The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

The end of tolerances reached ?

Stefan Steib

Active member
this really reminds me to something else on Photography tools:

where has the design idea gone to ? Wasn´t it supposed to be cool to have tools that represent a photographers will to show his customers that he was not "just a guy with some camera" ? Where is the "appleness", the "BraunStyle" in todays photography products ? Something like Italian design , modern industrial studies as many, many are made by young talented designers with fresh ideas ? Something like the Carbon Infinity or here as another example this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X813eTuZJkc&feature=player_embedded

http://www.yikebike.com/home

again: I only see this in Japanese Prototypes, but even the Japanese don´t bring this to the market - so again -are we photographers conservatives ?
Aren´t we supposed to be creative people looking for new ideas and looks ? Why should our tools look so boring ?

Regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de
 

fotografz

Well-known member
To the main point -- I think the next major step for *MF* manufacturers will be developing a system that does not rely on any form of mechanical shutter. In this way, even if a mirror is still desired, we can get truly vibrationless mirror-up captures. Moreover, I think the need to eliminate vibrations was certainly evident with the move from 9u to 6.8u backs, was even more so with 6u backs, and now with 5.2u backs has become essential.

There are limits imposed by physics that we are approaching. The best tech lenses are very nearly diffraction limited at optimal apertures already. The 6u sensors to a certain degree and the 5.2u sensors to a greater degree already diffract off-axis light. Tolerances in bodies are now down to a point where thermal expansion is a real issue -- I have seen my infinity change by a few decimal points on my Arca helical between cold mornings and hot afternoons. Aluminum is notably bad here with a high thermal coefficient, so the next body may need to be machined out of something like tungsten. Of course tungsten is extremely heavy, so perhaps having alignment pillars of tungsten or even diamond (very low thermal coefficient) in the assembly will be needed.

But in the end, the reality is that precision is not and has never been a determinant of separating "good art" from "bad art," nor in my opinion should it ever be. I believe it falls to the artist to know and understand their tools so as to extract the most from them -- but only so far as it aids them in manifesting their vision into their final art product...

My humble .02,
:thumbs:

-Marc
 

fotografz

Well-known member
this really reminds me to something else on Photography tools:

where has the design idea gone to ? Wasn´t it supposed to be cool to have tools that represent a photographers will to show his customers that he was not "just a guy with some camera" ? Where is the "appleness", the "BraunStyle" in todays photography products ? Something like Italian design , modern industrial studies as many, many are made by young talented designers with fresh ideas ? Something like the Carbon Infinity or here as another example this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X813eTuZJkc&feature=player_embedded

http://www.yikebike.com/home

again: I only see this in Japanese Prototypes, but even the Japanese don´t bring this to the market - so again -are we photographers conservatives ?
Aren´t we supposed to be creative people looking for new ideas and looks ? Why should our tools look so boring ?

Regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de
Personally, I don't want to be noticed because of my photographic tools. What I want are tools that do my bidding and work every time I pick them up.

However, if they are also pleasing to the eye, that is a bonus ... just as long as the design doesn't get in the way of purpose. If something functions really well, I often find it grows on you and you come to think of it as "beautiful".

BTW, I think my Leica S2P is quite beautiful ... on its own, and because it does my bidding and helps me bring ideas to life.

As to the bike in the video. No thanks ... a tad bit clownish looking for me.


RE: CMOS sensors in MFD ... I'd have to see it before I believed it. High end/high meg 35mm DSLRs with CMOS sensors is one reason I remain in the MFD with CCD camp. I do NOT like the look produced by any of these CMOS cameras as they are now. I do understand why tech camera and landscape shooters would want CMOS ... for all the do-dads that could be added. Most of which I have absolutely no need for ... and rarely use them even on the cameras I own that do have all those features.

My wish list is more oriented toward the reality of day-to-day shooting and less to fantasy and additional add-ons that not only cost more, but make the tool more prone to failure.

I'm with Jack ... get rid of the shutter, stabilize the platform for critical work ... plus, improve the AF on all MFD cameras (my H4D is a good start) ... and spend more of the MFD R&D cash on quality control to even out the reliability of cameras and lenses we buy instead of making us be the last step in quality control for all of this gear. Limit or eliminate sample variation.

