Modularity (Was: Re: DSLR lifespan)
Hi, Mike J. wrote; The whole issue of hardware modularity is very non-trivial. You heard it here first: there will never be parts-modular digital cameras. They already exist. You change the lenses on the models based on film cameras. If there was one based on the F5 (is there?) it would have interchangeable finders. This is part of my dissatisfaction with modern consumer products. I really object to having to buy a whole new article, just because I want to do something slightly different. It's what drew me to the LX, and Pentax system, in the first place. mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
They are at the end of a highly specialized supply train. If an individual was doing this on their own they would soon go broke. At 09:18 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 02:16 PM, Cotty wrote: You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. Excellent point Peter You can bring the infrastructure with you. Think of the war zone photographers with their DSLRs, laptop computers and satellite phones. They've somehow figured out how to keep the batteries charged. --jc Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
That's exactly what I've been thinking too. So far, every little progress has been hailed and hyped as a revolution when it's presented, but reduced to an ordinary milestone on a long road in retrospect. As someone has mentioned before on the list, it seems that Pentax hangs around waiting for exactly the same thing before they jump the train. Jostein -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] Which is why it is a good idea to wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new developments come at a bit of a slower pace. Doe aka Marnie -- .
Re: DSLR lifespan
Well if you wander around the City of London (England) you will see chalk marks on various buildings much like those that were used by vagrants of the past century to mark out a soft touch. If you know the code they tell you where to stand to leach off of business using wireless networks for free Internet access. Any level of access to a system that's granted will allow a clever hacker to get complete access eventually. I can't remember where I read this but the longest it takes an Air Force tiger team testing network security to take complete control of any system is about five days. What's the point you ask? If you give someone you don't know access to your data it's not yours anymore. (Yes I am paranoid, I know what I can do and I'm not even very good). At 10:52 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: Bluetooth was obsolete before it ever hit the market. Wi Fi is the current available wireless technology it is regular TCP/IP techology so you can set up about any level of security you think you need. And there are now Wi Fi Compact Flash cards. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan Does anyone else see this as a very big security problem, (I always hated the Idea of Bluetooth and it still doesn't have enough security as far as I'm concerned). At 09:32 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I think Kodak has the right approach with their digicam docking station. What they need to do next is produce home printers with this docking station built in (just slide your camera into a slot in the printer - facing backwards so you can preview the pictures in the camera's LCD - and print) and even kiosks in photo shops that either work the same way (choose your pictures and hit print) or just accept a dump of everything in memory and has prints for you in an hour or the next day or whatever. That was probably on Kodak's mind when they created the EasyShare system. I think docks are outdated. With wireless technologies becoming more prevalent, they will be building more printers and cameras with built-in wireless capabilities. You can select and crop the pictures in your camera and send it to the printer without worrying about whether the USB cable is too long. When you walk by the kiosk in the photo shop, your camera will sense its presence and beep to ask you if you want your pictures printed. --jc Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan
Hi, You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. You can bring the infrastructure with you. Think of the war zone photographers with their DSLRs, laptop computers and satellite phones. They've somehow figured out how to keep the batteries charged. they'd be the ones with multi-gazillion-dollar organisations like Reuters behind them. Not quite the same for a one-man freelance operation, or a smaller agency or cooperative. --- Bob
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
The LCD review tool is absolutely one of the things I like about digital too. Even though my experience is limited to the Optio 430. However, from what I hear from the DSLR-users I know here at home, they rarely use the LCD feature. Arguments are that it's so easy to scratch, take too much time and spend too much battery to be worthwhile. Especially the Nikon D-series users comment on this. In dependance of computers, I think Pål is pretty much right wrt DSLRs, but not to digital cameras as such. My guess is that in the consumer market there's a segment here for gadget printers that lets you plug in the memory card and print your pictures directly; without involving a computer at all. And for half-hour labs wher you can drop your memorycard and collect your images after lunch. Unfortunately, this doesn't make Påls argument less valid, given the level of technology those solutions represents... Jostein -- Original Message -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [...] So I think you are overlooking something. That LCD window. Very attractive to the photographer. So what's to say that someone couldn't buy a digital camera, PS or DSLR, *without* having a computer? Just for the less destructable storage medium and for that really helpful LCD window? And have their prints made at a lab that is set-up to do so? I think that will happen. Maybe more than one would think right now. Probably a lot more. Doe aka Marnie Oh, well, don't know that much about it, so bowing out of discussion now. - .
