Looks as though manufacturers are sizing up for a fight over this sector of the market. I wonder where this rush for small will leave full-sized DSLRs in ten years. At least it won't be a one horse race now and that has to be good for prices.
Rob
The most interesting bit was this
So don't hold your breath!Although many details are still to be decided on Lee predicts that the new system will be ready for sale in the spring of 2010.
Ok Wild SpeculationLooks as though manufacturers are sizing up for a fight over this sector of the market. I wonder where this rush for small will leave full-sized DSLRs in ten years. At least it won't be a one horse race now and that has to be good for prices.
Compact I/Lens cameras will take up the position currently held by consumer/mid range DSLR's, above that DSLR's as we know them will become fully featured Multi-Media cameras eating into the market currently held by the larger Pro DV cameras.
Feature set is the thing, Nikon have DV in the D90 and it can only continue to evolve.
If so I'll be back to 100% film.Compact I/Lens cameras will take up the position currently held by consumer/mid range DSLR's, above that DSLR's as we know them will become fully featured Multi-Media cameras eating into the market currently held by the larger Pro DV cameras.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Pah. A tool should do one job and one job only. And do it well.Feature set is the thing, Nikon have DV in the D90 and it can only continue to evolve.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
The most interesting bit was this
So don't hold your breath!Although many details are still to be decided on Lee predicts that the new system will be ready for sale in the spring of 2010.
... I wonder why they have given so much notice?
For you and me and a good few on AP forums yes, but the next generation? they're more computer/media savvy than I'll ever be, BeBo/Facebook/Youtube/Blogging etc, etc, etc. DV is becoming increasingly popular.Pah. A tool should do one job and one job only. And do it well.Feature set is the thing, Nikon have DV in the D90 and it can only continue to evolve.
I was happy when my 1st mobile phone could make and recieve calls but it's wouldn't cut it now with the consumers who have the most disposable income
I completely agree - but the sad reality is, I think, that photographic technology has for years been driven more by fashion and fancy than by real photographic need. The masses - rather than the actual core of professionals and enthusiasts, whose concern is the photography itself rather than ever more, and more flashy, electronic trinkets - are where all the development money is recouped and the profits are made. And that has never been more true than it is now in the digital era. :-(Pah. A tool should do one job and one job only. And do it well.Feature set is the thing, Nikon have DV in the D90 and it can only continue to evolve.
I will agree with that in principle, Huw, but make one addition - the rise and rise of the programmable microchip.photographic technology has for years been driven more by fashion and fancy than by real photographic need
Essentially if it can be programmed in, it costs next to nothing so an additional "feature" is added in whether we need it or not!
I just look at the programmable options I have with the D300 and wonder if I really need even 10% of them.
Paul
Even if the required controls make the device less usable, or more awkward to use, for its original purposeEssentially if it can be programmed in, it costs next to nothing so an additional "feature" is added in whether we need it or not!
Then the original purpose gets compromised to make the new facility work a bit better.
Function creep causes bloat, too. Which in turn boosts power draw. How many people have found their phone/cam/MP3 player has a flat battery when hey need to make an urgent/emergency phone call because the subsidiary functions have used the available power?
One tool, one job. Properly. No compromises.
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Well, fundamentally that's what has enabled it - the cramming of more and more electrickery into cameras began basically in the 80s, but in those days it was still just producing features that were genuinely useful for photographic purposes, at least for some.I will agree with that in principle, Huw, but make one addition - the rise and rise of the programmable microchip.photographic technology has for years been driven more by fashion and fancy than by real photographic need
But digital photography wouldn't exist at all without complex electronics and processing power - it's fundamentally about electronics, whereas previously photography was all about optics and photo-chemistry. While those days lasted photographic development was still being driven with photography in mind. Once it became electronic it entered the world of modern gadget-freakery - a world of iPods and Bluetooth, telephones that take pictures, and all the rest of it. That, I'm afraid brought a whole new group of consumers into play - a group that had little real interest in photography itself, but was pretty much obsessed with the gadgetry side of it. And they were so numerous that their requirements were the ones the manufacturers inevitably strove to meet.
Not really, the astronomers were using CCD chips to image stars in the days when microprocessors didn't exist, a PDP-11 was a large cabinet stuffed with TTL chips which contained a couple of dozen transistors each. Ran at a few score kilohertz and had 64KB memory if you were lucky.Well, fundamentally that's what has enabled it
If you're not living on the edge, you're wasting space
Yeh - all you with Leathermans and Swiss army penknives - bin 'em now!Pah. A tool should do one job and one job only. And do it well.Feature set is the thing, Nikon have DV in the D90 and it can only continue to evolve.
So - nothing whatsoever with we're talking about then? What I said was correct.Not really, the astronomers were using CCD chips to image stars in the days when microprocessors didn't exist, a PDP-11 was a large cabinet stuffed with TTL chips which contained a couple of dozen transistors each. Ran at a few score kilohertz and had 64KB memory if you were lucky.Well, fundamentally that's what has enabled it
yawn - next subject
Cavyslave
AAAAAaaaaargh! I can't take it anymore!!! All this Photokina stuff and competition is all too eeeeeevilll!! All these choices!!! AAaaaaaargh!
(jumps out throught the glass window with arms and legs flailing)
Hey Luis,
Here's one for you
RED
AAaaaaaaAAAAaaaaAAAArgh! (jumps out of hospital 3rd floor window in full body cast plaster trying to flail arms and with drip)
Oh dear, maybe I shouldn't have mentioned itAAaaaaaaAAAAaaaaAAAArgh! (jumps out of hospital 3rd floor window in full body cast plaster trying to flail arms and with drip)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
