Translate

Monday, December 30, 2013

Japan Mid-Tier Camera Makers Face Shakeout as Smartphones Shatter Mirrorless Hopes - NYTimes.com




Japan Mid-Tier Camera Makers Face Shakeout as Smartphones Shatter Mirrorless Hopes



TOKYO — Panasonic Corp and Japan's other mid-tier camera makers have a battle on their hands to win over a smartphone "selfie" generation to mirrorless cameras that held such promise when they were launched around five years ago.

Panasonic, like peers Fujifilm Holdings and Olympus Corp, has been losing money on its cameras since mobile phones that take high-quality photos ate into the compact camera business. This year, compact camera sales are likely to fall more than 40 percent to fewer than 59 million, according to industry researcher IDC.

Meanwhile, sales of mirrorless cameras - seen as a promising format between low-end compacts and high-end single-lens reflex (SLR) cameras - are sputtering as buyers put connectivity above picture quality.

A 40 percent drop in Panasonic's overall camera sales in April-September left the imaging division vulnerable as the company's mid-term plan to March 2016 demands unprofitable businesses turn themselves around or face the axe.

"If you look mid-to-long term, digital camera makers are slipping and the market is becoming an oligopoly," said Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida.

Panasonic held 3.1 percent of the camera market in July-September, down from 3.8 percent a year earlier, according to IDC. Canon Inc, Nikon Corp and Sony Corp controlled over 60 percent between them.

"Only those who have a strong brand and are competitive on price will last - and only Canon, Nikon and Sony fulfil that criteria," added Yoshida.

Canon and Nikon dominate the SLR camera market, while Sony could survive any shakeout thanks to its strength in making sensors for a number of camera manufacturers as well as collaboration with its smartphone division.

SPUTTERING MIRRORLESS

Panasonic, Fujifilm and Olympus are trying to fend off the smartphone threat by cutting compacts, targeting niche markets such as deep-sea diving, and launching the higher-margin mirrorless models.

The mirrorless format promised mid-tier makers an area of growth as the dominance of Canon and Nikon all but shut them out of SLRs, where Sony is a distant third. Neither Panasonic nor Fujifilm makes SLRs, and Olympus stopped developing them this year.

Mirrorless cameras such as Panasonic's Lumix GM eliminate the internal mirrors that optical viewfinders depend on, so users compose images via electronic viewfinders or liquid crystal displays. This allows the camera to be smaller than an SLR, while offering better quality than compacts or smartphones due to larger sensors and interchangeable lenses.

"SLRs are heavy and noisy, whereas mirrorless are small and quiet. While some people say SLRs still have better image quality, mirrorless (cameras) have improved to the point where they're equivalent, if not superior," said Hiroshi Tanaka, director of Fujifilm's optical division.

Critics grumble that LCD screens can never compete with the clarity of an optical viewfinder, and that picture-taking speeds are too slow for fast-action subjects such as sports.

Nevertheless, the mirrorless format has been a hit in Japan since Panasonic launched the first domestically produced model in 2008, the G1. They made up 36 percent of Japan's interchangeable lens camera shipments in January-October, according to researcher CIPA.

But the format is yet to catch on in the United States and Europe, where shipments made up just 10.5 percent and 11.2 percent of all interchangeable camera shipments, respectively, and where consumers tend to equate image quality with size and heft.

Sales, which globally are less than a quarter of those of SLRs, fell by a fifth in the three weeks to December 14 in the United States, which included the busy 'Black Friday' shopping week, while SLR sales rose 1 percent, according to NPD, another industry researcher.

"I would focus on the detachable lens market proper, excluding mirrorless, and focus on connectivity," said Ben Arnold, director of imaging analysis at NPD. "How do you bridge that gap between high photo-capture quality and high-quality camera devices and the cloud where every amateur photographer's images live?"

SMARTPHONE COMPROMISE

Panasonic, Olympus and Fujifilm do not yet have a definitive answer.

Consumers don't want to connect cameras to phones, analysts say; they want a single interface that can instantly upload photographs to social networking sites such as Facebook Inc and Twitter Inc.

Sony's compromise is its two QX lenses released this quarter. These come with their own sensors and processors, and clip onto smartphones through which the user operates them wirelessly. They are pocket-sized and produce photographs of a quality rivaling that of a compact camera.

"There was a lot of internal disagreement over the product. It's the kind of product you either love or hate," said Shigeki Ishizuka, president of Sony's digital imaging business.

