Focal plane vs. leaf shutters in MF SLRs

Hi,

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:

Depends on how much money i could save on film and film processing,
doesn't it?

Not if you have to spend it on editing hardware and software, storage
media, etc. [...]

True, sort of.
For very many of us, those costs are part of daily expenditure
already. You can shoot film but still need to produce digital files,
burn CDs etc.
So if you can avoid buying and processing film, you really do save
money. And time.

I'm not so sure about that. The relationship between amount and the cost
of data storage is not necessarily linear. If I only have to scan and
store 1 out of 10 shots, then my digital storage costs are much lower than
if I shot everything digitally. The time factor can be misleading, too,
because you can put your film away and leave it untouched for decades.
However, you have to spend time refreshing digital data periodically. The
more data you have, the more time you'll spend at keeping it functioning,
and that's competely unproductive time that often can't even be billed.
It's just another cost.

Same with digiback's: sell me a proper one today, and charge a
reasonable price for it, and i'll be using it for years. And so, i
think, will many others with me.

The question is: why? No currently available MF digiback can even
approach the quality of a mid-range MF film scanner, not to mention
the price point. Film scanners in the price bracket of MF digibacks
are even further beyond digital performance capabilities.

Two reasons why:
First, while i always scan my film at max. resolution, and store the
resulting huge files, i rarely ever have to use a file that big. What
*scanners can do* is not a measure of what *we actually need*.
Second, it saves time. Heeps of it.

Why would you scan *all* of your film? I don't see any need to do that.
See above w/r/t the time factor.

But that's all besides the point, which was that given a rpoper one
you don't need to upgrade every 6 months. You only need to "upgrade"
anything when it begins to disintegrate. Not each and every time a
supposedl "new and improved" version comes along.
Consumerism is rife, but that's no excuse to behave as a consumer
would. ;-)

The trouble with this is that one of the main reasons that MF shooters are
forced into digital is because the clients demand it, whether or not it
makes sense for their application. Along with that expectation is that you
have the "latest and greatest", even if there is no particular benefit to
having it (because most clients are clueless about the technology anyway).
The one with the newest toys gets the job.

I disagree that the days of LF are gone. LF has always been best
suited to large gallery prints. Sorry, but your Kodak/n is just not
going to displace LF in that deparment. OTOH, LF for catalog work is
simply misapplied technology.

There is a lot of truth in what you say. But you must not forget to
consider that is is far from uncommon that "large gallery prints" are
produced using those miniature 35 mm cameras too. I'll even bet you
that the vast majority of "large gallery prints" are produced on 35
mm film.
So yes, LF seems to be eminently suited to produce large prints. But
(again) reality runs circles around our well considered conclusions.

I'm sure that you're right about large prints from small format cameras.
The inherent limits of small format won't preclude its being used in such
ways. However, when one *needs* the quality of LF, small format won't do.

A Kodak SLR/n may not be able to replace 35 mm for this type of
print, no. Enlarged grain and pixelation do not quite produce the
same visual effect. So there's room for 35 mm film still... ;-)

I completely agree. They're just two different media.

Even MF cameras offer full movements...

Take a look at the Rollei X-Act 2... (yes, I know you've seen it,
but this is a wider discussion than just us)
http://www.rollei-usa.com/bellows/index.htm

My advise to anyone considering to buy one of those was and still is
to think again. And if movements are demmed to be absolutely
indispensable, to get a proper 4x5" thing and hang a 6x9 back on it.
Anyway, that's another discussion.

Interesting perspective. What do you see as the disadvantages of the
X-Act? It appears to accomplish much of what you desi it accepts
digital and film backs; it has movements; and it uses existing 6000 series
lenses. IMO, the only reason one would have to "think again" is if it
didn't work as advertised! ;-)

Digital cameras will still be in production once digital has taken
over completely, right? It may be impossible to get one fixed, but
you can always get a new one.

I'd word it a bit differently: you'll have little choice but to get a new
one, again at premium prices.

But not discontinued items: you can only hope to get those repaired
using old parts taken from things even more broken than the ones you
hope to get repaired.