Re: DSLR lifespan
Hi! Does anyone else see this as a very big security problem, (I always hated the Idea of Bluetooth and it still doesn't have enough security as far as I'm concerned). DF I agree. What I really want is a WiFi/Bluetooth stereo system, and get DF rid of all those patch cables behind my entertainment center. But not DF until I can protect them from any Tom, Dick, or Harry coming along and DF scooping up the CD I'm playing or whatever. Doug, are you ready to accept the quality loss that inevitably would seem to take place when the signal gets on the air and back again? I don't think such stereo is viable before all the parts involved would be able to digitize the signal with the highest quality possible and then transmit it... The CD player can do digital fiber output now. What about turntable or cassette deck? Or you don't deal with old tech? midsize grin As for the security. There's always going to be some people who would be able to break whatever security is in place. The only difference that various security systems make is the cost and difficulty of overcoming them. Back to topic though. I wonder how difficult would it be to design a 35mm style SLR that would have interchangeable sensors. Come, my hands for instants are both left so to say. I would inevitably break my camera if I were to perform such a trick... But then again, perhaps average PDMLer is handier than me :). Wait, it should be grin, right? --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: DSLR lifespan
- Original Message - From: Bob Walkden Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan Hi, You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. You can bring the infrastructure with you. Think of the war zone photographers with their DSLRs, laptop computers and satellite phones. They've somehow figured out how to keep the batteries charged. they'd be the ones with multi-gazillion-dollar organisations like Reuters behind them. Not quite the same for a one-man freelance operation, or a smaller agency or cooperative. Or someone on vacation who wants to take a few snapshots home to show around to friends. William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan
- Original Message - From: Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Back to topic though. I wonder how difficult would it be to design a 35mm style SLR that would have interchangeable sensors. Upgradeable like computer CPUs? A modular camera system with standardised modules (sensor, CPU, AF, metering, communications interface, etc) makes a lot of sense. The chassis and component mountings could remain the same. With today's present miniaturisation, any thing is possible. Last year I suggested a camera that could use both film and digital. The digital conversion would be in the form of a back/base which could be easily attached to the body. Bob Rapp
Re: DSLR lifespan
Hey, Peter, do you realize your internet connected computer can be taken over. Quick unplug it. g Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan Well if you wander around the City of London (England) you will see chalk marks on various buildings much like those that were used by vagrants of the past century to mark out a soft touch. If you know the code they tell you where to stand to leach off of business using wireless networks for free Internet access. Any level of access to a system that's granted will allow a clever hacker to get complete access eventually. I can't remember where I read this but the longest it takes an Air Force tiger team testing network security to take complete control of any system is about five days. What's the point you ask? If you give someone you don't know access to your data it's not yours anymore. (Yes I am paranoid, I know what I can do and I'm not even very good). At 10:52 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: Bluetooth was obsolete before it ever hit the market. Wi Fi is the current available wireless technology it is regular TCP/IP techology so you can set up about any level of security you think you need. And there are now Wi Fi Compact Flash cards. Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: Peter Alling [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 10:01 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan Does anyone else see this as a very big security problem, (I always hated the Idea of Bluetooth and it still doesn't have enough security as far as I'm concerned). At 09:32 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I think Kodak has the right approach with their digicam docking station. What they need to do next is produce home printers with this docking station built in (just slide your camera into a slot in the printer - facing backwards so you can preview the pictures in the camera's LCD - and print) and even kiosks in photo shops that either work the same way (choose your pictures and hit print) or just accept a dump of everything in memory and has prints for you in an hour or the next day or whatever. That was probably on Kodak's mind when they created the EasyShare system. I think docks are outdated. With wireless technologies becoming more prevalent, they will be building more printers and cameras with built-in wireless capabilities. You can select and crop the pictures in your camera and send it to the printer without worrying about whether the USB cable is too long. When you walk by the kiosk in the photo shop, your camera will sense its presence and beep to ask you if you want your pictures printed. --jc Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan
In a message dated 1/20/2003 5:41:58 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 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? Marnie, Not really. In fact this trend has already started. There are several printers that can take media directly, and a few accessories that allow previewing of pictures for printing without a computer. --Mike Neat! That thought never occurred to me, but now that you've said it, it makes all kinds of sense. Camera companies have a lot invested in digital (and probably will have more and more all the time), so naturally they would want to reach as much of the potential market as possible. What interesting times we do live in. Doe aka Marnie :-)