-Marc
 

Mike M

New member
Our camera is something for bringing back fun to highend Photography, using Canon lenses and allowing superwideangles with maximum resolution.
Why does a photographer (me ) have to build this ? where is the industry in this game ? Couldn´t they have seen what happens and with much more resources do this even better ?
Come on there must be more thoughts from more people!
1) Mechanical processes are specialist.
2) Electrical (digital) processes are de-centralizing.


The digital era moves at electric speed which means that processes become non-linear, simultaneous and (most importantly) lack specialty. Lack of specialization blurs the lines between roles that previously had been clearly defined in the mechanical era. "Convergence" is the buzz-word photographers use to describe the de-specialization process that happens with a switch to digital media. There can be no specialization in a purely digital medium. Unique identities are only created through the highly defined roles of the mechanized process. Digital tribalizes as it democratizes. The access and opportunity created by it do not come without the cost of individual identity.

Corporate identities are also known as "brands." Industry giants like Canon and Nikon were built during the era of mechanical photography. They are highly centralized and were, at one time, really good at creating products that filled specialist roles. These specialist roles are what helped to define their brands. But everything that worked in their favor in the past now works against them. The centralization that was necessary for the mechanical business market is too big and slow to respond to the speed of the digital market and the digital products that they are now forced to make are increasingly non-specialist and difficult to brand.

The de-centralization favored by the digital business market opens up all kinds of opportunities for small groups and single individuals to fill the role of bringing customers new products. But purely digital products are increasingly non-specialist and difficult to brand in any meaningful way. The best products to customize are still derived from the roles of the mechanical and this is where companies like Alpa enter into the mix. It's possible that this is what Stephan might be referring to in his previous posts as a "hybrid."

There is no need to question why people, like Stephan, now find themselves in a unique position. A purely digital environment does not allow for the specialization of roles required to create individual identities, but it does make access of opportunity possible through it's process of de-centralization. Meanwhile, purely mechanical environments are too centralized to allow access for single individuals/small groups to compete and innovate quickly, but they do allow the specialization of roles necessary for the creation of unique identities. The "hybrid" is a perfect balance between the democratic access of digital combined with the specialized individuality of the mechanical. It is not something to lament, but is quite simply harmony, and the future of realized art!
 
Last edited:

PeterA

Well-known member
1) Mechanical processes are specialist.
2) Electrical (digital) processes are de-centralizing.


The digital era moves at electric speed which means that processes become non-linear, simultaneous and (most importantly) lack specialty. Lack of specialization blurs the lines between roles that previously had been clearly defined in the mechanical era. "Convergence" is the buzz-word photographers use to describe the de-specialization process that happens with a switch to digital media. There can be no specialization in a purely digital medium. Unique identities are only created through the highly defined roles of the mechanized process. Digital tribalizes as it democratizes. The access and opportunity created by it do not come without the cost of individual identity.

Individual corporate identities are also known as "brands." Industry giants like Canon and Nikon were built during the era of mechanical photography. They are highly centralized and were, at one time, really good at creating products that filled specialist roles. These specialist roles are what helped to define their individual corporate identities as brands. But everything that worked in their favor in the past now works against them. The centralization that was necessary for the mechanical business market is too big and slow to respond to the speed of the digital market and the digital products that they are now forced to make are increasingly becoming non-specialist and difficult to brand.

The de-centralization process of the digital business market opens up all kinds of opportunities for small groups and single individuals to fill the role of bringing customers new products. But purely digital products are increasingly non-specialist which makes it difficult to brand them in any meaningful way. The best products to customize and brand are still derived from mechanical roles and this is where companies like Alpa enter into the mix. In a seemingly ironic twist of fate, the democratization of the digital market favors small business models while at the same time requires the individualization of the mechanical for branding. This is what Stephan might be referring to in his previous posts as a "hybrid."

There is no need to question why people, like Stephan, now find themselves in a unique position. A purely digital environment does not allow for the specialization of roles required to create unique individual identities, but it does make access of opportunity possible through it's process of de-centralization. Meanwhile, purely mechanical environments are too centralized to allow access for single individuals and small groups to compete and innovate quickly, but they do allow the specialization of roles necessary for the creation of individual and unique identities. The "hybrid" is a perfect balance between the democratization of digital combined with the individuality of the mechanical. It is not something to lament, but is quite simply harmony, and the future of realized art!
Mike a lucid and accurate account of the future of design and practise across many many industries..my only disagreement is with the last phrase - because the evolving paradigm is found across all industrial and (now) post industrial economic models..

