arhmatic: "forever"? ditch the focus by wire, typical, ALL lens makers. Do all mechanical. The only way to make them forever.
The reality is, -this wire thing might break anytime. Might not be supported in 2-3 decades...-compatibility is an issue. How can I use my Sony lens if suddenly I want to get a body from different maker? Adapters don't work. Make them all mechanical, so we can at least focus.
The reality is, my old, 1970s Nikkor works on my Fujifilm like a charm. All manual. Fujiflm on Nikon? Never. Not that I'd need that, but just a thought... Again, do all mechanical (manual or autofocus, your choice) then it's at least a step towards "forever".
Right - I'm saying there ought to be a similar standard for electronic camera lenses. There isn't one, but that doesn't mean a digital protocol can't have that kind of longevity.
A 100% manual M42 lens with a screw mount isn't useful if you want autofocus and an aperture that stops down automatically.
As I said, there already are protocols that have survived for many decades. If you need an even better example, take a look at RS-232. Introduced in 1962, still used today. You can plug something made back then into your smartphone if you like with a $10 USB adapter and talk to it. Equipment is still manufactured today that communicates with RS-232. 54 years of working fine is good enough for me to say it has survived.
All mechanical isn't necessary at all. There's nothing about a digital communication protocol that necessarily has to become unusable in 2-3 decades. Some of the protocols you're using to view this web page are 2-3 decades old (or more). What is needed for the long run is a simple, well designed, well documented open standard. Unfortunately the camera industry is apparently allergic to this concept. Everyone has to invent their own proprietary way of doing the exact same thing that someone else is doing.
Timbukto: I thought the first image was a fancy optical adjustment bench. But it's just hand sanitizer station. I think Chipotle needs some of those.
Also why on earth would anyone need to unbox a unit to QC vs just QC prior to boxing? Shady boxing workers? Or just nonsensical workflow?
Because then you can't detect boxing errors.
arhmatic: I would't call this "retro-styling". It's the "natural-styling" - because this is really the size and feel a camera should have. It happens to look retro, true. Well done, both Olympus and Fujifilm.
"this is really the size and feel a camera should have"
... in your opinion.
ThePhilips: Literally all instances of DRM introduction - in all markets so far - have caused massive shift in power from creators to distributors. And reduced creators income, because the DRM solution vendors also want a cut of the profits.
IMO some sort of digital signature would be more useful. A photographer could sign his photos with unmodifiable copyright notice. (Yes, the notice can still be stripped, but stripping copyright notices is already illegal for a very long time, and has enough legal precedents to deter the most prolific abusers of the system.)
"The only way they can pretend is by stripping the signature. But that is illegal."
Can't the same be said of a simple copyright notice in the metadata? Stripping or replacing that would be the same as a signature.
"That reduces further the current status quo, where one can still claim to be unaware of the fact that the image is copyrighted."
Actually in just about all western countries copyright is automatic. If something is released into the public domain or licensed freely, the author must specifically do that. So to claim ignorance is dishonest even in the status quo.
quiquae: I can see a case for adding a password-protected encryption scheme in JPEG, so that you can transmit sensitive images on insecure channels (e.g. email attachments) without resorting to silly hacks like archiving the JPEG in a password-protected ZIP file. Done correctly, such a scheme can be made fairly secure without undermining long-term use of the file: use a strong encryption with a big random key on the image data, encrypt the big key with a plaintext password, and store the encrypted key in the JPEG metadata. This will make the encryption hard to crack, yet it is trivial to remove the password protection afterwards if you know what the password is.
But a DRM scheme? Oh, please, no.
If JPEG2000 is any indicator, it will take far longer than two decades before what you're proposing would become commonplace.
oysso: how to copy an image: Print screen. No protection at all....... Whatever is the metadata. The copy functionality is there. This will only make it more difficult for people working with jpegs. It will never protect images from being copied.
Esquilo: You can set up a virtual machine with a virtual screen of any resolution you like and take the screen shot there.
How exactly would digital signatures deter image modification? The hypothetical man-in-the-middle can simply delete the signature as well or sign the modified image himself and pretend to be the author.
Why use a silly hack like all of that when we've had encrypted email (including attachments of any kind) for decades with PGP?
cosinaphile: no micro sd slot ..... no buy
i willl not trust the nickel and dime cloud services with my mediaand photos .....loss of privacy and convenience when away for signals
in fact i want multiple micro sd slots .....but thats just me ....
I believe USB OTG support didn't become a part of stock Android until after those devices were released. Updates have been released for the Nexus 7, however. You could also install cyanogenmod or something like that. The Nexus devices were meant to be unlocked.
Fredrik Glckner: The microdrive was the innovation which made the Ipod possible. One of the really big game changers, in other words.
The first iPod did not use a microdrive. The (later) iPod Mini did.
nikon power: The best thing about the 3 1/2" floppy disk for me was it could hold photos from my Mavica FD73, my resume, and absolutely no virus could live on it.
Viruses definitely could and did live on 3.5in floppies and SD cards the same as they did on any other storage medium.
So transfer your files to your own storage over wifi, USB networking or plug in a USB OTG adapter and all the SD cards you want.
A lack of a microSD slot hardly means you have to use anyone's cloud service.
Old Cameras: What they need most is a new sensor. 16MP APS-C ain't cuttin' it anymore. Dump X-trans, nobody cares.
ain't cuttin' it for what?
Thoughts: It is interesting Sony do want to sell their cameras to legacy lenses users too. The beauty of an open system!
I'm still curious: how do you know that some small Chinese companies are licensing E-mount to produce adapters? And how do you know that Sigma, Tamron and Tokina license Canon and Nikon mounts?
"Sigma/Tamron/Tokina get in contact with Nikon/Canon"
How do you know that? Lots of other people say they just reverse engineer it, particularly after they produced that dock for user upraded firmware.
"But if a small Chinese manufacturer approaches Nikon/Canon for F or EF mount spec they will not even have a chance"
So you are saying some small Chinese manufacturer has done just that with Sony?
"Now you suggest that reverse engineered systems (usually only partial system data) makes such systems open."
Actually I didn't. My last sentence began with "If".
"Of course it doesn't, because no serious adapter/lens maker will risk being taken to court by the system owner."
How do Sigma, Tamron and Tokina sell lenses for F and EF mounts?
So you're saying these "unknown Chinese firms" have signed the NDAs and licensed E-mount?
(unknown member): Would something similar happen if you posted an image to a dpreview gallery, downloaded it, re-uploaded it etc?
If I'm bored on the weekend I might give it a go.
100% sure. I tested it before posting that.
Nope. If you download the original size image from DPR it sends you the exact same thing you uploaded, bit for bit.