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Actually, I was trying to draw an analogy earlier to computers, but somehow that did not seem to be coming across very well. The PC market stabilized into the 286, 386, 486, and Pentium. A stage at a time. But each stage did not emerge in subsequent yearly turn arounds, sometimes it took a lot longer. And often one could be happy with whatever stage one had for some time. The underlying technology of the 486, for instance, the assembly language instruction set, was the same although different versions of 486's -- some may have had faster CPUs and more memory, etc. but the underlying technology was/is the same. That was my point about technology stabilizing. All I said before is that one could buy a digital camera, when the technology stabilizes, that one could be satisfied with for 6-8 years. Not forever. Maybe eight is high. Hard to tell right now. I have had all of the stages of computers mentioned above. I literally forget how long I used the 286 before I moved up to a 386. That lasted less than two years, but I had an upgradable motherboard so I switched to 486 easily. And that lasted about five to six years before I moved up again. There *is* faster turn around on digital/computers, but one doesn't have to assume one won't be satisfied for a while. One doesn't have to assume that just because the bells and whistles may be upgraded every six months that one can't be satisfied with what one has for a reasonable length of time. I think the trick with digital cameras may be figuring out when some of the technology has stabilized, when the basic underlying technology is remaining the same, despite the fact that the bells and whistles are changing. However, too many people also treat newer technology as disposable. It's not *just* that companies try planned obsolescence. Developments actually do come quicker, and people want the latest and consider what they have junk if it isn't the latest. If it still works and it still does what you basically need, it's not junk. Most modern stuff is built well enough to last a lot longer, a lot longer, than it ends up being used. And treating newer technology as disposable tends to devalue it. IMHO, it's pretty d_mn impressive. Or I wouldn't be here on the Internet, the pdml in particular, chatting with you and others. Hehehe. soapbox Doe aka Marnie /soapbox In a message dated 1/20/2003 4:40:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: If you did that you still would not have a computer. grin Ciao, Graywolf http://pages.prodigy.net/graywolfphoto - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:53 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:24:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolescence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Pål Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they are following the path of planned obsolescence. Sometimes a new technology just evolves so quickly the turn around time is very rapid. Turn around being when the next thing issues from RR. Which is why it is a good idea to wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new developments come at a bit of a slower pace. Doe aka Marnie
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
On Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 04:41 AM, Jostein wrote: My guess is that in the consumer market there's a segment here for gadget printers that lets you plug in the memory card and print your pictures directly; without involving a computer at all. There are a number of printers out there that do that. I recently bought a Epson Stylus 925 and it's great for minilab quality and convenience at home. Just load a roll of paper, stick in the memory card or plug in the camera and tell it to print. It has a built-in paper cutter. HP also has a tiny printer that does only 4x6 and has a built-in memory card reader. And for half-hour labs wher you can drop your memorycard and collect your images after lunch. Sony, Fuji, Olympus and a few others already make kiosks that you can stick in your memory card and order prints. I think the Olympus one has a credit card reader so it can be self-service. --jc
Re: DSLR lifespan
- Original Message - From: Bob Rapp Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan Upgradeable like computer CPUs? A modular camera system with standardised modules (sensor, CPU, AF, metering, communications interface, etc) makes a lot of sense. The chassis and component mountings could remain the same. With today's present miniaturisation, any thing is possible. Last year I suggested a camera that could use both film and digital. The digital conversion would be in the form of a back/base which could be easily attached to the body. My experience so far with computers is you don't just replace parts willy nilly. My recent CPU upgrade also included a new power supply, but more importantly, a new mother board was required. I expect cameras would be equally bad tempered in this regard. William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan
- Original Message - From: T Rittenhouse Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan Hey, Peter, do you realize your internet connected computer can be taken over. Quick unplug it. g http://users.chartertn.net/tonytemplin/FBI_eyes/index.html William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) Aren't there people on this list using LXs, MXs, and K-1000s? All discontinued? No, not a totally accurate analogy because digital does evolve quicker than analog. Ask how many of those people are still using film from the same era. Thats where the obsolescence is in traditional photography. I still have a bunch of Fujichrome, circa 1990 in my freezer, but I expect I am a rarity. William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan
