Fads in camera gear a waste of value.

[Garbz]

I woke up this morning playing with my camera and it dawned on me that it has none of the "fads" that camera makers put into their equipment. Ok maybe it is a bit old, this trend of adding things that don't work too well or have limited appeal all in the name of slapping it onto a marketing slogan so that mum and dad will spend more money on something they don't really want or need is recent.

As far as I can remember I can't remember any real fads before about last year. The stuff I am talking about are things like Ultra Sonic sensor cleaning. Now the idea is good and it sounds wonderful on the brochure but so far every review I have read on a camera that includes such a technology said it borderline didn't work and when it did it only removed light dry dust which would have dislodged anyway if I stared at it long enough. I can also understand why. I've used ultrasonic cleaners before which actually did what they said on the box, except they were the size of an old CRT screen filled with fluid and had a HUGE oscillating powersupply. Yet nowadays you pretty much can't get a camera without some kind useless sensor cleaning technology.

The same goes for the more recent Live view. We have made it more than 100 years by looking through a viewfinder why does every camera now feature liveview, despite taking a performance hit when turning it on. Either it needs to disable to focus or it drops back to the low contrast based focusing of the point and shoot cameras and all for what? So that we can hold our heavy cameras in front of us looking like nobs with horrible handling so that the companies can sell us more VR lenses?

What worries me most is that these features cost money. I'd sooner have a camera with a better sensor or better autofocus drive than one which claims to clean itself or has features that I will never use, and if I did completely ruin the good form of holding a camera properly.

These are 2 recent examples both in the last 2 years. Were there any before this?

 

[Sideburns]

I don't like either of them to be honest. Live view is a crock. People should just learn to do it the right way...hold it to your face! lol.

They're trying to sell to the rich grandmas who "need" one of those "big cameras"

 

[JIP]

You want a fad?? you want the biggest hoax foisted on the american consumer?? I got three words for you bub


ADVANCED PHOTO SYSTEM!!!!!


What a joke!! at the early early dawn of the digital age a whole new system comes out tries to take over the market. They even produce some SLR's and what next............ It's gone yesterday's news man do I feel sorry for all thos people who bought APS SLR's from me when I worked at Ritz. They really had to know what was going to become of digital so instead of going full force into selling digital they slipped in a new system to get everyone hyped up about just to seel those cameras and then something new again digital.

 

[usayit]

Its all about marketing to the masses.... thats where there is a chunk of profit to be made. The same could be said about electronics and cars. (I personally like the light and nimble Bimmers of the 80s than todays bloats... the same goes for porsche etc...).

If you think about it for many years a camera, no matter what make/model, was simply a light tight box with a curtain/shutter. There wasn't much room for a company to set themselves apart from others. This makes for some stiff competition and manufacturers are constantly looking for the next big innovation that will change photography. Things like:

* Auto return mirror
* motorized rewind and advance
* Advanced metering (evaluative, aperture and shutter prior)
* zoom lenses
* TTL
* Auto focus
* Image Stabilization
* Digital

..were all probably received as fads at first before really being accepted as an innovation. Funny thing about innovation.. there has to be 100s of flops, fads, failures, dumb ideas, before one truly sticks out as an innovation.

There was a time that 35mm cameras were considered "toys" and not taken seriously. This was during a time which Medium format and large format ruled the professional market. It wasn't until war photography proved 35mm as a viable format for the on-the-go journalist.

Others that come time mind...

* built=in pop up flash
* smaller than 35mm format (IMO APS/cropped sensors too)
* eye control
* self cleaning sensors
* direct printing like bridge etc..
* "creative modes"
* pellicle mirror
* never-ready cases.

 

[JIP]

Another really bad one extreme focal length compact zoom lenses like something with a range of 28-200. The problem with this one is that this silly fad that fools people into plunking down $700+ for marginal at best quality lenses is not shwing any signs of receeding.

 

[DSLR noob]

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

 

[Iron Flatline]

A lot of these things are not fads, they're technological developments. Some become accepted, some wither away, and some become indispensable.

PictBridge printing... turns out to be superfluous for most people. Several years ago most people were just starting to learn about PCs, now they know a lot more, and printing has become easier.

Zoom, Auto-Focus... try and sell a camera without them. I have such cameras (manual focus prime lenses) but when they were started they were scoffed at and condescended on.

Sensor cleaning, LiveView... were not even possible until recently. They're not fads, they're going to become standard. LiveView may be too "Beginnerish" for some of you, but it happens to be extremely useful for Landscape, Architecture, or Macro photography.

 

[Steph]

These are 2 recent examples both in the last 2 years. Were there any before this?

I'd say eye contolled autofocus from Canon is an older example. They wanted us to believe that you couldn't do without this feature but it did not cath on and nowadays does not appear on any of their dSLR's.

 

[RyanLilly]

Inovations that fail seem to be considered fads, but some will advance and be considered standards. I can see sensor cleaning becoming much better in the future.

Then there are some fads that were ment to be nothing more than marketing.

Like uncle BOB has the coolest cam on the block with a 10x optical/600x digital zoom on a SLR like P&S even though he has no clue what any of that means, but damn is thos are'nt big numbers.

 

[jon_k]

The stuff I am talking about are things like Ultra Sonic sensor cleaning. Now the idea is good and it sounds wonderful on the brochure but so far every review I have read on a camera that includes such a technology said it borderline didn't work and when it did it only removed light dry dust which would have dislodged anyway if I stared at it long enough.

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. This was the first SLR system on the market to employ a technology like this. The same feature is on my E-500. I much prefer this feature than swabbing every couple of months! It's not a fad to me.

As for your point with liveview, I totally agree. My E-500 has no liveview.... the E-510 does. I've never needed liveview, and don't think I ever will. The only advantage to a liveview camera would be for infrared shooting. How about more dynamic range in the sensor or something in trade of liveview.

 

[TimboAA]

I have Liveview on my E-330, but it has the screen that pulls away from the camera body and can be tilted up or down. That is the only time I primarily use it. It makes aiming the camera in weird angles a little more convenient (ie. up high, or down low)

 

[abraxas]

I think live view would be an outstanding tool in composing and shooting landscapes.

Autofocus?- Wasn't that a fad a few years ago?

 

[Garbz]

Wooow looks like I've hit a sensitive spot here. Yes APS I remember that. They had a different film, but I don't think I've ever seen a camera that used it.

Just to clarify what usayit and JIP, when I am talking about a fad I mean useless things. Like the APS system which didn't perform better than the standard film, or the liveview which promotes poor camera handling, or a sensor cleaning technology which doesn't work. Things that are pure marketing.

No one can argue that automirror return, auto film winding, new metring methods, and autofocus save a whole lot of time and make the camera more userfriendly. Same with the extreme focal lenghs. 18-200 may sound like a fad for those of us who carry around a few lenses, but it's a god send for some who don't, and while they perform poorly they do fill a hole in the market.

Also Digital zoom. Another fad I think. I don't know anyone who actually uses it.

Sensor cleaning may improve in the future but what is the need. I have had my camera for over a year now I change lens constantly at the beach in the desert, and I live in australia, land of the dust, my room gets vacummed weekly sometimes more freqently yet I've never had a problem. I guess this may actually have an appeal for some though.

Composing landscapes? What happened to a large format ground glass

 

[lostprophet]

APS ahhhhh I remember it well, it saved the photographic trade!! I'm not kidding, things were so bad, the general public were not buying cameras, that the major players worked together to try and save the trade and they did. It wasn't the best system ever, far from it in my mind but it did save a lot of companies from going bust. All of a sudden people could load a film, again I'm not joking, there are thousands of people who couldn't load a 35mm film so APS to them meant they could again take photos.

Eye-Controlled focussing, hahahahahaha yeah that was one bad fad never bloody worked with my eyes

 

[usayit]

Actually Lostprophet.. I remember very clearly. .. it did help boost the market.

Those were good times for me but I remember that people were slowly loosing interest in photography and nothing was really "built" for quick/easy snapshooting. Then APS came along with sales boosted by the Canon Elph (the original). Small, compact (size of a box of cigarettes), easy to load, zoom, metal body, sexy design. Instant success! Canon sold a boat load of those Canon Elphs. I even shot with a Canon IX for a few times... wonderfully designed, looks good, compact, used Canon EF lenses, and decent build quality. The issues came when you start trying to enlarge the smallish negative.... but most snapshooters were printing 4x6 anyways.


Just to be sure... the first list on my first post were innovations (perhaps fads when first released) the second list are fads... at least in my opinion.