prosumer future

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by .::SuperBLUE::., Mar 4, 2005.

  1. Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
    cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
    The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
     
    .::SuperBLUE::., Mar 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    Question

    ".::SuperBLUE::." <> wrote in message
    news:d08j8d$j12$...
    > Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
    > cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
    > The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
    >
    >


    And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
    cameras, then what is the Canon 20D? In the film days, cameras like the
    Canon A2 were prosumer SLRs, slotted below the pro level 1n, but above the
    consumer Rebel and Elan. The 20D slots below the 1D mkII and 1Ds mkII, and
    above the Rebel. Wouldn't that make it a "prosumer" camera?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Steven M. Scharf wrote:
    > ".::SuperBLUE::." <> wrote in message
    > news:d08j8d$j12$...
    >> Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer
    >> generation cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
    >> The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?

    >
    > They've about maxxed out the resolution, unless someone decides to do
    > a larger sensor, and/or a CMOS sensor.
    >
    > I'd almost say that the next prosumer camera is a consumer D-SLR like
    > the EOS-350D.


    Agreed about resolution - possibly 7Mp is a better compromise than 8Mp.

    I would have bought the 8800 if its lens hadn't been so small an aperture
    at full zoom (f/4.9), and people still complain about the slow speeds of
    many cameras, so there are two areas which could be improved. Selling
    speed isn't as easy as selling on number of megapixels, of course! I'd
    also like to see the image-stabilised zooms come down from the focal
    length range 36 - 432mm (Panasonic FZ20) to 24 - 288mm, but that's
    optically much more challenging. How about building lens distortion
    correction into the firmware?

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 4, 2005
    #3
  4. .::SuperBLUE::.

    bob Guest

    bmoag wrote:
    > The optical and mechanical properties of any
    > individual lens will be far less important than they are now. This is
    > already happening.


    There's still only so much you can do with software to correct poor
    optics. There's no reason these advances should be limited to lower end
    cameras though. DSLR makers could easily put the transformation
    algorithms on a chip in the individual lenses.

    > A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to the
    > camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off the sensor to
    > widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A simple example would


    Nikon has had that in the Coolpix line to an extent for years. The call
    it contrast adjustment. I find the expansion more useful than the
    compression, by and large.

    Bob
     
    bob, Mar 4, 2005
    #4
  5. some general thoughts:
    the race for higher resolution dominates present camera models. this will
    probably peter out when we reach 25 Megs - about the resolution of decent
    oldfashioned film cameras. I'd say, give it another 2 yrs.
    my personal suggestion for the next generation: a built-in tap for
    piping-hot, freshly-brewed coffee.

    ".::SuperBLUE::." <> wrote in message
    news:d08j8d$j12$...
    > Does anyone have any info about what will the next prosumer generation
    > cameras look like? How many "megapixels"?
    > The next generation of sony 828, nikon 8800?
    >
    >
     
    Yehuda Paradise, Mar 4, 2005
    #5
  6. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    Re: Question

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <MRRVd.43916$xt.29880@fed1read07>, Skip M says...
    >
    >> And a sincere one, too. If the Sony 828 and Nikon 8800 are "prosumer"
    >> cameras, then what is the Canon 20D?

    >
    > It's a DLSR. Cameras as the Sony 828, Olympus 8080, Canon G2 are all
    > prosumers. There has always been a consensus about this.
    > --
    >
    > Alfred Molon
    > ------------------------------
    > Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
    > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
    > Olympus 8080 resource - http://myolympus.org/8080/


    Alfred, often you constitute a consensus of one. Of course, the 20D is a
    DSLR, that wasn't in question. Isn't there a distinction between a
    "prosumer" fixed lens camera and a "prosumer" DSLR? Because the 20D isn't a
    full on pro camera, like the 1D mkII, nor is it a consumer grade camera,
    like the RebelD/300D.
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #6
  7. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
    > Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
    > cameras;
    >


    I'm guessing that you mean "*istD" not *1Ds...
    And the Oly E-1 is a solid prosumer camera.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #7
  8. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Barry Bean Guest

    "Skip M" <> wrote in news:TD8Wd.44056$xt.13029
    @fed1read07:

    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
    >> Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
    >> cameras;

    >
    > I'm guessing that you mean "*istD" not *1Ds...
    > And the Oly E-1 is a solid prosumer camera.


    "Prosumer" is a meaningless category. Pros use what works, whether that's a
    $20K Canon or a beat up OM-1. Consumers use whatever they want. A
    "prosumer" is presumably a serious photographer, or at least wants very
    fine equipment. His needs are not mutually exclusive from either
    professionals or consumers, but there is no common thread between various
    prosumers in the same way that there is between professional s who simply
    demand reliable high performance.
     
    Barry Bean, Mar 5, 2005
    #8
  9. "bmoag" <> writes:
    >If software could be used, in camera or in computer, to correct or create
    >lens aberrations effects, why would one need or want an SLR with its larger
    >and heavier form factor? The optical and mechanical properties of any
    >individual lens will be far less important than they are now.


