drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

It might be that interchangeable in cars but not in cameras. The sensor has to have processor support specific to that type of sensor and tuned to that sensor. You can remove the Infrared filter that is in front of the sensor and turn the camera into infrared but the sensor is still using the processor that came with it (they just re-tune the processor a little). It could be done but then the camera guys would not make as much money per swap out and since we are talking small parts and fitting it back inside that old body and using the same mirror assembly that has a lot of wear already on it well it's just not economically nor physically feasible. Good idea though.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

Larryshuman

I think a lot of folks don't realize that good glass is the most important feature. This last weekend I was shooting eagles at Magee Marsh. I was using my D3 which is 9 years old and my 600mmF:4 G VR, which I bought 2 years ago used. With the old camera on a current lens the results were nothing short of stunning. I have a 300mmF:4 AFS which I have use on warblers and again the results have been stellar. So its not so the camera but the glass in front of the camera. Some will gripe about cost. A 300mmF:4AFS I've seen them under $1000 at KEH, Adorama, etc. Same for the 80~200mmF:2.8. I use that lens for sprint car racing and horse jumping events and results are again stellar. So its NOT so much the camera but more to the lens.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

Peterff and drklrd, I think drklrd nailed it with the comment about the money angle. I assure that if the manufacurers could realize the right return, the capability to upgrade components would be on the market tomorrow.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Research — and rent to try, before you buy — are two of my mantras. I hate spending big bucks when I don't need to.

Most companies put their marketing information on the Internet now, along with case studies, user guides and manuals, and other details. Cameras and lights and audio gear get reviewed all over the Internet. You can read reviews or watch them as YouTube videos. Consensus counts with me, so if the majority of what I read and watch is positive, and I need the features and benefits, I buy.

Maybe it's because I'm an introvert, or don't like to lose, or like to stack the deck in my favor, but it's probably because I'm a project manager that I believe in planning. When you know what you need ahead of time, researching tools that do just what you need and are the most cost-effective becomes easy.

All that said, one of my biggest gripes about cameras and camera companies is that their user guides and reference manuals absolutely SUCK:

• They need to hire people who can write manuals and user guides in their native tongues! Jenglish/Japlish (Japanese, badly translated to English) is not a language. I am used to it, but most people hate to wade through it. The medium should not get in the way of the message.
• They need to explain WHY a particular feature is useful or important, in addition to what it does.
• They need to explain WHEN you might want to use each feature.

This is a pretty universal problem. We shouldn't have to seek a third party reference to understand our gear.

Al Freeedman

I would most likely benefit from a brain transplant, but not with the current crop of liberals.
It would be my luck to have Nancy P., C. Schumer or Obama as a donator.

Captain Al

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Agreed. The economics are not there. A camera body is an integrated system of carefully matched components. Good ones are the result of many iterations of the same basic plan. Each generation upgrades not just the sensor and the processor, but additional hardware controls are added, along with new operational features.

Way back in the 1990s, I thought it would be great to have a removable, interchangeable digital back for my Nikon F3. Kodak was basing its DCS cameras on Nikons and Canons, by bolting a camera-size box onto the bottom of the camera body. But they quickly learned that they needed to integrate all the electronics into the body... Then Canon and Nikon did it better, anyway. Those early Kodak cameras worked, but 1.2 MP for $30,000? Seriously? After playing with a DCS 300, I quickly understood why they didn't make a removable, interchangeable back! THAT was the most expensive Rube Goldberg device I've ever seen.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

Good thinking.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

The point here is that there isn't a return, and there cannot be. It isn't technically feasible to design that kind of system that would be either cost effective or competitive.

Modern cameras are computers, and the technology advances far too rapidly. I've seen this many times before. There was a startup back in the mid 90s that tried that with computers. It couldn't be done because their system couldn't keep up with advances in processor technology. It failed as a company very rapidly. A much bigger company tried something a little similar, it also failed. That company also failed - was known as Silicon Graphics or SGI.

If we bring this back to cars, I once had a Ford Sierra Sapphire Cosworth - a European car, look it up if interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Sierra_RS_Cosworth. The only common components with the standard Ford Sierra Sapphire was the body shell. It looked like a family sedan. Those that recognized it for what it was didn't even consider messing with it, and it handled the twisties like s4*t to a blanket.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Yes, but you would probably get Steve Bannon or SillyAnne Conaway, and then all you would have would be fake claims, alternative facts, and vitriolic bile.

Perhaps we should keep politics out of this before it goes straight to the White House Attic.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I can understand that comment, given your lack of technology comprehension.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Nah, your cranial cavity would lack the capacity! You need to find a biological match.

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I like the last portion if your
Post: “fake claims, alternative facts, and vitriolic bile.” There just isn’t enough of this in the news these days 😎😎😎

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

So long as we keep this humorous, and civil, then there is no problem, but politics is generally something we don't need in otherwise good threads. Each side has viewpoints that are valid, I just hope we can keep them where they belong and not in a photography discussion.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio