Issues of Changing Technology

[robyn_geering1]

Hi there. I am now in the market for a digital camera, and it seems

that the rapid advances (particularly in sensor technology) are

slowing down and digital cameras are stabilizing and it has become

safe to buy one without fear of rapid obsolescence. I would

appreciate if someone can give me their views on the issues of

changing technology with regard to storage of images?

[anupam]

If you are satified with the resolution and quality of a camera there is no reason why it should become rapidly obsolete. That is only the case because people feel the need to rush and buy the next megapixel upgrade. As for storage, as long as it is in bits and bytes does the medium really matter? You might have to transfer it all to a new media - in case cds and cd drives become obsolete, let's say - but apart from the hassle, there will be no loss in quality.

[phyrpowr]

Current cameras, any number of them I won't even go into brands or megapixels, are excellent. Newer models that are somehow "better" won't make them any less good

 

As to storage, I'm guessing you're asking if something will be able to read your CDs five years from now: yes, don't worry, the techno world won't get amnesia. You'll be able to get a reader, or transfer onto the next generation of storage no problem

[andrew robertson]

They come out with new cars and TVs and microwaves every year too. That doesn't mean

that you old one won't get you to work / watch the Simpsons / cook the bacon just as well.

[robyn_geering1]

I probably need to rephrase my question to ask 'what are the issues'. I know that you can get by with older technology, but you cannot necessarily grow with this technology. I am simply trying to go into this with open eyes, and understand the issues. Yes I can get to work in my old car, but what happens if circumstances change, and my work is now 100kms away - the old car just wont do the distance, so it will become obsolete. Changing technology wont stop me from buying a camera (or I'd never end up with a digital camera), I am just wanting to know what may lie ahead. Many thanks

[Spearhead]

The issues depend on what you're shooting, and virtually nothing else.

 

If you're shooting sports or news, you're going to need a fast focusing and shooting camera. If you're shooting studio portraits and product shots, you're probably going to want a high resolution back. If you're shooting "fine art", well you can even use a cellphone camera if you know what you're doing.

 

From your posts, it appears that you're far more concerned with technology than with the images. I'd suggest reversing the priority and worrying about the technology after you've got some work worth showing or selling.

[andrew robertson]

What size prints are you likely to make? Do you like to shoot in dim light without a flash?

Are you selling these pictures? I have an older Canon 10D, and it's still good 2.5 years

after release. You need to define some parameters to be able to ascertain whether or not

current digital cameras are right for you. I wouldn't be so sure that advances are slowing

down, though. Seems to me that they are proceeding along at quite a good clip.

 

Anyway, any current DSLR is likely to give you good prints to 16x20 or so. Small sensor

digicams (you know, soap bars) are aimed at the consumer market, where image quality

often takes a back seat to features and cuteness. Many manufacturers are still using four

year old 5 MP sensors which perform poorly above ISO 100, because the market doesn't

care. There is the new Sony large sensor digicam, which appears to be one of a new

breed. If other manufacturers follow suit with competing models, this bodes well for the

future of consumer digicams.

[Brad_]

Without knowing what you shoot it's impossible to recommend.

 

If you're new to photography get something you can afford and start learning photoshop and

how to post-process images. That will help get you towards great prints more than anything

else (within limitations, of course).

[jcuknz]

If you are new and not in the graphics industry be aware that Photoshop is not the be all and end all and there are other editing programmes which are a heck of a lot more freindly, such as Paint Shop Pro and a lot less to buy.

 

The family microwave is at least twenty years old, my oldest digital is over four years now and still has it's place, and none are DSLRs, so I will put a plug in for the top-line Pro-sumer camera which is a very flexible and versatile animal turning out high quality work within it's considerable limits. But you more than likely are interested in different things to me .... it is definitely a case of horses for courses as several have said, since no camera will, or ever has, done everything. But even the moderate priced Point and Shoot is excellent for what it is designed to do if used within it's limitations. There is/was a Magnum news guy using them in Iraq recently, I think he took three of them.