Hi! BR Upgradeable like computer CPUs? A modular camera system with BR standardised modules (sensor, CPU, AF, metering, communications interface, BR etc) makes a lot of sense. The chassis and component mountings could remain BR the same. With today's present miniaturisation, any thing is possible. BR Last year I suggested a camera that could use both film and digital. The BR digital conversion would be in the form of a back/base which could be easily BR attached to the body. Not to sound impolite, but it is much easier said than done. Take for instance such a simple with respect to multi-technologiness of DSLR thing as Palm Pilot. It took Palm quite some tricks before they arrived to their universal connector - the contact between cradle and the unit itself. So simple, but they haven't foreseen that eventually their handhelds will have rechargeable batteries - need at least one more contact... The whole issue of hardware modularity is very non-trivial. I doubt that modern technology can provide us with what you seem to find so easily obtained. It either will not be modular or it will not be reliable as an SLR camera should be. Again, I meant no disrespect or offence. --- Boris Liberman www.geocities.com/dunno57 www.photosig.com/viewuser.php?id=38625
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Film slr's didn't really change much after the first reliable one's were built. Hell the K1000 is a direct, (very direct), descendant of the Spotmatic F. The meters are electronically interchangeable with a small amount of surgery on the circuit board. That implies that the same basic design was produced for about 40+ years. I don't expect any current Pentax design (or for that matter C* or most current N* designs), to be in production for 1/10 that amount of time. DSLR's have even shorter product lives. At 08:11 AM 1/21/2003 -0500, you wrote: Aren't there people on this list using LXs, MXs, and K-1000s? All discontinued? No, not a totally accurate analogy because digital does evolve quicker than analog. But it seems to me one might reassess how much they might be buying into some company's marketing strategy of planned obsolescence. And instead assess a digital product's functionality in terms of what they want to use it for -- both with cameras and ...computers. In a message dated 1/20/2003 2:11:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Doe wrote: Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they are following the path of planned obsolescence. In this case, it IS planned obsolence as Pentax have stated that their digital camera will get their life span reduced from one year to 6 months. This means that the camera will be replaced or discontinued after that date. Pål Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Ain't that the truth. Just try to find a roll of Kodak XX pan, I do have a roll of 27 GEVAPAN MICROPAN 35mm it came packaged to go in a Leica 35mm canister expr. Jan, 1960, I'd love to open the foil wrapping but I consider it a collectors item. At 12:00 PM 1/22/2003 -0600, you wrote: - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) Aren't there people on this list using LXs, MXs, and K-1000s? All discontinued? No, not a totally accurate analogy because digital does evolve quicker than analog. Ask how many of those people are still using film from the same era. Thats where the obsolescence is in traditional photography. I still have a bunch of Fujichrome, circa 1990 in my freezer, but I expect I am a rarity. William Robb Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
1/10 the time is only 4 years, and that is not a long time to be in production except for bottom of the line entry level SLRs. % years is very common for mid range cameras and high end ones are even longer. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Film slr's didn't really change much after the first reliable one's were built. Hell the K1000 is a direct, (very direct), descendant of the Spotmatic F. The meters are electronically interchangeable with a small amount of surgery on the circuit board. That implies that the same basic design was produced for about 40+ years. I don't expect any current Pentax design (or for that matter C* or most current N* designs), to be in production for 1/10 that amount of time. DSLR's have even shorter product lives.
Re: DSLR lifespan
The whole issue of hardware modularity is very non-trivial. You heard it here first: there will never be parts-modular digital cameras. Spit-polishing my crystal ball, --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
Hi Mike, When I started it all, I was not implying user interchangeable modules. I was suggesting that from a manufacturing standpoint. Bob Rapp - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2003 7:58 AM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan The whole issue of hardware modularity is very non-trivial. You heard it here first: there will never be parts-modular digital cameras. Spit-polishing my crystal ball, --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
They probably are already to some degree, but that's to ease test/assembly/manufacture/repair; not upgrade. Cameras are just not computers. Changing things like sensors in a DSLR is like changing the chipset (VIA, Intel, etc.) that's soldered to the motherboard, and not the CPU. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The whole issue of hardware modularity is very non-trivial. You heard it here first: there will never be parts-modular digital cameras. Spit-polishing my crystal ball, --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
On Tue, 21 Jan 2003, Mike Johnston wrote: You heard it here first: there will never be parts-modular digital cameras. Minolta Dimage EX 1500 Zoom http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Minolta/minolta_1500zoom.asp Minolta Dimage EX 1500 Wide http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Minolta/minolta_1500wide.asp This is probably as close as it's going to get. chris
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Because I suspect that digital photography will follow the distribution on the personal computer whose density is very unevenly distributed. Unfortunately, this distribution doesn't mimic the distribution of cameras on a global basis. Interesting. I would have said that DSLR purchasers would be primarily photographers, despite the fact that a computer is a fundamental part of the digital photography process. Ipso facto, DSLRs will IMO follow a photographic-orientated existence instead of a computer-orientated one. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
