Oh for a digital F100

[ccscho]

Yes, I think the aperture ring should be retained unless they come up with a mechanical body that has built-in aperture ring that can control the G lens without aperture ring - provided that they are mechanical coupled. Unfortunately, this is highly unlikely and not practical too.

There has been rumours that their F-mount is not big enough for fitting so many electronic contacts around and therefore large aperture lens becomes very difficult to manufacture. However, since they have made their decision for compatibility some 10 years ago, they should not let us down by abandoning the F-mount tradition silently. If that's the case, I would rather they invent a new mount like Canon and Minolta when the F-mount shows its age.

I am not an economist but Nikon should definitely align vertically and horizontally. They should arouse people with old bodies by new lenses and those with old lenses to buy new bodies. This would then attract a much better market than that people have to abandon some of their old bodies and lenses altogether and buy some new one. If people have to reinvest by abandoning some old but really nice stuff, they might as well jump ship and buy another brand.

I can still remember I bought the 80-200f2.8ED first version when I don't even have an AF body. The 17-35mm f2.8 AFS ED and 85mm f1.4 AF-D are also attractions for the non-AF body owners. They just have to make some new attractions for the seasoned Nikonians. If there will be a new Tilt-and-shift 24mm that exist on AF mount with true AF capability and perhaps a 300mm mirror lens that is small enough with AF, some F/F2,F3,FM or FM2/3 body owner might buy these AF lens and buy a new AF body as backup.

Sometimes, it's all about marketing. Disabling some basic features (exposure meter in particular) to push the consumers to buy some higher models (D2H, D2X, etc...) does not work in my opinion. They should step their shoes in watches; expensive watches does not necessarily be more accurate than cheap quartz watches, it's the pride that count. Frankly in Hong Kong, usually the top models (like F4 and F5 or even F6) draw much more attention and get sold out rather than the low end models. I would bet that most Nikon non-D70 owner have more than 1 body at home.

There is still a huge demand on 70-200mm f2.8 AFS-VR here and a true shortage of this lens in the market. If it had the aperture ring on it, they may have one more proud owner. Nikon better focus on what best they can produce rather than thinking what options should be omitted.

-Dennis

 

[acorn]

>Hi Innocent, just curious...what is a dust Ref photo? and where can it be >downloaded?

 

[ian_craigie]

Hi Jorgen,

I found your thoughts in your last post very interesting.

I wonder if the development of finer grained, more saturated, higher ISO films, just prior to digital photography really taking off, actually stimulated the lens designers to make slower zooms for the mass market. Once the engineers realised they could also get a reasonable print from a digital camera with higher ISO rating, this was seen as a natural progression - as you suggested, we get the choice of "slow zooms for reasonable prices", encouraging the entry-level market. The pros will always have the proceeds from their work to finance large-aperture lenses and fast, powerful bodies, and perhaps the keen enthusiast has been left behind all together.

I think it was Larry who stated that the PJ's are the driving force in camera technology, and that Canon and Nikon in particular understandably play to them - there is money and prestige to be made here. It sounds a little like Formula 1, where the latest in technology is made available, at a premium, for the upper end of the market. Ford and Renault and Toyota may all participate in Formula 1, but they also produce for the masses. The fruits of their labours in the high spec field filter down to the popular models. I guess it's the same with photography, too.

You mentioned that perhaps Nikon is wise to wait for the technology to mature. I'm not so sure. If I am looking around for the best way to enter digital photography, realise that my "feature list" is no longer supported by Nikon, and based on today's models guess that these features won't be found in the future, I am going to start looking elsewhere. Just like I did when I had my OM-1 - it's a tool for the job, but the tools Nikon now makes are not suited as well as they used to be to the tasks I would like to put them.

Canon's placement in the market is interesting, as they do cater to the non-pro enthusiast. The D20 sounds a remarkable camera, and yet they still manufacture the D1S II and have just released the D350. There is a wider market catered for here than Nikon currently serves, and without the previously compelling reasons to stay with the Nikon system, it is tempting to look elsewhere. Again, why do away with so many of the very features that might keep an enthusiast "loyal" to a certain make - can it be that this "loyalty" is taken for granted by the marketing departments, where the name of Nikon is thought to be enough to keep keen amateurs like myself using the system?

