Samsung to stop producing cameras and lenses?

The NX1 and all of the NX lenses are fantastic! Absolutely superb images, both stills and video. I hope Samsung can continue producing and improving on their camera and lens line. We will wait and see.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Is it out of the realm of possibility for Samsung to just make what they would be best at - sensors or camera bodies? Would Canon, Nikon or Sony ever license their mount? Making lenses are always the downfall of camera company newcomers. Might be an untapped revenue source for the big players to also sell more of their lenses. Probably not but worth the conversation point.
Click to expand...
Nobody licenses their mounts because everyone wants to sell more glass and more bodies. This is why there are so many mounts (and will be more, if Canon goes full frame mirrorless, as is widely speculated). And, while Black Magic can offer EF, it makes no sense for Samsung to do so. Black Magic doesn't do lenses, Samsung does. FWIW, in December, 2013, there was a very widely circulated analysis by Credit Suisse that predicted that there will be only three survivors on the photo digital market. Samsung wasn't one of those three.

Having said that, Samsung could easily make four models - a DVX 200, an XC10, an RX 10 MK II and a FZ300 copy/competitor and then call it a day.
 
DLD said:
Nobody licenses their mounts because everyone wants to sell more glass and more bodies. This is why there are so many mounts (and will be more, if Canon goes full frame mirrorless, as is widely speculated). And, while Black Magic can offer EF, it makes no sense for Samsung to do so. Black Magic doesn't do lenses, Samsung does. FWIW, in December, 2013, there was a very widely circulated analysis by Credit Suisse that predicted that there will be only three survivors on the photo digital market. Samsung wasn't one of those three.

Having said that, Samsung could easily make four models - a DVX 200, an XC10, an RX 10 MK II and a FZ300 copy/competitor and then call it a day.
Click to expand...

Thanks and good points. I just see bodies in the digital era as becoming more of a commodity which usually means lower margins. Seems like Canon or Nikon would benefit from more lens sales no matter what body it is on. If somebody wants to buy a certain brand of camera, there was no sale there for Canon to begin with. Todays consumer is not yesterday's consumer where the ecosystem business model was created. People enjoy options. I think sales of Canon cameras would not be affected by putting Canon lenses on other bodies in today's market. Canon has the largest lens lineup in the industry. Seems like they could harness that to help from going down the proverbial drain into the future.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Thanks and good points. I just see bodies in the digital era as becoming more of a commodity which usually means lower margins. Seems like Canon or Nikon would benefit from more lens sales no matter what body it is on. If somebody wants to buy a certain brand of camera, there was no sale there for Canon to begin with. Todays consumer is not yesterday's consumer where the ecosystem business model was created. People enjoy options. I think sales of Canon cameras would not be affected by putting Canon lenses on other bodies in today's market. Canon has the largest lens lineup in the industry. Seems like they could harness that to help from going down the proverbial drain into the future.
Click to expand...

Let's look forward a year or two. The quality of the sub-$1,000 cameras is already "good enough" for most consumers. Smartphones, slowly but surely, are closing the gap on the DSLR's. Panasonic is virtually giving away lenses with G7, as most G7 packages are retailing for under $1,000. Samsung itself is selling a 4K NX500 for $650, lens included. NX500, just to remind folks, has a 28 MPX BSI APS-C sensor, which qualifies as "good enough" for the vast majority of the hybrid/stills buyers. Some would even argue that the sensor in this $500 camera is as good as any Canon camera outside of 5Ds/r 50 MPX models. Then one has to ask, "How many $1,000+ cameras will be sold in the future? How many lenses will a typical owner of a typical $500 camera own? How much profit will be left in the market when an average camera with a 40-50 MPX sensor and a kit lens will sell for less than a smartphone and will be in the hands of a consumer for 6-8 years without a need for replacement?"

Most answers will lead to a conclusion that the photo-video market is pretty much at a point of commoditization, where only the high end product with its 120-200 MPX sensors and bazooka size lenses will be profitable. But it will be a very small niche. Which is owned by Canon, Nikon and Sony anyway. What's in it for Samsung?
 
