On Sun, 1 Aug 2010 14:54:07 -0400, "Peter"
wrote:
: "Robert Coe" wrote in message
: news : On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 09:46:48 -0700, Paul Furman
: wrote:
: : Robert Coe wrote:
: : On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 11:09:51 +1200, wrote:
: : : I doubt we'll ever see "cheap" 35mm format dslrs. APS-c /is/
: : : the standard for dslrs and in 16:9 format will be the standard for
: HD
: : : professional quality video.
: : : By the time some cheap method is available to make 35mm and larger
: : : sensors, the "dlsr" will be history.
: :
: : You're probably right. All it will take to obsolete the DSLR is a fast
: : enough, bright enough, high-resolution EVF. But I'm not sure it's
: relevant
: : to the point under discussion. There's no reason in principle why
: : present-day lenses shouldn't work exactly the same in a mirrorless
: : environment. (With no mirror, the design constraints on lenses can be
: : relaxed somewhat, but that too is of doubtful relevance.) Even with
: EVF,
: : the big question is whether the smaller sensor, and its associated
: lenses,
: : will survive into the moderately distant future or be effectively
: : supplanted by FF.
: :
: : If a technology emerges allowing large affordable sensors, there might
: : be a resurgence of polaroid type cameras, which are medium format P&S.
:
: Interesting thought, but there's a fundamental difference: A Polaroid was
: a
: camera that produced only a print. What you envision is a camera with a
: built-in printer. There would be no reason to jettison the digital image
: when
: the print is completed. So what's the point of the added size, weight, and
: cost of the built-in printer? Wouldn't an attached printer serve just as
: well
: without the disadvantages?
:
:
: We already have portable photo printers. It world not be a large step to put
: an optional dedicated docking system on the printer.

Why bother? All printers and most cameras already have a USB port.

Bob