Fads in camera gear a waste of value.

[six-five-two]

...I always used live view with my Canon S3. Then when I got my Pentax K100D I was mad that it didn't have live view. I then just got used to it and besides, a live view on an SLR doesn't look very professional .

 

[Alex_B]

The same could be said about electronics and cars.

Well, today's car engines need electronics, and their reduced emission and consumption in some part is a result of what became possible with electronics.

also alot of safety stems from electronics in cars. very handy on Germany motorways I tell you.

Would not want to live without them.

 

[Alex_B]

"direct print" of Canon is the worst fad ever ... imposed onto the engineers by the marketing people ... but it probably works for a Japanese market only. I do not know a singple person who is not offended by having the "direct print" button on ther semi-pro SLR

 

[lostprophet]

Trust me Alex, there are many many many non Pro's out there with high end gear who want to print off shots without a PC. If it wasn't for all the people buying little dye-sub printers there would be no need for that button. But the fact is, a lot of people want a digital camera a printer but don't want a computer because they don't know how to use one.

People are happy printing off their phones with the awful lenses they have but for most people the quality is good enough.

I'd put money on the fact that more photos are taken with phones than with cameras these days.

And if the press get their way there will be no newspapers soon just websites with video and stills from that video. So that could start the slow death the pro dSLR market, as more and more companies turn to the web just how long will it be until a magazine is a thing of the past?
you can laugh at that but I remember people saying film will never die, well 4 years ago I could sell 30-50 rolls a day now I'm lucky if I sell 3 rolls a week so much for film not being dead, sure some film has made a reappearance but just look at how many have gone and how many Labs have closed due to no business

The simple fact remains, the industry needs these fads to pull the punters in while there are still a few of us left

 

[Alex_B]

sounds pretty sad ... but if the direct print button could save us from that fate ... I will be pleased every time I see it on my camera

 

[JIP]

O.k. I know I am going to hit a soft spot here but.... a big useless fad to me akin to APS is Olympus, Sony, Samsung and to a lesser extent Pentax etc. etc....... Making Dslr's. Right now digital photography is a big fad for people in general so the market is real hot but when things slow down a little I can see all of them (except mabye Pentax or Olympus) jumping ship real fast.

 

[Garbz]

Yeah very true Pentax and Olympus at least have a history. But what about sony. We can make a sensor carl zeiss makes the lens that means minimum investment on their behalf. That's a precarious place to be for a company. They need to make sensors anyway but since there is no real investment in their DSLRs you're very right nothing may stop them jumping ship when people start realising hey maybe getting such a large cube was a bad idea to take random snapshots of the family in disney land.

By Direct Print do you mean Pictbridge? I agree useless. And I don't know anyone who uses it, but plenty of people who have both cameras and printers that support it. The thing is you get no control, it's hard to use, gets mediocre results, and above all is far more expensive than dropping your memory card into rabbit photo, getting them to print photos en mass and coming back to collect them after the shopping is done. I only ever print at home if I need a single print or something in weird sizes that doesn't fit the standard 6x4 8x10 etc. This is actually the good one and can be lumped in with the other likes of sensor cleaning and all that. A good idea but it doesn't work.

Mind you if you set any camera into USB removable storage mode and take it into rabbit photo you can plug it straight in and providing you weren't shooting in raw print just like off a memory card. So where's the use for pictbridge again?

 

[nossie]

The Olympus E-1 camera debuted in Nov. 2003. and it has "super sonic sensor cleaning" I bought it used and they say it's 2 years old. There is only 1 tiny spec of dust on the sensor.

I've a 350D for 3 years that I use with 4 lenses & no built in sensor cleaning. I've never cleaned the sensor because I've never had to (touch wood!).

"direct print" of Canon is the worst fad ever

By Direct Print do you mean Pictbridge? I agree useless.

Not everyone is taking glamour shots. I've seen direct printing used for dozens of shots as part of an everyday process for continuity shots in movie making, where portability and battery powered gear is primary concern.

 

[Garbz]

Yeah but were they using canon or nikon prosumer slrs along with cheap canon pixma printers, or dedicated stuff?

This is similar to the discussion the other week on GPS in the new sony camera. Yes some people may have a use for it or even NEED it. But these are usually not the people buying it. I think it's the consumers who won't use it and who probably won't know what it even is who will be paying for this extra feature marketed as an upcoming fad.

Admittedly though pictbridge is less of an issue really because there's no cost involved. It's just software, compared to sensor cleaning, gps, etc which requires support hardware thus adding to the expense of the camera.

 

[lostprophet]

Yeah but were they using canon or nikon prosumer slrs along with cheap canon pixma printers, or dedicated stuff?

This is similar to the discussion the other week on GPS in the new sony camera. Yes some people may have a use for it or even NEED it. But these are usually not the people buying it. I think it's the consumers who won't use it and who probably won't know what it even is who will be paying for this extra feature marketed as an upcoming fad.

Admittedly though pictbridge is less of an issue really because there's no cost involved. It's just software, compared to sensor cleaning, gps, etc which requires support hardware thus adding to the expense of the camera.

sorry but what expense?

I remember when 2megapixel dSLR cost £11,000.00 now today you can spend less than £800.00 and get 10megapixels with 6.5 frames per second, built in sensor cleaning and a massive 3inch LCD on the back. Now thats progress!

Cameras are getting cheaper and cheaper, believe me it won't be long before there is a sub £1000 full frame dSLR is on the market

 

[Garbz]

I'm not talking expense in a time derivative sense. I'm talking now. Right now. If I got to the shop today (err tomorrow it's 10:32pm now) and pick up a EOS400D my immediate thought would be here's $50 worth of dust removal backed by 10000s of dollars of R&D for something that doesn't work to improve my picture, and serves only to sell hype.

That's the expense and value I'm talking about. The technology would have to pass some considerable expense onto the consumer. Especially something like this.

 

[RacePhoto]

A UV filter for digital cameras as apposed to film cameras......... $20 extra........ I wanted to hit the guy at Ritz.

BINGO!

I said, whats the difference. He said, it's thinner. I said, I'll take the standard one, I don't think the physics of optics changed with the advent of digital photography.

Either that, or we should have had the "digital" UV filters 40 years ago?

I do want the GPS attachment for my new 1D Mark III so I know where I was when I took the photo. (OK maybe this is a stupid idea, but I'd buy one just for the toy value?) :er: I'm sure there's some real use for this, but not for 99% of us.

Cool, I can send photos right from the camera to a computer. Problem is I'm usually out in the country, there's no wireless network within miles. I could always set up a router in the tent, and send them to myself?

 

[usayit]

For really wide lenses, the thinner UV filter would be necessary. This is especially true with the ultra-wide lenses designed specifically for smaller cropped lenses.

 

[fido dog]

Mine has bell bottoms and a mullet. :mrgreen:

 

[Garbz]

For really wide lenses, the thinner UV filter would be necessary. This is especially true with the ultra-wide lenses designed specifically for smaller cropped lenses.

Do you really think a standard midrange Hoya HMC would not work with this? Actually a digital would only be worse seeing how thinner glass more likely to crack and let whatever sharp object it hit tap the front element.