Obviously you did, Otherwise you would not be using analogies to argue a point that is in fact the base of my complaint. You are right the two classes of cameras are for two different needs. So why is it that camera manufacturers are pushing P&S cameras to a range both optically and controlability that only an SLR should be able to satisfy wile at the same time dumbing down SLR's and making them idiot proof?
If you sit back and think about it, Compact point and shoot cameras have been a prooving ground and refining aria for new technology that once proven in functionality and practicality is worked into the upperclass SLR for years now. Is it really that hard to fathom that it's entirely possible that these monsterous yet compact lenses on the Superzoom P-shooters is a trial in fixed lens technology that once reach a certain level of range and optical preformance be applied to the SLR. If you take into account the idiot proofing of SLR's and making them as easy to use as a standard P&S by default, I can see only one conclution. A fixed lens, full frame dSLR with the option of full manual control for the professional market and maybe a couple fixed lens, crop frame dSLRs with the option of full manual control for the hobbiest/amature market.
You need to go back and do a little research on cameras and improvements. Infact a good study of the history of invention, manufacturing would be good. That is were your whole thought process breaks down, you have it backwards. Improvements are a trickle down effect, not trickle up.
I will ask once again, since you never seem to address this, what point and shoot comes close to a 1D MIII, 1Ds MIII, D3, etc. in function? NONE.
30 years ago only luxury cars had radios as OEM equipment. They had to be ordered with non luxury cars. Now you can't find a car on the lot without a radio. They upgraded the standards for the non luxury vehicle when things got cheap enough to do so. Find a car without electric windows and door locks. Same thing there.
Did you think that P&S cameras were always going to be 6 meg cameras with only basic functions. As technology advances in the DSLR's and the cost comes down to produce that technology they will add it to the lower end DSLR and then to the P&S. Thats the way of the world in all areas of manufacturing. Enginerring anything is a costly, time consuming process. Manufactures don't look at improvements and say lets see what we can do for the low profit item and then re-enginere it for the high end. They design for the best and then when production is up and running and costs come down then they look at how they can change it and fit it into the lesser product at a decent cost.
As for a proving ground, what has been created, and proven on a P&S that was moved over to the DSLR. Lack of shutter lag? Truely highquality fast glass? FPS? High ISO noise reduction? The only thing that has come over are the "this would be cool" sell me gimics like Live view and now video.
And before you go into how great these are stop and think. Other than for closeup/macro work on a tripod how many people do you really see shooting a DSLR at arms length using live view full time. Exactly. Same thing with video. If someone is serious about video capabilities they buy a video camera. All your going to get from a DSLR video is some youtube quality stuff of some guy pucking in his buddies car or falling off his skateboard onto his face.
P&S cameras will continue to improve, but then so will DSLR's. The high priced technology feeds the DSLR market and trickles down to the lower end DSLR's and then the P&S.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42470-d80cbcbbacb42bbe46ac0a0f6fcb20e0.jpg?1734177001)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/41/41821-2e92de82ffc4cd2d520a8fa10fb8b6a5.jpg?1734176138)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42474-aa3cf1f7163a823d6f10558b262a4bc3.jpg?1734177002)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/42/42473-acff07bd005ae1bb1af25d5d00d0c437.jpg?1734177002)