That is a good question. I was surprised when they announced their NX-1 camera but they have found a way to compete on features. They make really fast chips which gives them an edge over Canon as long as Canon continues to sleep in the hybrid market. I use Canon for still work due to the ecosystem. Samsung does not have this. Samsung does have the opportunity to get me onboard if they make a killer hybrid stills/video camera. But I am not a fan of having two sets of lenses as are many others. So another strike against Samsung. That leave the body alone with value for me if I can use my existing Canon lenses. Via adapter would be fine but they did not design with Metabones in mind. Just sayin' that not many existing Nikon or Canon owners are going to chuck it all and move to Samsung. They will pick up an extra body if it allows them to use their lenses and it has some great features. In my mind, the next version of the NX1 should have this lens approach for success as it will probably have a great feature set.

So I think they can justify being in the space unless Canon lowers the boom with the 5D MKIV. But I do not expect huge video specs from any Canon still camera. An NXII with RAW video and the ability to use Metabones adapters would create attention in the video space for sure.
 
Bassman, I am doing exactly what you describe. I am using both systems. I was prepared to buy a C100 MK II, when the NX1 appeared on my radar. it was cheaper to buy the NX1 with lenses, than it was to spend nearly 6K on a camera which does not shoot 4K. My 70d is about to get
jettisoned for an NX500. Ill continue to shoot Canon for still jobs, although the NX1 is a very capable machine, but for video, nothing Canon currently offers below the C300 MK II can touch my Samsung kit.
 
One way to overcome the disadvantage of not being in the Canon-Nikon-Sony ecosystem is to go with the fixed lens concept. The distinction between a stills camera and a camcorder is nearing zero as well and camcorders are equipped with a fixed lens (which now can be pseudo zooms even with primes, as demonstrated by JVC LS 300) anyway.

In any case, I hope mine isn't a contrarian-for-the-sake-of-being-a-contrarian argument. The camera market has a lot of overcapacity as it is and profits are being squeezed out of the consumer grade products. IMO, Samsung's current position is untenable in the long run. They had a decent business with their Point-and-Shoots but took too long to get to the enthusiast/prosumer level. Now, they have to decide whether they want to stay in and go up in weight class against the established ecosystems or whether to find a niche that will avoid the direct competition with the big boys. In other words, the idea of Samsung getting out of the ILC's isn't absurd without even bringing up the corporate finance, where their strategic planners have to pick where to place their bets. From Samsung Rumors, apparently, they're going to make a foray into the air conditioning industry. Let's hope the camera branch doesn't feel the chill because the consumers could certainly use more competition.
 
C100Scottie said:
Bassman, I am doing exactly what you describe. I am using both systems. I was prepared to buy a C100 MK II, when the NX1 appeared on my radar. it was cheaper to buy the NX1 with lenses, than it was to spend nearly 6K on a camera which does not shoot 4K. My 70d is about to get
jettisoned for an NX500. Ill continue to shoot Canon for still jobs, although the NX1 is a very capable machine, but for video, nothing Canon currently offers below the C300 MK II can touch my Samsung kit.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your perspective Scottie. It makes sense. In a way I am set for still work. I have had a 5DMKIII & MKII for a while now and do not see a need to upgrade. Video is where I am looking to get a large sensor camera that checks a lot of boxes. I currently shoot ML RAW which is awesome but it is unsettling to be using a hack on jobs. The Samsung feature set and image has caught my attention. They seem to be able to keep the HFR sharp where even the C300II has soft 1080p120. Cool stuff and I will be hoping Samsung stays around to shake the hornets nest.
 
I am a fan of the fixed lens concept as I have more of a video background, but it has to be done well. The DVX200 is close but I think they put the camera in between too much with too slow of a lens on a M4/3rds sensor. It is close but if you are in a small room and need to blur the background it will be more of a challenge compared to a faster lens or larger sensor. I just do not see this as a profit center as the video world is so much smaller than the still world. And the still world is loading up on fixed lens hybrids.
 
quite honestly, unless we are doing stuff at a national broadcast level, any of these cameras will do just fine for most corporate clients and events. Most everything is viewed online, or on mobile devices. Invest the least amount you can, to get the best image you can, and save your money.
 
Yes, it seems my business upgrading for the past ten years has come to a halt. The PX270 model has replaced the video camera role and I will not need to go any further for quite some time. Stills are covered. Just want to have a large sensor video device I can commit to and sink my teeth into. The BM Ursa 4.6 has a lot to like including a RAW workflow. Kind of over DSLRs as a main video camera but not a total deal breaker. But you right, this space is changing so quickly that it is almost a great time to wait for beasts to show up!
 
I recently sold my a7S and bought... an RX100 IV. That's it. I'm skipping the a7S II, and going for something that is not only cheaper (the II is too expensive for me) but also better in some ways (a pocketable camera that can shoot not only 4K but also 1080p240 is something I would like to have no matter what other cameras I own).