I appreciate your view that Canon's large number of models may not be sustainable, or supportable in the future. I guess you are right here. However, perhaps as others have suggested, this field is changing so quickly that in a few years we will actually be able to replace our current excellent camera body with a far cheaper, far more capable machine anyway. I feel very much like you do, that if the body works well enough for me now then I will hang on to it well into the future, but this will not be the way the marketing gurus think. They will want to make money, and this itself will drive the lack of support for current models - we will be forced to take a new camera, rather than repair a current model, so we can keep buying Nikon.

Sadly, this abandonment of the famous Nikon "non-obsolescence" is a major philosophical (marekting) change - one that deliberately takes the likes of you and me, Jorgen, very much for granted. While previously, even if I had an old body, Nikon were prepared to support this and provide me with a sustainable future, this is simply no longer the case. I have been pleasantly surprised at how many contributing to this thread have agreed that they would see the features of a "digital F100" as ideal (or near to it), and yet there is little to suggest that our wish will be heeded by Nikon. For a start, all new lenses have lost their aperture rings, as mentioned many times before. The suggestion of a simple digital F3MD is fascinating - what a refreshing concept - but sadly such a model would not fit into Nikon's current change of focus.

Just as you have pointed out, the camera manufacturers are heading for a major shake up. Indeed, it has started already. You mentioned the *istD, with its features, and I entirely agree with you that as the D70, this would have been a much more compelling reason for me to start to use Nikon digital, and continue with my Nikon system. I suppose I feel that Pentax, although a good company, are perhaps less likely to survive in the digital SLR race because Nikon and Canon have their much larger established pro bases. It is therefore better to consider a system such as Canon, if that better suits my needs. They at least seem to have recognised that there is an important group of photographers who cannot easily justify a pro-range camera, but look for more features than provided by an entry level machine.

It would be great if the as-yet mythical "D200" were to be announced tomorrow, but I am prepared to bet that it will continue the move away from legacy systems. It may take AA's, but only as part of a larger, bulkier add-on pack. All new lenses will continue to be made without aperture rings. It may have MLU (and I agree that this is not essential, but the option is still nice to have - the D20 has this, and now even the D350 has MLU, too!), but even the wonderful F100 had no such feature. I agree that there are other cameras that Nikon make at present that might "keep me going", and since my original post I have come to appreciate how well a CP8800 or 8400 would serve my travel needs, but would have to admit that I would still like to now use my existing lenses on a mid-range SLR, as well.

The R&D resources of Canon are phenomenal - as you mentioned, they are turning out new cameras all the time. I wonder if Nikon are able to match this at all. I was (pleasantly) surprised when Nikon announced the F6, but wondered if the time and effort to produce this camera would have been better used to expanding the rapidly-changing digital market. In a way, the development of both the F6 and the FM3A seems very odd considering the changes in new lenses and so on. It is almost as though the seemless Nikon "MF - AF - digital" progression has now broken into two separate c&s, with a "retro" group looking backwards and catering to "traditionalists", and a "contemporary" group starting afresh and looking to the future.

The certainties of the past can no longer be assumed - either by consumers, or by manufacturers such as Nikon. It is interesting to speculate how the market will change in the next 5-10 years, and perhaps we will all be very surprised at the direction progress takes. I wonder just which "famous" brands will still be around (or merged) by 2010!

Regards,

Ian

 

[lnbolch]

> Posted by Jorgen Udvang
>
> I keep getting the feeling that the fast digital development has taken
> the photo business by surprise.

Old companies are incredibly bureaucratic. Each company has as deeply rooted cultures as traditional tribal societies. Even companies with CEOs who see where the market is going, middle management will fight to the death to maintain the status quo. We on the outside tend to think that corporations are monolitic - controlled absolutely by a single brain, devious and often sinister. What we interpret as devious is simply the Three Stooges trying to run a company in transition, with layer and layer of more stooges.

