Will cameras embrace a paid software service model?

[Steve W]

Mmm Nikon and Canon behaving like Adobe......can’t see it if they want to continue to sell cameras.

 

[dabhand16]

Not quite on topic, but I've been really impressed with the way Fuji makes firmware updates available that bring features from the next model to the earlier models. They don't do this until the latest model has had a good run, but I was delighted when they released firmware for my XT-2 that broughht a lot of XT-3 functionality to my camera. In camera focus stacking and some AF improvements for instance.

It is not the first time they have done this either. so I guess my answer to your question is that it is not possible to buy a camera that does everything as development will continue and if you can get these developments without having to buy a new camera, what's not to like?

Would I pay for the privilege? My instinct says no, but if, say, focus stacking became available and you are a macro fan, maybe you would. However, if it is only a firmware update to achieve the feature, and it was there from the start, it would be mean at the least if they already have it but charge for it.

 

[Abinoone]

I seriously doubt that this could/would happen in the camera space, but what I do think is possible is for manufacturers to adopt a business model similar to the auto industry, where there are different trim levels of the same camera, and options that add to the cost. When was the last time you bought a SUV that came with roof racks, winter mats, or built-in GPS?

 

[kimball]

Mmm Nikon and Canon behaving like Adobe......can’t see it if they want to continue to sell cameras.

Paid feature upgrades != software subscriptions. I don't think anyone here is seriously talking about a monthly subscription to keep your camera firmware operating.

Also, I just realized that multiple companies have already experimented with paid upgrades to existing cameras. Panasonic had a paid firmware upgrade for the GH5 and other cameras to add VLogL support and 10-bit internal video recording, while Nikon had one for the Z6 to add raw video output.

B&H sells the VLogL/10-bit firmware update for $97:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/prod...mw_sfu1_vlog_v_log_l_function_activation.html

whereas with Nikon you have to ship your camera back to Nikon (and pay $199 + shipping):
https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/mirrorless-cameras/firmware-updates/raw-video-output.page

 

[Anjin San]

I think that would be a tough nut to crack for the camera companies and I don't see it happening anytime soon. Oops - I was actually going to write what DR wrote as I was doing it! Yup, I think people would think companies were holding back and deliberately crippling the camera to get more out of you. Besides, as an industry that's been in free fall for awhile, finding a new way to make it seem like they are ripping you off probably isn't a good idea.

Still, I can't 100% say we won't ever see it. I imagine if a question like this was asked bask in the CS days of Photoshop, no one would have thought they'd ever go to a subscription. I just think it would be a mistake for a piece of hardware.

I would consider a subscription update service as opposed to feature packs. If I could pay 100 bucks a year or something like that to get new firmware features or improvements in AF it would be worth it…that way the vendor has some incentive to bring updated features or better performance to existing models. That goes against the sell new hardware idea…but commitment by the vendor to support incentivizes brand loyalty for new purchases…and some new features will require more firmware space size or more powerful processors so new models would still sell…not to mention improved sensors and frame rates as time goes on since part of frame rate is sensor reading time…one would need a new model for some advances. I don’t know how much effort it would take to put Z7III features into the II models…but the hard part of developing is already done for the III model and it would take some but less effort to back fit that into the II models. Apple is the only computer company that follows this model of as much backward compatibility as possible and it is part of what keeps their customers coming back…so one would think a similar approach would be the best for camera makers.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I imagine if a question like this was asked bask in the CS days of Photoshop, no one would have thought they'd ever go to a subscription. I just think it would be a mistake for a piece of hardware.

Not really a perfect analogy. We were already paying for Adobe updates, Every major revision was an upgrade and I think the last PS upgrade price was $175 (for people with existing license). This happened about every 2 years. People complaining about their current subscription model forget that part, or were okay not getting every update. Most current software that is not a subscription model still charges for major updates.

I agree that it would be a mistake for hardware.

Chris

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

That is actually what software is... something that allows your computer to do more than just look pretty and beep when you turn it on .

This analogy doesn't work. A computer runs on an operating system, hardware (like a camera) runs on firmware (an operating system baked into the chip).

And a camera is a closed system, unlike a computer (PC *and* Mac) which allows 3rd party installation of at least software, if not low-level drivers and system extensions.

