Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: wolfnowl on October 29, 2013, 07:35:51 pm
-
Interesting thoughts from Thom Hogan:
http://www.gearophile.com/newsviews/the-future-of-cameras.html
-
Yep, I have read that as well and it does make a lot of sense.
Thom has been providing similar inputs for years in fact, yet it seems that the executives of companies like Nikon are not convinced. ;)
Strategic planning for tech companies is the hardest thing. It requires a mix of intimate knowledge with technology roadmaps, a deep familiarity with what customers need/want that may only be possible as a result of first hand experience as well as vision and common sense. On top of that, it takes a group of leaders with infinite confidence in their vision... and we know that this is a double edged sword.
So other companies like Samsung de facto acknowledge they have no idea how to do it and focus on becoming the best copiers in the world. it seems to work as well. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Yep. What he writes might be heresy and anathema to "real" photographers like us.
But, for the other 99.9% of the population, he could well be right.
-
So other companies like Samsung de facto acknowledge they have no idea how to do it and focus on becoming the best copiers in the world. it seems to work as well. ;D
Cheers,
Bernard
The best implementors, maybe, rather than copiers?
It seems to me that when you buy an Apple phone you are buying a Samsung-fabricated processor, probably Samsung flash memory on a majority of samples, a display which might possibly also be from Samsung, assorted cheaper parts some of which may also be from Samsung, casing, and some Foxconn assembly and testing. Of course an artistically inclined photographer may assume that Apple is buying the processor and memory, maybe even display, from its main competitor out of charity, an engineer might assume they are buying it from the people who know how to make such things.
Apple is now a fashion firm, like Nike. Samsung is still basically an electronics company.
Edmund
-
For what it's worth, I just bought a Canon 6D, partly because it has a reasonably workable path to move photos to the net via an iPhone. I was much more interested in controlling the camera remotely via the phone, and that works pretty well.
I'm sure it will seem laughably primitive by April or so.
-
The future of cameras is very high quality f1.x lenses that are able to put diffraction spot detail onto tiny 4 micron pixels. Lenses that are optimal at f2.8-f4 tethered to a focus stacking tablet with 4k screen for focusing. Add motorized tripod. Control everything from the seat of your Jeep.
If you can't say "In the hands of a skilled photographer, this will bring the world to people like they have never seen before." I don't see communication tech as filling that requirement.
-
The future of digital cameras derived from film is probably about the same as the future of ... film. It will just have been offset by 15 years or so.
Shops tell me sales are imploding. Of course, half of Europe is now an economic wasteland.
Edmund
-
Apple is now a fashion firm, like Nike. Samsung is still basically an electronics company.
Leo Fender didn't invent the solidbody electric guitar but he came up with the first one that really worked as a musical instrument. Now the world is full of Fender knockoffs, some of which are arguably better-made than Fenders. Doesn't change the fact that Leo was a wizard and they're copiers.
Whatever Apple now is, without its concepts & designs Samsung would have no smartphone & tablet boxes to build.
-Dave-
-
Leo Fender didn't invent the solidbody electric guitar but he came up with the first one that really worked as a musical instrument. Now the world is full of Fender knockoffs, some of which are arguably better-made than Fenders. Doesn't change the fact that Leo was a wizard and they're copiers.
Whatever Apple now is, without its concepts & designs Samsung would have no smartphone & tablet boxes to build.
-Dave-
Of course, everybody really wants pre-CBS Fender guitars, meaning made in '65 or earlier. I'm not much interested in any Apple product that was made more than a year or two ago.
But your point is valid.
-
The best implementors, maybe, rather than copiers?
It seems to me that when you buy an Apple phone you are buying a Samsung-fabricated processor, probably Samsung flash memory on a majority of samples, a display which might possibly also be from Samsung, assorted cheaper parts some of which may also be from Samsung, casing, and some Foxconn assembly and testing. Of course an artistically inclined photographer may assume that Apple is buying the processor and memory, maybe even display, from its main competitor out of charity, an engineer might assume they are buying it from the people who know how to make such things.
Apple is now a fashion firm, like Nike. Samsung is still basically an electronics company.
We can debate this, but it is not the point of this thread.
This thread is about devices and their specs relative to customer current and future needs, it is not about components or core technology.
As far as components go and from what I know:
- the processor used in iDevices is an Apple design based on ARM IP and 70+% is manufactured by TSMC in Taiwan with Samsung manufacturing the remaining 30%,
- Samsung is one of 3 main screen providers for Apple, the other 2 being LG and sharp. From a technology standpoint, Sharp is clearly ahead these days but they seem to have a hard time with manufacturing yields,
- Memory is mostly Toshiba parts, although Samsung does provide as well.
- Foxconn and Pegatron are the 2 main OEMs working for Apple from a manufacturing standpoint, they appear to have very little say in pure product design, besides for the complex impacts of manufacturability of course.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I don't think we're going to have recording devices that satisfy our "needs" before the generalization of teledildonics :)
As for cameras, I fear they are now fashion statements, and predicting fashion is not my forte.
Iliah pointed out to me that the smartphone is a small and precious jewel-like device which one can show off at all occasions - in this sense a $1K smartphone clearly trumps a $1K camera. From the success of smartphone and iPad add-ons, I would expect big sales of phone-camera lenses and filters if such were interchangeable.
Edmund
We can debate this, but it is not the point of this thread.
This thread is about devices and their specs relative to customer current and future needs, it is not about components or core technology.