It is impossible to interpret Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Konica-Minolta, Olympus, Kodak, long term digital and film strategies, because there are none.

> At the same time, they see that they
> will die fast (which some are doing right now) if they don't
> participate in the race . The problem is they don't seem to know
> where they are going, and while
> SLRs very much followed a single standard for 50 years, both with
> regards to fil m size and lenses, each of the remaining (5?) suppliers
> are now trying out their own theories. Who pays? We do.

We, and any executive whose crystal ball does not have 20/20 forsight. The venerable Contax brand, owned by Kyocera came up with the brilliant plan of a full frame dSLR a few years back. It was to have superb Zeiss lenses and no cropping factor. They actually thought they could bring it to market in a reasonable amount of time following the announcement, much as Nikon and Canon do now.

It showed up at trade show after trade show, each time promised for "real soon, now". To the best of my knowledge it has yet to ship, thought there were some vague reports of a few hitting the shelves in Europe. It is still shown as a product on the web-site.

A couple of weeks back, Kyocera announced that all camera production was ceasing this year, and already some regional offices have closed. Who pays? Those engineers, executives and the workforce at Contax/Yashica for bleeding money and not having a single product to show for it.

It is a whole new business, unique to this young century. NO ONE KNOWS HOW TO DO IT.

The old firms knew the film camera business - it started in roughly 1830, and evolved at a leisurely pace over the last 175 years. SLRs were introduced around the beginning of the 20th century and nothing very radical happened until the 1950 when Asahi figured out you could put a pentaprism over the ground glass - and the Pentax was born. This pace of development does not rip the executive suite and marketing department to shreds. When it takes half a century to change, they can flex.

Since they understand the SLR, they grafted digital electronics into it and made it their flagship camera, in spite of another half century without any major redesign other than a new feature ever decade or so. This is one bit of the camera business that makes sense. The machines and assembly lines were paid for by 35mm SLRs way back in the 20th century, and the workers know how to use them. It is very cheap to manufacture all but the sensor and processor, and it is possible to price them extremely high for great profits. Though they are ancient cameras in new clothes, the marketing departments have managed to make them appear to be very desirable to those looking for a self-image as well as the unquestioning gadget deprived.

By the year 2000, there were quite a number of digital cameras on the market and sales were moderate, but they were far outnumbered by APS and 35mm P&S for snapshooters and SLRs plus the suddenly rediscovered rangefinder cameras for the more astute or affluent. Glancing at an August 2000 - not even five year old - photo magazine, I see that a 160MB 10x Lexar card was selling for just pocket-change less than $600US, and $1,000US would buy a 3MP camera. As a comparision, a Lexar 40x 1GB card is well under $100 today, and for well under $1,000 I can shoot with an incredibly responsive 8GP camera - roughly $100 less than I paid for my first 3MP camera less than five years ago.

Last year, something in the range of 60,000,000 digital cameras sold - in spite of the camera companies. As for the business, the honchos are making it up as they go. I doubt that any of the big companies have even finished their 2004 business plans yet. Seriously. As per testing theories, that assumes there ARE theories.

> So while an SLR could be bought for anything between $200 and 3,000
> and be expected to last for 10-30 years, the prices now are 3-5 times
> as high and we have no idea how long they are going to last. What we
> do know, is that except for Nikon, hardly any dSLR has been on the
> market for more than 2 years.

Part of the confusion. Of what possible use would a 30 year old dSLR be? Or a 10 year old dSLR? There are five year old dSLRs that cost nearly $20,000 back then, but why would anyone use one, when a $300 camera from a discount store far exceeds their specifications?

> On that background, a little hesitation from Nikon's side is maybe not
> so bad after all. The technology is far from mature, the market
> likewise. Even if the Canon approach with new models all the time (4
> new dSLRs only the last year) is a commercial success now, the
> question if they are able, or willing, to support all the different
> models and technologies in 5 or 10 years.

