Hardware, services, and obsolescence
Jan. 23rd, 2008 06:33 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greatbearA nice little turn of topical events happened a day or two after my first article regarding hardware obsolescence and how the physical hardware has taken a back seat to the services they are increasingly tied to (and the monthly fee that inevitably follows. The New York times has a page declaring that the hardware itself is now what you are subscribing to. When you buy into a particular bit of technology, you have entered into a sort of contract whereupon you will be upgrading that particular bit of technology repeatedly over time. The article states the obvious when it comes to computers, after all, how many upgrade cycles has the typical reader of my LJ gone through over the years. But the article goes on and attaches the same upgrade cycle to standalone items such as DVD players, televisions and the like.
Heh, just as what I was getting at.
Think of cameras for a moment. Years ago, in the (seemingly now Jurassic) age of film, anyone who purchased a camera often did so with the thought of that camera being used for many years into the future. If one spent any substantial amount of cash for a 35mm camera, the thought was there that this camera will be around till it wore out, broke or gets handed down if one wanted to get deeper into the hobby or needed better for professional reasons. The model lineups for such 'serious' cameras would see update cycles that would take years sometimes. The little pocket snapshot cameras offered by the likes of Kodak might show lots of turnover, but that was the nature of inexpensive cameras. They usually did their duties well, until they either got lost, broken or the user wanted to do more with a camera and upgraded.
Two things happened. One, the inexpensive snapshot camera became literally disposable. They were repackaged as one-time use cameras, complete with film, and the entire camera got sent in when the film was developed. Ostensibly, some parts of the cameras were reused, where the rest was recycled or disposed. Not necessarily resource efficient, but this carved out a new market for those who did not want to invest in a camera but still wanted to take occasional pictures, or the better use as either a stand-in when one forgot their camera or did not want to subject their main tool to some hostile environment. No expensive SLR at the beach, for example.
The other big change in the camera market was the advent of the digital camera. This started out as a 'serious' device mainly due to their initial cost, with a one megapixel (give or take) costing over a grand, buying into the first digitals meant spending more than what a mid- to pro-grade SLR and reasonable lens would run. But the fact that these digital cameras now firmly wedded the world of photography with that of computers. This began a conundrum that the camera manufacturers were not prepared for - that of the expected increase of performance and features that people had come to expect in the PC marketplace.
Every year or two, a new benchmark for performance is set by the introduction of the latest CPU, graphics and hard drive space. And, in that space, what once began as the high end at the beginning, becomes mainstream or even entry level in the same period of time. Camera manufacturers, especially those catering to professionals or serious enthusiasts, were used to product cycles lasting three to five years. Pressure from the digital marketplace forced a major rethinking of camera product cycles that took a while to implement. Eventually the camera makers geared up, and players from the lowliest of Kodaks to the likes of Leica began tossing out new models almost constantly. This caused the world of digital photography to explode. The hobby has more enthusiasts and players than ever. In recent years, cameras with astounding capabilities were available at surprisingly low price points. Heck, I myself have five cameras, each in a particular category. But something has to give, doesnt it?
Megapixels. Ask most pros, and they will say that 3-4 MP is good enough to make a 4x6 print from. 5-6 MP can produce an 8x10 that can be indistinguishable from a 35mm shot. But the emphasis continues to be more and more megapixels from each and every camera. I have a tiny Pentax W30 that boasts of 7.1 MP. That's all fine and dandy, but it comes from a tiny image sensor and dime-sized lens. By making megapixels the main selling point, snapshot cameras output so much information that they are beginning to magnify their own shortcomings. And by selling megapixels above all else, it makes people sporting only 3 or 4 feel inadequate. Upgrade time! But unless you are moving from a subcompact camera to a DSLR (which, granted, so many people are doing nowadays), your are mostly wasting money and chewing up storage space.
I know what I touched on above only skims the surface, but it was to demonstrate where a good thing can become too much. People end up moving up-market not simply because they need something better, but because of a glut of mediocrity exists now where it did not before. And this goes for more than just cameras. I have always been of the belief that one should buy a bit higher up in a lineup than one's needs dictate at the time. You end up with a better quality item that holds up better over time, and keeps you out of the 'upgrade churn'. It's part being a smart consumer, and part being a gambler. The former always benefits. The latter sometimes pays the price.
To be continued yet again!
Heh, just as what I was getting at.
Think of cameras for a moment. Years ago, in the (seemingly now Jurassic) age of film, anyone who purchased a camera often did so with the thought of that camera being used for many years into the future. If one spent any substantial amount of cash for a 35mm camera, the thought was there that this camera will be around till it wore out, broke or gets handed down if one wanted to get deeper into the hobby or needed better for professional reasons. The model lineups for such 'serious' cameras would see update cycles that would take years sometimes. The little pocket snapshot cameras offered by the likes of Kodak might show lots of turnover, but that was the nature of inexpensive cameras. They usually did their duties well, until they either got lost, broken or the user wanted to do more with a camera and upgraded.
