Jump to content
jacoblewis

Is Samsung shutting down their camera business?

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

Who are you to say what words we can and can't use exactly?

I get where he's coming from - to say the NX1 is "dead" seems to be there's no more development for anything NX-related - no more native glass, etc. That may or may not be the case this week. To say the 5D was "dead" doesn't address a product that's evolved, with a family of available gear that will continue to be developed. The camera may be "obsolete" itself, when compared to newer models, but "dead" make me think of things like not being able to buy parts, service, or lenses for, say, a Mamiya RZ setup.

And I state the obvious often - a camera that becomes "obsolete" due to new features in a newer model doesn't lose any of the ability it already had. Andrew and others point that out often, and people seem to forget it when the next-big-thing comes out. If my D7100 wasn't getting sicker every shoot with crazy pattern noise, I wouldn't be as focused on what's going on with the NX now - the old body still shoots lovely footage (well, except for the noise disease it's picked up). And I'll probably buy one in the next couple weeks regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think Samsung actually lost money producing the NX1?

We may never know - but it depends if they can amortize all the tech they developed for it. They did some groundbreaking stuff that suddenly made Nikon and Canon look complacent after all. But designing, coding, prototyping, machining, setting up a manufacturing chain for hundreds of components and thousands of parts crammed into a tiny form factor… development, packaging, manuals, marketing, for global markets in how many languages - a lot of people spent a lot of months on this one product. So I'd assume on-paper, they lost some bucks. But does Samsung see it as a long-term investment, a market test and technology test they can learn from and evolve from? Or will they ditch high-end cameras altogether and decide not to go head-to-head with Canon/Nikon (or not try to shoot over their heads)? I imagine we'll learn in the months ahead. if we see an NX2 that does 4K from a full frame sensor that beats Sony in low light, has log, and hell, shoots prores? But I just listed everything video shooters might want, and the NX1 IS NOT A VIDEO CAMERA, not first and foremost (and yes, a lot of semi pro, advanced amateurs and even pro still shooters dug the hell out of the NX1 as a stills camera). I wonder if they should be taking on Blackmagic instead of the stills world. But that's a small market, which is something a lot of DSLR shooters seem to forget when they, say, rage at Nikon for what a lackluster upgrade the D7200 was. What if video-centric buyers are .05% of the market for a given DSLR? We know next to nothing about how this all works and where the money is. Nikon or Canon could easily produce a sub $2k camera that competes with, say the BMC 4k production cam. I don't think that's their world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you think Samsung actually lost money producing the NX1?

I doubt it. The main cost would be the sensor and processor design, but that would be rolled into their overall technological program, unlike most other manufacturers. So it would actually have cost them relatively little compared to what, for example, Canon or Nikon would have had to invest to achieve the same level of competency. That was always the big strength that players like Samsung and Sony had over the competition, and still do. They can leverage almost everything with technology developed on the backs of other similar products and in the long run the pure camera companies will not be able to compete.

The bigger question would be not so much losing money, but more a question of did it make money? If it didn't make enough, they might not see a rationale for making the sort of marketing investment that would be required to overcome the product loyalty bias towards the Canons and Nikons of the world. Ideally you want your current product to fund the next one, not have to put money up to do that and then recover it in sales afterwards. There is too much risk in that approach. Having the best grass is no guarantee that you are going to win over sheep. They will tend to go and graze where they usually graze, no matter what. Sheep are not all that smart. So planting high quality grass is no guarantee that the sheep are going to show up, sheep being what they are.

I guess if the rumors are true, then Samsung are not going to bother with the market. Sony on the other hand clearly have dominance in mind, and if they stick to it with the drive they have over the last few years, they will achieve that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samsung is in major cost cutting mode.

This isn't merely limited to cameras & imaging. Labs have been closed and projects axed across the world, even America. The decisions concerning what projects and labs to cut are being made by the 'bean counters'. 

It is my belief that the camera group has been disbanded for the time being. Tragic, because they finally hit their stride and had a phenomenal engineering team that was passionate about the product.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They will achieve bringing green and greyish colors to everyone ^^

*shrug* ..... correct it if you don't like it. We keep hearing about how it is so important to use super flat profiles so you can do the "magic" in post to best effect. So put the money where the hype is, and do it :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a consumer I definitely did not like the image coming from the NX1, many others as well......

 

Sony A7 cameras simply took the world by storm and of course Canon is king with their excellent color science. Panasonic imo needs to seriously step it up as GH4 was a HUGE letdown in "Noise" and "Color" performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I find interesting: You won't hear anyone argue that Alexa, F65, Epic, have an amazing image. When you get down to the lower tier though you have extreme polar preferences. One person hates Sony and loves Canon. One person loves Panasonic and hates Sony. Samsung over all of them. Canon over all of them. Does that mean that all of those cameras are not quite there in regards to image quality, or that people feel the need to defend a brand they purchased?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does that mean that all of those cameras are not quite there in regards to image quality, or that people feel the need to defend a brand they purchased?