How many companies still support 10 year old computers? Why would they? Digital cameras are supreme ex&les of fifth-era digital technology, only exceeded by cell phones. I acquired a new digital camera after using the very best camera for my purposes for the past three years. The effects of Gordon Moore's Law is dramatic. Everything from operation to picture quality is vividly better. Two or three years from now, there will - hopefully - be a camera with the equivalent essential features, and I will be blown away by it too.

In the first month of ownership, I have shot about the equivalent of ten rolls of film and summer is not nearly here. By mid-summer, I will have shot enough that the camera will have paid for itself just in savings of film and processing. Then it will begin to pay back over and above its cost. Were I still a working photographer, it would have paid for itself by now, just in time savings - without regard to film or processing, since that was all billed to the client anyway.

Compared to shooting film, I could throw away a camera every six months at no loss. The fact that I got three years of shooting and probably close to 40,000 images may cast a light on just how economical digital is for even a non-working shooter. Since I have the instant feedback through the monitor on the camera, I actually shoot LESS with digital than I do with film.

Yes, this is adolescent technology, and like adolescents it is growing in many unpredictable directions. Like adolescents, what is happening may be unfathomable at times, but also exciting and fascinating and we are here at the very beginning of the most significant advance in photography since Fox Talbot figured out how to print a positive from a negative back around 1836. This is not a time for fretting and handwringing, it is a time for jubulant celebration.

While adolescents are far from mature, they ARE fully functional. So are digital cameras. They do put a far greater burden upon the shooter than film, unless you have your own fume-room, and I expect that evokes fear in those who have ceased learning. Of necessity, I closed my last fume-room in the mid-1980s, and lost most of my interest in personal photography. The one-hour lab droid did not produce my prints. They were prints run though the blander to the lowest common denomiator. The digital darkroom has inspired a renaissance. I have rediscovered why I became a photographer, and for the first time since childhood, I am able to do it exclusively for my own pleasure.

I am also doing some of the best content - and the best quality printing - in my life now. I bought into digital at exactly the right moment.

larry!
http://www.larry-bolch.com/
ICQ 76620504

 

[ian_craigie]

Hi Larry,

I suppose you have more or less convinced me that I really need to invest in different cameras for different purposes. I know this might sound obvious, and certainly to a certain extent I have always done that (for ex&le, buying a small Ricoh R1 or a Minox for those serendipitous moments you come across each day, but lugging an SLR around for other more dedicated purposes), but I can see that the CP and the SLR range each have their place.

There is obviously no single camera (Nikon or otherwise) to solve my particular dilemma about what digital machine to get. I had considered the D70 to be my only real option for wildlife photography (at least I could afford it, unlike a D2H or D2X), but I have warmed to the CoolPix format for a travel camera. It really sounds a prudent, portable, performing item, and I would not have considered it without the suggestions from those contributing to the forum. Thanks, all.

Really, I simply need to get BOTH, don't I? ; - )

I found it a little (!) unsettling to hear you assert that none of these camera companies have a strategy! Surely it must be better to at least pursue a certain course of action, even if that proves to be wrong, than to simply flail about hoping that at least something will work out okay? All your points about the way the designers and engineers are combining previous concepts with new technology are well made, and I agree with you, but the thought that Nikon or Canon don't have a game plan, even one that will see them consigned to the dustbin of history, seems hard to believe.

Most of this thread has been devoted to tossing around the idea that Nikon have ditched a number of features that a fair proportion of us still find useful. I may not feel that they have taken the right directions, but there does seem to be a direction - moving away from some features that perhaps are not now considered to be of value by the marketing men, and towards others that are. The fact that all new Nikon lenses are of the "G" type, and not simply those that might be considered "consumer" in their orientation, suggests a definite decision to cease inclusion of this feature. I may well find this inconvenient, or short-sighted, or blatantly ridiculous, but nevertheless this does actually reveal a certain strategy and longer term development for the entire Nikon range.

