amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

The unfortunate truth is that we don't demand much of anything as long as we have enough money to buy 'stuff'. So 'having' to upgrade our 'stuff' is fun if it's affordable. And the corporations know this. They create the habit and then they feed it until greed gets the best of everyone and the market crashes, we rebel as much of the world is doing now, or both.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

You're right to a large degree, but when you talk about clock speed, you're missing an important point. The physics of building faster chips has reached a point of diminishing returns. Instead of building a single processor that's four times as fast, you now buy a multi-core chip. The multi-core chip is programmed to divide up the work, which requires some overhead to synchronize activity, but it's a lot cheaper to produce than a single core that runs faster, but can only do one thing at a time. So the clock speed increases incrementally, but the processing power has still gone up several times.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Maybe this will help explain things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-HiBDLVzYw#action=share

Kuzano

Ricoh... an incredibly innovative camera company that has been in existence for many years did what you mentioned a few years ago.

Ricoh P&S technology has, for the most part created rather a cult around their very capable products. They've had some superior P&S camera's in the past.

A few years ago, they initiated and sold a modular camera where the frame and electronics were sold in a body, and the sensor and lens portions were sold in interchangeable modules. It was quite well received by loyal Ricoh users, but I suspect it was pretty much panned by the rest of the world, as I have not heard much of it in the recent past. The were up to three or four lens/sensor modules, including one APSc.... LOOOOONG before mirrorless and APSc was put in small camera's.

So again, as I posted before, blame it on a reticent public that really shuns truly innovative idea's.

As far as forcing standards on any part of the electronics industry, pardon me while I ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!*

*Roll On The Floor, Laughing My Ass Off!!!!!! :mrgreen: :XD: :mrgreen: :XD: :mrgreen: :XD:

photeach Loc: beautiful Kansas

jimmya Loc: Phoenix

Cameras entered the "throw away" arena when compacts became so cheap. These cameras are much cheaper to replace than repair.

Digital cameras can't be upgraded it's true as you could with a film camera by simply moving to a higher quality of film.

dslr cameras are not throw away however. They can be repaired more cheaply than replaced.

RMM Loc: Suburban New York

Compare a film camera of the 1970s with one in the 1980s. How different were they? Now compare a digital camera from 10 years ago with one today. How different are they? I think the answer is "HUGE." 10 years ago, you were talking 2, maybe 5 megapixels, lengthy shutter delays on any but the most expensive cameras, no video (not an issue for many of us, I know), no in-camera manipulation (also not an issue for many of us), higher costs per any unit of size, quality or feature you care to name. Film cameras were a mature product line. Digital is still very much an evolving technology. Look at how recent the micro 4/3 system is. And Sony's SLT technology, which looks to be the way to eliminate pentaprism mirrors and all the technology and weight that goes with them. How will Google Glass technology influence DSLRs in 2-3 years?

Again, nobody says you have to throw away a good camera. That's a choice. Replace it when it is no longer supported by your computer and its software, when it breaks, or when your skill outgrows your camera's capacity. I upgraded from a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 after close to 7 years, and passed that on to my daughter. Why? Because I wanted a camera with good manual focus, I wanted to work with camera raw, and I wanted to shoot without the long shutter delay of the FZ20. In other words, I had outgrown it, though it served me well. 2 years ago, I bought a refurbished Nikon D5000. I've added a 50 mm prime lens and I'd like to add an external flash. And I'd like to buy the latest and greatest whizbang camera, too, but I haven't outgrown the D5000 by a long shot.

BermBuster Loc: Hi Desert S.Cal

I don't care how old the camera is--as long as I know it's limitations. You can take really good photos with a throw away 35mm...as long as you are in bright daylight etc...
But I think the manufacturers are partly to blame for this. Yesterday my brother took his Canon EOS-1D Mark II N to Canon Irvine, the mirror is locking up, They would not repair it. They said they no longer offer support for this model.
This is still a very capable camera, esp for sports. But it seems the manufactures' are 'trying' to get them off the street.
Thereby making the choice for us.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

Kodak started it with single use cameras.in other fields it started when "they" started making products that couldn't be repaired or were too expensive to repair. warrenteys that let you replace an item at the drop of a hat.

GPappy Loc: Finally decided to plop down, Clover, S.C.

Throw away is basically just a figure of speach. The fact is you can't upgrade an existing body. It doesn't matter what happens to the old one, YOU won't be using it as a rebuilt to higher standards componet. Whether you sell it, stash it or toss it makes no difference to the original question. I think it is simply a money factor. OEM's don't want anybody else touching their equipment internally. Just ask them, they will say that nobody is qualified but them. It would cost way more to return your camera body to be inspected, gutted and upgraded by the manufacturer than to just buy the complete new body.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

I'm aware of this (as well as how bus speed and HDD spin speed affects a computer's overall speed), but it is not germane to the point being made and I didn't want to complexity things. For that matter, though, since the average computer spends 90+% of it's time waiting for the user to input something, nowadays people don't jump to buy the 8 core CPU to replace their 4 core CPUs anyway.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

It's easy, it's called residual income marketing....guess what? most people fall for it. Nothing is truly "upgraded" like they want you to believe.....it's upgrade marketing, they have had this technology for years...you think you are really getting the latest technology? LOL wrong....They release the minimum to make us want to buy it and then release a tad bit more to get you hooked on their marketing game.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

So it's a big conspiracy, eh? All those competing companies have colluded to hide the advancements they keep in the back room from us unwashed masses so they can parse it out piecemeal and make us pay over and over again for something that existed years back?

I wonder, did we really land on the moon in '69 or was that a movie made in Hollywood?

The problem with this "theory" is that it fliers in the face of the reality that companies in a market based consumer-oriented economy go all out to win business from each other, so if a competitor comes up with some advancement they are highly unlikely to sit on it, knowing that the competition will come out with their own version soon enough.

Digital cameras now fall under the category of microelectronic devices, and just as with memory chips and CPUs the exponential speed of advancement is difficult to comprehend, but is there nonetheless.

Nightsky Loc: Augusta, GA USA

What this really comes down to is that camera manufacturers are not in business to provide us with the latest and greatest gadget. They DO accomplish that, but the driving force is almost always the same - to make money. If this means releasing a new model with only a few tweaks then the market will decide. If everyone rushes to purchase it then it only adds fuel to the cycle, which will continue until the limit of technology is reached.

We should all consider first - what features do we need in our camera, then add in those that would be nice but are not essential, and perhaps even a few luxury features that we will not use more than once or twice during the life of the body. Sometimes you get features you don't need because the only way to get the one you do need is to buy into the latest and greatest. Sometimes after comparing what's available you realize that you have everything you need in your present body, but you WANT to upgrade anyway.

This doesn't mean that your current camera is bad, or should be tossed. I still have all of my cameras from 1960 on, and most of them still work.

I do see the OP's point though - we do live in a disposable society, which is driven by convenience. It's easier to throw that plastic soda bottle in the recycle bin on the corner than to take the glass one back for a refund. It's easier to use paper plates and plastic utensils - cleanup is a breeze - we even have a disposable tablecloth. And as to manufacturers not releasing everything at the same time, just look at apple with the I phone. Models were released with some of the technology turned off - because apple is in business to make money - not I phones.

In the end it's up to us, the consumer, to determine if a new product, or a 'new and improved' (what a worn out phrase that has become) will ultimately succeed. If you think differently consider the Sony Betamax video format. Far superior to VHS, but it simply cost too much, and it fell flat.

So good shooting to all with your old and new, film and digital - through it all - remember to have fun.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

That made no sense at all.