doughowk said:
A New York Times
article ,,,
Some interesting comments on this which probably show why cameras as WE know them are doomed apart from for serious users,
'Yet digital S.L.R.'s are big, bulky and heavy. And you can't use the screen to compose your shots, which, on other cameras, is a delicious convenience. You must frame your shots by peering through the eyepiece.' Has anyone here ever tried to compose a picture in a 2 inch screen held at arms length ? This is progress ?
'The P1 from Nikon and Elph SD430 from Canon both offer Wi-Fi wireless networking. Unfortunately, the only thing those cameras can do is transfer your pictures wirelessly to a computer or printer; they don't connect to the Internet.' And this is a problem because .... ?
'The EasyShare-One from Kodak, however, can send your photos by e-mail or post them on a free Kodak Web page or even go the opposite direction, summoning photos from your online stash to the camera's screen on demand.' Bye bye one hour labs for DIGITAL
Then the killer quote,
'THE NEXT-GEN CAMERA Paradise is still not in the cards; for one thing, nobody has yet figured out how to store all those digital photos for future generations. It's not clear how long hard drives and home-burned CD's can last, and the software question is even more frightening. Will the under-the-skin nanocomputers of 2100 still recognize JPEG files?'
Providing someone somewhere is making photographic paper and chemicals you will still be able to take a 50 year old negative and develop it to produce a print which will last at least 50 years (100 for BW).
Isn't progress wondeful ? Makes me feel glad I chose film .