There is something to be said about the build quality of a decent MF
camera that is irrelevant w/r/t digicams. My mid '50s Rolleiflex is still
in good working order (I have film in it now, in fact). I suspect that my
6008i will continue to work for a while yet, too. However, digicams are
not intended to have the working lifespan of MF film cameras, even though
they may cost more than MF film cameras to purchase. I doubt that any pro
will be using today's high-end digicam 10 years from now, and perhaps not
even 3 years from now (yet another factor that compensates for film and
processing costs).

But let's not get too far ahead of ourselves, and of things to come.
MF and film is still with us today. It's just that this year will
(and i strongly believe that) be a deciding one in photography's
history. And if things go like i think they likely will, the effects
will still not be felt immediately. Though things will change soon
enough. Too fast for comfort.

Like BobM, I think that film will be with us for the rest of our lives.
Beyond that, I don't much care! ;-)

Regards,

Neil

What a great laugh, so the digital video types are shooting in super -16
_FILM_ to future proof their movies against changing and higher quality
digital formats? ;-) ;-) What does this say about shooting MF to future
proof our shots against future improvements in digital technology and 4000
line displays (which are going to make current 720x480 mini-DV quality
look rather sickly, yes? ;-) Maybe I should start exploring the
"panoramic" format in my mini-DV camera, which is like 16:9 or some such?

some good tips esp. upcoming ultra-high definition video (4k lines@!)
;-) Somewhat related to the obsolescence issues, my local blockbuster is
getting out of VHS tape entirely, and the mgr is salivating at the
prospect that as soon as we all run out and replace our VHS tapes, they
will have "mandatory" A.D. 2006 switch to HDTV (per FCC regs, likely to be
stretched out IMHO though), which means we will all need to run out and
rebuy all our favorite films in HDTV format, and no doubt all over again
for the next higher definition format after that.

maybe I should buy some stock in Blockbuster instead of trying to buy
movies there? ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

given the view that digital is displacing MF sales (probably true, as I've
noted), I think the questions about MF future are tied to the future of
digital photography too, yes?

My point about cell phone cameras is that they will displace most of the
current digital camera using base, at 2 MP or so, including the 89% of
digicam users who do NOT make any prints. So only 11% of digicam owners
are doing any prints, including those who have kiosks print for them(!).
This is a very different view from what I see in the photo mags about
digital use and future, yes?

What we see as digital photography today will become a modest niche market
in a few years, as camera cell phones become the norm. That also means a
decline in sales and fervor as the masses who are supporting much of the
present "mania" happily switch to camera cell phones for direct uploading.

Gordon's post makes the point that the MP of still digital cameras are
tied to the technology for digital video (and market demands thereof), and
that as displays reach 4,000 lines etc. the push will be on for higher
quality higher MP video, which might carry over into higher MP still
digital imagery.

This might be the "killer app" which I am seeking to justify 32 MP or even
64 MP sensors. Again, my expectation is that such larger 32/64 MP devices
would require larger optics (and larger sensor sites to reduce video noise
etc.?).

The reverse of the cell phone issue for digital DSLRs is the switch to
digital from 35mm film users; the lost sales make it more problematic that
film production for 120 and LF can continue without this mass market base.
Of course, the really, really big user of 35mm film stocks are the movies,
and there again, I have expressed my concerns if the film industry does
finally switch to direct digital bypassing film entirely, those thousands
of miles of film sales lost would be more devastating than the current
losses in consumer film sales due to changeovers to digital cameras.

Again, trying to understand these market dynamics has consequences, as
QGdeB implies, whether to stay invested in MF, or if film will continue to
be available, or if the digital bubble will burst, as I suggest, pushing
current 35mm equiv. DSLRs into a niche market, rather larger than MF but
not the all-encompassing goliath that many now envision? ;-)

grins bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

Give it time, experience takes time to teach its lessons ;-) My kodak
digicam display locked up, and the repair cost was more than a working
replacement on Ebay of a later model only 2+ years after purchase. That
was a "learning experience" for me, and others I am sure too ;-) At least
Kodak had parts for a 3 year old digicam; lots of importer/mfgers don't.

As for old digicams still being good, that's fine, but you had better be
able to write software drivers to download from them yourself, as the
mfgers don't seem to want to do so for their older digicams and the newer
O/S. And the new high speed ports don't match the old hardware or
cabling on my digicams either. ;-)

So if you really think you want to stick with your older digicam, you are
also going to have to maintain an older PC and O/S with compatible
hardware and (obsolete) software drivers and software to access those
images.