The a7S has been my most expensive camera to date: after 15 months of use, I got $1200 less than I paid for it.

I will have fun with my little RX100 IV until the a7 III or IV arrives with 4K at 60p and slog3 that actually has the DR that slog3 should have.

(I know it's not an option for most professionals: if you appear on a professional set with this little toy, you can easily be laughed out of the room, no matter how great the image is; then again, if you manage to shoot and deliver something great, the fact that you shot it on THIS may actually be a plus; anyway, it's just an example, you may as well buy an NX1 or a second-hand a7S, lots of cameras can give you much-more-than-good-enough quality today if you don't obsess about what's hot and new)
 
All true. But the problem is that the broad consumer market has to cover the R&D for the pro tier cameras or you end up with a $300,000,000 Alexa65 types. Sony, by being a dominating force with its sensors, has actually been able to pick out the sweet spot with cameras in their A7 series too. As to DVX 200, it's almost there. A better lens, a better sensor, a better codec and a lower price should make its followup and/or competitor acceptable for everything from run&gun to narrative within a 24-month period. The high end will be aiming at 8K by that point but the bulk of the market will be happier watching the prices fall faster and deeper. And camera executives will be looking for another line of work, fondly reminding one another that VCR's were once a huge business as well.
 
C100Scottie said:
quite honestly, unless we are doing stuff at a national broadcast level, any of these cameras will do just fine for most corporate clients and events. Most everything is viewed online, or on mobile devices. Invest the least amount you can, to get the best image you can, and save your money.
Click to expand...

This is true on many levels. I do corporate work professionally. Most of our clients are not mom and pop diners or coffeeshops or something, they're industry companies with 50+ employees in large buildings making millions a year. They'll spend $5K-$20K on a video project. But I've never once had any of them demand a certain camera or a certain resolution. So I've gotten away with using DSLRs for years and we only recently added a C100mkII mostly for ourselves. We could probably ride out this camera for 5-10 years unless something drastically changes. A lot of video on the web (which is 95% of where our projects are destined) is not even 1080p still. I still get away with a lot of 720p final projects because clients are happy and can't tell the difference between that and 1080p on youtube. Plus it gives me some wiggle room in post.

When I look at my own personal indie film adventures (which I'm getting back into), I don't see a need for an expensive camera. Just last night I was watching a movie on Netflix that was shot on an AF100. I'm under no delusions that I need to have a RED or Alexa or something to shoot an indie film. Especailly with the kind of film budgets I'd be shooting with (aka my own credit cards). So something like a BMPCC or a magic lantern 5DmkIII is plenty. Heck Avatar, the highest grossing film ever was shot in HD. If I can't shoot something great in HD, what's 4+K going to do?

This is not like the old days where footage from a home VHS camcorder was vastly inferior to 35mm film. Today we have 100+ million dollar Hollywood blockbusters intercutting Alexa footage with GoPro and Canon DSLR footage. The image quality in even the cheapest cameras today have gotten good enough to tell a corporate story or indie film story in a way that is generally acceptable. The limitation today is not the tools, but the talent and the amount of money you can put in front of the camera.

The next revoluton is not going to be greater dynamic range or more Ks of resolution, it's going to be "how do we make it look like we have more money in front of the camera?" We've already started down that path with drones and gimbals and inexpensive dollies, but that's still camera related. The solution is probably going to be more 3D animation. Tools for layman camera guys like me that can't model worth a damn, but would be all about placing premade 3D objects in Premiere Pro and have it match lighting and DOF with my already shot scene. Even better if we can add those objects to on set monitors the way some will accept LUTs, so we can see it when we shoot it. But even then you can't expect your 3-5 man crew indie production to look like a 500+ man production.
 
roxics said:
... The next revoluton is not going to be greater dynamic range or more Ks of resolution, it's going to be "how do we make it look like we have more money in front of the camera?" We've already started down that path with drones and gimbals and inexpensive dollies, but that's still camera related. The solution is probably going to be more 3D animation. Tools for layman camera guys like me that can't model worth a damn, but would be all about placing premade 3D objects in Premiere Pro and have it match lighting and DOF with my already shot scene. Even better if we can add those objects to on set monitors the way some will accept LUTs, so we can see it when we shoot it. But even then you can't expect your 3-5 man crew indie production to look like a 500+ man production.
Click to expand...
Wasn't a lot of "Wilfred" shot in front of a green screen?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top