I almost never use the camera on my cell phone, granted it's about 3 years old.
I find the mindset of those who use their cell phone as their only or predominant camera hard to fathom. I guess it's more about sharing the image immediately than it is about the image itself. Must be getting old. I generally agree with your thoughts. Especially that the value is in the lens, in that they are less transitory than the DSLR bodies. In the short time that DSLR's have been around I find that I upgrade my camera body every 1.5 cycles... Pentax has released 4 flagships... not counting the *ist D (the first), 3 upgrades were made available as the top of the line. I smartly skipped the K10D, foolishly purchased a K20D, and then got the K-7. I'd likely be the same with any other mfr. I believe that I could get the same or possibly better image quality with film and a good scanner. Though the price of film and developing would likely begin to encroach on the price of new gear, offset again somewhat by the need for more storage with digital, offset by the time required to scan the shots worthy of scanning... Tom C. On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 6:41 PM, Graydon <o...@uniserve.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 09:55:48AM -0500, Tom C scripsit: >> Talk about a niche outfit. > > If it's not a cell phone camera, it's niche. > > I think it's about functional specs; how well does this meet my needs > for what cost? > > I can see a 135 digital camera being better at ambient light indoor > photography, but I can also confidently predict that two years from now, > any such body will be obsolete and that the majority of its imaging > performance will be available in smaller format cameras in less than a > year. So is the six to eight months of better performance worth it? > > Since this is a hobby and not a business, no, it's not. > > Doesn't mean I wouldn't like a really good viewfinder; doesn't mean I > wouldn't like an indifference to conditions scarcely to be bettered by a > block of solid tungsten carbide. But it *does* mean I think the value > is in the lenses, and that pretty much all of the imaging performance is > going to make it into APS-C with a modest time lag. > > (You know how the camera business generally has suffered from a lack of > regular consumables? Pentax could make them love it by the simple > expedient of shipping a camera with insane levels of ISO got by resort > to these little blocks of very cold solid hydrogen, the which you must > regularly obtain...) > > -- Graydon -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