I can't download from our radio club's digicam to our XP O/S because
neither the cables nor XP software drivers are available for it;
fortunately, I have an old compaq I can still remember how to use working
to download from the digicam in windoze ;-)

If this sounds silly to you, it is, and it is likely to happen to many
current digicam users who will discover that they _have_ to upgrade, that
obsolescence and marketing by M/S and others means you can't use the old
stuff anymore - unless you maintain older hardware and software PCs etc.

Do I think you will maintain an 4 or 6 or 10 year old PC to be able to
access your current 4MP or 6MP or 8MP digicam? When the industry is
projecting disposable digicams with 16MP sensors for under $100? No, I
don't think so either. Nor is there any $ in writing software drivers for
XP users to download from older 640x480 digicams, yes? ;-)

In short, if you are investing in a DSLR, you had better have a break-even
window that is 1-2 years or so, not the 10-20 years used by pros with past
gear. That's a different deal, yes? ;-(

my $.02 ;-)

bobm

--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

actually, most folks have film experience, thanks to those $9.95
disposable film cameras. Nice photos, drop off, go shop, pick up on way
out convenience. Digital processing, just like digicams. But more archival
film as well as CD format image options.

I don't expect lots of folks to get into photography, but if millions of
folks are making photos with their camera cell-phones (sorry, rafe ;-),
then 0.5% of 100 million is still a pretty big upgrade market to film
photography ;-)

I do think there will be some retro fashions; I see it now in ham radio,
where older tube gear is fetching higher prices than modern digital
radios.

Part of the answer is already visible; as noted, used MF is becoming very
CHEAP, even cheaper than pro 35mm, and the image quality is still a major
step up.

I expect many niche markets to continue in film; as I noted, I expect
formal portraiture might stay in film, architecture, some art photography
and so on. Developing world film use will continue to provide a market for
film stocks.

finally, the internet and EBAY have made it much easier than even 7 years
ago to find info on MF (ahem, see my MF site ;-) and get into MF, there
are a number of books being published (Peter Williams, Roger Hicks and so
on) and even 3 books on classic bronica cameras alone etc. So I hope folks
will find these resources, and enjoy them! ;-)

regards bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

On 28 May 2004 23:09:44 -0500, (Bob Monaghan)
wrote:


given the view that digital is displacing MF sales (probably true, as I've
noted), I think the questions about MF future are tied to the future of
digital photography too, yes?

My point about cell phone cameras is that they will displace most of the
current digital camera using base, at 2 MP or so, including the 89% of
digicam users who do NOT make any prints. So only 11% of digicam owners
are doing any prints, including those who have kiosks print for them(!).
This is a very different view from what I see in the photo mags about
digital use and future, yes?

What we see as digital photography today will become a modest niche market
in a few years, as camera cell phones become the norm. That also means a
decline in sales and fervor as the masses who are supporting much of the
present "mania" happily switch to camera cell phones for direct uploading.


Now really, bobm. After spending all that loot for
a 10D and a Canon zoom, do you think I'm going
to jump for a cell phone camera any time soon?

big snip

Again, trying to understand these market dynamics has consequences, as
QGdeB implies, whether to stay invested in MF, or if film will continue to
be available, or if the digital bubble will burst, as I suggest, pushing
current 35mm equiv. DSLRs into a niche market, rather larger than MF but
not the all-encompassing goliath that many now envision? ;-)


I don't expect that anything will sit still for long in the
digicam world, but I do expect advances to be
somewhat less breathtaking as time goes on.

We're seeing a convergence to "quite good enough
for most folks" and thus a diminishing portion of the
market left for digital to conquer.

If there are consumers or "prosumers" willing to pay
for bleeding edge technology, it will continue to
evolve. And if not, we'll see a softening of the growth
curve, consolidation, shakeout, etc.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com

Neil Gould wrote:

True, sort of.
For very many of us, those costs are part of daily expenditure
already. You can shoot film but still need to produce digital files,
burn CDs etc.
So if you can avoid buying and processing film, you really do save
money. And time.

I'm not so sure about that. The relationship between amount and the cost
of data storage is not necessarily linear. If I only have to scan and
store 1 out of 10 shots, then my digital storage costs are much lower than
if I shot everything digitally.

