----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2001 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: what I think of current digital cameras
> In a message dated 11/25/01 3:45:51 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>
> > "One hindrance slowing digital down, is that it's closely associated
with
> > computers. Not everyone wants or cares about them."
>
> Precisely my point.
>
> > high percentage of people who buy digital cameras,
> > also have computers. The rest, also a significant number, don't care
and
> > will continue using film cameras."
>
> Um-hm.
>
> > hink it's only a matter of time before digital imaging becomes the
rule,
> > as opposed to the new-fangled exception."
>
> I would add, as you proposed above, "for those who have computers." At
what
> point computers stop their penetration into the American home is not
known,
> but the saturation point is near, with a huge percentage of "new"
computers
> being replacements as opposed to being bought by those who don't already
own
> at least one computer***.
But why? How many photographers own darkrooms? A vanishingly small
percentage. How many photographers use cameras that don't use batteries? An
even smaller percentage. What will stop joe six pack from bringing his
images to a photofinisher when he's done taking pictures from his cheap
digital camera? A growing percentage of my digital camera customers have no
intention of printing their own pictures, they treat it very much like a
film camera in that regard.
> ***I own four computers: 3 dead and 1 (this one) working.
> As the sales of "new owner" PCs steadily decline, fewer and fewer devices
> used by computers will be sold.
Then don't hook it up to a computer... Epson, HP, Canon, and olympus are
just some of the manufacturers of printers that do not require a computer to
make prints. These start at $100, so for around $500 you could have a camera
and printer that can make very acceptable (to the average consumer) 4x6 to
5x7 prints anywhere you have an outlet. This Epson printer can print much
larger, but I'm being conservitive in my acceptable print quality
assesments. These prices are bound to come down as well...
Every anti-digital argument seems to be made based on conditions that
existed two to three years ago. With the price of decent two megapixel point
and shoots hovering around $400, the time of digital only being for the well
heeled is almost gone. Next Christmas, two megapixel cameras will probobly
be around $199, and market penetration will really take off. Pentax has
already announced plans for a "disposible" digital camera... As market
penetration increases, you will see more and more photofinishers offer
printing services because the initial investment in equipment is potentially
very low (it can be unbeiliveably expensive, but the entry level is
literally $400...) and there are no more effluent headaches...
All this talk about computers for indigent families is a straw man, they
aren't going to own any cameras. Cameras are always a luxury, below a
certain income, they are an unjustifiable luxury. Most people will never do
their own printing, and within a couple of years, every photofinisher will
have some sort of digital printing service, so they will not have to. This
is the future, and in some places (Like DC, where I am) the future is now.
Our digital printing services are by far the fastest growing area of
photofinishing. All of our prints from slides are done that way, and we use
the same equipment to print directly from digital files. We also have
several printers that allow the customer to put in their memory card, push
the print button, and get their print minutes later. The most expensive of
these is $400...
Isaac
> One thing forgotten in the debate is most PDML members are well educated,
> with steady, good paying jobs and with a good degree of disposable income,
a
> factor always considered when buying a computer. But PDML members probably
> represent PC/MAC owners more than they represent "average" or lower middle
> class Americans, the "Joe Six-packs."
> As a class, PDML members have monies to indulge many of their whims,
"hobby"
> photography, the Internet and digital imaging being a few. But it is
> outrageous for the few of us to believe we somehow know how non-computer,
> non-digital camera owners feel or will do in the future. In this debate,
we
> have imperiously superimposed our own various indulgences on the American
> public, the vast majority of whom do ~not~ own computers or digital
anything.
>
> As America's massive layoffs continue, even fewer PCs/digital
> cameras/handheld devices will be sold.
> **America's youth, formerly the prime candidates for new desk/laptops,
have
> chosen instead to go handheld "wireless", with no or limited need for a
> computer for their basic communications, including Email, note taking,
> class/date/test scheduling, all tasks previously done with computers now
> being performed by wireless devices. *Some handheld wireless devices have
> digital imaging add-ons.
> Even there, it is a matter of economics and the availability of repeaters
for
> wireless devices. As long as computers require electricity and ISPs who
> demand more and more of people's disposable dollars** for their services,
> computers will penetrate so far and no more.
> *A $899 1 GIG computer is no bargain for the indigent family. There are
> growing concerns among American educators who see their poorer students
using
> computers at school but are students who do not have access to computers
at
> home for whatever reason.
> As the story goes: "Aye, there's the rub."
> **I pay $7.99 a month for my AT&T ISP/long distance service, nearly
> one-hundred dollars a year that many of our poor simply don't have.
There's a
> catch there also. You need phone service to a known (fixed) street address
to
> have an ISP. Too many Americans still don't have regular telephone
service.
>
> > I'm STILL going to go down, belly on the ground, pounding my fists and
> > kicking my feet."
> >
> Mafud
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -
> This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
> go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
> visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to
visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
