Technology impact

I interpret Technology in my own words, techniques compiled with specific logic. I have learnt many things on my own by finding answers to few basic questions about any technology or invention or a product or a device as an user. That is why for me any such technology or invention or a product or a device is categorized in two parts User Friendly or Dealer Friendly. As an user I was always interested to get worth for my money or efforts I put in to get a technology or invention or a product or a device useful for me for the time duration or its life.

Dealer has interest only in maximum commercial gains, without any emotions attached to it. For me dealer could be, inventor, designer, producer and an agent or a shop salesman.

Digital technology is more dealer friendly than user friendly. Dealers are getting benefited by rapid change in technology or invention or a product or a device getting outdated in couple of years. User is trying to get friendly to this rapid change in short duration.

Most disturbing fact of today's technological impact is a vicious circle created by a source (developer) then purchased by few manufacturers, which then supplies finished products to the dealers who are simply a middlemen between the source and the user. So the circle is Source -> Manufacturer -> Dealer ->User. In all of this the person who gets the maximum benefit is the person with the least knowledge which is the dealer who in reality does nothing creative. Whereas the USER whose needs is the main reason for the technology to be introduced gets the least benefit from any product and has to bear extra cost with updates and consumables. Similar fate shared by the developer whose original ideas never make it to the public instead is diluted by manufacturers across the world. I have been a victim of this vicious circle.

I am an user of digital technology from 1990, I suffered heavy losses because of the rapid changes in a very short time. From 1985 I bought Nikon F801, F401, F601, F60, F50 for 35 mm films. Now I have to spend more time and money to keep them functioning, today these devices are kept in special bags because they are outdated. Then A Zenza Bronica SQA for type 120 film roll, just can not afford to use it. Dreaming to get a digital back for it otherwise it has become outdated.

My first digital camera Fujix DSC 505 and 515 had a 1.3 mega pixel image sensor. Today even a child would refuse to touch that camera because he is using 12 mega pixel image sensor in his mobile which he keeps in his pocket. I bought Nikon Coolpix E990 camera in year 2000 having 3.1MPs image sensor. I could capture images for many commercial jobs with that 3.1 MPs image sensor for more than a decade. 2009 I bought Nikon P90 camera had 12MPs image sensor with 26X zoom. Both these cameras are discontinued by the company but some more new models had been introduced to add confusions for we users getting attracted to new developments.

At present I have Nikon D5100 + 18 - 105 DX lens, 16MP image sensor having HD video capability. I am really enjoying the developments but at what cost?

Same is the case of image sensor color quality. 1.3 MPs of a image sensor had distribution of total number of pixel for RGB. Now Sigma - Foveon X3 color image sensor revolutionized the image sensing technology, observe the image to see the difference. As an iTech (I have coined a new word for image Technician the new breed of photographers) I have my highest regards to the entire team of Sigma - Foveon X3 team who made it possible for the quality conscious people to buy across the counter such a camera with high quality color image sensor. I am planning to buy one to enjoy the exceptional image quality and color resolution produced by the Sigma SD15 camera.

Computers and computing changed almost every year. My first Amiga 500 with 1MB RAM and only 880 KB floppy disk for storage in 1990 became obsolete, no support of any kind in the year 1992. I bought Apple Mac LC475, just in two years this computer was not sufficient for my needs, because of low memory and small storage space required for my photo - video - audio jobs. After that I bought, used and sold Mac 8500, Mac Tower 9600, G3 desk top, iBook G3 and now iMac 24 inch. I did try Compaq laptop and then assembled my own desktop PC. today I use two 500 GB and One Tera Byte Hard drives for my various jobs.

I bought storage media zip, jazz, CD, Magneto-optical DVD RAM caddy, Raid hard drives and then double sided double density DVD media and the various drives, then came 1 terabyte SATA hard drive and all that I had to dump soon because solid state drive SSD ready for consumer by Dec 2010 at 960 GB capacity, this device does not have any mechanical moving parts, shock proof and moisture resistant.

maybe its me... but i think ive missed the point of this post... or was it just that you spend a lot of money trying to keep up with the latest trends? cause thats all i really got out of your 10? paragraphs...

"Photography has not changed since its origin except in its technical aspects, which for me are not important." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

Welcome to the board.

Yes, technology evolves because there is an economic return involved for those investing in making it happen. Without it we wouldn't have the benefit of these amazing advancements in capability. For the manufacturers the pace of change to stay competitive means reducing their costs by 1% per week to keep pace with the market price, and having to invest in completely retooling their production to make new products every 26 weeks. So, it's no fun for them either.

As a consumer you can get the most benefit from the new technology with the least economic impact by trailing the latest technology release by about one cycle (26 weeks). Within 3-4 cycles that level of technology will disappear from the shelves, and you'll either find the best bargains, or you'll see it become rare (but still desirable/collectible), and the price will rise again.

Technology does change on a daily basis in every aspect of life but personally don't feel the need to go out and change everytime something new comes out.

