Sep 18 2008
Canon/Nikon - 0, Lily Allen - 2
Faced with the continued threat of rock stars using video camera lenses as ash-trays, the techs at Nikon and Canon have both hit on the same solution - have the DSLR handle the video for you. Today Canon announced the 21 MP 5D MKII following Nikon’s introduction last month of the D90, both capable of capturing HDV video.
Personally I think both Canon and Nikon have got it bass ackwards. The real threat to Sony, JVC, Panasonic and Canon video divisions is at the other end of the market. In the last year Flip video cameras have captured 20% of the video camera market with their $150 pocket cams.
With an ever higher percentage of photo and video headed for the 72dpi web - the resolution myth must surely implode sooner rather than later. As discussed previously in these pages - it’s not more resolution we need - its more control and better ergonomics.
My advice to anyone who (like myself) shoots both video and photo - take 2 cameras. If Lily Allen is in the neighborhood use a cheap lens filter.
FOLLOWUP - Colin Mulvaney asks: “My question is what impact will a camera like this have on newspaper photography departments?”masteringmultimedia.com
I hope it will encourage them to revisit Clayton Chistensen and confirm that disruptive innovation will almost invariably fail when it targets the entrenched markets most profitable product lines right out of the gate.
Reading Christensen has recently become de riguer amongst media execs, but this vital part of the pardigm seems to be oft overlooked. This small oversight continues to have big consequences for the newspaper industry - so far they have not been pretty.
Two things … you link to me and say “Christensen has recently become de riguer amongst media execs.” Do you include 2004 as recent? Sure four years ago, isn’t that far back, except in internet years, which is about 25 in dog years. I could rattle off, too, a dozen or so media execs who were reading Christensen either at the time I was, or even before.
In other words, it’s inaccurate to attribute to me a newly minted acolyte to disruptive innovation.
Second (thought I’m not sure I’m taking your meaning correctly in context of your link to my site), in context of what I’ve written, it makes no sense to suggest that the Flip is aimed at photographers. Everything I write is about being “good enough” for consumers, not any expectation that it’s good enough for photographers/videographers. I know it’s not good enough for mid-level pros, but as Christensen points out, those are the very people who most inhibit disruptive innovation.
I certainly did not mean to characterize you as a “Johnny come lately” to the the disruptive technology discourse, Howard. Quite the opposite - I just remembered your blog as one of the only news-related discussions to have mentioned Christensen by name.
The Flip video camera reference was not related to journalism, or photography. In Christensen’s terms, it’s like “hey guys you’re doing a great job with the P5s, but where are the Celerons?” Basic everyday concerns of working (run and gun) videographers/videojournalists - specifically ergonomics, manual controls, and dynamic range - are ignored for the sake of megapixels, just as 10 years ago desktop retailers were intent on dazzling computer users with the megabyte myth.
It’s many years since I worked full-time in a newsroom, but I do think there is a sense in which newspapers, in general, are ignoring that one point in Christensen’s thesis mentioned in my original post: disruptors are most likely to be successful when they target a low-profit market sector.
There are many low/no-profit sectors in the media/communications universe - classified ads, yellow pages, streaming/archiving town board meetings, weather cams, interactive timetables etc. - historically all but ignored by the entrenched players.
It is precisely those areas where no-one can see how to turn a profit where disruptors are most likely to succeed.
And yet newspapers want to re-invent news delivery. Historically that is a sector with high margins - and according to Christensen’s model, disruptive techniques are not likely to work in that arena.
If newspapers begin to encourage truly orthogonal thinking the organizations will be changed beyond recognition - it won’t just be the paper that gets marginalized but the news as well.
That move would not be popular with journalists or newspapers’ customers - but as Christensen hammers home time and time again, listening to your customers will invariably cause you to ignore disruptive opportunities.
I have never read Clayton Christiansen’s book, but I have heard the phrase Disruptive Innovation used a lot in the last year or so.. You talk about disruption as if it were something you want to create. For most of the media segment of the economy it’s something we never wished for, but it’s something we have to cope with. When you say “disruptive techniques are not likely to work in that arena”, why do you conclude that we should leave it alone. Surely any area that is secured against outsiders is one that we as the dominant title holder should hold on to?
The idea that we should turn newspapers into some sort of community database certainly doesn’t appeal to me or anyone I work with. I can’t see the remotest advantage in that tactic as a central role for newspapers. I can see providing those sort of services as “add-ons”, but someone still needs to collect and distribute the news.