The buzz and hype were mainly down to the NX1, an APS-C mirrorless that was set to lead the charge for Samsung, but in truth the momentum had been building for a while, with a succession of innovative and impressive cameras that weren’t afraid to pioneer new technology. With a future looking so bright, it seems such a shame that, as we all know, Samsung stepped back from the photo industry and the fairytale came to an abrupt end. Here’s why I think Samsung could have (and should have) stuck it out in the photography game.
Let’s start with that flagship camera, the NX1. Now, despite this camera being launched a decade ago, the specs list would still put some of today’s cameras to shame. Built around that 28.2-megapixel APS-C sensor, the NX1 achieved a very clever trick of marrying together features that appealed to a great number of photographers. Landscapers were reassured by that resolution, enabling large prints, while sports and wildlife photographers could take advantage of a Hybrid AF system that made use of 205 Phase Detection points and a 15 frames per second burst rate.
Matty Graham
An interesting question to consider: what would the camera market have looked like today if Samsung had continued and expanded this NX-camera line? The answer I think depends on what the main differentiator for a successful camera company is.
Is it chip research and manufacturing? Sony certainly has expertise in that area, considering how they are producing photo sensors for both Nikon and Apple, and Samsung might have followed a similar path.
Is it camera software and smartphone integration? I would be inclined to say this is one of the lesser aspects; whether you’re shooting creative and personal projects or commercial work, I think many photographers prefer software to be intuitive and efficient, and get out of the way when they’re photographing. Dedicated cameras use multiple buttons and dials as well, which makes adjusting settings straightforward without even taking your eyes off the viewfinder. The interface matters more on smartphones, where you constantly interact with the camera app, and this is where Samsung ultimately focused their efforts.
Is it lens design and accessories? Personally, I think this is one of the more important moats, and one of the reasons Canon, for example, rapidly gained market share in full-frame mirrorless despite its late debut. Would Samsung have been able to offer a wide selection of lenses for its proprietary mount to appeal to a broad audience? I personally doubt that. Alternatively, it could have opened up the mount to third-party producers such as Sigma and Tamron; these offer superior lenses at lower prices than camera manufacturers, but Samsung would have given up a large slice of profits by outsourcing the lens business, making the entire project less profitable and thus less likely to be sustainable in the long term. Another possibility would have been joining a group like the L-Mount Alliance (which didn’t exist at the time) to develop and implement a universal lens mount – but that collaboration hasn’t exactly taken the camera world by storm.
Finally, is it distribution and marketing? Traditional camera manufacturers have an edge here, with their longer relationship with customers and resellers, but Samsung could have probably built a similar, if not larger, network with enough time and investment. But given the (shrinking) size of the professional camera market, as opposed to smartphones, some executive likely concluded that the return on investment wasn’t worth it, especially for a conglomerate the size of Samsung.
Ultimately, I think if Samsung had committed to building mirrorless cameras (going as far as high-end full-frame models), some smaller competitor would have exited the market, maybe Pentax, Fuji, or even Nikon, which is hovering in the third place for some time. While I love photography – with a dedicated camera as opposed to smartphone snapshots – the interest in the larger public just isn’t high enough to sustain that many companies competing in the space.
Post a Comment