I do agree wholeheartedly that "Moore's Law", and its implications, have profoundly changed the landscape for what had been a fairly static medium. Prices will continue to fall, and feature sets will continue to expand - I believe you are absolutely right to suggest that the camera of today has already made the camera of last month obsolete, while itself will be "old news" compared with next month's model. Just as with computers, we should consider cameras now to be "consumables" rather than capital investments (although I still find coming to terms with this prospect difficult - must be my cautious Scottish ancestry!)

All this considered, even accepting that lenses today are technological marvels, I would have thought that the "glass" component of a photographic system is one area where a company like Nikon could capitalise. Perhaps the bean counters have indeed made the calculation that by severing ties with the past, and forcing anyone who has a manual camera to buy a new analog or digital body if they wish to use any newly released lens, they will be able to sell more camera bodies. Again, this seems to bin the unique quality and advantage that Nikon have carefully nurtured for so many years - that you are able to attach the 40 year old, perfectly respectable (if manually focussed) lens to the now "throw away" digital body.

Surely, it would be far better to make lenses that are acceptable to ALL, and then allow purists, pros, perfectionists, and punters to attach whatever body they feel is appropriate. This would allow migration of all of these potential purchasers, using anything from second-hand FM2 up to the most highly-sophisticated D2X (or D200!), to use the SAME Nikon legacy glass. Photographers would be kept loyal to the system because they have the CHOICE of whether to use a fully mechanical, or an all bells and whistles digital machine. And if they choose to upgrade the body in 18 months to the latest 48 megapixel D6x, then they can do so knowing that their expensive investment in the high-quality Nikon lens/photography system has not been wasted.

And meanwhile, the rest of us can get on and take some photos...

Perhaps, though, this nonsensical approach is support for your "Strategy? What strategy?" concept! We keep asking if Nikon are listening to its loyal users, but I fear this is a forlorn hope - along with the hope that we will see anything to cheer our "retro" ideas of what we want from an image-gathering machine.

I only hope we're both wrong...

Regards,

Ian

 

[Russphoto]

Pls permit me to interject my 2 cents (peso, francs, pence, lira or yen) ...

Why Wait for an Nikon D-200?

My needs as serious semi-prof/prof photographer are not all that different from many of the people that have been posting here. I'm a Nikon user of 20 yrs and I happily settled down with my Nikon D-100. Granted, I don't shoot a ton of nature shots...and my action shooting is minimal too, but (after doing lot of my own research), I can't see why others similar to me might not be happy with a D-100. I know the D100 doesn't have the same burst-mode (frames per second d/l speed for action or for PJ shooters), but in most of the critical areas, it sure fits the bill for quality image- making.

I honestly feel that some people are way too focused on the technology and aren't willing to settle for any image-making tool but the latest models. As an ex&le of using a tool for as long as useful, I stayed with my N-90 (not n-90S) and still use it for my film needs, along with an FM2n. I have done some weddinghsd, portrait phjotog and general image-making. The same is now true of my use of the D-100. In my estimation, it's not what is the latest techno-toy that i can have on my "trophy shelf", but what image-making tool can I learn well and make use of the best to get the images which i make msot often.

Seems like often people who are in the market for digital cams don't know (or haven't learned) what type of shooting they do or WILL do in the future.

PS": Maybe it's me, but the cheap plastic-y feel of the G-lenses is it total turnoff for me. I'll pass by any possible G-lens purchases and work out any lens needs with either D lens options or AI-S. I easily remember the day when I didn't need any automation at all to make my images (action shots being set aside).

 

[ian_craigie]

> Hi Russell,

I couldn't agree more. Just as you have stuck with your tried and tested N90 (rugged body, versatile power source) and excellent FM2 (mechanical, reliable, light) for so many reasons, the original post simply lauded such virtues, and suggested that a digital camera that adhered to some of these tried and tested principles would be a winner.

It sounds like your D100 is the ticket for you. That's great. I suppose I wasn't seriously looking around for a digital SLR when it was first released, but I am sure that it is a quality piece of kit. I also have no doubt from what you say that you enjoy using it whenever you can, and equally achieve results that are more than satisfactory.

