Jock Elliott
Hall of Famer
- Location
- Troy, NY
In one of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies, Captain Jack Sparrow asks the plaintive question: “Why is the rum always gone?” (The answer: he drank it all.)
Well, I have a plaintive question of my own: Why are there no “classic” digital cameras?
The answer: they don’t live long enough to become classics. By “live long enough,” I mean that in five years or less, the technology within the camera is totally eclipsed so that it is (A) non-repairable, (B) the essential electronic components are no longer manufactured (the imaging and processing chips) and (C) it is not worth keeping for decades.
Further, I guarantee that within six months of buying your new, state-of-the-art piece of imaging gear, the same company will announce the next new and greatly improved version.
I think there may be an answer, if any company is brave enough to embrace it, but first let you, me, and Mr. Peabody step into the way-back machine for a moment. Back in the 1960s, Nikon manufactured a film-based modular camera system. On the same built-like-a-tank camera body you could change backs, prisms, view and focus screens, winders, adapters and the like so that the same camera could be morphed into whatever application you had at hand, whether it was high-speed photojournalism or making images while peering through a microscope.
Why not start with a great camera body (which you have bought with the idea of keeping it) to which you attach your favorite lenses (which you also get to keep). When imaging technology changes, you undo a couple of screws, slide out the imager, associated processing electronics and the back screen which are built as a unit, and replace it with the latest gee-whiz imager, processing engines and high-zoot back screen. You keep all the rest (including your EVF, which may be swapped out from time to time); the cost is lower both to you and the manufacturer, and I bet there would be less resistance to upgrading.
The Ricoh folks kind of approached this idea with one of their cameras (the EXR, maybe?), but they made the tactical error of marrying the lenses to the sensor modules.
I think we need a better brand of rum, one that doesn’t become obsolete so easily. Then maybe it won't be always gone.
Cheers, Jock
Well, I have a plaintive question of my own: Why are there no “classic” digital cameras?
The answer: they don’t live long enough to become classics. By “live long enough,” I mean that in five years or less, the technology within the camera is totally eclipsed so that it is (A) non-repairable, (B) the essential electronic components are no longer manufactured (the imaging and processing chips) and (C) it is not worth keeping for decades.
Further, I guarantee that within six months of buying your new, state-of-the-art piece of imaging gear, the same company will announce the next new and greatly improved version.
I think there may be an answer, if any company is brave enough to embrace it, but first let you, me, and Mr. Peabody step into the way-back machine for a moment. Back in the 1960s, Nikon manufactured a film-based modular camera system. On the same built-like-a-tank camera body you could change backs, prisms, view and focus screens, winders, adapters and the like so that the same camera could be morphed into whatever application you had at hand, whether it was high-speed photojournalism or making images while peering through a microscope.
Why not start with a great camera body (which you have bought with the idea of keeping it) to which you attach your favorite lenses (which you also get to keep). When imaging technology changes, you undo a couple of screws, slide out the imager, associated processing electronics and the back screen which are built as a unit, and replace it with the latest gee-whiz imager, processing engines and high-zoot back screen. You keep all the rest (including your EVF, which may be swapped out from time to time); the cost is lower both to you and the manufacturer, and I bet there would be less resistance to upgrading.
The Ricoh folks kind of approached this idea with one of their cameras (the EXR, maybe?), but they made the tactical error of marrying the lenses to the sensor modules.
I think we need a better brand of rum, one that doesn’t become obsolete so easily. Then maybe it won't be always gone.
Cheers, Jock