Should I short digital camera manufacturers?

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Mathis Lefebvre, Apr 5, 2014.

  1. 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?
     
    Mathis Lefebvre, Apr 5, 2014
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Mathis Lefebvre

    RichA Guest

    Didn't "Dear Leader" Obama ban shorting of stocks? Or was that only one kind?
     
    RichA, Apr 5, 2014
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mathis Lefebvre

    Savageduck Guest

    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.
     
    Savageduck, Apr 5, 2014
    #3
  4. Mathis Lefebvre

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 5, 2014
    #4
  5. Mathis Lefebvre

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Apr 5, 2014
    #5
  6. Mathis Lefebvre

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Explore http://www.canon.com/ and http://www.nikon.com/ and you will
    see that neiter is totally dependent on consumer-level cameras.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 5, 2014
    #6
  7. Mathis Lefebvre

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Naked shorting - short selling stocks you are not holding.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 5, 2014
    #7
  8. Mathis Lefebvre

    J. Clarke Guest

    @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?
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 5, 2014
    #8
  9. Mathis Lefebvre

    Dale Guest

    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
     
    Dale, Apr 6, 2014
    #9
  10. Mathis Lefebvre

    Eric Stevens Guest

    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.
     
    Eric Stevens, Apr 6, 2014
    #10
  11. Mathis Lefebvre

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    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.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Apr 6, 2014
    #11
  12. Mathis Lefebvre

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 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
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 6, 2014
    #12
  13. Mathis Lefebvre

    Robert Coe Guest

    : 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
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 6, 2014
    #13
  14. Mathis Lefebvre

    Alan Browne Guest

    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).
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 6, 2014
    #14
  15. Mathis Lefebvre

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 6, 2014
    #15
  16. Mathis Lefebvre

    Martin Brown Guest

    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.
     
    Martin Brown, Apr 6, 2014
    #16
  17. Mathis Lefebvre

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Eric Stevens, Apr 7, 2014
    #17
  18. Mathis Lefebvre

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 7, 2014
    #18
  19. Mathis Lefebvre

    Robert Coe Guest

    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
     
    Robert Coe, Apr 7, 2014
    #19
  20. Mathis Lefebvre

    J. Clarke Guest

    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.
     
    J. Clarke, Apr 7, 2014
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.