The Land of Crazy or.... ? [CR1]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Little doubt that companies are for profit. There are still those who claim gasoline companies are holding back inventions that let a automobile run on water! The flat earth society is pretty well defunct though.

Everyone would like a camera that can do everything, high ISO capable, high resolution, improved DR, and super high quality high speed video, plus a lot more.

However, its a tradeoff, to improve one area often makes another worse, and increasing the speed and bandwidth of the processor requires more power, so its a balancing act. By designing cameras that focus more closely on specific users, you can shift the balance say towards higher fps, or you can make a studio camera with higher DR and resolution, or one optimized for video. Try to do them all, and compromises will be made. I'd prefer having different camera models that are specialized to having one that is compromised but does a little of everything.

 

[Stone]

The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they can never be proven wrong, because any evidence to the contrary is just taken as further proof of how the conspirators are fooling everyone but the handful of people who "know" the truth.

It's the same whether it's 200 mpg carburetors, Elvis is still alive, black helicopters, fluoridated water or super secret superior camera technology that's being purposely withheld from consumers.

You REALLY think this is a conspiracy theory in the realm of things like we never went to the moon and the illuminati? It's not that serious, try a conspiracy of marketing and it won't seem so devious..LOL!!!

I guess once a "sane" person labels something as a conspiracy theory, they no longer have to think critically, nothing I've said is out of the question once you know what drives a corporation and to whom they owe their allegiance. I'll give you a hint, it ain't you, and that's well known, no conspiracy necessary.

 

[Stone]

We can just agree to disagree....

I don't know that we're actually disagreeing. My point is that a manufacturer is going to release a technology/product at the time when they predict it will yield the greatest profit. Likewise, they're not going to 'waste' money on R&D with no expectation of an ROI - and as a general rule, an early ROI is better than a delayed ROI, unless it's predicted that there's substantially more profit to be gained from a delayed release.

In the example of the 120 MP APS-H sensor, I actually doubt they produced incrementally increasing versions - that may not have been cost effective. If it were my R&D money, I'd have had a team do some computer modeling to suggest the maximum feasible density, then attempted to produce three versions - that predicted max, and something lower and something higher. Three shots on goal, simultaneous, rather than racheting it up with repeated costs for each increment. But honestly, I can't speak to any sort inside knowledge of how they did it.

Certainly, in some industries technology is 'held back' - you mentioned defense, so compare consumer GPS systems with military GPS systems. The latter is always ahead of the former (although the companies are still making a profit from their technology, albeit from a different sector.

Back to releasing a product when it will generate the maximum product, I do think that's the key driver - and I definitely acknowledge that that is not always as soon as the technology is available and producible. In the specific case of boceprevir and telaprevir, and the general case of drug development, the maximum profit results from the earliest possible release. If a cure for HIV were developed (and some are being actively worked on), it would be released as soon as possible (and I do speak from direct knowledge in this case - I happen to hold a senior position in a large pharma company).

Well put and I do see your point, we're not that far off. If that large pharma is one of the ones located in Princeton, NJ then we may very well have done business either recently or in the past, I was last out there in Oct 2010.

 

[nova_dream]

Very strange. The actual 7D is placed right in the middle between the 60D (with its lacks of pro options) and the 5D Mark II (with its complete pro bundle). Now the 7D Mark II would enter the Full Frame category and even partially replacing the 1D Mark IV? Now I don't see the point of getting a 5D Mark III if the 7DII will be doing what a 5DII can.

 

[Stone]

Very strange. The actual 7D is placed right in the middle between the 60D (with its lacks of pro options) and the 5D Mark II (with its complete pro bundle). Now the 7D Mark II would enter the Full Frame category and even partially replacing the 1D Mark IV? Now I don't see the point of getting a 5D Mark III if the 7DII will be doing what a 5DII can.

I don't think the 7D would get a FF sensor, that would definitely screw things up in the lineup making it a far better buy than the 5DIII due to it's high performance characteristics. I will however argue that the current 5DII does not represent a pro bundle, yes, many, many pros use it daily and it arguably has the best video in the lineup, the build quality, weather sealing and ancient AF based on the 20D disqualify it as a pro build. Have a look at the D700 which is the closest competitor and it's very solidly built with a far more modern auto focus system. I know many pro photogs who will use nothing but the center af point on a 5DII. It's definitely in need of a substantial overhaul....