I don't want the latest, flashiest camera. In fact, all my Nikon bodies have been second-hand! The "latest technology" has never been important to me, or I would have gone out and bought a D70 and an 80-200 f2.8 G VR (or whatever they're called these days...) the day they were released. Rather, there are features that you have enjoyed in your N90 and FM2 that I would like to have in a digital camera, that I simply cannot have. If it was years old, but I could find a battery for it in a petrol station or village shop, or could use at least one of my non-electronic shutter release cables, or perhaps take the snazzy new "kit" DX lens that came with it and successfully meter with it on my trusty old FM2, then I would be delighted.

This has never been about the latest gear. It has always been about the RIGHT gear. Just because digital has arrived, doesn't mean that I have packed away my film cameras and fretted about what I will do until the ideal camera comes along. However, the original post was a comment that all those qualities that I presume you hold dear in your much-loved N90 and FM2 still have great worth today. The D100 is, I have no doubt, a wonderful camera, but as I have always maintained, a camera is a tool for a task - a box for collecting light - and no more. However, it would be ideal to have the RIGHT tool to do the job - one that saw value in simplicity and reliability more than being the latest gizmo off the marketing production line.

Wouldn't you too feel it was great to combine the best features of your N90, FM2 and D100 into one package? Sure, it's horses for courses, and obviously you would agree that "newer" is never necessarily "better". To that extent, I feel we are singing the same tune. Again, I could not have expressed your opinion better...

That is all this thread was about - and I feel certain some mythical "D200" is never going to do that, no matter how many megapixels or how many frames per second it has. That won't stop me enjoying my photography at all, but I can still have aspirations for something that combines tried and tested features with a digital experience.

Whatever choice is made, it should always be about trying to fit the tool to the task, and not the other way round. The fact is that technology marches on, but sadly it seems to move further and further away from features that, shared with you I'm sure, I find more than valuable.

Regards,

Ian

PS In keeping with my tradition of buying second hand cameras, you're not looking to sell your D100, are you? ;-)

 

[Russphoto]

Ian: Very eloquently said (written). My post was not meant to disagree, but (rhetorically) meant to buttress your discussion. It is directed to those who might read these posts and go astray thinking that if they wait long enough that Nikon will solve the problem with a "D-200", or the like. Corporations on the whole, even our beloved Nikon, have strayed further from fullfilling the needs of the consumer who helped put them where they are. I feel that in corporate "minds" (engineering product development/marketing), it's PJ to whom they respond and consumers pay the freight for the new advanced level SLR digicams.

 

[lnbolch]

Realize that when you buy a digital camera, it is more about the virtual film than anything else. A generation - by Gordon Moore's Law - is somewhere between 18 months and two years when dealing with digital technology. It is seen in the embedded processor, but even more in the sensor.

Comparing sensors to film, Tri-X was updated about two years back for the first time in a decade or so. The upgrade was significant but subtle. It was introduced in 1940 and there have been a number of widely spaced updates to the point that it now is a reasonably refined film of moderate grain. It has taken some 65 years to come from its very grainy beginnings. Each generation has taken perhaps a decade or more.

In relation to sensors, shooting with a 1999 sensor in 2005, is something akin to shooting with 1950s Tri-X. Had Tri-X progressed at the speed that sensors are progressing, it would be any speed you want to shoot at from ISO10 to ISO6400, with incredible resolution and invisible grain. Kodak would pay you 95¢ a roll just to take it off the shelves!

As the camera companies are learning to design digital cameras, the ergonomics ARE improving - which is nice. My LCD monitor on the current camera works fine where previous cameras monitors went black. Some very nice features have been added, like a live histogram for the best light-metering ever devised. As a life-long user of the Zone System, it is mind-bogglingly good.

Still the critical part of photography - no matter the format or type - is whatever is the photosensitive means of capturing the image. One of my main workhorses over a long career was a Brooks VeriWide 100. It was built in the 1950s and is still in daily use by the shooter to whom I recently sold it. It is nearly identical to the Alpa, Linhof, Fuji and Horseman superwides available today - a stunningly sharp and rectilinear SuperAngulon over roll film. While I had no hesitation to use a 1950s camera on my most expensive and career-critical shoots, I would not have thought of using film from that era. It always shot fresh stock from my dealer's refrigerator - or mine.