    I think you vastly overrate software correction of aberrations.

    There is one aberration, geometric distortion, that is well-suited to
    correction in this manner. If a lens has only geometric distortion, all
    the light from a point in the subject converges to a single point in the
    image, so the image is *sharp*, but the point isn't in quite the right
    place. The process of fixing the image is simply one of taking a sharp
    image and slightly "warping" it to put the pixels in the right spot
    geometrically. This isn't too expensive, and can be done with almost no
    loss of picture information.

    But pretty much all other lens aberrations map a point in the subject to
    an *area* in the image. The distribution of the light depends on which
    aberration you're talking about, but the effect is loss of sharpness
    that you can't generally get back. Some information from the source is
    lost forever, no matter how much computer power you're prepared to throw
    at the problem.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Mar 5, 2005
    #9
  10. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    "Barry Bean" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns960FE5CE08D56eatmorecotton@207.14.113.17...
    > "Skip M" <> wrote in news:TD8Wd.44056$xt.13029
    > @fed1read07:
    >
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> The cameras you talk about are (at best) mid-range consumer cameras.
    >>> Prosumer does not start until you get past the 300D, D70, *1Ds, and E1
    >>> cameras;

    >>
    >> I'm guessing that you mean "*istD" not *1Ds...
    >> And the Oly E-1 is a solid prosumer camera.

    >
    > "Prosumer" is a meaningless category. Pros use what works, whether that's
    > a
    > $20K Canon or a beat up OM-1. Consumers use whatever they want. A
    > "prosumer" is presumably a serious photographer, or at least wants very
    > fine equipment. His needs are not mutually exclusive from either
    > professionals or consumers, but there is no common thread between various
    > prosumers in the same way that there is between professional s who simply
    > demand reliable high performance.
    >


    Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher than the
    lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
    take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with the
    term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured terminology,
    but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one available, or in use.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #10
  11. Re: Question

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    news:eBeWd.2563$...
    >
    > "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >
    > > Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.

    >
    > ROTFLMAO!


    It's interesting to see Alfred get bashed on this. My memory has it that the
    term prosumer was introduced into the digital camera world for exactly the
    use he suggests. The meaning appears to have changed over the intervening
    years, though.

    (IMHO, it's always been a completely bogus term. But that's a different
    question.)

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
     
    David J. Littleboy, Mar 5, 2005
    #11
  12. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    Re: Question

    "David J. Littleboy" <> wrote in message
    news:d0bun4$i9d$...
    >
    > "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote in message
    > news:eBeWd.2563$...
    >>
    >> "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >>
    >> > Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.

    >>
    >> ROTFLMAO!

    >
    > It's interesting to see Alfred get bashed on this. My memory has it that
    > the
    > term prosumer was introduced into the digital camera world for exactly the
    > use he suggests. The meaning appears to have changed over the intervening
    > years, though.
    >
    > (IMHO, it's always been a completely bogus term. But that's a different
    > question.)
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan
    >
    >

    "Prosumer" was used before the advent of digital DSLRs to describe cameras
    such as the Canon A2 and Nikon N/F90, cameras that slotted beneath the full
    on pro 1n/1v and F2/F3/F4/F5. It wasn't until the last couple of years that
    I had seen the term applied to higher end ZLR digital cameras.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #12
  13. Skip M wrote:
    []
    > Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher
    > than the lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
    > take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with
    > the term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
    > terminology, but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one
    > available, or in use.


    We've taken the Panasonic FZ20 to the Antarctic - does that make a
    "professional" camera? Oh, and a Nikon 990 as well.

    <G>

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Mar 5, 2005
    #13
  14. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:SpgWd.28867$...
    > Skip M wrote:
    > []
    >> Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher
    >> than the lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
    >> take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with
    >> the term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
    >> terminology, but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one
    >> available, or in use.

    >
    > We've taken the Panasonic FZ20 to the Antarctic - does that make a
    > "professional" camera? Oh, and a Nikon 990 as well.
    >
    > <G>
    >
    > David
    >

    [Sigh]

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 5, 2005
    #14
  15. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Big Bill Guest

    Re: Question

    On Sat, 5 Mar 2005 09:28:34 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Confused
    >says...
    >
    >> > It's a DLSR. Cameras as the Sony 828, Olympus 8080, Canon G2 are all
    >> > prosumers. There has always been a consensus about this.

    >>
    >> No no no... that's the brainwashing of marketing departments.

    >
    >Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.


    Those here can't even agree on what a "professional" camera is.
    The idea that it's a camera used by professionals seems to fit the
    bill, but that could be *any* camera.
    Now, try to define in a concrete way what a "prosumer" is, and the
    problem persists; there's no way to limit what camera a prosumer might
    use, thus there can't be a concensus of that a "prosumer" camera might
    be.
    >
    >> If one is a "prosumer" the other is a "prosucker".

    >
    >And here you have just managed to insult millions of people.