Would love for people to do so as for me in the motor trade my numbers would be through the roof with new saftey items and technologies being added on a regular basis.

In terms of photography, it's in the eye of the beholder, it doesn't make a difference what camera you you use if you have an eye for the shot, in terms of storage there is no need to bin the old stuff as you can always add to the items that you already run...

When I decided to try large format film I couldn't afford contemporary gear, but several decades old gear was within my budget. I went the same way when I starting using medium format cameras. No one could tell from my finished photographs that I was using 1950s gear rather than 1990s gear. The cameras didn't have all the frills, but they had the important features.

Comparing a 1 or 2 mp digital camera to today's camera is one thing, but I still think most people have a very hard time telling which of my photographs was taken with my first DSLR, 8mp Canon 20D, and which were taken with my latest DSLR, 23mp Canon 5DII. It's easy to find thousands of articles explaining why more megapixels, more features, larger format, etc... is all superior, but concerning the finished photograph the differences in the gear are minor compared to the influence of the photographer.

Buying or sticking with an older, cheaper, supposedly obsolete model may not be fashionable, but if it's from the last 5 years or so it's still a pretty sophisticated picture making tool with a lot of potential in the right hands. Yes there are always improvements, but in the real world much of the hoopla is sales hype and gear-groupie chatter.

Henry Peach wrote: It's easy to find thousands of articles explaining why more megapixels, more features, larger format, etc... is all superior, but concerning the finished photograph the differences in the gear are minor compared to the influence of the photographer.

In many cases 'tis the difference between pixel peeping and a print. The print process by itself impacts the IQ a lot, enough to blow away the pixel peeping differences. I agree that the pixel peeping IQ whinges are often overblown.

But .... I still enjoy newer cameras more. For me they are more fun to work with. But that is about the camera operator, not the results.

Kelly Cook

My thought may be very confusing, even sometime to me, yet there are thoughts. I felt it in this impact as confusing the user. In my case I was never at loss, I sold my gears because the buyer thought it is the kit making good photos which gave me chance to use various new developments and improve my knowledge about everything. Thanks for reading.

vapskill wrote: I felt it in this impact as confusing the user.

I would agree there. It does seem like adding all the fancy new features and buttons makes people assume photography has to be complicated. When I was 12 I was handed an all manual, mechanical 35mm SLR, and taught how to operate it in about 5 min, and sent on my way with several rolls of film. All affordable 35mm SLRs were manual exposure. Everyone who wanted to use one had to learn manual exposure. The adults who taught me probably wouldn't have called themselves photographers, but they understood how manual exposure worked, and they just assumed it was simple enough for me to understand. It was; most of the photos I took came out fine.

The fundamentals of manual exposure have not changed. The difference is that the old cameras had less than a half dozen buttons and dials and no choice other than to go ahead and learn manual exposure, and the new cameras have dozens of buttons, dials, and features including numerous auto exposure modes. Manual exposure hasn't actually changed, but the perception of it has. When the technology was simple the activity was assumed to be simple, and now that the technology is complex the activity is assumed to be complex.

That, and the perception of acceptable quality has gone up. To many 1st timers expect their new $1000 DSLR to automatically produce a Life magazine award winner, every shot. I lost count of how many posts I've seen asking about which camera to buy for amazing photos. I don't remember that being the case a half century ago.

Kelly

tl;dr

but, what ya gonna do? Technology will go ahead without you, you choose if you wanna keep up or not.

Stealthy Ninja wrote: tl;dr

but, what ya gonna do? Technology will go ahead without you, you choose if you wanna keep up or not.

It is the duty of experienced user to clarify the Pros and Cons so that they will not end up in creating junk yards in their own back yard and some balanced could be achieved , should not be just a dream ! ! !

vapskill wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: tl;dr

but, what ya gonna do? Technology will go ahead without you, you choose if you wanna keep up or not.

It is the duty of experienced user to clarify the Pros and Cons so that they will not end up in creating junk yards in their own back yard and some balanced could be achieved , should not be just a dream ! ! !

Near technology raves photography. Technology speaks below the aggressive musician. Photography waits! The miracle sleeps above our warm. Can a removed quiz dodge in technology? Photography promotes the newspaper throughout the merry medicine. Technology hazards photography on top of a teenage. Why won't technology rest inside photography?

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

vapskill wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote: tl;dr

but, what ya gonna do? Technology will go ahead without you, you choose if you wanna keep up or not.

It is the duty of experienced user to clarify the Pros and Cons so that they will not end up in creating junk yards in their own back yard and some balanced could be achieved , should not be just a dream ! ! !

Near technology raves photography. Technology speaks below the aggressive musician. Photography waits! The miracle sleeps above our warm. Can a removed quiz dodge in technology? Photography promotes the newspaper throughout the merry medicine. Technology hazards photography on top of a teenage. Why won't technology rest inside photography?

Thank you!