It is same with my cameras. With a digital camera, you'll know whatever camera you buy today can be had for significantly less money in maximum six months time. Or you can buy a significantly bettter camera for the same money in six months. Fact: here in the UK, The Canon D60 was introduced around at a shop price of about 2000 GBP. 6 months later, 1899 was a steady figure, holding for some months. Nearly a year later, at the announcement of its demise, the cheapest I've seen is about 1750. I can't speak for the rest of the world, but I would not say that 250 quid is a significant amount with respect to the starting price. 500 would be getting there However, I accept that a D60 is significantly better than a D30. As will be a D90 over a D60. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
I doubt very much i'll get rid of the 2.74 Meg pixel D1 soon either Cotty.I t is producing nice prints in the 8x10 max range i and my clients are asking for, and arew happy with. As some one said the other day its up to the printer to be able to utilize those 14 Mega's.If it cannot,its wasted space(sorry 6x6 usersVBG. OTOH I like yourself may upgrade to a Canon S 820 or 900 to utilize the full page printing aspects. Dave Begin Original Message From: Cotty [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I will reasonably expect to keep my current DSLR for at least 5 years! My current (and only envisaged) method of producing pics is by printing them myself. Even with my current printer, I'm getting the quality which I want, and that's a 1998 model. Okay, i'm just about to upgrade to a new printer, but I would then not imagine swapping that for at least 3 years, maybe more. Pentax User Stouffville Ontario Canada Art needs to be in a frame.That way we know when the art stops and the wall begins--Frank Zappa http://home.ca.inter.net/brooksdj/ http://brooks1952.tripod.com/myhorses Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
I think you're both correct. You will see digital distribution following photographers but primarily where personal computers are available. I doubt you'll get a lot of digital cameras where PC's/MAC's are not readily available. You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. At 04:34 PM 1/20/2003 +, you wrote: Because I suspect that digital photography will follow the distribution on the personal computer whose density is very unevenly distributed. Unfortunately, this distribution doesn't mimic the distribution of cameras on a global basis. Interesting. I would have said that DSLR purchasers would be primarily photographers, despite the fact that a computer is a fundamental part of the digital photography process. Ipso facto, DSLRs will IMO follow a photographic-orientated existence instead of a computer-orientated one. Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Cotty wrote: Interesting. I would have said that DSLR purchasers would be primarily photographers, despite the fact that a computer is a fundamental part of the digital photography process. Ipso facto, DSLRs will IMO follow a photographic-orientated existence instead of a computer-orientated one. This was about photography as global phenomenon. I doubt digital photography will be a globel phenomenon anytime soon like film photography. It will follow the distribution of personal computers which only a tiny percentage of the world population can afford. Pål
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
Cotty wrote: To think that one will buy a DSLR and then sell it or trade it in against a newer one only six months down the line is lunacy! I have no intention of doing so. I will reasonably expect to keep my current DSLR for at least 5 years! My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Pål
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: Pål Jensen Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. From what I am seeing, this makes quite a bit of sense. The people I talk to seem to be buying every other generation of camera. I would expect the average digital camera will have a user life of 3 to 5 years. This is not all that far different from what we see with film cameras. Point and shoot cameras especially have a fairly short lifespan, either because of build quality issues or because people want feature upgrades. William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:24:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolescence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Pål Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they are following the path of planned obsolescence. Sometimes a new technology just evolves so quickly the turn around time is very rapid. Turn around being when the next thing issues from RR. Which is why it is a good idea to wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new developments come at a bit of a slower pace. Doe aka Marnie
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/20/2003 1:14:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This was about photography as global phenomenon. I doubt digital photography will be a globel phenomenon anytime soon like film photography. It will follow the distribution of personal computers which only a tiny percentage of the world population can afford. Pål True only a fraction can afford computers. A smaller percent of that fraction is highly computer literate. Look, I am a real camera novice, but not a complete novice when it comes to technology. I just bought a dvd player, held out as long as I could, but my video rental store is now 1/2 dvds. I didn't want to wait until they were 3/4's dvds. BTW - dvds are a industry-wide standard. I don't need to write dvds, I just watch rented dvds. So I think you are overlooking something. That LCD window. Very attractive to the photographer. So what's to say that someone couldn't buy a digital camera, PS or DSLR, *without* having a computer? Just for the less destructable storage medium and for that really helpful LCD window? And have their prints made at a lab that is set-up to do so? I think that will happen. Maybe more than one would think right now. Probably a lot more. Doe aka Marnie Oh, well, don't know that much about it, so bowing out of discussion now.