    Tough. Millions of people are just looking for ways to be insulted.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Mar 5, 2005
    #15
  16. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Guest

    bmoag <> wrote:
    > The EVF cameras are a new form factor. Most writers on this newsgroup cannot
    > wrap their head around that after a lifetime of SLR use and the mantra of
    > interchangeable lenses.
    > The digital world is not shackled to fixed optico-mechanical limitations.


    > If software could be used, in camera or in computer, to correct or
    > create lens aberrations effects, why would one need or want an SLR
    > with its larger and heavier form factor?


    The answer is, obviously, that you can partially but not completely
    fix aberrations. (Cf. Hubble Telescope passim.)

    > The optical and mechanical properties of any individual lens will be
    > far less important than they are now. This is already happening.


    Indeed it is, and has been for some time now. It's a good thing. But
    images from a sucky lens, even when corrected, still suck.

    > If the lens is fixed to the camera, as with EVF/prosumer cameras the design
    > of such software is made much easier.


    > A second line of development, also easier if the lens is fixed to
    > the camera, would involve in camera processing of data coming off
    > the sensor to widen the apparent exposure latitude of the sensor. A
    > simple example would be the ability to selectively decrease the
    > signal amplitude coming off the highlights to minimize blow-out of
    > details in the highlights.


    It can't be done. If an electron well, is full, then it's full -- the
    image highlights will be clipped. You cannot fix this in software.
    The data have gone.

    Andrew.
     
    , Mar 6, 2005
    #16
  17. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Doug Warner Guest

    Re: Question

    "Steven M. Scharf" <> wrote:

    >
    >"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    >
    >> Nope. That has been the consensus in this newsgroup for years.

    >
    >ROTFLMAO!
    >


    Yep.. Here's a couple of old, famouse Usenet comments from the past
    that still apply today:



    Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -
    massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a
    source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.
    Eugene Spafford

    You need two things on Usenet - a civil tongue and a thick skin.
    Steve Dorner



    To reply, please remove one letter from each side of "@"
    Spammers are VERMIN. Please kill them all.
     
    Doug Warner, Mar 6, 2005
    #17
  18. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Barry Bean Guest

    "Skip M" <> wrote in
    news:GrbWd.44078$xt.33683@fed1read07:

    > Do you have a better term to describe a camera that is aimed higher
    > than the lowest common denominator entry level and the full blown
    > take-it-to-the-Arctic professional grade camera? I'm not happy with
    > the term "prosumer," much like I'm not happy with most manufactured
    > terminology, but there doesn't seem to be a more appropriate one
    > available, or in use.


    Do we have to have a term? Are you not able to look at a D70, 300D or
    E300 and simply evaluate it on its merits?

    Certainly there are reporters, portrait and wedding photographers,
    graphic designers, and serious art photographers using the cameras, and
    doing so sucessfully. By the same token, there are tons of amateurs who
    either shoot seriously on the weekend with these cameras, or well-to-do
    hobbyists who simply use these as expensive point-and-shoots.

    So it seems that we'd be far better off to simply refer to these cameras
    by model, or by some label that refers to their function and build - i.e.
    entry level or 1st tier DSLRs as opposed to cameras like the 20D, D2, E1,
    et all that could conceivaby be referred to as mid-level or 2nd tier
    DSLRs.

    It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
    camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.
     
    Barry Bean, Mar 7, 2005
    #18
  19. .::SuperBLUE::.

    paul Guest

    Barry Bean wrote:
    >
    > It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
    > camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.



    And simply price.

    $200 cameras
    $500 cameras
    $1000 cameras
    $5000 cameras
     
    paul, Mar 7, 2005
    #19
  20. .::SuperBLUE::.

    Skip M Guest

    "paul" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Barry Bean wrote:
    >>
    >> It just seems to me to be more useful to categorize cameras based on
    >> camera features, rather than by supposed common features of their users.

    >
    >
    > And simply price.
    >
    > $200 cameras
    > $500 cameras
    > $1000 cameras
    > $5000 cameras


    Let's look at two cameras 8mp and under $1000, the Canon 350XT and the Sony
    828. Same thing? No, similar usage? Similar user? Possibly to both, but
    still decidedly different cameras.
    Now look at some other cameras, but price independent. The Canon 1D mkII,
    20D and 350XT. All 8mp cameras, the 1D mkII is more rugged than either of
    the others, and fires off at 8fps. The 20D is, obviously, in the middle,
    less rugged than the 1D, faster than the Rebel. All three cameras are aimed
    at a different market and different users. Thus the categorization.
    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
     
    Skip M, Mar 7, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. RichA
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    242
    Chrlz
    May 21, 2005
  2. RichA
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    444
    Philip Homburg
    Jun 6, 2005
  3. RichA

    Prosumer not dead?

    RichA, Jun 25, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    229
    birdman
    Jun 26, 2005
  4. Rich
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    279
    Gizmo
    Sep 14, 2005
  5. Doc
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    343
    Rick Merrill
    May 17, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page