You're right. You don't have to archive every single shot.
But digital makes that as easy as it can be: you just delete the
not-worthwhile thingies.
My negative archive still is full of unusable shots, if only because they
are attached to the ones i could use and need to remain archived so strips
keep their usefull length. ;-)

The time factor can be misleading, too,
because you can put your film away and leave it untouched for decades.
However, you have to spend time refreshing digital data periodically. The
more data you have, the more time you'll spend at keeping it functioning,
and that's competely unproductive time that often can't even be billed.
It's just another cost.

Providing you're still interested in keeping the things you did 10 years
ago. But i see how many will be, so yes, you're right.

Two reasons why:
First, while i always scan my film at max. resolution, and store the
resulting huge files, i rarely ever have to use a file that big. What
*scanners can do* is not a measure of what *we actually need*.
Second, it saves time. Heeps of it.

Why would you scan *all* of your film? I don't see any need to do that.
See above w/r/t the time factor.

Who says anything about scanning *all* my film?

You were talking about the quality of digibacks compared to scanners. I
noted that the maximum quality my scanner produces is rarely ever called
for.

Consumerism is rife, but that's no excuse to behave as a consumer
would. ;-)

The trouble with this is that one of the main reasons that MF shooters are
forced into digital is because the clients demand it, whether or not it
makes sense for their application. Along with that expectation is that you
have the "latest and greatest", even if there is no particular benefit to
having it (because most clients are clueless about the technology anyway).
The one with the newest toys gets the job.

Well no. While clients do indeed expect to be given digital images, they do
not care at all about what you use to create what they want. As long as they
are good, you could be colouring them in pixel by pixel using the good old
"Paint" windows application for all they care.
The want for the "latest and greatest" resides in the minds of the people
actually using equipment, not in the minds of those who don't.

I'm sure that you're right about large prints from small format cameras.
The inherent limits of small format won't preclude its being used in such
ways. However, when one *needs* the quality of LF, small format won't do.

Yes. But that's a fine example of circular reasoning, begging the question.

Interesting perspective. What do you see as the disadvantages of the
X-Act? It appears to accomplish much of what you desi it accepts
digital and film backs; it has movements; and it uses existing 6000 series
lenses. IMO, the only reason one would have to "think again" is if it
didn't work as advertised! ;-)

The main disadvantages of all these MF thingies is that they are extremely
expensive (especially when you already have a perfectly good 4x5" outfit);
need new lenses because the MF ones do not have the covering power required;
have limited movements, and thus limited usefulness, even with special
lenses; still offer the smallest of MF formats; and while being smaller than
4x5" cameras suggests they are easier in use, they quite simply aren't.
In short, the idea sounds good, the reality isn't. These things just do not
make sense.

It's no coincedence that both Hasselblad's versions have been discontinued.
No takers. Photographers do show common sense now and again. ;-)

Digital cameras will still be in production once digital has taken
over completely, right? It may be impossible to get one fixed, but
you can always get a new one.

I'd word it a bit differently: you'll have little choice but to get a new
one, again at premium prices.

No matter how you put it, in that same scenario you do not (!) even have the
choice to get a new MF camera.

There is something to be said about the build quality of a decent MF
camera that is irrelevant w/r/t digicams. My mid '50s Rolleiflex is still
in good working order (I have film in it now, in fact). I suspect that my
6008i will continue to work for a while yet, too. However, digicams are
not intended to have the working lifespan of MF film cameras, even though
they may cost more than MF film cameras to purchase. I doubt that any pro
will be using today's high-end digicam 10 years from now, and perhaps not
even 3 years from now (yet another factor that compensates for film and
processing costs).

Yes, i agree. Mechanical things have a lifespan that is quite impressive. So
the "repairability" issue is not a major worry.
But still, things do break (repair shops have thrived and still do thrive
repairing our ever-lasting mechanical equipment, don't they?) so it is a
worry still.

Like BobM, I think that film will be with us for the rest of our lives.
Beyond that, I don't much care! ;-)

We'll see.

Recently, Q.G. de Bakker posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
I'm not so sure about that. The relationship between amount and the
cost of data storage is not necessarily linear. If I only have to
scan and store 1 out of 10 shots, then my digital storage costs are
much lower than if I shot everything digitally.

You're right. You don't have to archive every single shot.
But digital makes that as easy as it can be: you just delete the
not-worthwhile thingies.