Any third party software dedicated to a camera system goes on your computer, not the camera.

Chris

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

In the 90's I was selling software, we installed the package. Some times later the customer wanted more function. We came out punched a code into a dialogue box to enable it. Customers always was saying, aren't you gonna put in some extra software? Most had a hard time accepting that 12-16 digits and letters could cost several thousands. But if we had taken out a shiny floppy disk or CD and added some file they would have felt OK.

And this still happens. With MS Windows, you can upgrade your operating system (I don't mean security patches and bug fixes) and just get a code that unlocks "Pro" or beyond that ("Pro Workstation") components that are already installed, or some of which are a quick download, but still already designed into the system. But this is on a computer that already takes a large host of third party hardware, software, drivers, and other system components.

Hardware (such as a camera) has not really been like this (soon will be the posted exceptions, but ...). Think of other hardware that gets nothing more than firmware upgrades. You probably have several right in your home, and you would not take kindly to additional charges to a) give it full functionality or b) keep it running.

As far as I know, even autos that can take upgrades are not open (hacks aside) to a host of third party software. So those analogies aren't solid either.

Chris

 

[Woodpecker]

Trying to make marketing of a product easier by allowing configuring/cusotmizing it as you would do with configuring your car is common practice these days, being it cars, business software, post processing software, fork lifts, cranes, gas chromatogrphs, ...

With cameras I still see it a bit different, because the portion of functionality that is really determined by electronic and mechanical hardware.
E.g. the boost in performance we can expect from the new Nikon sensor in terms of dynamic range, Hi ISO performance, frame rate and an EVF really being able to replace an OVF is something that is determined by this sensor and its base electronics. Even with the cleverest software in the world you wouldn'T be able to squeeze this out of a normal CMOS sensor with its electronics today.

This means that the key factor is closer to hardware/electronic level than to pure software. The only way to establish this kind of software-related product portfolio management would be by putting the high end infrastructure in the camera and then cripple it down by software to make e.g. an entry level camera.
It would be like you could buy a Ferrari in a beginners version that only runs 160 km/h and you only get up to 280 when paying something extra, altough the car is capable of doing 280 anyway. I sure nobody would buy this car in the entry level version .

 

[Calson]

Every advance in camera functionality required new hardware as well as new firmware. With Nikon each new generation of camera has a new autofocus motor module and new autofocus sensors and new sensor design and new Expeed processor(s) and new memory card type slots and often a new battery type.

 

[EricBowles]

For the professional in specific niches, Nikon is already providing paid upgrades. You have the V-log upgrade and the NX Field Remote system. NPS members also pay an annual fee for bundles of services and benefits. It's an upgrade from the complementary NPS membership. NPS members have an exclusive program with Vincent Versace for NX Studio next week - and there are some good ideas from how he is using the program.

There is no reason why upgrades need to be limited to video or large systems of remote cameras. If there is significant functionality that is relevant, sign me up. It's actually a pretty easy benefit for NPS members to have firmware customization options provided for a fee or as part of a bundle. I don't think it's a big leap at all to add additional firmware options or upgrades that allow new combinations of hardware and software. Sending a camera to Nikon for the update is also not a big deal as I already send bodies for free cleaning and inspection as part of my NPS benefits.

Some of the smart phone companies are experimenting with monthly fees for equipment and trade up packages. That would be pretty easy for Nikon. Why not provide a D6/Z9 for a monthly fee of $129 per month with an automatic trade up as new bodies are released? Include complementary service and cleaning annually as part of the package. The money is in the lenses, but they will sell a lot of lenses if more people have a new camera body.

 

[ShaneB]

'Never happen'... That's what people said just before Adobe went to a subscription model.

When cameras became digital photographers entered an entirely new business - high technology. Face it, we don't buy photographic cameras, we buy computers with a sensor attached.

Ok, let's look at computers and phones. Would I buy a new iMac or iPhone and then expect to pay for OS upgrades for the next several years? The answer is of course a resounding "no". I expect and receive updates for as long as the hardware can cope with those upgrades. Similarly cars. I would not expect to have to pay extra annually to "unlock" more power or better brakes.

As to Adobe's little scam: I walked away from Adobe when they started renting software and while a lot of people stayed with them (on the mistaken assumption that Adobe is the only game in town) a heap of people walked away.

 

[MartyD]

I think in order for this to happen the software would have to be more valuable than the hardware. I don't really think cameras today have processing power that the software can't take advantage of. I don't believe their is much processing headroom in today's cameras.

If a camera was produce with features that had to be unlocked by paying for software activation the pricing model would be interesting. A company would have to produce a camera that is capable of all possible features then that camera would be sold to some consumers at less than full value. So if a camera needed $5000 worth of hardware to perform with all features but some would be sold for $3500 with fewer features activated then the full featured camera would have to sell for maybe $6500 in order to balance the sales values.

What I am really wishing someone would venture into is a modular camera system. Upgrade the parts as your needs change. Buy the specs you want, sensor, fps, focusing speed, video performance, then upgrade or even swap out parts when necessary.

 

[ronpier]

The camera companies just don’t get it. My Ipad is updated many times per year. No charge. Don’t need to buy a new camera. Also as mentioned previously offer a base model and let the customer add options. Not many can afford a $4-5000 camera but maybe a downgraded D850? Maybe sell more cameras?

 

[BAT]

If Nikon (bless their little money grabbing souls) put out a firmware update for the D500 that upgraded their AF systems to today's standards, I would buy it in a heart beat.

 

[anthonyrobinson]

The camera companies just don’t get it. My Ipad is updated many times per year. No charge. Don’t need to buy a new camera. Also as mentioned previously offer a base model and let the customer add options. Not many can afford a $4-5000 camera but maybe a downgraded D850? Maybe sell more cameras?

If your technology experience is like mine - it gets progressively slower every year with progressively worse battery life; both of which are inevitable. That’s yet to happen to a camera of mine!

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

If your technology experience is like mine - it gets progressively slower every year with progressively worse battery life; both of which are inevitable. That’s yet to happen to a camera of mine!

I've had that happen with camera batteries, but it's probably rare (you have to have been using those batteries for a long time) AND you get to replace the battery very easily. Few of today's laptops or phones have user swappable batteries (without disassembly).

The only camera where I wore out the batteries: the D3, which I had over a decade, and 3rd party replacement batteries were not expensive.

Camera's still have not become part of the throw-away tech culture (at least, not cameras of the caliber that probably most of us here use).

Chris

 

[JANuser]

Nikon and Panasonic already do this, the RAW or log video upgrade packages for some cameras (D750/D780/Z6) to shoot higher end video codecs and bit rates. Don’t be too surprised when this happens more in the future. Things like high frame rates, video features, filters etc are the likely target areas. They could lock you to the speed of the physical shutter and only unlock the fast electrical shutter with a paid upgrade for example.

 

[Niels.hr.Hansen]

Compared to computers cameras are a little weird. We seem to expect that a given hardware sold with a given version of software takes it to the edge of it's potential. For a computer you could consider putting on a different OS (Windows, Linux, BSD) and you could chose between thousands of applications to bring out exact your optimum device. But your device might slow performance down or eliminate usage of hardware components. This could be that you are running a graphics driver that only provides full HD, but you are having a 4K monitor. You'll see fine HD pictures and videos even though the setup could be capable of running native 4K.
In camera area imagine that the Nikon D6 and D850 is actually using the same sensor. But D6 has a software that cluster pixels together in order to achieve better sensitivity on the sacrifice of high resolution. Change the software and voila high resolution with less sensitive system. For the producer it means a production line for sensors can be closed, and one line can produce more units.
I would love to buy a stills only camera, why do I need to have video functions in my camera. I'll never use video. So I get a price reduction and so do the vlogger that never takes a still. Camera producer however gets two satisfied customers and is selling more units from the same production line.

 

[Not A Speck Of Cereal]

I would love to buy a stills only camera, why do I need to have video functions in my camera. I'll never use video. So I get a price reduction and so do the vlogger that never takes a still. Camera producer however gets two satisfied customers and is selling more units from the same production line.

A vlogger that never takes stills would buy a video camera, not a stills camera with video.

