[Jason Dunn]

There's a scene in The Last Samurai where Tom Cruise's character is learning the art of Japanese sword-fighting, and after getting soundly smacked around by his opponent for several minutes, one of the samurai says to him "Too many minds". The idea is that he's focusing on his opponent, his own stance, his sword, and the people watching - and that many "minds" is making him a less effective warrior. When I look at the digital camera industry and the proliferation of same-brand point and shoot cameras, it's hard not to see the similarities. Rapid release cycles - usually unwarranted in terms of actual improvement in features -  coupled with out-of-control model proliferation and confusing model names leads to a "too many minds" scenario - and it's usually the consumer the ends up losing out.

A perfect example of this problem, and indeed the spark for writing this article, came this morning when I visited the Panasonic Web site to check out their Lumix line of point and shoot digital cameras. I've always been intrigued by the Lumix line of cameras, and when I was reading an issue of Popular Photography and was reminded that they have a model with 10x optical zoom and 720p HD video, I figured I'd take a closer look. I've been a Canon point and shoot guy for a long time (though I had a brief fling with Casio's Exilim line), but I'm disappointed at Canon's inability to get decent optical zoom and 720p into their cameras. But I digress...

I was stunned when, after clicking into Panasonic's "Lumix Digital Cameras" section, I was presented with a list of 34 cameras arranged in a three-across grid. 34 different Lumix models? 27 of them marked as "NEW"? I thought at first that there were so many listed because they were showing each colour option available, but a quick scan told me that, no, there were really 34 different models numbers. I was only interested in the 10x optical zoom models, so I tried sorting by price to see their more "premium" models - after ignoring the first two results (which are their "baby DSLR" models), I was shown the DMC-TZ50S, a 10x optical zoom model - but it also had WiFi, which for me is a wasted feature. The next model was the DMC-LX2K with 4x zoom. I stumbled around the list of 34 cameras and eventually found that the DMC-TZ5K was likely the model that most closely matched my needs - but it was a frustrating experience trying to get to that point.

Looking at the 34 different model numbers (30 if you remove the DSLR-type cameras) sorted by price, I realized that in fact they really were showing me different models numbers for identical cameras in different colours. The DMC-LS80K, DMC-LS80S, DMC-LS80P? All the same $149 camera - but Panasonic thinks it's a good idea to display them as if they were different cameras when the only difference is colour. Amongst the 34 cameras that Panasonic offers in their Lumix line, there are 11 distinct price points represented, ten of which are between $149 and $549. Is there really a significant enough difference between the $149 camera the and $179 camera to warrant offering both models? "Too many minds" means a scattered, confusing presentation of Panasonic's products to consumers. How could the average consumer possibly filter through that many options and arrive at the one they really want?

Let's imagine another scenario, one where the consumer is put first: Panasonic offers four different small point and shoot models, starting at $149 and going up to $449. Each of the four models would have distinct sensor resolution and feature differences (optical zoom, HD video, etc.), and the $100 price gap between each model creates a fairly distinct "break point" for the consumer in terms of which model has the features they want, and how much they're willing to spend. Once they've selected the model they want, they'd get the choice of a few different colours. Choosing between four different cameras sure seems a lot easier than trying to select from amongst 30, doesn't it? I think having choice is a great thing, but too much choice becomes paralyzing - I don't think it's a coincidence that in comparison Nikon offers nine DSLR models total, and in reality only five of those would be considered current generation hardware. Nikon's slightly better than Panasonic when it comes to P&S cameras, offering "only" 18 different cameras, but even that number is pretty ridiculous.

How did we get here? It's similar to a nuclear arms race: Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, and the others are all in a fierce race to dominate the point and shoot camera market, and each company tries to one-up the other not only in features, but also in product spectrum. Somehow they're all convinced that the more models they offer, the better they'll do. I don't think that's the case - all of these companies have a bad case of "too many minds" when it comes to their P&S digital camera products, and it shows. Here's a radical idea: how about fewer product choices, released less often (say, only when there's really been an improvement in the technology)? What about releasing new cameras that are actually significantly better than previous generations? It's so crazy, it just might work.

Jason Dunn owns and operates Thoughts Media Inc., a company dedicated to creating the best in online communities. He enjoys photography, mobile devices, blogging, digital media content creation/editing, and pretty much all technology. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his lovely wife, and his sometimes obedient dog. He's still looking for the ultimate P&S digital camera.

[Jason Dunn]

There's a scene in The Last Samurai where Tom Cruise's character is learning the art of Japanese sword-fighting, and after getting soundly smacked around by his opponent for several minutes, one of the samurai says to him "Too many minds". The idea is that he's focusing on his opponent, his own stance, his sword, and the people watching - and that many "minds" is making him a less effective warrior. When I look at the digital camera industry and the proliferation of same-brand point and shoot cameras, it's hard not to see the similarities. Rapid release cycles - usually unwarranted in terms of actual improvement in features -  coupled with out-of-control model proliferation and confusing model names leads to a "too many minds" scenario - and it's usually the consumer the ends up losing out.