But Sony appears to have connected with consumers as demand soon outstripped production. Some are even using the lenses in a way Sony didn't intend: placed at a distance while they press the shutter on their smartphone to take self-portraits, or selfies.

"We had no idea how much the QX would sell initially when we put it out. We didn't set any targets," said Ishizuka.

It is little surprise Sony was the camera maker to break the mould as it is the only one to also have a profitable smartphone division.

"There are so many consumers that were hungry for Sony to do this," said Chris Chute, IDC's digital imaging research director. "They've (waited for Sony) to come out with something really innovative, almost like the Walkman (portable music player)."

(Editing by Christopher Cushing and Edmund Klamann)

Saturday, December 21, 2013

These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop | DIYPhotography.net




These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop


Jeremy Jackson, a photographer from Virginia, USA who goes by the handle of tackyshack on Flickr is one of the first light painting masters I got to meet here on DIYP. And what a ride it has been. Jeremy's recent feature on Sploid encouraged me to check his Flickr stream again, and I was lost there for way too long.
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
Light painting, for the ones who are not familiar with the term is the art of doing long exposures while waiving different sources of light at various object (including the camera). The hard core artists (like tackyshack) never ever use Photoshop, and this is the case with the photos displayed here.
We are going to have a full light painting resource list at the bottom, but till then, sit back and enjoy this miraculous SOOC (strait out of camera) explosion.
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
On his flickr Profile Jeremy explains that "all of my photos are straight out of the camera. No photoshopping aside from an occasional rotation or crop.
I am amazed by what can be done with long exposure and light sources. The techniques are endless. Considering painting with light is the art of making space and time your canvas and using light as your medium, a lot of potential lies in this basic definition."
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
These Incredible Light Paintings From Tackyshack Have Nothing To Do With Photoshop
If you find this as fascinating as I do, and wanna have a go, you can visit our Complete Guide to Light Painting it has everything from basics, through fireworks, stencils and much, much more.

Tuesday, December 17, 2013

GIFTS FOR PHOTOGRAPHERS!

Check out Amazon's Gift Suggestions for Photographers!

http://amzn.to/1cyBDfS

Friday, December 13, 2013

Your Camera is Ruining Your Memory - Reviewed.com Cameras


Your Camera is Ruining Your Memory

These days, more and more musicians are actively discouraging the use of cameras and mobile phones at their concerts. While it might seem counterintuitive for artists to restrict the use of devices that help create buzz and drive the artist's image, many musicians would prefer their fans to actually enjoy the show, rather than worrying about recording shaky video and awful audio for posterity.

The prioritization of the camera over the experience is now common when celebrating everything from childhood milestones, to family holidays, to everyday dinners—all thanks to the meteoric rise of Instagram and its ilk.

Obviously, there's a distinct line between watching a your child's first steps or a live concert through your iPhone screen and snapping the occasional photo or a few seconds of video. But the problem is pervasive enough that a few artists have gone so far as to ban phones outright.

Besides the potentially distracting nature of glowing cellphones at eye level, a recent psychology study claims that the act of photographing has adverse effects on the photographer's memory. In Fairfield University's experiment, subjects were guided through an art museum, one group taking photos, the other simply making memories. Interestingly, the participants who photographed the exhibits recalled fewer details and museum characteristics than the others.

While it isn't particularly surprising that concentrating on taking a photograph might shove actual thoughts about the subject to the backburner, the study did find one interesting conclusion: When the participants zoomed in on specific areas of their subjects, their memories of the entire exhibit were just as good as those of the camera-deprived guinea pigs. (Though Fairfield's study didn't cover it, we have to imagine the increased focus on composition also resulted in better photographs.)

While it's ironic that the act of recording an event actually impairs our memory, the problem isn't photography itself—it's how we interact with technology. Without even thinking about it, we hand a machine the responsibility for recording our memories, not realizing that a photo just isn't the same thing.

So before you whip out the camera to document your kid's birthday, a visit to MoMA, or your favorite band's concert, take a moment to make sure all your senses are fully engaged.