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 12:53 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) Evolving technology means they are continually developing new and better technology. IMHO, it is really much too soon to jump to the conclusion they are following the path of planned obsolescence. Sometimes a new technology just evolves so quickly the turn around time is very rapid. Turn around being when the next thing issues from RR. Which is why it is a good idea to wait a while with a really new technology -- wait until new developments come at a bit of a slower pace. It doesn't matter if it is an evolving technology like computers and digital cameras, or a mature technology like automobiles and televisions, obsolescence is obsolescence. Manufacturers love evolving technology, as they can make products obsolete as fast as they want, and have a valid excuse to hide behind. William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan
I think you're both correct. You will see digital distribution following photographers but primarily where personal computers are available. I doubt you'll get a lot of digital cameras where PC's/MAC's are not readily available. You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. Excellent point Peter. Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/21/2003 2:02:41 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It doesn't matter if it is an evolving technology like computers and digital cameras, or a mature technology like automobiles and televisions, obsolescence is obsolescence. Manufacturers love evolving technology, as they can make products obsolete as fast as they want, and have a valid excuse to hide behind. William Robb I think this is true and also not true -- i.e. true to an extent. Some technology reaches a level that stabilizes (at least for a while) at that level. Features may just be bells whistles added on top of that technology. The features differ from issue/version to issue/version, but the underlying technology is the same as used in the previous issue/version. Is the market driven by planned obsolescence? Sure. But not by all companies all the time. The other thing it is also driven by is consumers. At some point people say hey, I want something that I can rely on and that I will not have to upgrade and/or replace every single year. That happens too. Quite often. Market cynicism, I think, should be tempered by a dash of faith in the overloaded, put-upon, increasingly wary consumer. Doe aka Marnie But I am no economist.
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 20, 2003 1:00 PM Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!) So I think you are overlooking something. That LCD window. Very attractive to the photographer. So what's to say that someone couldn't buy a digital camera, PS or DSLR, *without* having a computer? Just for the less destructable storage medium and for that really helpful LCD window? And have their prints made at a lab that is set-up to do so? There has been a fairly major change in the way cameras have been marketed to the consumers since the digital cameras came on stream. It used to be that you went to a camera store, or at least a camera department for a camera. This no longer holds true, and digital cameras are being marketed in a large part by consumer electronics retailers. This opens up several situations: Good retailing includes what is called horizontal selling and upselling. We've all been subjected to it. Try ordering a burger, no fries, no soda at a McDonald's to get an example. At an electronics store, horizonatal selling involves computer upgrades. Upselling means that the person who comes in to buy a basic product leaves with a more upscale (generally more profitable) product. In the digital camera game, upscale means more complex to operate. Electronics retailers are not especially good at consumer training. They will happily sell you the camera, but won't likely be giving much instruction about how to use it. I see the consequenses of this on a daily basis, as people bring in files that are too small and too compressed to work with for printing. From the POV of a long time photographer, I dispute your calling digital media less destructable than film. The things that will ruin film will also ruin digital media. Digital media can also be ruined by background radiation, strong magnetic signals, age degradation of the imbedded signal, and I am sure a myriad of other maladies. 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. As an aside, have any of the photojournalist types heard of media problems (either film or digital) from either the Balkans or Persian Gulf caused by the vast amounts of radioactivity released during the wars in those regions over the past decade? William Robb
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
In a message dated 1/21/2003 2:24:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: From the POV of a long time photographer, I dispute your calling digital media less destructable than film. The things that will ruin film will also ruin digital media. Digital media can also be ruined by background radiation, strong magnetic signals, age degradation of the imbedded signal, and I am sure a myriad of other maladies. Okay. You know a lot more, a lot more, about that than I do. 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. William Robb 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? (Skipping over the reasons of why they might want to buy a digital camera, which might also include availability and marketing, rather than just features and personal preference.) Huh? Doe aka Marnie ;-)
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. Agreed. The E-10 lets you zoom in to a specificed size. This is what you really need, e.g., look at the big picture to check composition and exposure and a close up for focus. Steven Desjardins Department of Chemistry Washington and Lee University Lexington, VA 24450 (540) 458-8873 FAX: (540) 458-8878 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
- 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
Re: DSLR lifespan
Thanks for noticing I was beginning to feel ignored and un-loved snif At 07:16 PM 1/20/2003 +, you wrote: I think you're both correct. You will see digital distribution following photographers but primarily where personal computers are available. I doubt you'll get a lot of digital cameras where PC's/MAC's are not readily available. You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. Excellent point Peter. Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/ Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan
Bob wrote: You could not be more correct. As the pixels go up and the prices come down, the cameras of next year will render those of today obsolete. Pal wrote: My point was that digital cameras at current seem too follow computers in planned obsolence. Hence, I find it likely that consumers will treat them similarly. Just as an aside, note that the camera manufacturers are not at all happy about the short production lifespan and market viability of these products at present. What it has meant for them is that the RD costs are very high yet the products barely have enough time on the market to earn back their cost, much less any profit, unless they are real hits with consumers like the Nikon 950 was. This is a major reason why so few companies are earning any money on digital yet. Manufacturers would be MUCH happier with 2 - 5 year product viability than with .5 - 2 years. They do need to earn back the products' development costs. In fact, the situation is becoming rather desperate for many of them. The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer even remotely supportable and its features and specs make it just verging on obsolete before it has even started to earn any money. Yet it cost Kyocera a king's ransom to develop, WAY more than the $5-10 million or so it costs to develop a major new film camera. Many more products like this would have Kyocera stockholders screaming for the managers' heads. --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
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? Marnie, Not really. In fact this trend has already started. There are several printers that can take media directly, and a few accessories that allow previewing of pictures for printing without a computer. --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
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? D. a. M. has a valid point. I believe that within a decade, things will have changed a lot as digital cameras settle down and become the norm in the point and shoot market at least. Far from the muddled mess that rightly exists now, with a mixture of media and labs and home computer printing, I think we will see the situation evolve into a fairly polarised one with manufacturers standardising ways of storing photographs and allowing prints using the high street labs, and home printing. Despite the manufacturers ducking and diving with their own ideas at what they want the world and his mother to use to record pics onto, I really think that consolidation will take place through what I would like to believe is natural selection, but what is more likely to be astute marketing. oh crickey - he's not going to mention it again is he? Kodak Digital Film! he did Okay, something like it. Something badged as an electronic replacement for film. Drop it into a lab, and prints come back. That's all that most P + S users want (IMO). No computer needed. Sure, they might have a computer, but they don't have the time nor the inclination to sort it out themselves. Paying for the lab to do it is a time-honoured tradition, and it works. It might not be as cool as doing it yourself, but it works. This is why I think that digital cameras do not necessarily follow computers. The majority of people that have both (after maybe a brief dalliance for the giggle factor) will not use the two in tandem. They are perfectly capable, but then so is developing your own monochrome neg film at home - how many of us do that? People not interested to the level that PDMLers may be will not wish to spend the time. Even feeding a media card into an auto printer has its downside. It's yet something else to go wrong. Let the lab do it! Within ten years. Fire away :-) Cotty Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan
Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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? Marnie, Not really. In fact this trend has already started. There are several printers that can take media directly, and a few accessories that allow previewing of pictures for printing without a computer. I think Kodak has the right approach with their digicam docking station. What they need to do next is produce home printers with this docking station built in (just slide your camera into a slot in the printer - facing backwards so you can preview the pictures in the camera's LCD - and print) and even kiosks in photo shops that either work the same way (choose your pictures and hit print) or just accept a dump of everything in memory and has prints for you in an hour or the next day or whatever. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: DSLR lifespan
Hi Mike, Perhaps the manufacturers could modularise their components such that improved sensors could be a plug-in module much like a CPU in a computer. It would make a lot of sense. Bob - Original Message - From: Mike Johnston Just as an aside, note that the camera manufacturers are not at all happy about the short production lifespan and market viability of these products at present. What it has meant for them is that the RD costs are very high yet the products barely have enough time on the market to earn back their cost, much less any profit, unless they are real hits with consumers like the Nikon 950 was. This is a major reason why so few companies are earning any money on digital yet. Manufacturers would be MUCH happier with 2 - 5 year product viability than with .5 - 2 years. They do need to earn back the products' development costs. In fact, the situation is becoming rather desperate for many of them. The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer even remotely supportable and its features and specs make it just verging on obsolete before it has even started to earn any money. Yet it cost Kyocera a king's ransom to develop, WAY more than the $5-10 million or so it costs to develop a major new film camera. Many more products like this would have Kyocera stockholders screaming for the managers' heads. --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
In what way? There will be little improvement in resolution. Remember that MP is really area To double the resolution the number of pixels has to be increased by its square. There are some detailed tech spec that the D60 improves considerably on over the D30. Mainly to do with low-light capability, long exposures, the way the thing buffers pics etc. The actual image may not appear that much better (although doubling the data acquired is nothig to sneer at), but usability is - from what I have read. Cot Oh, swipe me! He paints with light! http://www.macads.co.uk/snaps/ Free UK Macintosh Classified Ads at http://www.macads.co.uk/
Re: DSLR lifespan
Mike Johnston wrote: 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? Marnie, Not really. In fact this trend has already started. There are several printers that can take media directly, and a few accessories that allow previewing of pictures for printing without a computer. --Mike You mean, like a stand-alone word processor? Has it's own screen, and image manipulating software, but it's not a computer, per se? Just talks to the camera and the printer. It's own little network? keith whaley
RE: DSLR lifespan
Keith wrote; You mean, like a stand-alone word processor? Has it's own screen, and image manipulating software, but it's not a computer, per se? They actually invented something like that a while ago, and it even took off for a while. If I remember correctly it was called a typewriter Simon -Original Message- From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, 21 January 2003 8:11 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: DSLR lifespan You mean, like a stand-alone word processor? Has it's own screen, and image manipulating software, but it's not a computer, per se? Just talks to the camera and the printer. It's own little network? keith whaley
Re: DSLR lifespan (was: Re: Ze Masked Enabler Strikes Again!)
