Took me back to my college days.)
Any way I do have many cameras without mirror but I have no mirrorless camera.
Like I said, if you have to ask such a question, no amount of explaining will ever get you to to say that you accept mirrorless as a legitimate category. Does the interchangeable lens rangefinder Leica belong to the mirrorless category?
Separate names with a comma.