Imagine if European journalists assumed New York City was all there was to know about the entire USA.
Then they would be just like American journalists?
I know Pentax has had the 645 'cropped sensor' 4x5 out for quite a while - I watched an interesting youtube video comparing it with the d800e when I was trying to decide if I should buy the Nikon; I guess I discounted it because I haven't heard very many good things about it. I was really hoping for something that produced an image that was worth all the additional effort (weight, expense) to capture it. As for the lenses, my understanding is that much of the older 4x5 glass from decades of film cameras will still work (at least in full manual) - maybe to augment just one new crazy-expensive leaf-shutter lens.
I've read that it's possible to get good results in medium format by purchasing 30 yo film gear, processing the film then scanning it, for $500-$1000(?) - but that sounds like a LOT more effort than I'd see myself undertaking often enough to be 'in the right place at the right time' to really get outstanding shots on a regular basis, and over my pain threshold for a novelty.
If you buy into the bogus reality that pirated materials are worth mega-brazillians of bux per download, then it's easy to justify crazy money for the service to reduce that 'loss'.
Personally I think the next big thing in photography will be digital 4x5 medium-format cameras for the 'serious amateurs'. It's already taking hold with the high-end pros, but current tech for a digital MF system is $50,000+ (Phase One / Mamiya, Hasselblad - especially the 'full' 4x5 sensors) - well beyond what any sane 99%er would pay for a 'hobby'. It looks like some low-end digital backs have already dropped to the $15k range (Pentax, low-end Hasselblad?, older, refurbed Phase One gear) - within a few years (I'm hoping anyway) they'll be into the $6k-$8k range to match higher end current DSLR cameras, but with even better low-light sensitivity, dynamic range and color gamut. Until then it'll take a LOT to get me to spend real money to upgrade my Nikon D800e - I'm just not a good enough photographer to need a better camera (yet).
Until they figure out how to make the entire screen on an iPhone Plus act as an image sensor I don't see cell phones competing in that market.
My understanding is that the DSLR auto-focus technology is VERY mature and works astoundingly well by redirecting ALL the light from the lens up into an entirely separate focusing system right up until the time when the shutter is tripped and the image is captured - mirrorless cameras have to figure out how to focus based on what's analyzed through the live view sensor, and they just haven't been able to get it to work as well... yet. That, and I suspect the mirrorless cameras eat batteries faster while running their electronics constantly (electronic view finder or 'live view' screen) while a DSLR is just idling, letting a mirror do all the work. Otherwise they seem like a great idea.
The same thing happened in Monticello MN in 2009 with TDS, the local ISP. The community requested that TDS upgrade their services to make it more attractive for telecommuters working remotely from Twin Cities business; TDS said that 'wasn't on their road map', so the community went ahead to install their own fiber network. TDS found out, sued the town to halt their install while at the same time rolling out their OWN fiber network, and doubled all their subscribers speeds at no additional cost, then claimed that the original municipal plan was 'flawed' because there was now a 'cheap alternative'.
I'm not fond of government, and doubt a municipal fiber system would be perfect, but it sure couldn't be worse than what we have now.
I've thought for years that windows should have a 'boot to Outlook' feature for executives; allow the entire available space of the drive to be used for indexed email storage to avoid having to decide which emails to delete, and load office programs by clicking on attachments, but don't confuse them with any other interface than just Outlook.
And optionally support rebooting by holding it upside down and shaking.
My last flight took off when I pulled back on the stick (which was a good hour later than I'd originally intended, but it's different when it's your own fault), and landed early due to a tailwind. If I weren't able to fly myself, I'd do a LOT more driving - I don't think I could stand all the security BS anymore - although the average coach seat is probably roomier than my little plane.
Nothing particularly interesting here - mostly old tech crap - but there isn't any heat, and in the midst of a minnesota winter 'cool' is an understatement.
Can I upgrade my tee-shirt to a
My yearning for a 'mini-Pro' is the current inability to install two drives internally on native SATA ports. Three times now I've had drive issues that I could fix using tools that worked fine on the drive on a native internal SATA port, but the utilities wouldn't see the drive (or at least couldn't fix the issues) through an external USB or FW converter / enclosure. Once I was able to borrow a Pro, the second time I tore apart an older iMac and ran the utility (paaaainfully slowly) off a bootable DVD.
I'd love to get a full-blown Mac Pro, but can't afford to blow $3k. I'm tempted to save a bit and build a hackentosh, but I'm afraid just when I need it for something it'll blow up and require days of intricate patching to restore, all without any 'official' support (for whatever that's worth). I'd settle for even an eSATA port, or the ability to add a card that has one. I'm definitely not buying a Pro until it supports SATA3.
I'm sure the Thunder-whatever port will be cool; I'm looking forward to the prices dropping - but I have my doubts it will work any better for drive tech work.
When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.