3 ms·
I agree with everything that you say. However, it's also eerily reminiscent of the explanations I was given 25 years ago about why digital cameras would never
by rprospero 11y ago
I agree with everything that you say. However, it's also eerily reminiscent of the explanations I was given 25 years ago about why digital cameras would never catch on. Digitals were far more expensive than a simple Canon or Polaroid, so it would never catch on with consumers. As for professionals, they had far to much experience with developing negatives to throw it all away for some flash in the pan gimmick. Heck, the digitals had terrible lenses compared to what you'd get on Service Merchandise point and shoot, not to mention anything professional grade. Besides, even if CCDs kept improving, they'd be competing with a moving target. Even if digitals were better ten years down the line, it's not like Kodak wasn't going to be improving their processes, too.
- thrownaway2424 11y agoA very attractive straw man, but I personally can't remember anyone saying that digital would "never catch on". 25 years ago the state-of-the-art digital camera was a 1.3MP digital back for the Nikon F3, that included a gigantic external box that the user wore over their shoulder. Only a weirdo would use a digital camera in 1990, but it was pretty obvious that digital was the future. 15 years ago the digital camera (Nikon D1) was just barely a good idea for dedicated enthusiasts and still basically terrible for everybody else.