Should I short digital camera manufacturers?

Should I short digital camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, etc.)?

I realize, unlike Kodak, they survived *before* digital cameras,
and may survive moving forward, but what do you think the
*percentage* of their revenues are from digital cameras as
opposed to film cameras?

With every single person holding a cellphone camera in their
pocket, I can't see how they can survive.

Can you?

 

Didn't "Dear Leader" Obama ban shorting of stocks? Or was that only one kind?

 

I guess you are not familiar with the development and history of
digital photography, in say the last 12 years?

A small sensor cell phone camera is no replacement for a quality M4/3,
Mirrorless, DSLR (APS-C or Full frame),or medium format digital.
However, if all you are doing is taking a shot for Facebook, Twitter,
or Instagram, then that iPhone/Android, or tablet camera will do just
fine.
....but that isn't what photographers do.
Most of the folks in these photo groups own a smartphone with camera
and relegate it to a camera of convenience, or last resort. That is
what I do. My camera pecking order starts with my DSLR, to my compact,
and if I have nothing els handy, my iPhone.

Yes.

 

The market for compact point & shoots is shrinking, but anyone who was
using a DSLR or MILC or even a bridge camera won't settle for a camera
phone.

Whether young people will continue to go *into* serious photography as
a hobby is a good question, though.

 

yes they will, and have.

a phone is good enough for most situations where someone might have
previously brought an slr or compact, and the phone cameras keep
improving.

the slrs and other 'real cameras' will be relegated to special events,
not everyday photography.

of course they will, but it won't be the same as what the old farts
think of as photography. the future will be largely software and image
processing.

 

Explore http://www.canon.com/ and http://www.nikon.com/ and you will
see that neiter is totally dependent on consumer-level cameras.

 

Naked shorting - short selling stocks you are not holding.

 

@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>,
says...

What do you mean "unlike Kodak"? Kodak was around before any of the
current crop of digital camera manufacturers.

Are you laboring under the misconception that Kodak came into existence
after the digital camera was invented?

 

what about the wide angle lens of these cell phones?

I don't think cell phones are going to get enough thicker to change the
angle

but for consumer applications they seem "good enough" except that the
sRGB color standard doesn't cover all monitors/TVs and some cameras
export less quality color reproduction than is what is on the phone
display, some phones don't even keep the rotation right

 

A few weeks ago I posted a link to work that may lead to a lensless
camera with an equivalent focal lens length of your choice. The work
is being targetted at thin flat cameras suitable for cellphone use. I
am aware of no indication of how good this may turn out to be.

 

I missed that; do you still have the link?

At least one person has claimed to have taken apart a Lytro and found it
to be very different from what was claimed--a simple camera in perpetual
hyperfocal mode. The "focus after the fact" effect, they claimed, was
acheived by selectively blurring things in software.

 

: In article <349c7$533f5f8b$43da7656$16022
: @nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>,
: says...
: >
: > Should I short digital camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, etc.)?
: >
: > I realize, unlike Kodak, they survived *before* digital cameras,
:
: What do you mean "unlike Kodak"? Kodak was around before any of the
: current crop of digital camera manufacturers.
:
: Are you laboring under the misconception that Kodak came into existence
: after the digital camera was invented?

While I acknowledge that the OP displays an astonishing lack of understanding
of today's camera market ...

Maybe he means Kodak as a camera manufacturer, where their success was
sporadic and largely limited to consumer-level equipment, rather than as a
purveyor of film (to novices and professionals alike), the business area in
which they made most of their profits.

Bob

 

: On Sun, 06 Apr 2014 00:50:41 -0400, Dale
:
: >On 04/04/2014 11:31 PM, nospam wrote:
: >> a phone is good enough for most situations where someone might have
: >> previously brought an slr or compact, and the phone cameras keep
: >> improving.
: >
: >what about the wide angle lens of these cell phones?
: >
: >I don't think cell phones are going to get enough thicker to change the
: >angle
: >
: >but for consumer applications they seem "good enough" except that the
: >sRGB color standard doesn't cover all monitors/TVs and some cameras
: >export less quality color reproduction than is what is on the phone
: >display, some phones don't even keep the rotation right
:
: A few weeks ago I posted a link to work that may lead to a lensless
: camera with an equivalent focal lens length of your choice. The work
: is being targetted at thin flat cameras suitable for cellphone use. I
: am aware of no indication of how good this may turn out to be.

No better than the sensor size of a cell phone camera allows it to be.

Bob

 

Naked shorts have always been illegal - however there is a ~2 week
window in which the broker is required to borrow and sell the stock that
you shorted. That window has been abused (mostly by neglect) over and
over again and in some cases the naked position would be on the books
for weeks or never actually executed by the time the position was bought
back.

IMO naked shorts should be 100% banned as they don't actually move
shares in the marketplace as a "proper" short or long sale does. The
marketplace is there to signal - naked shorts prevent that. If you want
to short, the broker should have to find a lender first.