for example the dis-economies of scale are now impacting on funds management and financial services...and what is re introducing efficiency are small scale ultra sophisticated and ultra intelligent agents who for the most part don't need and in fact eschew the large business model as a dinosaur..

the technologies I have now brought in house due to to sophisticated (and now off the shelf) software and cheap hardware - makes even clients redundant in my industry..

which is the next phase of my organisational development....
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
wow compliments - Mike this reads like an extension of Walter Benjamin´s
"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

may I ask what is your profession ? Are you into teaching on a University or similar ? Very, very interesting approach and to me very systematical, have to think about this for a while.......;-)

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

 

Mike M

New member
Mike a lucid and accurate account of the future of design and practise across many many industries..my only disagreement is with the last phrase - because the evolving paradigm is found across all industrial and (now) post industrial economic models..

for example the dis-economies of scale are now impacting on funds management and financial services...and what is re introducing efficiency are small scale ultra sophisticated and ultra intelligent agents who for the most part don't need and in fact eschew the large business model as a dinosaur..

the technologies I have now brought in house due to to sophisticated (and now off the shelf) software and cheap hardware - makes even clients redundant in my industry..

which is the next phase of my organisational development....
Thanks Peter - You are describing precisely the power of de-centralizing digital (electrical) processes as they demolish specialist roles. In a mechanized economy, information functions as both a product and a commodity to be traded. Professional occupations are formed to access, interpret and disseminate knowledge. But these types of jobs are only necessary in a specialized economy. Knowledge cannot be centralized in a digital environment which means that information can no longer be packaged as a product. Professions that rely solely on trading knowledge as a commodity begin to evaporate. Certifications and credentials become meaningless. Production, consumption, information and advertising become indistinguishable from one another as de-centralization takes place.

Commercial photography, like many other professions in a digital economy, should eventually disappear since it's dedicated role is only valuable as part of a sequence involving cooperation with many other fragmented specialists (graphic designers, art directors etc.) Convergence blurs the photographer's identity by forcing him to act as a re-toucher, videographer and designer all at the same time. Clients become "redundant" and cease to exist. Many photographers are already self-financing their own projects in what is being referred to as content production. The photographer turned content producer actually becomes his own client and takes the final step towards total convergence between production and consumption.
 

Mike M

New member
wow compliments - Mike this reads like an extension of Walter Benjamin´s
"The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction"

may I ask what is your profession ? Are you into teaching on a University or similar ? Very, very interesting approach and to me very systematical, have to think about this for a while.......;-)

Greetings from Munich
Stefan

Thanks Stefan...BTW - I'm sorry about spelling your name wrong in my previous post. Yes, I'm definitely familiar with "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production." My understanding is that Walter Benjamin was associated with Marxist critical theory which was designed to organize roles within mechanization. But he couldn't foresee the destruction of those roles that would come with the digital era. I still find much of what he had to say about photography and it's relationship to other mediums (medium specificity) to be very valuable. My personal story is just that of a regular ole photographer nerd that got into content production back in 1998....so I've had over a decade to think about what digital has done to photography....and honestly...I'm only now starting to make sense of it all lol
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Mike - Thanks for that last one

>>>The photographer turned content producer actually becomes his own client and takes the final step towards total convergence between production and consumption.>>>

This is exactly what I´m doing now. And actually if you ask me when did I feel better than today- I´d say never before! I control the content that I want to photograph. I design my own website, I do my own flyers and CI.I had learned this for customers and now it falls into place for what I do for myself and our company now.
My main tool is the internet, I work internationally, my clients come from all over the planet. This is definitely a complete change of what I did before as a Studio Photographer working for large corporate customers and Advertising agencies.

BTW I also have some theory to share.
There is the definiton of systemic noise. It says roughly that a compensation of a fault cannot be done with another faulty (imperfect) value. Instead it will add up and multiply the fault - thus systemic noise.
Now trying to reach perfection on mechanical tolerances is impossible.
The system is by itself faulty (see also Rogers article) so the idea of getting better and better tolerances to eliminate the variation is by itself contraproductive. Instead the best way to eliminate noise is to simplify the system and reduce available tolerance causing steps or complications.
In case of the camera this means reduce it to the bare minimum and expect the outputof a focus calibration to be faulty anyway. But if you can directly control the fault (CMOS with electronic viewfinder and onchip autofocus and visual control) the flaws become meaningless.

Regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de
 

David K

Workshop Member
Don't often find myself scratching my head and asking... what the hell are these guys talking about. But this is one of those times :) I do follow Peter's comments but mostly because he's shared some of this with me offline. I would like to understand better the point you fellows are making...if anyone cares to explain it more simply. Maybe an example or two???
 

Wayne Fox

Workshop Member
Don't often find myself scratching my head and asking... what the hell are these guys talking about.
I'm sort of with you. These speculations about getting to the end of things always interest me, (I remember many thought the 1DsMark 2 would be the end ), but I always remind myself throughout history technology very often finds a way to go one better.

Too many megapixels for current lenses? Lenses that can't be any sharper? Are you sure? What about sensor technology that goes far beyond what we have today .... how about noise free up to 128,000 ISO? Possible? Probably.

What about lenses made of more exotic elements that are much sharper than lenses today. Possible? Probably.

What about a lens that doesn't even use glass? Instead it uses the electromagnetic property of light to record the image? Possible? I have no clue, but I wouldn't rule it out - a friend of mine attended a seminar a few years ago, and this concept was presented there.

Even with where we are today, what about a sensor that had 240mp, and each 4 sensels worked to record a single pixel of the image. Much like sensor plus, but even better where you have an red, green blue and luminosity sensel for each pixel. No bayer algorithm, just each pixel a pure number. Even with current lenses you might see substantial improvement.

Of course, you can't disregard computational imaging, Maybe depth of field is something determined after the exposure because everything is sharp (probably possible with a non-optical lens).

I don't know where it's all going, and I'm decently happy where it is now. Personally I'd like to see what others have discussed ... I would love to use a tech camera that interfaces to my back (what's wrong with a data entry screen so tech camera data could be imbedded in the files metadata, lens, shift, etc. Should be a piece of cake for Phase to do that). But I'm done with the tech camera route until I can get very functional live view, and dependable quality without resorting to extreme data manipulation with LCC's. Give me a terrific Live View that I can focus with as easily as my 5D Mark 2 and I'm probably back, but I have decided I miss way to many opportunities because of the slowness of working with a tech camera, and the slight improvement in quality just doesn't make up for the compositions I'm missing. (This is regrettable, because my tech camera kit is substantially lighter than my DF kit, and it will get heavier as I move to more and more schneider primes).

It's always fun to try and predict the future ... one reason I love reading Ctein's column over on The Online Photographer. He's had some great articles about what might be coming in the future, based on current technologies being researched today.
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Like these discussions!

More MP are bad? Don't think so!

There is a limit in MP? We are far away from this with today's pixel sizes.

Lenses have their diffraction limit? Hmm - sure, but it is not all just black and white, there is a certain range which is still perfectly useable.

I am sure that the next generation of FF DSLRs will get in the 30-40MP range! Could anyone imagine that 2 years ago?

There will be more digital sensor concepts without AA filter. What is the the quality difference to today's MFDBs - it melts away!

I think we should be pretty open to technical changes and breakthroughs which will happen. Which only can be good for all of us, as better quality equipment will become much cheaper for all of us!

Exciting times ....
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Wayne
if I repeat the focus of what others and myself said through this thread -

we know that there must be an actual change of the momentary (MF Tech)camera concept, the lenses do come to a limit, the chips with microlenses do cause color cast combined with these (real focal lenght) wideangles, the CCD´s still lack real highspeed and Live View, further a CCD still needs a shutter which is prone to causing vibrations, the mechanical tolerances will run into a limitation at a certain chipsize /Pixel pitch making classical exact focusing nearly impossible.

All the technology you are talking about is needed to be implemented - more likely sooner than later. The theory that Mike and Peter (and me) were also discussing is about changing the sociological context of the business model as of how a photographer is using this technology in his work - coming to the limits of the traditional business model and also needing to change the attempt to use his skills professionally.

That´s about it in some words. (very short version ! ;-)

regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de
 
Last edited:

jotloob

Subscriber Member
Like these discussions!

More MP are bad? Don't think so!

There is a limit in MP? We are far away from this with today's pixel sizes.

Lenses have their diffraction limit? Hmm - sure, but it is not all just black and white, there is a certain range which is still perfectly useable.

I am sure that the next generation of FF DSLRs will get in the 30-40MP range! Could anyone imagine that 2 years ago?