So you are asking Nikon to produce two cameras, one stills only, and one for stills photographers that would also shoot video. They would have a) different controls (one lacking video controls), so a somewhat different body, 2) different menu systems, so different firmware upgrades, and 3) different internal components (if a stills camera with video has any electronics in it that are video specific, such as a chip for video compression, that means more hardware differences).

So this is two production lines. You can probably squint in the factory and say "they could produce both cameras on the same equipment", but at some point they have to shut down production of one to produce some of the other, even if it's the same line.

It's likely that it would cost Nikon more to produce two camera bodies (that aside from video are the same). That is, it might very well be cheaper for them just to produce the one camera, and you ignore the many parts of it you don't use (video being just one in that list of things you don't use).

EDIT: unless they completely redesigned advanced video as a plug-in added extra. They already do that for some Z models, and cost's money for you to add it (and you have to send the camera in), but I'm not sure it made the model "without expansion" any cheaper. However, yeah, that could change everything. But for now, my above comments stand for current model production—people have been saying that removal of video would make their camera cheaper, but I don't see how.


Chris

 

[JANuser]

Compared to computers cameras are a little weird. We seem to expect that a given hardware sold with a given version of software takes it to the edge of it's potential. For a computer you could consider putting on a different OS (Windows, Linux, BSD) and you could chose between thousands of applications to bring out exact your optimum device. But your device might slow performance down or eliminate usage of hardware components. This could be that you are running a graphics driver that only provides full HD, but you are having a 4K monitor. You'll see fine HD pictures and videos even though the setup could be capable of running native 4K.
In camera area imagine that the Nikon D6 and D850 is actually using the same sensor. But D6 has a software that cluster pixels together in order to achieve better sensitivity on the sacrifice of high resolution. Change the software and voila high resolution with less sensitive system. For the producer it means a production line for sensors can be closed, and one line can produce more units.
I would love to buy a stills only camera, why do I need to have video functions in my camera. I'll never use video. So I get a price reduction and so do the vlogger that never takes a still. Camera producer however gets two satisfied customers and is selling more units from the same production line.

Sure, it would be nice to only buy features you want. Of course, smaller the niche the higher the price is the typical market reaction to that. So the quesition is would it be cheaper or more expesnive to get a video free camera. Actually there tons of video free cheap Nikon cameras out there! D1-D3 had no video. D100-D700 no video. D70, D80 etc. If there wasn't high demand from professional users for video in all Nikon cameras, it likely wouldn't be there. I remember 11 years ago when video first started appearing in DSLR's, litterally everyone on camera forums like this were fighting it out over whether video should be in them. It was split right down the line, 50%, so that kind of tells you the likely useage of video on higher end cameras is like. At his point though asking for video free is a waste of time, liveview and video abilities in the cameras are completely intertwined.

 

[O]

I recall ? Canon released a camera at 18mp ? with software upgrade it went to 25mp. ?..........it was ahead for its time and they sold the update for $1250.

Today The mainstream consumer has changed.
People over 60 are mostly purists, experienced with photographic skill sets no longer really needed in so many cases given the comprehensive automatic cameras of today built on generations of Smart Phone experience.
Traditional Camera manufacturers need to change and move into that new generational consumer market or continue to shrink.

The mass new consumers in their 20s to 30s who grew up with the interment revaluation smartphones an software being the norm for everything.
Subscriptions for software and features are now the norm and the current generation embraces it as the norm while the baby boomers are mostly going over the cliff of old age.

Adobe, Microsoft and others are all subscription based, TV is all subscription based as are all phones and this unfortunately means companies will continue to look for means of value adding for a fee to products, if you look at the people employed in these companies today and in cases that we may have even worked in, they are all younger generational people that relate to the new world and its norms.

The internet and digital World has brought amazing transformation in change and benefits, much for the better and for the worse, we have had a free ride for the last 30 years, now we are in the cycle of dependency and being controlled we will now have to pay for everything......its a given don't kid your self.

Presets are readily available and more are coming even from Adobe, LR PS etc are all available for phones.......
Product mangers Young are employed to figure out new products Apps services that will trend and build sales and market share accordingly, the mass consumer will follow trends not what makes sence.....that's the world we live in Sadly.
Companies need to make future profits using any avenue possible and they will if it trends.

Only and opinion Oz down Under