[Hector Javkin]

I don't think you've gotten an answer as to the issues. Let me try to deal with a couple of them:

 

One important issue, if you are buying into a digital SLR system, is that sensor size is likely to change for systems with sensors smaller than the 35mm format. There's nothing wrong with buying a camera with a somewhat smaller sensor, but some lenses are specifically designed for small sensors, and will not work with larger ones. You might want to avoid lenses designed for the so-called APS format, unless they are too economical to resist.

 

Storage devices will continue to evolve. Whatever you get, you will want to store your images on some computer medium like CD or DVD. Every five years or so, you may need to copy your images to a new type of storage. That's not as terrible as it sounds. Newer storage devices will be cheaper for the amount they hold, so that the transfers will only require a little patience.

 

In-camera storage devices present another problem. Most digital SLRs use cards of a type called CF, and most point-and-shoot cameras use more compact cards. If you will someday own both kinds of cameras, it's a little more convenient and cheaper to have them all the same type.

 

I'm not sure the techonology is stabiling. Some of the responders have correctly pointed out that it shouldn't matter if better cameras come out later on -- whatever you buy now will still be as good. In the simplest terms: Once digital cameras can you what you want at a price you are willing to pay, get one.

[jordan2240]

Robyn,

 

Obsolescence occurs when an item no longer works as intended because the format isn't supported and the product can't be converted. For example, if you have a Beta VCR player, it probably isn't very useful unless it's serving as a door stop or the like. Your old car isn't necessarily obsolete, as it still functions perfectly well as a car, but it may just be too old to reliably get to where you need to go. Pretty much all products wear out. In terms of digital cameras, the only thing I'd be worried about is if the storage medium is expected to be supported in the forseeable future. Don't know if anyone can answer that question. I'd probably look for something that used SD cards because that seems to be where the industry is standardizing based on what I've read, but I doubt support for the others will dry up quickly. As far as the sensor, I don't see how changes in that technology has any affect on anything. If you find a camera that gives you the results you want, and it can use lenses that you currently have or can easily acquire, then seems to me it will always perform up to your standards. Personally, I just bought a Pentax *ist DS a couple of weeks ago, and as long as it works, I can't see the point in upgrading to anything else, ever. The results suit me just fine.

 

Bill

[peter_nelson1]

To stick with the car analogy - what if your old car requires leaded gas? What if your old car was designed for a time when gasoline was a lot cheaper? What if you old car can no longer meet current emissions standards? What if it becomes hard to find spare parts? There are plenty of ways an old car might become technologically obsolete even if it still works reliably.<P>

 

A working digicam can become obsolete if they stop making the batteries it uses, or the memory cards it uses. I'm already on my 2nd and 3rd set of "Smart Media cards" for my old Oly P&S - how much longer will they keep making those things, now that CF and SD cards are all the rage?<P>

 

I have 2 FM2's that are over 20 years old and still work perfectly and take better pictures today than when they were new ("better" because film has gotten better in that time). How many of today's digital cameras will still be fully usable in 20 years?<P>

 

Robyn asked about image storage, but didn't give us any parameters. Over the short term - 5, maybe even 10 years - there are no issues. But over the long term you probably need to commit yourself or heirs to frequently copying the images to whatever the latest technology is. This is a big difference from paper documents, which are still readable today after centuries, or Kodachrome slides and silver-halide black and white negatives, which are still readable with current technology 50 or 60 years after they were taken.

[jordan2240]

My point was that "old" and "obsolete" aren't necessariy synonymous. Obviously, things do become obsolete, and may do so rather quickly in emerging technologies. If you jump in during the beginning stages, then I think you increase your risk of requiring a replacement within a short timeframe. If you believe the industry has matured enough to reach some standards, then your risk is less. No guarantees of course, so you either jump in at some point, or keep waiting for whatever it is that will make you feel comfortable. Personally, I think you can feel relatively comfortable now entering the digital world, particularly if you purchase a camera that was developed within the last year or so.

 

Bill

[Brad_]

<I>But over the long term you probably need to commit yourself or heirs to frequently

copying the images to whatever the latest technology is.</I><P>

 

Which is <i>so</i> easy to do today, and will be even easier in the future. If you're a serious

photographer, it's just something you do.

[robyn_geering1]

Thanks, you have made some great points, and I have taken them on board.