That's not necessarily an easy call. Shots that are technically and
visually acceptable, but not "best" for a particular immediate use may
still be useful on other occasions.

The time factor can be misleading, too,
because you can put your film away and leave it untouched for
decades. However, you have to spend time refreshing digital data
periodically. The more data you have, the more time you'll spend at
keeping it functioning, and that's competely unproductive time that
often can't even be billed. It's just another cost.

Providing you're still interested in keeping the things you did 10
years ago. But i see how many will be, so yes, you're right.

It's not uncommon in my field of work to have clients ask me for materials
that are 10 years old. When I first got into the "paperless office" realm,
I was unaware of the challenge (and expense) of matching the archival
quality of paper! ;-)

Why would you scan *all* of your film? I don't see any need to do
that. See above w/r/t the time factor.

Who says anything about scanning *all* my film?

You were talking about the quality of digibacks compared to scanners.
I noted that the maximum quality my scanner produces is rarely ever
called for.

Ah. I just misinterpreted your message. My situation is the reverse. As
most of my "paid" work is for technical shots, I'm working on the edge
where digital images (scanned or otherwise) are not quite up to the
quality of optical images. I realize that my point of view is seriously
skewed in this regard.

The trouble with this is that one of the main reasons that MF
shooters are forced into digital is because the clients demand it,
whether or not it makes sense for their application. Along with that
expectation is that you have the "latest and greatest", even if
there is no particular benefit to having it (because most clients
are clueless about the technology anyway). The one with the newest
toys gets the job.

Well no. While clients do indeed expect to be given digital images,
they do not care at all about what you use to create what they want.
As long as they are good, you could be colouring them in pixel by
pixel using the good old "Paint" windows application for all they
care.

I wish that were true. When I bid on a job, I'm often asked about the
equipment that will be used. Never mind that my portfolio has ample
examples of accomplishments well beyond their needs. I suspect that their
interest in such things is almost religious in nature, much like the "PC
vs. Mac" discussions.

I'm sure that you're right about large prints from small format
cameras. The inherent limits of small format won't preclude its
being used in such ways. However, when one *needs* the quality of
LF, small format won't do.

Yes. But that's a fine example of circular reasoning, begging the
question.

Not really. If one needs large images without a grainy look, LF is the way
to go.

Interesting perspective. What do you see as the disadvantages of the
X-Act? It appears to accomplish much of what you desi it accepts
digital and film backs; it has movements; and it uses existing 6000
series lenses. IMO, the only reason one would have to "think again"
is if it didn't work as advertised! ;-)

The main disadvantages of all these MF thingies is that they are
extremely expensive (especially when you already have a perfectly
good 4x5" outfit); need new lenses because the MF ones do not have
the covering power required; have limited movements, and thus limited
usefulness, even with special lenses; still offer the smallest of MF
formats; and while being smaller than 4x5" cameras suggests they are
easier in use, they quite simply aren't.
In short, the idea sounds good, the reality isn't. These things just
do not make sense.

Well, let's take a look at your critique. ;-)

The expense of adding an X-Act2 would be the cost of the basic unit if one
already has the lenses. The MSRP of the X-Act is less than 1/2 of a
typical high-end small format digicam (without lenses). It's also less
than 1/2 the price of a Schneider PC lens. So, by comparison with these
two alternatives, it's not particularly expensive. The X-Act is a smaller
format than the 6x6 of the 6000 series, so, there should be few practical
limitations of the camera's movements when using existing 6000 series
lenses. I agree that it would involve about the same amount effort as a
4"x5", but then, you *would* have to buy more lenses to do the same job. I
suspect that Rollei has concluded that full-frame MF sensors may be a long
time in coming (if ever), and offers the X-Act as a practical solution for
direct digital with the benefits of a bellows camera.

It's no coincedence that both Hasselblad's versions have been
discontinued. No takers. Photographers do show common sense now and
again. ;-)

Many may not have a need for a bellows camera of any format. If their MF
is basically an "upgraded 35mm", it wouldn't be surprising to discover
that they have little interest in the feature set of larger formats.

Digital cameras will still be in production once digital has taken
over completely, right? It may be impossible to get one fixed, but
you can always get a new one.

I'd word it a bit differently: you'll have little choice but to get
a new one, again at premium prices.