If you want to sell that lens at a major loss let me know. BR [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, either way I will miss that fine Nikon AF-S 300/4 with full-time manual focus, and that excellent Nikon matrix balanced fill-flash. Rats.
Re: DSLR lifespan
Yeah but Mike, have you seen them? There's a dozen buttons on them and a cotton-picking screen as well! Most people cannot operate a VCR remote correctly, never mind print there own pics Still a few bugs in the system --Mike
Re: DSLR lifespan
On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 02:16 PM, Cotty wrote: You can do traditional photography where there is no modern infrastructure. It becomes much more difficult to do digital photography in those locations. Excellent point Peter You can bring the infrastructure with you. Think of the war zone photographers with their DSLRs, laptop computers and satellite phones. They've somehow figured out how to keep the batteries charged. --jc
Re: DSLR lifespan
On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I think Kodak has the right approach with their digicam docking station. What they need to do next is produce home printers with this docking station built in (just slide your camera into a slot in the printer - facing backwards so you can preview the pictures in the camera's LCD - and print) and even kiosks in photo shops that either work the same way (choose your pictures and hit print) or just accept a dump of everything in memory and has prints for you in an hour or the next day or whatever. That was probably on Kodak's mind when they created the EasyShare system. I think docks are outdated. With wireless technologies becoming more prevalent, they will be building more printers and cameras with built-in wireless capabilities. You can select and crop the pictures in your camera and send it to the printer without worrying about whether the USB cable is too long. When you walk by the kiosk in the photo shop, your camera will sense its presence and beep to ask you if you want your pictures printed. --jc
Re: DSLR lifespan
On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 06:05 PM, Bob Rapp wrote: Hi Mike, Perhaps the manufacturers could modularise their components such that improved sensors could be a plug-in module much like a CPU in a computer. It would make a lot of sense. That's an advantage that the MF SLRs have for now. Upgrading from a 14MP to a 48MP digital back is a simple matter of using a different back (and spending more money :-) ). --jc
Re: DSLR lifespan
Does anyone else see this as a very big security problem, (I always hated the Idea of Bluetooth and it still doesn't have enough security as far as I'm concerned). At 09:32 PM 1/20/2003 -0500, you wrote: On Monday, January 20, 2003, at 06:00 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: I think Kodak has the right approach with their digicam docking station. What they need to do next is produce home printers with this docking station built in (just slide your camera into a slot in the printer - facing backwards so you can preview the pictures in the camera's LCD - and print) and even kiosks in photo shops that either work the same way (choose your pictures and hit print) or just accept a dump of everything in memory and has prints for you in an hour or the next day or whatever. That was probably on Kodak's mind when they created the EasyShare system. I think docks are outdated. With wireless technologies becoming more prevalent, they will be building more printers and cameras with built-in wireless capabilities. You can select and crop the pictures in your camera and send it to the printer without worrying about whether the USB cable is too long. When you walk by the kiosk in the photo shop, your camera will sense its presence and beep to ask you if you want your pictures printed. --jc Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. --Groucho Marx
Re: DSLR lifespan
Mike Johnston said: The exemplar of this situation is the Contax Digital N1, which by all accounts has pretty much been an unqualified disaster. The product is still not in full release, has sold almost nothing, yet its pricing is no longer even remotely supportable and its features and specs make it just verging on obsolete before it has even started to earn any money. Yet it cost Kyocera a king's ransom to develop, WAY more than the $5-10 million or so it costs to develop a major new film camera. Many more products like this would have Kyocera stockholders screaming for the managers' heads. This might just display my profound ignorance, but what's so hard about it? If you have an SLR, half the camera is already designed, base the digital on a currently existing 35mm. That leaves you with the other half, the back, which includes the sensor and view screen. And I know it has things like a little computer and menu-driven things, but that sort of thing is pretty routine. Is it all just the sensor?
