At 07:11 PM 5/29/2006, karl shah-jenner wrote:...
I don't know where to begin, you have so many arguments here that are
so easy to knock down.
Just for starters, TLRs were only produced as a novelty - you could
buy a collector's model for $3000 or a barely functional toy for
$100. Not that much of a choice...
And I have two printers (excluding my two 4x6 printers) that are 7
and 4 years old respectively, both of which are easy to service and
buy supplies for.
A 48mp camera is pointless. Nobody gets that close to a
billboard. And a b&w camera, what point would that serve? It's much
more controllable to convert the colors yourself, instead of letting
the film force it on you, with no choice.
And most people mail (or SMS) photos from their phones, or use
bluetooth. It's really simple if you read the manual.
And other than sensors, most companies do their own
electronics. Even with sensors, Sony and Canon do it themselves.
If you look at the pre-digital world, it was formats and
manufacturers disappearing. Nothing new there, except that now we
have new formats, and even manufacturers. I'd see that as a
positive, not a negative.
One can always look at the world as a lot of opportunities or a
disaster. Photographically speaking, I'd rather look at the
opportunities and focus on the photographs, rather than think of the
equipment only and view it as a disaster.
I don't think dominance was actually possible although Kodak's method of
buying and killing companies was certainly an attempt to do so, the
producers who avoided this seemed to do a pretty decent job of keeping
themselves afloat.
In the time of film we saw a plethora of films, camera types (TLR,
rangefinders, SLR's, P&S, finderless, framefinder) - we saw convenient
formats (110,35mm & others) medium formats (645-617), large format 4x5 to
banquets and beyond . There was something for everyone and as long as the
film and papers kept rolling out we had a lot of choices available.
We had system cameras, interchangeable prisms, bulk backs, motor drives,
silent RF's .. all manner of toys to draw our attention, and they provided
a high degree of versatility and a camera for every occasion.
Market dominance erodes this - the leader at the end of the day may decide
that removable prisms models will not have a huge customer uptake and drop
them (are there any digitals with removable prisms?) - The old model of
camera manufacturing meant a model could be kept in supply for a LONG time,
so having a small but steady market was probably viable. Not so when
models must be continually renewed to keep the churn going.
Manual cameras will/have disappeared. specialty cameras are a luxury few
if any can afford - where is the 48Mp b&w camera? why can't we have
something like that - it's not 'special' in any way.. removing the Bayer
array and modifying the software/firmware should be easy enough..
When the head goes on my 2 year old printer, why can't I buy another? Why
is my product warranty voided when I use someone else's inks? Am I not
permitted to experiment creatively? What happens when the manufacturer of
my current printer decides to cease making cartridges to force me into
buying a new model - practices like that were once illegal here..
What happens when they lose the race altogether and the dominant producer
feels the masses will be satisfied with convenience over versatility and
decides a happy balance is achieved at 4Mp.. and that only in phones?
I may have to use bought proprietary software to get the images off my
phone, many do, and what of the DRM stuff built into all the SD cards -
I've lost control over what I can and cannot access when THOSE cards are
used.
Fortunately even my oldest film camera is still capable of making images
without restrictions.. and I can take the processed film without any
interpreter or additional hardware and see what it is at a glance. I can
whack together an optical system to make a nice print from it that requires
no input from any other party (as long as I can get paper).
I guess I'm disappointed that the camera makers threw themselves into the
digital arena so quickly, getting into bed with a larger, more fierce enemy
without looking hard at the risks. Maybe they saw easy money - outsource
the bulk of the work (electronics) and rake in the profits and it blinded
them.
They *could* have fought to keep their products viable, could have worked
with the film companies, but then they weren't film makers so they figured
those guys could fight it out alone. Of course it was the profits from
film cameras which supported the initial plunge into digital.. but that
money has probably long since gone.
They could even have done what everyone asked for and modified existing
designs, produced digital backs for existing models.. giving people the
choice between film and digital - but they got greedy and wanted it all
now they'll probably end up with nothing
I really don't know, I'm just bewildered and fearful of where this will all
end up. I fear Nokia will be the final winner
k
(I hate pressing 'ignore' on the spellchecker when DRM is highlighted!)
Jeff Spirer
Photos: http://www.spirer.com
One People: http://www.onepeople.com/
