CES now a dead-end for cameras? Canon was right??!
RichA
showcase for lame, cookie-cutter P&S cameras only. A dwindling
market for a increasingly boring camera segment.
edi...@netpath.net
> Canon might have been right to avoid this show. Seems like it's a
> showcase for lame, cookie-cutter P&S cameras only. A dwindling
> market for a increasingly boring camera segment.
Compact point-and-shoot digicams are ALWAYS what the majority of the
public will buy for taking pictures of the grandkids or the fishing.
They'll still be used by those with dSLRs as the always-with-you
digicam.
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Willy Wonka
>In article
><2e86fc87-1978-4c4a...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>CES has never been much of a venue for seeing the latest and greatest
>digital cameras, other than the mass market appeal point and shoot
>models. For a good camera expo, you need to go to PhotoPlus in NYC,
>which is usually the end of October every year.
That's because DSLRs are rapidly going the way of the dinosaur and the
wet-plate 8X10 view cameras. I'll give DSLRs another 5 years before they
have found their dust-collecting place on everyone's shelves just like my
SLR gear and darkroom supplies did 10 years ago.
Robert Coe
: Canon might have been right to avoid this show. Seems like it's a
: showcase for lame, cookie-cutter P&S cameras only. A dwindling
: market for a increasingly boring camera segment.
But doesn't Canon make lame, cookie-cutter P&S cameras too?
Bob
Robert Coe
Maybe if one attends CES, he can meet the P&S Troll in person? ;^)
Bob
Ray Shafranski
news:2e86fc87-1978-4c4a...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
There's nothing wrong with P&S cameras.
Those cameras allow unskilled people to take reasonable photos.
The real idiots are those who say how great they are simply because they own
a DSLR - well they aren't.
Chris H
<nos...@noaddress.org> writes
You are wrong. CES is a CONSUMER electronics show. It is the natural
home for the P&S, the mobile phone, play stations and gadgets
As pointed out there are several Pro photo shows where you will see the
DSLR's not aimed at the mass consumer market.
BTW I think you will find that most of the P&S will die out in the next
5-10 years. They will be replaced by the camera-phone. I have children
(now in 20's and friends who have children 10-20 who ALL have camera
phones and use them to take pictures (for Facebook etc) and none of them
have a separate camera... well some have a P&S but they don't use them.
Older people do tend to have P&S cameras as they are often less
comfortable with technology... a phone is a phone and a camera is a
camera.
However with time (next 10 years?) I think most P&S users will use a
camera phone, just like David Bailey, and not a P&S camera. As the P&S
requires a high turn over I think the low end and many mid range P&S
will go as they are surpassed by the camera-phone.
High end P&S will remain for those who want something "a bit better" and
the camera enthusiast who wants something smaller and more portable
than their DSLR's.
So in 5 years I expect to very few P&S and no low end ones.
The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... I
still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> That's because DSLRs are rapidly going the way of the dinosaur and the
> wet-plate 8X10 view cameras. I'll give DSLRs another 5 years before they
> have found their dust-collecting place on everyone's shelves just like my
> SLR gear and darkroom supplies did 10 years ago.
How much money are you willing to put where your mouth is?
No cent?
Thought so.
-Wolfgang
John McWilliams
>
> The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... I
> still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera.
Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ?
While originally scoffing at cell phone cameras, I use mine several
times a week. It's especially useful for location shots in conjunction
with my old DSLRs: it captures the GPS info and embeds it in the metadata.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
When are you going to stop replying to the pest?
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
What's the antecedent for "they"?
Compact cameras allow skilled folk to take excellent photos.
DSLRs allow even more excellenter (sic) results when properly used.
--
John McWilliams
Robert Coe
: Chris H wrote:
:
: >
: > The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... I
: > still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera.
:
: Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ?
The U.S. Federal Government has numerous installations into which you're not
allowed to bring a camera. If your cell phone has a camera in it, you have to
leave it at the guard's desk. I had it happen to me once or twice while I was
a Government contractor.
Now I work for a city government that has none of that paranoia, and I bring
my camera to work whenever I feel like it. And I carry two camera-equipped
cell phones, one of them provided by my employer.
Bob
Gary Edstrom
wrote:
>What's the antecedent for "they"?
>Compact cameras allow skilled folk to take excellent photos.
>DSLRs allow even more excellenter (sic) results when properly used.
I agree completely!
If you are really serious about photography, why not have BOTH types of
cameras? I do. I carry my P&S EVERYWHERE. It doesn't stand out like a
sore thumb and takes outstanding pictures under daylight conditions. I
can go into places I would never be allowed in if I had a DSLR slung
over my shoulder.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Americana_at_Brand.jpg
This was opening day at the "Americana at Brand" here in Glendale. They
were allowing people to shoot with their P&S cameras. But if you had a
DSLR, you had to register at the press booth.
