With the improvement in film emulsions even an old SLR was capable
of remaining competetive with the latest camera in terms of the
quality of results.
Such a situation would not have suited the camera manufacturers.
I don't understand the 'would not' part. That was how things were. It is history. It suited Nikon, Canon, Leica, Pentax, Minolta, etc. just fine. They did try introducing new film formats but it didn't work. 35mm was the accepted standard and everyone was happy to build cameras and lenses which worked with that standard.
Now the emphasis is on digital SLRs--just look at all the angst
expressed on the various forums.
The angst on these forums is expressed by certain obsessive types who feel they always need to be on the leading edge. It does in no way reflect on the general public most of whom do not know that this site even exists.
A 2 year old camera is out date;sensor size;noise in excess of 400
ASA;fringeing;5/6 megapixels is inadequate.
My D100 is ancient history so, but I still love it and I am sure it will continue taking great photos for a few years yet. The people making the above comments are usually trying to justify spending more money on more toys and are the same ones who will be changing their plasma or LCD TVs and their cars every few years to keep up with whatever is on offer.
It would appear that the digital SLR revolution is far more
advantageous to the manufacturers than the ordinary amateur.
The new digital era has been hugely advantageous to the manufacturers as the majority of people have switched to digital. The boom in sales is only likely to last a few years however before the market stabilizes. SLRs are much more profitable to the manufacturer not only because the bodies sell at premium prices but also because they get to sell truckloads of accessories principally in the form of lenses and flash guns.
However it is completely wrong to discount the advantages of digital to the ordinary amateur. The 'cost' of digital photography is one of its huge attractions. Once you have discounted the initial investment, the cost per picture becomes negligible. This allows so much freedom that once you have tried digital it is hard to go back. This is especially true for the newcomers to the art. Aside from the cost, the instant feedback available on a DSLR is a priceless learning tool. Other freedoms include the possibility to vary the sensitivity and the frequency response of the 'film' from shot to shot. Traditionally that meant carrying a bag full of filters (and you could only adjust the sensitivty downwards by using ND filters).
Having your own darkroom no longer requires building a separate room on to the house and having lots of smelly chemicals. In the digital darkroom you can try out a myriad of techniques which would have been costly back in the old days of chemical developing, if not impossible.
The early adapter phase is over and it is all the major manufacturers (read Canon and Nikon) can do to keep up with demand for their products, with the other manufacturers clamouring to eat into their hold on a very lucrative market. The move to digital has transformed the camera industry to the benefit of some of the producers, but mostly for the benefit of the consumers.