Oxbow Bend
Did these guys truly capture this gorgeous moment? Since they're taking their time and actively composing their frame, they actually might have. [Credit: Wikimedia Commons, National Park Service]
View Larger

Via: Fairfield University

[Hero image: Flickr user "jgoge123"]


Photo-taking may hinder memories, study says - CNN.com




Eyes are better at mental snapshots than cameras, study suggests

What you take photos of may not be the same as what your brain remembers.
What you take photos of may not be the same as what your brain remembers.
(CNN) -- I've got hundreds of photos from my recent Europe trip, split between a smartphone and a big camera. A lot are shots of the same thing -- my attempt to get the perfect lighting on a fountain or a cathedral, for example -- so that I'll have these scenes to remember always.
So I was interested to read a new study in the journal Psychological Science suggesting that the act of taking photos may actually diminish what we remember about objects being photographed.
"People just pull out their cameras," says study author Linda Henkel, researcher in the department of psychology at Fairfield University in Connecticut. "They just don't pay attention to what they're even looking at, like just capturing the photo is more important than actually being there."
At the same time, she found that zooming in on objects helps preserve people's memory of them, beyond just the detail on which they zoomed.
Henkel's father is a photographer, so she has been hanging around photos and taking photos all her life. She wanted to see if snapping photos of objects would impact people's memories of what they saw at a museum.
This study had a small sample size: 27 undergraduates participated in the first part, and 46 in the second. Both groups were mostly women. In order to strengthen the conclusions, this research would need to be replicated with a lot more people and a more balanced sex ratio, not to mention a wider range of demographic characteristics such as age.
But this is an interesting start. It underscores the point that there are different ways that the brain processes information: At an automatic level, by taking pictures, and at a more meaningful level, by focusing on a specific object or something with a personal association, said Paul D. Nussbaum, clinical neuropsychologist at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
It's that deeper level that enables memories to form, Nussbaum said in an e-mail.
"The more we engage our brain into processing a stimuli and the more personal that processing is, the more solid the memory formation and recall," he said.
Photos impairing memory?
For the first experiment, participants went to the Bellarmine Museum of Art. One-third of them had never been to the museum before. They visited 30 objects, spanning such media as painting, sculpture, jewelry and pottery.
One group of students was instructed to read the name of each object out loud, look at the object for 20 seconds and then take a photo of it. The other participants looked at an object for 30 seconds without taking a picture.
The following day, participants were asked to write down the names of all objects they remembered from the museum, and to indicate which they photographed. They could describe any objects whose names they could not recall.
Then, they were given a list of 30 objects and were asked to indicate which they had seen, which they had photographed and which were not on the tour. They also answered questions about details of objects, and completed a photo-recognition test of objects they may or may not have seen.
Henkel found that people performed worse on memory recognition tasks in reference objects they had photographed, compared to objects they had observed with their eyes only. Similarly, they appeared to remember fewer details about what they photographed, compared to the ones they had only seen.
"When we distract ourselves and count on the camera to remember for us, then we don't remember as many objects," she said. "We don't remember as many details about the objects."
Zooming protecting memory
The second experiment gave participants 25 seconds to view each object, in addition to extra time for photographing when that was asked of them. That meant they had extra time with objects that they had to photograph. Some were also asked to zoom in on specific parts of the objects.
The next day, it was time to test their memory: Participants had to indicate, from a list of names of art objects, which were part of the tour they had been on.
For objects they remembered, participants were asked to say whether they had photographed the object or just seen it, and answer two questions about visual aspects of the object.
Henkel found a similar effect as in the first experiment: Photographed objects tended to be associated with a decline in memory about them.
But here is the twist: Zooming in on one part of the object preserved participants' memory about that entire object, not just the part on which the camera zoomed. Accuracy was about the same, regardless of whether participants just observed objects or zoomed in on individual parts.
Henkel explains that when you zoom in on part of an object, it's drawing your visual attention there, but you're also thinking about the object as a whole.
"So what your eyes are doing, what the camera is doing, is not the same thing as what your brain is doing," Henkel said.
In other words, when you spend the extra time and attention to zoom in on something, you're likely to remember aspects of it as well as if you had just observed it without a camera.
The bigger picture
OK, so maybe it's a little more complicated than just "taking photos is bad for your memory." That's good news, since people took more than 3 billion photos in 2012, according to an estimate cited in the study, and 300 million photos are uploaded to Facebook daily.
Still, says Nussbaum, "I wonder sometimes how much we may be missing when we rely so much on technological gadgets rather than using our brains."
Henkel points out that the advent of digital photography has overstepped the age-old traditions of printing photos out, putting them in scrapbooks and sitting around with your family and looking at them. That sounds a little like using a paper map.
But maybe those photo-related activities that make us take time to reminisce do enhance our memory of the experiences we have tried to photograph so diligently.
"If we're going to going to rely on that external memory device of the camera to remember for us, we've got to take that extra step and look at it," Henkel says.
Keep that in mind this holiday season when you take hundreds of photos with with friends and family.
They're worth a second look.