Two things happened. One, the inexpensive snapshot camera became literally disposable. They were repackaged as one-time use cameras, complete with film, and the entire camera got sent in when the film was developed. Ostensibly, some parts of the cameras were reused, where the rest was recycled or disposed. Not necessarily resource efficient, but this carved out a new market for those who did not want to invest in a camera but still wanted to take occasional pictures, or the better use as either a stand-in when one forgot their camera or did not want to subject their main tool to some hostile environment. No expensive SLR at the beach, for example.
The other big change in the camera market was the advent of the digital camera. This started out as a 'serious' device mainly due to their initial cost, with a one megapixel (give or take) costing over a grand, buying into the first digitals meant spending more than what a mid- to pro-grade SLR and reasonable lens would run. But the fact that these digital cameras now firmly wedded the world of photography with that of computers. This began a conundrum that the camera manufacturers were not prepared for - that of the expected increase of performance and features that people had come to expect in the PC marketplace.
Every year or two, a new benchmark for performance is set by the introduction of the latest CPU, graphics and hard drive space. And, in that space, what once began as the high end at the beginning, becomes mainstream or even entry level in the same period of time. Camera manufacturers, especially those catering to professionals or serious enthusiasts, were used to product cycles lasting three to five years. Pressure from the digital marketplace forced a major rethinking of camera product cycles that took a while to implement. Eventually the camera makers geared up, and players from the lowliest of Kodaks to the likes of Leica began tossing out new models almost constantly. This caused the world of digital photography to explode. The hobby has more enthusiasts and players than ever. In recent years, cameras with astounding capabilities were available at surprisingly low price points. Heck, I myself have five cameras, each in a particular category. But something has to give, doesnt it?
Megapixels. Ask most pros, and they will say that 3-4 MP is good enough to make a 4x6 print from. 5-6 MP can produce an 8x10 that can be indistinguishable from a 35mm shot. But the emphasis continues to be more and more megapixels from each and every camera. I have a tiny Pentax W30 that boasts of 7.1 MP. That's all fine and dandy, but it comes from a tiny image sensor and dime-sized lens. By making megapixels the main selling point, snapshot cameras output so much information that they are beginning to magnify their own shortcomings. And by selling megapixels above all else, it makes people sporting only 3 or 4 feel inadequate. Upgrade time! But unless you are moving from a subcompact camera to a DSLR (which, granted, so many people are doing nowadays), your are mostly wasting money and chewing up storage space.
I know what I touched on above only skims the surface, but it was to demonstrate where a good thing can become too much. People end up moving up-market not simply because they need something better, but because of a glut of mediocrity exists now where it did not before. And this goes for more than just cameras. I have always been of the belief that one should buy a bit higher up in a lineup than one's needs dictate at the time. You end up with a better quality item that holds up better over time, and keeps you out of the 'upgrade churn'. It's part being a smart consumer, and part being a gambler. The former always benefits. The latter sometimes pays the price.
To be continued yet again!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-24 02:45 am (UTC)That said, it's the main reason I finally was able to purchase the Nikon P5000 back in Sept (well, OK, late August, but it finally arrived the first few days of Sept) and yes it sports 10MP, which is fine and dandy, as long as you don't get above 200 and in many cases, 400 ISO, the image will be fine for most things is due to the fact that I knew I was beyond wanting to stay in the fully auto P&S crowd and have always wanted an SLR, or it's digital version that can do both auto or manual modes when the need arises.
That said, if you are being artistic and plan on printing larger format pictures (8x10 or larger), 7.1 to 10-12MP is a must to print things that large successfully, but best if you stick with a larger sensor DSLR and I agree that beyond 7.1MP in a small digi cam is too much for most although I'm pretty impressed with the quality of the images I get with my camera at 10MP at 1-7/8" sensor.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-24 05:06 am (UTC)I so want to get a wide format printer. Maybe later in the year.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-24 04:06 pm (UTC)As it is I somehow bought a really great camera for his uses. It can even pickup individual stars in nighttime shots...
no subject
Date: 2008-01-24 04:20 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-24 05:03 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-24 01:09 pm (UTC)K I am NOT in any way shape or form a photo takin buff BUT I recall reading an article a few years ago that scorned the ever increasing Megapixel race as the inherent flaws of the single 'CCD' (I think) in a digital set up were basically not very good! They highlighted a jolly good idea someone had in putting 3 CCD's of each primary colour to work collectively rather than trying to have a combination of all 3 colours on ONE CCD whereby in the digital world when capturing an image the 3-in-one CCD would be unable to capture say 'reds' on its bits off CCD that were for 'greens', so when you ramp up the megapixel count all these probs just get far far more pronounced. The seperate, whole colour capturing CCD's sounded like a far better idea. However I have no idea if this idea ever made it into digital cameras....not being the photo techno buff LOL Am more the point n click goon with a moderate smattering of shutter speed n film speeds ha ha ha