A bit of both, for alot of people. The lower end comes with compromises (colour, DR, bitrate etc) and how people tolerate those compromises is what you see with all the bickering... Plus people generally defend what they have spent their cash on.

It is also why I have, for now, let 4K pass me by, as I can shoot 1080p with far less image compromises (BMPCC, 5DIII Raw).... When 4K catches up, in a similar body size, i'll go 4K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Samsung is in major cost cutting mode.

This isn't merely limited to cameras & imaging. Labs have been closed and projects axed across the world, even America. The decisions concerning what projects and labs to cut are being made by the 'bean counters'. 

It is my belief that the camera group has been disbanded for the time being. Tragic, because they finally hit their stride and had a phenomenal engineering team that was passionate about the product.

 

I believe it.

And it's taking ages for them to come out with an official statement, it must be really hard to spin this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather Samsung is simply moving from selling cameras in stores + online to selling online only. Stock is going to be cleared in the actual stores and there won't be any new stock coming in. Samsung obviously did a lot better selling their cameras online rather than in stores so they're making the obvious move of no longer selling in stores. Seems pretty simple to me. I can see a mistranslation of this blowing up in to "Samsung NX is dead" but it's pretty ridiculous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I gather Samsung is simply moving from selling cameras in stores + online to selling online only. Stock is going to be cleared in the actual stores and there won't be any new stock coming in. Samsung obviously did a lot better selling their cameras online rather than in stores so they're making the obvious move of no longer selling in stores. Seems pretty simple to me. I can see a mistranslation of this blowing up in to "Samsung NX is dead" but it's pretty ridiculous. 

Unless they're going to ship directly to customers through online retailers, why would they care if their cameras are sold online or in stores? I understand getting out of the mass market, big box stores where Canon and Nikon rule the shelf space realty, but specialty camera shops? 

Idk, maybe? This whole thing seems weird. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I find interesting: You won't hear anyone argue that Alexa, F65, Epic, have an amazing image. When you get down to the lower tier though you have extreme polar preferences. One person hates Sony and loves Canon. One person loves Panasonic and hates Sony. Samsung over all of them. Canon over all of them. Does that mean that all of those cameras are not quite there in regards to image quality, or that people feel the need to defend a brand they purchased?

I don't think anyone buys anything around here just because it's the so-and-so brand. I'd say everyone has their own set of certain wishes, be it lowlight, be it 4K, be it high frame rate, be it adaptability with third party lenses and native offering, be it post production editting possibilities, be it the possibility to use it for hybrid shooting or even just price and there isn't a one does it all right. Because... the companies don't want to give you everything... who else are they going to sell their next camera to if you're happy with it for years to come? It's a business, they need to keep the money flow going.

If you want one that checks all the boxes... atleast, almost, it will take engineering and resources to come up with a camera that hardly has any drawbacks; technically (features) and aesthetically (looks) speaking. The drawback then will be that it's going to cost ya. So... people buying cameras that any of us would only dare to dream about renting... they know they're getting some of the best engineered cameras out there. And it's done right! Because the manufacturer needs to make money and can't deliver comprised quality.

Now, if you're talking about prosumer cameras, affordable enough to the enthusiast amongst us, it's a different story. M43 offers very sharp images, vast native offering, great adaptability and superb pricing. 4K doesn't get much more affordable than that. And it's compact! Lot of people forget that people like to shoot with a kind of bare minimums approach to it. Downside is obviously the tiny sensor and pixel size. Because of that the image isn't as rich. Lowlight is going to be tricky, colors, especially with Panasonic, aren't quite up there. The crop makes it hard to go wide, to create shallow depth of field, although thank dear baby Jesus for focal reducers, right? I like the affordability and flexibility of this system though! And the crop factor allows for compact lenses, that means travel friendly. I just can't imagine it any other way. Doesn't mean I suddenly forget that other cameras can perform better.

Looking at APS-C sized cameras, stuff like the D5500 and A6000 is quite interesting. But the D5500 isn't mirrorless and the I think Sony didn't imagined the A6000 for video as much. Only the NX1 does 4K... and it does it so well! It's hard to fault it. But it's a step up in price from the Panasonic 4K possibilities and the native offering and adaptability is slightly worse. It all depends on one's individual needs and taste!

You could go fullframe. The 5DmkIII doesn't quite cut it and it's cumbersome. The A7-range has come quite the way already, but there's other issues to be dealth with even just comparing models under themselves you could get heated debates that one sucks and the other does not.

For me, I don't feel the need to go all big boy with fullframe cameras and fullframe covering glass. I do think the M43 doesn't quite cut it performance wise either, eventhough I'm well wrapped up its ecosystem. APS-C I think might be the best of affordability, compactness and performance, but still can't quite see it with the NX1 yet, although the looks are there. I wish Sony and Nikon would take the NX1 efforts and use it to inspire new APS-C mirrorless cameras. But at the end of the day, the truth is... in this affordable range you have to pick your poison. And everyone likes different kinds of fishy foods. Personally, I'm a fish fingers kind of guy. Just give it to me easy and cheap. No need for salmon or caviar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt it. The main cost would be the sensor and processor design, but that would be rolled into their overall technological program, unlike most other manufacturers. So it would actually have cost them relatively little compared to what, for example, Canon or Nikon would have had to invest to achieve the same level of competency. That was always the big strength that players like Samsung and Sony had over the competition, and still do. They can leverage almost everything with technology developed on the backs of other similar products and in the long run the pure camera companies will not be able to compete.