I break out my DSLR when I am planning some serious photography. But I
may STILL take some P&S pictures, even if I have my DSLR along. You
don't have to choose one camera or the other. Choose the camera that is
right for the job at hand!
Gary
Willy Wonka
>
>However with time (next 10 years?) I think most P&S users will use a
>camera phone, just like David Bailey, and not a P&S camera. As the P&S
>requires a high turn over I think the low end and many mid range P&S
>will go as they are surpassed by the camera-phone.
Will never happen. You can't put a 28mm-560mm wide-aperture ultra-zoom lens
on one while also providing a high-quality image.
For some people that require dependable, adaptable, compact, and
lightweight cameras that are not prone to all the myriad problems (dust,
mirror and sensor condensation, poor cold weather performance, cost,
weight, obnoxiously loud mirror-slap and image destroying jarring from that
mechanical action, no high-speed flash sync, etc. etc.) inherent in the
interchangeable-lens SLR design, a DSLR will never be able to provide what
they need and require. Cry all you want. There's a large portion of people
that find exceptional performance from super-zoom fixed-lens cameras that
aren't dependent on last-century's mechanical contraptions and poorly
implemented phase-contrast focusing errors. That's why super-zoom P&S
cameras sell as well as they do. Today and tomorrow. Even more-so tomorrow,
as people find out that images from these cameras are every bit as good if
not better than those coming from DSLRs these days. The very same way that
film buffs finally found out that digital cameras surpassed their cherished
film media. You don't see the newsgroups overrun with film vs. digital wars
today do you? Just as you won't see newsgroups overrun with P&S vs DSLR
wars in the very near future. The DSLR dinosaur is going the way of the
film dinosaur.
Your DSLR 8x10 view-camera's days are most definitely numbered.
Ray Fischer
>>However with time (next 10 years?) I think most P&S users will use a
>>camera phone, just like David Bailey, and not a P&S camera. As the P&S
>>requires a high turn over I think the low end and many mid range P&S
>>will go as they are surpassed by the camera-phone.
>
>Will never happen. You can't put a 28mm-560mm wide-aperture ultra-zoom lens
Go away, asshole troll. Nobody is impressed with your stupidity.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Chris H
<jp...@comcast.net> writes
>Chris H wrote:
>
>> The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a
>>camera.... I
>> still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera.
>
>Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ?
When visiting customers. Many do not permit cameras in their
establishments.
>While originally scoffing at cell phone cameras, I use mine several
>times a week. It's especially useful for location shots in conjunction
>with my old DSLRs: it captures the GPS info and embeds it in the
>metadata.
Exactly.... This is why the low end P&S are dying out. "Everyone"
carries a phone and 99% of them have a camera that is as good as the
basic P&S from 2 years a go.
Chris H
<b...@1776.COM> writes
>On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:35:38 -0800, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>: Chris H wrote:
>:
>: >
>: > The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... I
>: > still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera.
>:
>: Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ?
>
>The U.S. Federal Government has numerous installations into which you're not
>allowed to bring a camera. If your cell phone has a camera in it, you have to
>leave it at the guard's desk. I had it happen to me once or twice while I was
>a Government contractor.
Not just government departments. Many Defence companies, a lot of the
automotive companies (the R&D parts) a lot of the test houses, there are
many places where you can not take a camera.
>Now I work for a city government that has none of that paranoia,
It's not paranoia just security. It is not required everywhere. In fact
the majority of places don't mind at all
>and I bring
>my camera to work whenever I feel like it. And I carry two camera-equipped
>cell phones, one of them provided by my employer.
I always carry a camera too... except when visiting some customers.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
? "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> ?????? ??? ??????
news:0s$LtSDiB...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
several power stations, etc. I always asked *before* if photographing is
allowed, which usually was. Exept a hydro station, which was underground,
done with NATO money, etc. Then I left my Nikon FM-2 in the coach. After the
visit, I took one and only photo of my fellow students, in front of some
trees. The reason photos were not allowed, was that that p.s. had diesel
generators, that had enough power to open the valves (each the size of the
car) so the alternators could be sped up and synchronized to the 150 kV
grid, in case of the blackout. Then they could slowaly restart the larger,
brown-coal units (300 MW, 400 kV). It was 3 * 125 MW units, stator voltage
15 kV.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
John McWilliams
> In message <124kk556e9b5fqgnm...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
> <b...@1776.COM> writes
>> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 07:35:38 -0800, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> : Chris H wrote:
>> :
>> : >
>> : > The problem is these days getting a mobile phone without a camera.... I
>> : > still have a Nokia 6210 when I have to use a phone with no camera.
