I agree with most of the points made. However, manufacturers like to introduce improvements slowly as part of their money making strategy and batteries are used to make the camera manufacturers extra money. That's why they fit chips and try to stop cheap copies that are often just as good. It's the same method that's used by printer companies.
My prediction is that in 15-20 years time, all pro/semi-pro cameras will be mirrorless and probably use very high performance APS-C sized ccds, in excess of 100 mp. I also think there will be less need for interchangeable lenses as zooms continue to improve. 8k video will be a standard feature and batteries will be better. But there is going to be an increasing equipment gap between phones and these cameras, so hopefully the prices won't be too high.
Does anyone really give a toss about this "Mini Box Brownie" story?
Well maybe GoPro and Polaroid, who appear to be still in business in some form, but don't deserve to be.
I can guess where this is eventually going.
Goodbye Hasselblad, in all but name.
Only $7.5K per body. I better get two!
"The PowerShot G9 X is the camera photographers will want to show off to their friends as much as they shoot with it." This just about sums up Canon's current approach to selling cameras. Actually, as a long time Canon user, I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks about my equipment, I just want to take good pictures and I want reliability. That's where it ends.
Both these new cameras have obvious limitations and what look like badly designed features. I doubt if I'll ever buy one.
Is there some reason - completely beyond my understanding why GoPro will not provide any details of their optics, the chips used, angle of view, aperture, etc?
Maybe they think that lenses are no longer an important component of photographic equipment, rather like the makers of camera-phones, who don't provide equipment for serious photography or film making.
Not good enough DP. You should be picking this company up on their sloppy approach to product information and ideally running tests.
I wish I understood what the big deal was about the use of these names? Is there anyone who doesn't understand that it's done for a reason, which is to enhance the image of the product and make more money? It is a certainty that Zeiss or Leica play some part in the development of badged optics, so what? They are either good or they are not.
Many Japanese optical companies make elements and cells for various camera companies. It is general knowledge in the repair business that if you buy a budget Nikon, Canon, Pentax or Olympus SLR, the kit lens is probably made (at least in part) by Sigma. At one time Sigma lens elements were being used in top-end Leica film cameras. So what? This kind of thing has gone on for decades.
The suggestion that a massive company like Sony doesn't know how to make good optics and Canon does is ridiculous. These companies have all the know-how they need and most of their products are assemblies of parts made by others.
memau: Japanese are well-known for fetish of Germany optic makers like Zeiss and Leica, no wonder sony and panasonic pay for these german brand, although I think they don't have to do that, because they can design fairly good lens on their own......
Don't Sony own Tamron and use them to make most of their optics?
Don't automatically expect movie industry performance as these optics may well be put together in a Chinese sweat shop for a very low cost.
Having the name of a top optical company like Zeiss or Leica on your lenses is good for business. That's pretty much the bottom line.
VENTURE-STAR: This undoubtedly okay if fashion items are more important than taking pictures.
This fancy Peak bag is simply too expensive for me and of limited use.
I generally use low-profile ex-military bags which I've fitted out that attract as little attention as possible when I'm out and about.
Thanks for the amusing response Darngood. I clearly don't understand your use of the term snob. Many might think that walking around with an expensive fashion item over their shoulder portrayed them as snobbish I suppose. Never mind, who cares?. My point was that just because you have an expensive bag over your shoulder doesn't make you a good photographer. If you want an expensive bag which may well attract attention from others, perhaps in the wrong place, then so be it. I'm more interested in taking pictures than worrying about nonsense like this.
Darngood, you've made it fairly clear that you don't understand my previous comments. I certainly get this. Sorry, but I never actually said it would make anyone take fewer photos.
I am simply suggesting that someone who gives priority to the way they look (by having a fashion item over their shoulder) is likely to be more concerned with this than the quality/ creativity of their work. They may well go out and shoot thousands of pictures, so what? That's not the point!
Why should the bag make any difference to the number of pictures you take? It may simply indicate the kind of importance some people attach to their appearance and attract attention from the wrong people.
This undoubtedly okay if fashion items are more important than taking pictures.
VENTURE-STAR: I wonder if anyone on this thread is aware that the sensors were designed and manufactured in Eastern England?
E2V is the company responsible for the sensors.
Lassoni: Actually, there are some very high tech companies in Eastern England supporting Formula 1 and of course Lotus Cars somewhere near Norwich.
I wonder if anyone on this thread is aware that the sensors were designed and manufactured in Eastern England?
A superb photograph, with an impressive "End of Days" look. Wish I'd taken it!
VENTURE-STAR: I have to smile when I read some of the ill-judged comments by people who wonder why anyone would complain when a company like Nikon are good enough to fix a serious design or production problem with one of their overpriced products.
This whole discussion concerns very poor quality control and putting the product into the marketplace much too quickly. It doesn't matter how complicated the equipment is, you expect certain standards with modern technology.
Imagine being out on an important photographic job and you can see a great news picture, when your almost new camera fails due to some stupid manufacturing defect? I'm sure many of the people defending the camera companies on this thread would rightfully go ape s**t if it happened to them.
Common sense seems to suggest you should always wait a couple of years before buying a new camera or lens to avoid these kind of issues.
HR, I can't quite see the point you are making. It's generally a matter of quality control, making products at the lowest possible price and putting them on the market much too soon, because you're afraid that a rival will take the lead.
Digital imaging is obviously a relatively new thing, but so what? That's no excuse for badly made products. Car manufacturers are well known for putting vehicles on the road too quickly and some (if not all) major companies build-in the cost of expected failures, recalls, claims etc, on every new product. Do you really consider this acceptable? It's a shabby way of treating the customer.
HR: Actually no obvious problem with my posting, but never mind.
To be honest, I'm not too bothered if you take any notice of what I've said or not, but I will mention that many years of using various pro quality film cameras never gave me any problems. Electronic flash has been another issue.
I have had two Nikon film cameras that have been very badly damaged in use (not my fault) but kept working. Reliability was never an issue. However, the number of good quality electronic cameras I've had problems with during the last 10 years is considerable. This really isn't good enough, but you seem willing to accept the situation. Not me!
For goodness sake HR, I would have expected slightly more adult comments from someone like you. Most of the camera manufacturers including Canon are guilty of exactly the same practices as Nikon and I've already made this point earlier. BTW, I would suggest that as an ex-newspaper photographer and photojournalist with years of experience, I have probably used many more film cameras than you have, but who actually cares?