wdross wrote:
If this was true, "nothing more than a few electronic parts and a shell", how come it took Olympus and now Sony until now to put AI in their cameras. How come Canon, Nikon, Fuji, Panasonic, etc. haven't put AI in their cameras? If the "software to do what you describe is "frankly - not complex", why did Olympus, and now Sony, have to feed in tens of thousands of pictures of helmets, tens of thousands of pictures of planes, tens of thousands of pictures of cars, tens of thousands of pictures of birds, etc., along with algorithms, and have a super computer help them tweak the algorithms so the camera would recognize these objects no matter what size, shape, color, or position the camera would see them from. This kind of software is not "simple" like autofocus software and is hardly "not complex" if it is requiring super computers to help design the algorithms for the AI. How many autofocus systems work properly with a screen or chain link fence between them and the subject? The Olympus will track and focus on the racing car or the driver's helmet whether there is a chain link fence or not. And it will do that without any particular focusing area of the sensor. That's "not complex"?
If this was true, "nothing more than a few el... (
show quote)
Its only software. Once the software is complete, there is zero marginal cost. I was talking about the cost of a laptop vs the cost of a similarly priced camera body. On the basis of what you get - the camera bodies are way overpriced. Laptops dont have AI software in them either. This is something new. So what you are saying is that a $1,000 camera body is justified being priced at $1,000 because the physical item is really worth $200 and the software is worth $800. You can justify the prices that way if you like.