Nothing wrong with proper short sales (other than open ended risk - but
that belongs to the short seller and is limited by account margins).

 

That could be, but Kodak was never very successful selling cameras--
their camera business was the razor end of the razor-and-blades model.
Of course that didn't work very well for digital.

Where Kodak blundered was in not putting their considerable expertise
and early lead together to make them the goto people for digital imaging
with a full range of equipment available from low end consumer to high
end military.

 

That isn't fair to Kodak. Bayer who invented the standard colour mask
technique for full colour CCD imaging worked for Kodak and patented it
so far ahead of its time that they missed out on exploiting it fully.

Kodak's professional grade PhotoCD scanning service was incredibly good
in its day but was completely screwed by the marketing guys launching
PictureCD with the same PCD acronym. You only got caught out once and
then bought a Nikon scanner which by then had become affordable.

My first digicam was a Kodak DC-120 which was discounted because their
marketing department managed to confuse retailers into thinking that it
had been replaced by the DC-210 whilst it was still brand new!

Kodak's problem was that they squandered their early digital lead to
"protect" film when they had already lost out to Fuji but didn't know
it. Once you tried Fuji Sensia you never went back.

Polaroid was predictably almost dead in the water from the moment that
2Mpixel digital cameras were available. Good enough for most purposes
and no messing around with sticky chemicals and inside jacket pockets.

 

I can't find the link to my article but I think that this is what I
was referring to:
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/516351/lensless-camera-takes-multiple-view-pictures/
or http://tinyurl.com/pwhy6zt

However, there is a lot going on. See:
https://www.google.co.nz/#q=mit+lensless+camera

 

On 06/04/2014 17:27, Robert Coe wrote:
: > : In article <349c7$533f5f8b$43da7656$16022
: > : @nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com>,
: > : says...
: > : >
: > : > Should I short digital camera manufacturers (Canon, Nikon, etc.)?
: > : >
: > : > I realize, unlike Kodak, they survived *before* digital cameras,
: > :
: > : What do you mean "unlike Kodak"? Kodak was around before any of the
: > : current crop of digital camera manufacturers.
: > :
: > : Are you laboring under the misconception that Kodak came into existence
: > : after the digital camera was invented?
: >
: > While I acknowledge that the OP displays an astonishing lack of understanding
: > of today's camera market ...
: >
: > Maybe he means Kodak as a camera manufacturer, where their success was
: > sporadic and largely limited to consumer-level equipment, rather than as a
:
: That isn't fair to Kodak. Bayer who invented the standard colour mask
: technique for full colour CCD imaging worked for Kodak and patented it
: so far ahead of its time that they missed out on exploiting it fully.
:
: Kodak's professional grade PhotoCD scanning service was incredibly good
: in its day but was completely screwed by the marketing guys launching
: PictureCD with the same PCD acronym. You only got caught out once and
: then bought a Nikon scanner which by then had become affordable.
:
: My first digicam was a Kodak DC-120 which was discounted because their
: marketing department managed to confuse retailers into thinking that it
: had been replaced by the DC-210 whilst it was still brand new!
:
: > purveyor of film (to novices and professionals alike), the business
: > area in which they made most of their profits.
: >
: > Bob
:
: Kodak's problem was that they squandered their early digital lead to
: "protect" film when they had already lost out to Fuji but didn't know
: it. Once you tried Fuji Sensia you never went back.

Aw, c'mon, Martin, you say it's not fair to Kodak to point out that they
weren't very successful at selling cameras, then spend four paragraphs
explaining why they weren't. The fact that they might have done better if
their marketing organization hadn't been so lame doesn't change the outcome
(which, you'll recall, was bankruptcy).

Bob

 

On 2014.04.04, 23:36 , Eric Stevens wrote:
: > On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 18:59:06 -0700 (PDT), RichA <>
: > wrote:
:
: >> Didn't "Dear Leader" Obama ban shorting of stocks? Or was that only one kind?
: >
: > Naked shorting - short selling stocks you are not holding.
:
: Naked shorts have always been illegal - however there is a ~2 week
: window in which the broker is required to borrow and sell the stock that
: you shorted. That window has been abused (mostly by neglect) over and
: over again and in some cases the naked position would be on the books
: for weeks or never actually executed by the time the position was bought
: back.
:
: IMO naked shorts should be 100% banned as they don't actually move
: shares in the marketplace as a "proper" short or long sale does. The
: marketplace is there to signal - naked shorts prevent that. If you want
: to short, the broker should have to find a lender first.
:
: Nothing wrong with proper short sales (other than open ended risk - but
: that belongs to the short seller and is limited by account margins).

An old adage from the world of commodity trading expresses it well:

"He who sells what isn't his'n
Buys it back or goes to prison."

Bob

 

IIRC that particular concept is trying to use interferometric techniques
to synthesize an image from multiple sensors. If it works then it could
give remarkably high resolution, but won't do much for sensitivity.