>> :
>> : Under what circumstances do you have to use a phone sans camera ?
>>
>> The U.S. Federal Government has numerous installations into which you're not
>> allowed to bring a camera. If your cell phone has a camera in it, you have to
>> leave it at the guard's desk. I had it happen to me once or twice while I was
>> a Government contractor.
>
> Not just government departments. Many Defence companies, a lot of the
> automotive companies (the R&D parts) a lot of the test houses, there are
> many places where you can not take a camera.
>
>> Now I work for a city government that has none of that paranoia,
>
> It's not paranoia just security. It is not required everywhere. In fact
> the majority of places don't mind at all
>
>> and I bring
>> my camera to work whenever I feel like it. And I carry two camera-equipped
>> cell phones, one of them provided by my employer.
>
> I always carry a camera too... except when visiting some customers.
Of course it makes sense now.... I just haven't visited any place
recently - since I've had such a phone- that disallows cell phone
cameras....
Thanks.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
Rich
news:76elk59vs63nu3qtb...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 11:19:27 +0000, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>However with time (next 10 years?) I think most P&S users will use a
>>camera phone, just like David Bailey, and not a P&S camera. As the P&S
>>requires a high turn over I think the low end and many mid range P&S
>>will go as they are surpassed by the camera-phone.
>
> Will never happen. You can't put a 28mm-560mm wide-aperture ultra-zoom
> lens on one while also providing a high-quality image.
>
No, but we could make sensors the size of sand grains and have the
equivalent of 10-20000mm lenses in a pocket sized camera. Is that what you
want?
Paul Ciszek
In article <cq2dnUw7cpYNNdbW...@giganews.com>,
Rich <no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>No, but we could make sensors the size of sand grains and have the
>equivalent of 10-20000mm lenses in a pocket sized camera. Is that what you
>want?
1) Diffraction
2) Light gathering--If your typical exposure is not at least several
photons per pixel, Poisson noise will kill the picture.
Now, if we can "paint" surfaces with nano-sensors that somehow preserve
phase information, the outside of your phone could be an ultra-high
resolution camera with no lenses at all.
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Willy Wonka
Nope. I've no need for that. I'm already buying exactly what I want and
need. Do you always have to resort to such deranged imaginings to try to
make or prove a point that doesn't exist? All of you trolls seem to use
that very same tactic. Time to find a new one.
Ray Fischer
John McWilliams
Yes, I may be an idiot, but I'm not a hypocrite such as you are on these
NGs. Nor I have I yet begun to "bitch" at you; just pointing out your
blathering is counter to your admonitions, complete with 'art', to not
feed trolls.
--
lsmft
Ray Fischer
>On 1/11/10 PDT 8:27 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> John McWilliams<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>
>>>> Go away, asshole troll. Nobody is impressed with your stupidity.
>>>>
>>> Stop with taking the
>>
>> Bitch at somebody else, idiot.
>
>Yes, I may be an idiot, but I'm not a hypocrite such as you are on these
>NGs.
No, you're an idiot. I don't respond to the trolls. I tell them to
go to hell, and because you're such a buddy to asshole trolls you
whine about it.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
John McWilliams
> John McWilliams<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/11/10 PDT 8:27 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>> John McWilliams<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>>> Go away, asshole troll. Nobody is impressed with your stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>> Stop with taking the
>>>
>>> Bitch at somebody else, idiot.
>>
>> Yes, I may be an idiot, but I'm not a hypocrite such as you are on these
>> NGs.
>
> No, you're an idiot. I don't respond to the trolls. I tell them to
> go to hell, and because you're such a buddy to asshole trolls you
> whine about it.
Pull your head out and smell the aroma. I guess you just cannot
distinguish who's a troll, who's a pest, or who's trying to be part of
the solution.
--
lsmft
Ray Fischer
>On 1/12/10 PDT 12:00 AM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>> John McWilliams<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> On 1/11/10 PDT 8:27 PM, Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>> John McWilliams<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> Ray Fischer wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Go away, asshole troll. Nobody is impressed with your stupidity.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Stop with taking the
>>>>
>>>> Bitch at somebody else, idiot.
>>>
>>> Yes, I may be an idiot, but I'm not a hypocrite such as you are on these
>>> NGs.
>>
>> No, you're an idiot. I don't respond to the trolls. I tell them to
>> go to hell, and because you're such a buddy to asshole trolls you
>> whine about it.
>
>Pull your head out and smell the aroma.
You don't attack people who feed the trolls. You attack people who
attack the trolls.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
George Kerby
On 1/12/10 10:08 AM, in article hii6pl$l80$1...@news.eternal-september.org,
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
Here is a young Rhea Fish-Head Rot, before the relocation to Berkley and the
sex change, getting advice from his dad. Too bad he never learned...