----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:40 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
> > The LCD, in my own opinion is a red herring of sorts. The image is too > > small, and too low resolution for anything other than a gross evaluation of > > composition. > > Enough for a lot of us, however, to be very attracted to it. Admitedly, I was, until I actually started using a camera with a viewscreen. > > > But is there any reason that down the road, in a few years when things have settled down a bit, that more and more people might buy digital cameras *without* owning a computer? Or without being highly computer literate if they have one? And having their prints developed at a lab, the same as before? Depends on a lot of factors. People still like prints, so they have to have an easy and cheap way to get them. If they don't have a computer, they will be tied to photofinishers, which I don't have a problem with. Also, its not just about getting the products out there, it's also about whether they will be used or not. The last revolution to take on film cameras was compact camcorders. They failed miserably in the consumer market for a variety of reasons, some relating to convenience, some to battery life, and of course the biggie is that shooting video is very discouraging once you start looking at what you have shot on a TV screen. Digital still cameras have a lot of simialr problems. They are not as convenient, those LCD screens suck back batteries really fast, and they are not all that easy to use. For the cameras to be both sold, and used, all that must change. I do have a number of customers who have sworn off their digital cameras entirely. I pretty much just use mine for stuff going on the net. William Robb