Don't lament the short life of a digital camera, or disparage those who buy new frequently. This is NOT built-in obsolescence where a bit of trim is moved about, so marketing can advertize it as "New and improved". It is progress that actually empowers the photographer and shows up in every image. It is the equivalent of 20 years of progress with film condensed down to two with digital sensors.

There is nothing frivolous whatever, in frequent turn-over of digital cameras.

larry! http://www.larry-bolch.com/ ICQ 76620504

 

[f8lee]

> This thread is somewhat interesting, but also seems a bit quixotic. I > mean, the dialog about how Nikon (or the other manufacturers) do or > don't "care about their customers" (that put them in their current > positions today, etc.etc.) seems meaningless in the face of statements > like "I only buy used gear" - why should a company want to cater to > the group of "customers" who are only customers in the loosest sense? > Nikon doesn't see revenue from the pre-owned crowd; for what reason > should they cater to that demographic?

Meanwhile, there seem to be certain realities that need to be dealt with - for instance, that the rear element of an older lens usually doesn't have enough anti-reflective coating to suit its use with a highly reflective CCD or CMOS chip. In other words, while it might be a romantic notion to be able to take your 30 year old Nikkor and stick it on your much-desired D200, between ghosting and light falloff issues the images would probably be pretty crappy. And THEN who are you going to complain to?

As has been stated ad infinitum, digital is a new world entirely. Not just thanks to costs and Moore's law, but also because it can radically alter design constraints. Think of it - field and view cameras were the first "what you see is what you get" type cameras, though the images were inverted. Then rangefinders and twin lens reflex cameras came along; not quite WYSIWYG but close enough for most purposes. Then the vaunted SLR - seeing through the actual taking lens - a world of difference. And this, of course, is the standard to which we hold future photographic equipment.

Of course, optical constraints led to certain necessities with SLRs; the lens must be more-or-less in front of the eyepiece. So we're all used to holding the humungous behemoth in front of our faces, which, as Larry (I think) pointed out, can kill a certain amount of spontaneity. At least in the medium format world, most cameras are of the "look down at your waist to focus" type design, but thanks to their format there are fewer options vis-a-vis lenses (few ultra-wides or ultra telephotos in that world).

But looking forward, maybe the entire SLR design as we know it will go away. After all, the (live) image can be sent along a wire to just about anyplace, so why constrain everything to a single camera body? What if years from now cameras are multi-part - a imaging section that connects (perhaps wirelessly) to a visualizing section? Put that 600mm bazooka lens on the imaging section and cl& it to the tree in a blind, then sit in your tent 30 feet away with a high-resolution display to be able to focus precisely and wait for that eaglet to arrive. Place the ultra-wide lens/imager component under a subway seat, have the image transmitted to your eyeglass-cam and click the remote control when the time comes. Or whatever.

Of course, larger imaging chips would be nice for DOF control purposes, but that is, again, going to be a function of Dr. Moore. My point is that there is a lot of living in the past going on here...understandable, but other than for nostalgic purposes probably useless. And I'm not a big digital guy - just got myself an XPan since I like panoramas and such and I have reservations about the longevity of digital images (I know all the arguments, believe me - it's just my opinion). But that said, I can see that digital is going to make a heck of a lot more difference than it has thus far. Look at what's going on with cell-phone cameras - how long before laws are enacted to prohibit their use in certain areas (and technologies created to enforce those laws)?

My opinion is that the photographing public will be divided into two groups: "snapshooters" and "serious photographers" (pro's and otherwise). Years from now, the former group will have high resolution cameras built into their personal phone/PDA/defibrillators and the latter will have a plethora of options available which can be mixed and matched to suit the purpose at hand.

And in all cases, knowledge of composition and lighting and the other aspects of the craft will separate the goodun's from the badun's.

BobF