In article , "Q.G. de
Bakker" wrote:

Bob Monaghan wrote:

Two points; for the vast majority of camera users, "good enough" would be
a 2MP camera in a cell-phone, as are now under test in Japan etc. (Thanks
to David L. on that update ;-) Since circa 90% of digital camera owners
don't make or buy prints of their digital photos (PMIA stats), but email
and webpost them, all the things we think of as digital photography is
really a modest sized part of the overall market, yes?

No. I think you're suffering severely from the "pars pro toto" syndrome. ;-)
That bit o fthe digital market is huge, yes. But only part of it. And as it
happens, not the part that should concern us.

Can we clarify a bit? I think Bob was speaking of the broad width of the
top of the bell curve, which is by definition the very largest part of the
whole (the market share), so "pars pro toto" doesn't apply. (Am I correct,
Bob?) Bell curve in this case being all picture makers.

And again by definition there will always be the rarified few who demand
certain features (eg: quality). The more rarified, the less likely there
will be a product for these individuals, and if there are such products,
then the expense will almost certainly correspond.

Like who uses vacuum or high-end backs on MF or LF? $5000 for a few LPMM?