No matter how you put it, in that same scenario you do not (!) even
have the choice to get a new MF camera.

I see your point. But, that presumes a lot, no? Considering that the VW
Beetle was only recently discontinued, it's reasonable to presume that
someone will be supplying those that want to shoot MF film for quite some
time.

Regards,

Neil

yes, I do feel the skill sets for photography and digital scanning,
monitor calibration, software installation (and re-installation, after
crashes ;-), and photoshop esp. are very different skills. People good at
one may not be good at all the others. And it does take time to learn
those skills and keep them current with new versions of software and
hardware and upgrades needed every year or two.

One survey for microsoft found the average user knew something like 12-17%
of the features in their current products, and even their certified
experts only knew circa 30% of product features. Most of the requested
features by users are already in the products, and have been for four or
five versions ;-) So much for software skills ;-)

Just saw refurb HP 5.3 Megapixel cameras on sale at Fry's for $129 this
holiday weekend with full factory warranty and packaging. Yikes! Good
thing it was too hot to go get me another digicam ;-)

see http://www.arizonahighways.com/page....=Photo_Talk803 in which
Arizona Highways photography guru concluded "But an 11-megapixel capture
is not nearly large enough for the sharp, high-resolution full-page
reproductions we strive for on the printed pages of Arizona Highways
magazine at 300 dots per inch."

So yes, I think the claims of doing high quality large scale portraiture
with a 5 MP or even 8MP or 11 MP digicam is problematic, and I still see a
future for film in such niches, just as MF is used over 35mm today for the
same reasons.

And Gordon's comment (IIRC) about shooting in super-16 FILM as backup to
digital so as to accommodate future improvements in digital displays is
quite on point; we have a new display convention in USA this week, with
rolled up displays and 3D displays and all that.

But I think you are wrong that folks will not care about their images in
the future, esp. since they are now outlasting their own wedding and
graduation videos (15-20 years on magtape?) and the growing scandal about
"archival" DVDs and so no that are NOT archival in typical use etc. ;-)

Future historians may well see this as the black ages, black because just
like NASA can't read their own pre-moon landing tapes, the majority of the
digital stuff being recorded today won't be readable in our lifetimes (at
least, I hope to live that long and longer ;-)

grins bobm


--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************

quoting QGdeB:
But that's all besides the point, which was that given a rpoper one you
don't need to upgrade every 6 months. You only need to "upgrade" anything
when it begins to disintegrate. Not each and every time a supposedl "new
and improved" version comes along.
end-quote:

That's the problem, the only way you can stay with what you have is if you
"freeze" a computer system with compatible O/S and hardware and maintain
it. The newer XP O/S, for example, doesn't have drivers to support older
cameras. Mfgers don't want to provide drivers for the new O/S, because
they _want_ you to "upgrade" to the latest cameras. Even if you want to
keep your old camera, you can't. There are six new formats of memory cards
and sticks and pretzels ;-) You can't buy new unformatted memory cards,
and you can't get your old camera economically repaired after 2 or 3
years. What other kilobuck consumer purchase can you make where you can't
get it repaired 3 years later?

I do think many things are going to cool off or burst the "digital
bubble".

First, the prices are coming down, so no longer will 4% of sales of DSLRs
represent 40% of total store sales. Highly competitive discount online
pricing will mean profits will remain thin, mainly from accessory sales?

With 5MP digicams at $200-250 US$, anyone who wants a high end digicam
already has one they aren't using ;-)

Why do consumers need to spend $1k+ on an 8MP model, if what they have is
"good enough"? ;-)

The PMAI stats, for digicam owners, that 89% never make prints but simply
email and view images online, is closely tied to my view that camera
cellphones will siphon off most of the masses' interest in digital
photography. They don't need a 8MP digicam for a webimage, right?

If current mass market of digicam users do NOT elect to upgrade to the
latest and highest density MP digicams, then there won't be the volume
needed to keep those prices low. DSLRs will become more of a niche market.

My own view is that the new ads for video cellphones shows the future,
where 640x480 imagery (ie mini-DV quality) is where digital mass use is
headed, not higher MP images which won't be printed anyway, so why bother?

my $.02 again

bobm
--
************************************************** *********************
* Robert Monaghan POB 752182 Southern Methodist Univ. Dallas Tx 75275 *
********************Standard Disclaimers Apply*************************