There will be more digital sensor concepts without AA filter. What is the the quality difference to today's MFDBs - it melts away!

I think we should be pretty open to technical changes and breakthroughs which will happen. Which only can be good for all of us, as better quality equipment will become much cheaper for all of us!

Exciting times ....
Peter and Stephan

I do like these discussions and "future ideas" and follow this thread very careful .
But again , I come to a point , where I ask myself and you , do we need techiques which produce images with such a precision but we can not print them and then , the human eye can not even see the precision and details ?
Would the realisation of all these ideas not be far beyond what we are willing to pay for and what we need ?
 

Stefan Steib

Active member
Jürgen

you are right the precision and shere image size is not the primary focus for this !
Instead all of these improvements will also (and mainly!) improve usability, speed and believe it or not - will bring the price of these systems DOWN !!!

It is to be questioned if a classical 35mm can fullfill all needed Pro tasks - and I say NO.There needs to be some sort of highend modular system with adaptations for the various tasks. I just doubt it should have a shutter, a CCD and NON-retrofocus lenses.
The actual peripherals are connected by cables - I also think this is outdated.
The batteries need to be standardized, there needs to be a highspeed WLan implemented. then the storage (and the viewing part) does not need to be part of the camera body. Instead iPads or iPhone kind of devices with modular extensible software could be used.
On choice the images could also go directly to your server or your local desktop machine - or in case of outhouse jobs directly to the cloud/customers server.

This is all possible, the technology exists , it just needs to be implemented.

regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Peter and Stephan

I do like these discussions and "future ideas" and follow this thread very careful .
But again , I come to a point , where I ask myself and you , do we need techiques which produce images with such a precision but we can not print them and then , the human eye can not even see the precision and details ?
Would the realisation of all these ideas not be far beyond what we are willing to pay for and what we need ?
I agree to a certain extent, but I would argue we are not there yet. I would argue if FF DSLR can deliver high quality 40MP (around 40MP) then we are there. Most people do not need more than 12MP, some want 24-30MP, but actually if you get 40MP which are really useable, then at least I am there!

So maybe with the next incarnation of FF DSLRs we have reached this point. Not sure if evolution will stop then, but at least I would then have what I am looking for. A FF DSLR with some selected lenses which can come up to the demands of the high resolution sensor. And ISO from 100 - 25400 or so. Would not need more!

There will always be the argument for MFD and that you still can produce more resolution and higher quality, but for what price? High priced gear, much more weight and much more restrictions WRT lenses and accessories. Not where at least I want to be finally!

And then the real hard core solution pairing the 80MP or 160MP backs with tech cameras. Hmm .... sure there are demands for this but what is the percentage even for high demanding pros or amateurs? Finally many of the tech camera users will again start stitching - so you can even do this with smaller sensor sizes, just need more stitches.

Well I do know and am aware of all the arguments and facts why MF is superior and I also do think that MFD will never go away, but I guess the gap to high end DSLRs is going to shrink more and more. And then the final question to be answered individually is: "Do I need that slight advantage and will I pay tons of money for that?" I think the answer will more and more be:"NO".

At least IMHO - please do not kill me :D
 

ptomsu

Workshop Member
Jürgen

you are right the precision and shere image size is not the primary focus for this !
Instead all of these improvements will also (and mainly!) improve usability, speed and believe it or not - will bring the price of these systems DOWN !!!

It is to be questioned if a classical 35mm can fullfill all needed Pro tasks - and I say NO.There needs to be some sort of highend modular system with adaptations for the various tasks. I just doubt it should have a shutter, a CCD and NON-retrofocus lenses.
The actual peripherals are connected by cables - I also think this is outdated.
The batteries need to be standardized, there needs to be a highspeed WLan implemented. then the storage (and the viewing part) does not need to be part of the camera body. Instead iPads or iPhone kind of devices with modular extensible software could be used.
On choice the images could also go directly to your server or your local desktop machine - or in case of outhouse jobs directly to the cloud/customers server.