A perfect example of this problem, and indeed the spark for writing this article, came this morning when I visited the Panasonic Web site to check out their Lumix line of point and shoot digital cameras. I've always been intrigued by the Lumix line of cameras, and when I was reading an issue of Popular Photography and was reminded that they have a model with 10x optical zoom and 720p HD video, I figured I'd take a closer look. I've been a Canon point and shoot guy for a long time (though I had a brief fling with Casio's Exilim line), but I'm disappointed at Canon's inability to get decent optical zoom and 720p into their cameras. But I digress...

I was stunned when, after clicking into Panasonic's "Lumix Digital Cameras" section, I was presented with a list of 34 cameras arranged in a three-across grid. 34 different Lumix models? 27 of them marked as "NEW"? I thought at first that there were so many listed because they were showing each colour option available, but a quick scan told me that, no, there were really 34 different models numbers. I was only interested in the 10x optical zoom models, so I tried sorting by price to see their more "premium" models - after ignoring the first two results (which are their "baby DSLR" models), I was shown the DMC-TZ50S, a 10x optical zoom model - but it also had WiFi, which for me is a wasted feature. The next model was the DMC-LX2K with 4x zoom. I stumbled around the list of 34 cameras and eventually found that the DMC-TZ5K was likely the model that most closely matched my needs - but it was a frustrating experience trying to get to that point.

Looking at the 34 different model numbers (30 if you remove the DSLR-type cameras) sorted by price, I realized that in fact they really were showing me different models numbers for identical cameras in different colours. The DMC-LS80K, DMC-LS80S, DMC-LS80P? All the same $149 camera - but Panasonic thinks it's a good idea to display them as if they were different cameras when the only difference is colour. Amongst the 34 cameras that Panasonic offers in their Lumix line, there are 11 distinct price points represented, ten of which are between $149 and $549. Is there really a significant enough difference between the $149 camera the and $179 camera to warrant offering both models? "Too many minds" means a scattered, confusing presentation of Panasonic's products to consumers. How could the average consumer possibly filter through that many options and arrive at the one they really want?

Let's imagine another scenario, one where the consumer is put first: Panasonic offers four different small point and shoot models, starting at $149 and going up to $449. Each of the four models would have distinct sensor resolution and feature differences (optical zoom, HD video, etc.), and the $100 price gap between each model creates a fairly distinct "break point" for the consumer in terms of which model has the features they want, and how much they're willing to spend. Once they've selected the model they want, they'd get the choice of a few different colours. Choosing between four different cameras sure seems a lot easier than trying to select from amongst 30, doesn't it? I think having choice is a great thing, but too much choice becomes paralyzing - I don't think it's a coincidence that in comparison Nikon offers nine DSLR models total, and in reality only five of those would be considered current generation hardware. Nikon's slightly better than Panasonic when it comes to P&S cameras, offering "only" 18 different cameras, but even that number is pretty ridiculous.

How did we get here? It's similar to a nuclear arms race: Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony, and the others are all in a fierce race to dominate the point and shoot camera market, and each company tries to one-up the other not only in features, but also in product spectrum. Somehow they're all convinced that the more models they offer, the better they'll do. I don't think that's the case - all of these companies have a bad case of "too many minds" when it comes to their P&S digital camera products, and it shows. Here's a radical idea: how about fewer product choices, released less often (say, only when there's really been an improvement in the technology)? What about releasing new cameras that are actually significantly better than previous generations? It's so crazy, it just might work.

Jason Dunn owns and operates Thoughts Media Inc., a company dedicated to creating the best in online communities. He enjoys photography, mobile devices, blogging, digital media content creation/editing, and pretty much all technology. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his lovely wife, and his sometimes obedient dog. He's still looking for the ultimate P&S digital camera.

[Richard OKane]

Agree totally!
Looking for a simple pocket camera to catch those smaller moments where I don't always have my bigger camera.
Optical zoom is more important than megapixels to me (5MP is fine for these types of shots) but trying to find something like this for under $200 is next to impossible.

[Chris Gohlke]

Probably all about the shelf space. No retailer is going to carry all the models, but having more gives them the ability to cater to particular retailers and might justify getting more shelf space. Plus I think retailers like not carrying the same model as their competitors since it lessens price competition.

[txa1265]

Originally Posted by Chris Gohlke

retailers like not carrying the same model as their competitors since it lessens price competition.

That has always been a big one ... they don't have to match if they carry the 6910p and BigBox across the road carries 6910n.

This proliferation makes it hard for knowledgeable consumers - and based on Best Buy's marketing stuff earlier this year, that seems to be the point. They don't like 'em too smart or armed with too much info - they want folks tech-hungry but willing to buy off the shelf for the going price.

[haveblue128]

The over-wealth of P&S frankly makes no sense. It cannot be economically efficient to have price points every 20-40 bucks. While it may have created the condition where everyone at Firm X has a great idea for a P$S and a laundry list of the "Right" bells and whistles they went off to development with ideas in hand and few were turned down. While it does seem each manufacturer is playing price point off price point, we now have an overabundance of P&S. The industry analysts reports went unread and the resulting market is messy.

My guess is if we check back in 9-12 months, we will see a reduced set of offerings from each producer. This wave of excess is the result of the fact that these cameras are cheap to produce. Also lots of modular parts if I had a guess/ No miracles, but I doubt we will see a similar frenzy of options again/