And astigmatism correction. The current diopter ranges are good for people with moderate myopia or hyperopia, but not those of us with much worse vision. Adapting to work with our current corrective lenses would be best. I don't want to have to keep taking off and putting on my glasses.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
My Plea to Camera Manufacturers- Please make THIS!
- Thread starter yuriythebest
- Start date
The Alice might be a partial answer to both the remote viewfinder and 'intelligence' issues. Waiting to see how it works out.
jimdelves
Leading Member
- Messages
- 919
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,182
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
You mean just like we're paying for video features?
Ther would be an early adpoter tax. Once it's present in every camera there won't be any cost associated to it. And even then, it's not even 100% there would be one, as computational features are the next logical step when you have more powerful processors... If camera processors get powerful enough, not only will there be no cost, but every camera would have those, will not even be a matter of "paying more to get access to that feature".
tbcass
Forum Pro
The idea that additional software features add cost to a camera is false.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
The more powerful processor needed for those computational features would add cost... but that would probably be an additional cost for the 1st gen products that would most likely be high end and then it would be completely absorbed for the second generation when it comes to consumer cameras.
So mostly a non-issue.
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
How can we "know" that when it's most likely not true.
It's basically a repeat of people complaining about the cost of video features and saying how much they wanted lower cost cameras without video. Thing was:
- Video increased sales, which drives parts costs and manufacturing costs down, and lets the development costs be amortized over a larger number of units, so you could literally tracking camera costs going down because of the added video features.
- Video increased still performance by driving improvements in electronic shutters (a macro photographer's best friend) high speed shooting (which makes the sports and wildlife shooters happy) autofocus tracking (a benefit to everyone from people just taking pictures of their own kids to pro wildlife shooters).
jimdelves
Leading Member
- Messages
- 919
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,182
I love this model of capitalism you espouse. I hope it’s a reality some dayYou mean just like we're paying for video features?
Ther would be an early adpoter tax. Once it's present in every camera there won't be any cost associated to it. And even then, it's not even 100% there would be one, as computational features are the next logical step when you have more powerful processors... If camera processors get powerful enough, not only will there be no cost, but every camera would have those, will not even be a matter of "paying more to get access to that feature".
--
(G.A.S. and collectionnite will get my skin one day)
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
What MI_Photo38 described is exactly what happened with video, over ten years ago.I love this model of capitalism you espouse. I hope it’s a reality some dayYou mean just like we're paying for video features?
Ther would be an early adpoter tax. Once it's present in every camera there won't be any cost associated to it. And even then, it's not even 100% there would be one, as computational features are the next logical step when you have more powerful processors... If camera processors get powerful enough, not only will there be no cost, but every camera would have those, will not even be a matter of "paying more to get access to that feature".
It's the reason that camera prices held constant for years instead of tracking inflation upwards. Adjusted for inflation, camera prices dropped substantially, and it's mostly due to video.
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
You realize this is already a reality in phones, computers, fridges, cars, ...I love this model of capitalism you espouse. I hope it’s a reality some dayYou mean just like we're paying for video features?
Ther would be an early adpoter tax. Once it's present in every camera there won't be any cost associated to it. And even then, it's not even 100% there would be one, as computational features are the next logical step when you have more powerful processors... If camera processors get powerful enough, not only will there be no cost, but every camera would have those, will not even be a matter of "paying more to get access to that feature".
... why would it be different with cameras? It won't, they're just electronic devices like any other at the end of the day
You might not get the choice.
No thanks. All the wi-fi/bluetooth/phone wireless tech in use today is damaging to your health, especially to growing bodies.
Zormpas
Member
Seconded. Smartphones have destroyed enough, don't want that nonsense in my camera too. As for the OP, this is yet more gratuitous and essentially useless gimmickry that would only appeal to the smartphone crowd.
--
-Zorba
"The Veiled Male"
)O(
Last edited:
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
not getting the choice means not being able to shoot RAW...
As far as I'm aware, we even have that on smartphones, I'm pretty positive we would get the choice if those features come out in dedicated cameras.
Dreamscape Photo
Leading Member
Id get disoriented lol
Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Sorry, Bob. Did you see how many times they mentioned AI, machine learning, and neural nets in the new Canon announcements?
Zormpas
Member
You realize that this nonsense does nothing but drive costs up and reliability down? Its widely reported that around 40% of the cost of a new car is the "technology". Obsolete in 5 years, broken in 10, and unrepairable at any cost in 15. No thank you, I'll keep my old junk running - cheaper in the long run by far!
MJ_Photo38
Veteran Member
Cost up : nope. Hasn't been the case for any other electronic device on the market.
Reliability down : that's only true for cars... because they have doubled the number of pieces required to make a car in 10 years.
This is actually a misconception that cars become less reliable because of the electronics : they become less reliable because of the added parts.
Back to cameras : in electronic devices, adding AI / a more powerful chip that supports it is just a matter of which processor to solder on the mainboard. That's about it. Then the reliability figures would come from other facors : moving parts, quality control etc.,.. but the added features would only be in the solicon of the processor, therefore not affecting anything. They would stop working when the cjip stops working aka when the silicon degrades enough that it isn't usable anymore. Probably somewhere between 30 and 40 years from now, if you use it every day.
Bottom line : something will break way before the electronics added with more powerful chips / AI stuff actually become a problem.
Zormpas
Member
Well, you do you. I worked in high tech my entire career, I know better. Costs are up, reliability is down, across the board with cars and everything that has un-necessary electronics. My newest car is a 2014, and what's been its major problems thus far? You guessed it! Electronics. I have yet to own an electronic car for any length of time that hasn't had electronic problems. I have a 2006 that's just a ticking time bomb with its electronics and sensors all over the place. I'll keep my 1985 with zero technology - its over all been the most reliable.
I certainly don't want anything whatsoever to do with any car made after about 2017 at the very latest. Complete stupidity. Yea, new cars have more parts - they're all to do with the stupid "technology". Get rid of that nonsense, and you've gotten rid of the parts AND the problems. Most people of my acquaintance really don't want this effete garbage in their cars - or their refrigerators for that matter - but its either forced down their throats or they keep their old stuff running. The smartphone addled like this stuff, the rest of us don't.
My mechanic tells me that people are abandoning cars that are under 10 years old because they're essentially unrepairable - so how does that make new cars "more reliable?". It doesn't - "The Emperor has no clothes." and new cars are junk.
Similar threads
- Locked
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum