[LRflex] Modular cameras (was: a lot of other things)
- From: "Neil Gould" <neil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <leicareflex@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 08:37:07 -0500
Hi all,
> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 11:26:10 +0200
> From: Douglas Sharp <douglas.sharp@xxxxxx>
> Subject: [LRflex] Re: Leica to abandon 4/3rds - how good will a Leica
>
> Alex,
>
> the way I see it is that the only solution to the Leica Quality/Fast
> Digital Obsolence dilemma is a high quality body with exchangable
> digital hardware - think along the lines of different sensors,
> processors etc. If you can change focusing screens, why can't you
> have plug and play sensors and other chips?
>
> Pity it wasn't Rollei taking this path, their 3003, if developed
> further, would have made an ideal platform for digital photography.
>
> Cheers
>
> Douglas (in hot and humid Hannover)
>
Rollei may well have had this concept in mind with the development of the
2000/3003 series. However, can Leica overlook the complete failure of that
model in the market place? When I purchased my Rollei 6008i kit, it was in
hopes that a digital back with a full-frame sensor would eventually come
to market. I've given up all hope of that coming to pass, and use the
camera strictly for film. Given Leica's evolutionary approach, I would
expect that any new R will work with older R lenses, whether or not new
lenses offer AF, image stabilization, or whatever.
Another reason to be skeptical of the modular approach is that one can't
just change the sensor without changing the firmware, software, and
possibly some controls. A practical way to offer modularity was
demonstrated with the DMR, yet I don't hear as much call around here for a
DMR-2 as there is for an R-10.
Since digital cameras are not as dependent on complex precision mechanical
systems as film cameras, I think it will be hard to justify high pricing
once the digital subsystems mature. We can already see that happening in
the marketplace, and I'd expect that trend to have an impact on the
viability of an expensive R-10. Further, there is an inverse relationship
between capability and cost such that a $5,000US digital camera is not 5x
better than a $1,000US camera. There is also an inverse relationship
between durability and technical obsolescence. Why make a camera body that
can last 50 years if it can be manufactured cheaply and is obsolete in
less than 5?
Best,
Neil
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.net/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Other related posts:
- » [LRflex] Modular cameras (was: a lot of other things)