This is all possible, the technology exists , it just needs to be implemented.

regards

Stefan Steib HCam.de
Stefan,

while all these requirements are existing and are somehow already implemented and will become better implemented in the future ...... well ..... I must say that this is at least no longer why I would feel photography being any more fun! Maybe needed for pro's, but would argue then these are POOR PRO's, if they have to live with such an environment!
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Peter and Stephan

I do like these discussions and "future ideas" and follow this thread very careful .
But again , I come to a point , where I ask myself and you , do we need techiques which produce images with such a precision but we can not print them and then , the human eye can not even see the precision and details ?
Would the realisation of all these ideas not be far beyond what we are willing to pay for and what we need ?
No one seems to want to address this question Jurgen. Not unexpected as we live in a technocratic society with an insatiable appetite for new distractions whether actually useable or truly practical.

Huge leaps forward in capture technology that can be applied in less and less instances. So specialized that they get used as an initial novelty and are forgotten by 99% of the users ... except when the Visa bill comes to pay for it. Tools for the few that the masses of serious enthusiasts feel compelled to also have, but can never fully realize because the features "exceed the need".

Even mechanical/film technology had its flights of impractical fancy 50 years ago, which we never saw realized in practical photography ... military cameras/lenses/film so capable that images captured from 30,000 feet up could finely render small objects the eye could never see without a telescope or a microscope. So, imagine what is actually possible now.

It may be that the "end of tolerances" has no end ... but the actual consumption of what is produced does. Until Leica, Schneider, Rodenstock start making "replacement eyes" for our heads, and whole new ways of processing, printing and/or viewing become ubiquitous, tolerances will be dictated by that link in the image chain.

This thread is about innovation ... and IMO, more/better innovation belongs in the photographer's head, more than it does in his or her tools ... at least as the available tools now are ... which far outstrip the ability to use them ... or even pay for them ... by a vast majority of users.

It seems to me that innovation today is now defined as being "more of the same" ... in both the end work and the tools. More meg. more ISO, more automation, etc..

Perhaps the innovation we actually need has yet been even touched upon? Where are the replacements for inkjets? Where are new viewing technologies? While software innovation has been amazing ... it is a stepchild compared to what is pumped into capture technology ... and no matter the howls of protest from the C1 or LR faithful, most post programs are clunky and tiresome, eating up more time than any shooter spends actually shooting. Who here couldn't suggest massive innovations they'd like to see in the ability, interface and tools of final production? If I could build a hybrid of all the propritary post programs I've used, I take something from everyone of them and still want/need more and better.

-Marc
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Honestly from a Pro view we are hitting a point of no return. Sure the innovation is nice and it does serve a purpose in our work but some of it already gets to hinder us and rely on the tech and not the brain or innovation from the photographer itself. Sometimes this stuff just gets in the way of work and also how many times can we keep pushing the envelope with the technology and actually get a return on our investment when the world of still photographer is changing. You can innovate all you want but I'm still suffering like many Pros from some bozo undercutting the market and clients are concerned only of price. None of this will get us better work per say. Frankly I am so done now with my IQ 160 I could care less what back is next. I hit the end of the line with this back, has all the technology I was looking for. Yes taken many tears of innovation to get here but at some point sorry gear heads but you have to say stop. I'm at the end here, sure new bodies and lenses will always be a benefit and we need the innovation don't get me wrong. But as a business person or even a hobbyist will always compromise on gear. That my friends will never end but you have to have a end of the line mentality too.

So from my seat where do I stop where do I reinvest for my family and my retirement. We simply can't be buying new toys on a continually basis as history dicates with digital it is a slow process with very few major leaps in it. reinvesting 30 k every 2 years on upgrades is not making our retirement funds any better for the small increases in tech. The gaps have to stretch and the innovations have to be huge. Guess what OEM can't survive like that. They need to continual sell product and some will stretch that tech out over years to keep selling gear than giving us everything at once. For us we have to find our happy spot with the tech and work and shoot. I'm there with my back so in this case Phase is not getting another nickel out of me for a future back unless it would turn my world around. But a new body I'm all over it. But the point is here I stopped on the back . I'm done no more let's get Guy to upgrade again. I found my happy spot.
So now what do they do, they have to spread out the line make improvements where there customers will actually spend money in other areas. So in effect this will take time throw us a couple bones along the way to help us spend but at some point us consumers have to say, thanks I'm fine.

Innovation is awesome but worthless if no one is buying. With a down economy and our world changing as photographers there has to be a stop point for us as responsible buyers. The hobbyists truly rule the world here as Pros it is a shrinking market as we see more and more doors closing on the Pros. Sorry folks these are not fun times and we need to survive it and innovation alone with technology is only a very small part of it. Especially when clients will accept iPhone images.
 
Top