WTF?!  Canon has been profitable forever.  Morningstar shows profitable years going back to 2005 and from what I remember they were profitable for years prior to that.  Sony has lost money six out of the last seven years.  And the recent ray of sunshine in its imaging department everyone is focused on isn't its full frame sensors it is the sensors it makes for cell phones!  Not sure what synergies one derives from tiny cell phone sensors that is going to dramatically change the cost structure of full frame sensors.  I mean the wafer yield problem is an issue for anyone making large sensors.  And if you come up with a cooling strategy for a full frame or APS-C 4k sensor what other applications does that apply to?  Cell phone 4k seems to be chugging along just fine even as people fry eggs on Sony cameras.  And Sony and Canon are about the same size.  Sometimes Canon is larger and sometimes Sony is larger.  And don't forget a chunk of Sony is movie studios that don't make any technology.

Sony has posted net losses for six of the past seven years. As a result, the price of its ADRs traded on the NYSE fell from $55 in early 2008 to below $10 in late 2012. (An ADR is a stock that trades in the U.S. but represents a specific number of shares in a foreign corporation.) Its credit ratings eventually fell to near junk levels.

http://time.com/3892591/sony-turnaround/

What is with this camera fanboism?  They are just cameras.  No need to make stuff up people.

That they did. No doubt in my mind.

I have to imagine they lost money on the whole venture.  Frankly I would be surprised if in less than a year it was profitable.  Look at the Xbox 360.  It is ubiquitous here in the US and look how many YEARS that project took to turn a profit.  The people at Samsung are adults.  I'm sure they did not plan on necessarily being profitable in year one.  There is simply no way someone launches a whole new line of cameras and doesn't at least accept a few years of losses.  Maybe the losses were bigger than they expected or maybe everything is still on track and they are merely launching a new NX in January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe it.

And it's taking ages for them to come out with an official statement, it must be really hard to spin this one.

Yes, there's the whole Korean culture element to it of trying to preserve honor and dignity, which could be especially challenging in a situation were they to exit right as they had begun to garner genuine respect and accolade. Some might even call it lunacy.

I'm in engineering, but not affiliated with cameras in anyway.

Samsung is heavily compartmentalized internally, so even those on the inside are nearly in the dark as much as you lot. It's been tough following these threads, my passion for both engineering and photography had me wanting to see the camera effort succeed. I've purchased several of them with my own money, and the NX1 in particular is a great tool to work with. No machine is perfect, but people worked extremely hard on it and I was happy to see them largely succeed.... regardless of what Samsung's official response to this rumor turns up as.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I find interesting: You won't hear anyone argue that Alexa, F65, Epic, have an amazing image. When you get down to the lower tier though you have extreme polar preferences. One person hates Sony and loves Canon. One person loves Panasonic and hates Sony. Samsung over all of them. Canon over all of them. Does that mean that all of those cameras are not quite there in regards to image quality, or that people feel the need to defend a brand they purchased?

Exactly ! I have a preference in color science etc. but that doesn't mean someone can't hand me a Sony or a Canon on a gig and I just can't make it work ! Im not that much of a diva LOL

As a consumer I definitely did not like the image coming from the NX1, many others as well......

 

Sony A7 cameras simply took the world by storm and of course Canon is king with their excellent color science. Panasonic imo needs to seriously step it up as GH4 was a HUGE letdown in "Noise" and "Color" performance.

spoken like a true consumer. Let me guess you seen all these things about noise and color performance and you took this as gospel before actually shooting with one yourself huh ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I find interesting: You won't hear anyone argue that Alexa, F65, Epic, have an amazing image. When you get down to the lower tier though you have extreme polar preferences. One person hates Sony and loves Canon. One person loves Panasonic and hates Sony. Samsung over all of them. Canon over all of them. Does that mean that all of those cameras are not quite there in regards to image quality, or that people feel the need to defend a brand they purchased?

It usually means that any particular person owns one camera or the other, and of course their favorite camera has the best "color science" (although it is subjective and not science at all), the best dynamic range, the best noise, the best intangible "quality" etc etc etc.

At the end of the day however the viewer cant tell the difference. Hell, even most of the people espousing an opinion can't tell the difference if you don't tell them which camera was used. Then, of course, the difference will be "obvious" ;)

Unless they're going to ship directly to customers through online retailers, why would they care if their cameras are sold online or in stores? I understand getting out of the mass market, big box stores where Canon and Nikon rule the shelf space realty, but specialty camera shops? 

Idk, maybe? This whole thing seems weird. 

Same reason. It cost money to maintain a presence in a store, even a speciality store. Display space doesn't come free you know, the manufacturer has to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...