[thomas_sullivan]

actually, with regard to storage, I have a question. I am looking to buy a new computer, and with it revamp my method of image storage..........which is presently CD. My immediate thought was to just get a DVD R/W machine and move into that for storage. Then while looking at hard disks for program and file storage decided I wanted 2 internal drives for everyday work. But, then noticed that the USB external drives had some possibilities to be used as an archival image storage system. I would probably still buy the dvd recorder, but was wondering if there was any real merit in using external HDs as my archival storage medium.

 

anybody know the answer to this?

[phule]

<< but was wondering if there was any real merit in using external HDs as my archival storage medium. >>

 

Tons of merit. Lots of info in the archives already but yes, there are are many advantages to archiving to external hard drives.

[andrew robertson]

Just get an external case and buy your own drive. When you fill it up, you take it in a static

proof bag to the safety deposit box.

[Brad_]

<I>anybody know the answer to this?</I><P>

 

Tom, I don't know about it being <i>the</I> answer. But that's what I do and it's pretty

painless. External FW800/USB2.0 drives are relatively cheap. In addition to a second 250 GB

internal drive, I have 400 and 250 GB external drives from Other World Computing (Hitachi

3.5" drives) and use the FW 800 interface. A program called Synk (for the Mac) does backups

and archives. <P>

 

The nice thing about it is that's it's fast and hassle free. Less hassle = more likely to use it...

[thomas_sullivan]

thanks for the answers...I did do some searching on pnet before I asked the question about the USB external hard drive file storage idea. One posting in particular is why I even asked the question that I did above.....seems to indicate that they are not quite as permanent as one would think. Was hoping someone would bring that issue up again.

<br><br>last 2 paragraphs is the comment I am reffering to...<br><br>

<br><br>"R Hofland , jun 28, 2005; 12:07 a.m.

Although we won't know the longevity of the new HD-DVD formats for a while, the Blu-Ray version will hold quite a bit more info and will eventually come out in a recordable version. In the meantime, the DVD-R and R/W provide multiple gigabytes of storage-- but 5 or 10 GB doesn't go so far with dense digital scans from larger film. <br><br>

However, I do like Andrew Carlson's solution of a RAID server with a caveat-- CPUs and storage are so cheap in relative terms that it is wise to have duplicate RAID servers and just alternate between them on a reasonable time frame, but always keeping both of them updated with your images. <br><br>

 

Another alternative that is more practical for the average user is buying multiple USB or Firewire hard drive enclosures and loading your own harddrives into them, again in at least duplicate and keeping both always updated but only one running at a time. <br><br>

One other trick with magnetic media is to optimize the drive on a regular basis since that rewrites the bits to the platter. It turns out that the lifespan of those bits of information is getting shorter as we pack more data on the platters. From recent readings I recall that 18 months is a not unreasonable estimate of current lifespan. Thus occasionally dumping everything from one drive to another using a trio of drives might provide the best insurance... at least until the next generation of recordable DVD is out...."<br><br>from <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CgkQ"><u>this thread</u></a><br><br>anybody have some technical rebuttals to this person's findings?

[Brad_]

<I>anybody have some technical rebuttals to this person's findings?</I><P>

 

And, references to support the claims made, as well.

[thomas_sullivan]

I know Brad....18 months reliability on a Hard Drive retaining accurate data sounds really low. If he's talking just USB externals, well, maybe, but I don't see how the actual platter is any different in those than in internal drives. And if that is the case, then one should not buy a large internal hard drive to put their Operating System on (windows XP for instance). And I'm realatively sure that there is no stipulation from any one on that item.

 

That's the thing about photo net that really bothers me...when a FACT is proclaimed with out a link to scientific tech data to support it........how the heck do you know if it is indeed true. Kinda makes photo net a list of opinions, rather than a factual data base.

[thomas_sullivan]

anyhow..........ranting aside

 

does anyone have any info.....backed up.........pro or con on this USB External Hard drive data retention reliability. Cause I'm ready to regard it as a non issue if no one speaks up.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> it has become safe to buy one without fear of rapid obsolescence

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

It's only obsolete if you can't use it. Lots of people happily use 5-year-old digital

cameras, and 50-year-old film cameras. I'm not sure what question you're asking.