Not meaning to tweak anyone's nose with my previous post but I get a little surprised at some of the responses I see when it comes to why some features are not implemented in MFD backs. It is one thing to not do it until demand is proven to offset development costs but another to say it would require changes in architecture when the back essentially does it now via an existing app. That means the capability is there and can be replicated in some limited form in a more limited application environment (like WM7).
With the potential for Canon and Nikon entering the MFD market in the future innovation will be a key to any MFD manufacturer's survival. MFD will become less specialized and targeted more toward a generic product like current canon and Nikon. However, the result will be highly capable cameras with sophisticated software. My personal opinion is the MFD market has some wonderfully designed hardware (bodies and backs) with some very poor software development. Current software is designed for a studio environment only where market growth will come from non-studio based purchasers. Future survivors ten years from now will have to cater to both environments.
Sorry for my rant. I just see a lot of potential in the growth of the MFD market but no one really innovating except for the pixel increases which is sucking up all your development resources and preventing true innovation. I am an amateur photographer but the amateur market is what drives growth. Somehow there needs to be products catering to both professional and amateurs. Canon does this by building low cost bodies to try new features/innovations, perfecting them, then building them into their more rugged 1d series bodies geared toward the high-end market.
I am sure I will get flamed on this but I am in the process of deciding which MFD system to purchase and would like to see the market truly survive and flourish.
Hi Scott,
No there is no reason for you to get flamed. Your ideas and requests have definitely got a place.
We've had PocketPC based applications since 2002 (Win CE, WM 2003, WM 5 and WM 6) which initially required an RS232 cable connection and then Bluetooth 1.0 that replaced it (all of our backs have a Bluetooth module built in).
So writing the WM application is not the problem. However, with the current full-frame based CCDs (as opposed to Interline CCDs or CMOS sensors), in order to have Live View that will not require a connection to a laptop/ desktop computer, the WM device will have to carry some serious processing power and a FireWire 400/ 800 connection or in other words it will have to become a powerful little computer...
The two vendors of bigger-than-35mm sensors, Kodak and Dalsa, still use full frame technology for the design and manufacturing of these sensors. Once they (or anyone else) start implementing CMOS or Interline CCD technologies in making large chips that provide the same (or better) image quality as the current sensors, we will be able to utilise Live View in an on-board manner.
I hope this makes sense
Yair