Canon moves to SD from CF for Canon S2 IS

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Siddhartha Jain, Jun 22, 2005.

  1. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Funk Guest

    Really?
    And, I must suppose, you have some sort of expertise and/or experience
    that will lend credence to your pronouncement?
    Is your knowledge of the digital camera market such that you know
    better than the camera manufacturers? Can you list your credentials?
    A flashlight is an entirely different class of device than a digital
    camera.
    And yes, flashlights don't all use the same battery types; some use
    AAs, some use AAAs, some Cs, some Ds, and others use proprietary
    rechargables.
    Evidently, you think wrong.
    Not just to *you*, but nonetheless...
    Maybe my diet is making me mean, but I wonder where some people get
    the idea that they know so much better than those who actually *do* a
    particular job, like making cameras, as an example.
    We get people who insist that a particular maker had no reason to do
    what they did, we get others who insist that customers are changing
    their buying habits becasue of design changes, and others who insist
    that certain batteries should be 'standard', and others who think a
    certain set of design parameters should be considered standard,
    becasue they thing everyone wants them.
    Sure, some camera models don't sell as well as the marketers thought
    they would. That doesn't mean the company is stupid.
    Because I want certain features doesn't mean they should be considered
    necessary.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 25, 2005
    #61
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Funk Guest

    I see you've fallen for someone's idea of the truth.
    Let me try to educate...
    First, Ford didn't spec deadly tires; Firestone, who *makes* tires,
    know exactly what use they were for. Firestone warranted the tires to
    be able to withstand the use, with a safety margin. There was nothing
    wrong, mush less deadly, with the tires spec'd.
    Firestone delivered tires they *KNEW* were faulty. The problem was a
    manufacturing defect at one factory that affected a relatively low
    percentage of tires delivered, but Firestone managers decided to let
    the defective tires out.
    Ford stepped up to the plate to replace the defective tires at their
    own expence; this was not required by any legal or governmental
    action, Ford did it because they felt it was the right thing to do.
    Firestone, even after their own people admitted the problem was
    Firestone's, continued to stonewall, and say that they were duped by
    Ford (This is delicious: Firestone, who knows how to make tires, says
    Ford duped them by providing the specs for a tire, giving the
    parameters the tire would be working within, and Firestone warranted
    certain tires to meet those parameters, and it's *Ford's* fault?).
    Ford not only had the strength and resources to stand the pressure,
    Ford fixed Firestone's problem. At no cost to their customers.
    Firestone warranted the tires for the application, not Ford. Firestone
    could have simply said, "We don't have a tire to meet that
    application." Ford uses tires from different manufacturere for exactly
    that reason: not every manufacturer makes the tires Ford wants, so
    they buy from whoever actually has the right tires. Firestone said
    they had the right tires.
    This was *NOT* Fords fault.
    Even the pressure spec'ed by Ford were well withing he tires' specs.
    Other vehicles have run lower pressures with no problems.
    If Firestone had made the decision to *not* put defective tires into
    the delivery stream, this would not have happened.
    Sure. But that's the fault of the consumer.
    In fact, those higher cost batteries still benefit the consumers,
    because some of them, if those batteries weren't available, wouldn't
    be able to get any extra batteries, simply because they aren't going
    to look for anything but the OEM batteries.
    Auto dealers depend on these people for their bread and butter; the
    back shop supports most dealerships. Customers use the dealerships for
    all their service needs because they feel better using the "OEM"
    service facilities for all their cars' needs. The fact that the
    dealership has no lock on tools, education of techs, parts, or eventhe
    techs themselves doesn't deter these people. They see the higher costs
    as nothng other than the cost of what they see a superior service.
    I think that would be inevitable. As new and better technologies come
    along, designs based on older technologies should be replaced. And at
    the rate technologies change, 20 years is far too long a cycle.

    I think standardization is good, if used right.
    Standardization of tire size marking is good; standardizing tire sizes
    isn't.
    Standardizing methods for describing tire traction is good;
    standardizing tire traction isn't.
    Even where standardization is used, expecting those standards to
    outlast technology involved in those standards hurts the consumer
    (that's us).

    Why standardize batteries? Your camera only takes one kind. You'll
    need to buy new ones as your current ones age, anyway. It's not like
    I'll need to go out and buy new batteries for my camera before I need
    them.
    Memory cards? I still have a bunch of SM cards that won't work in my
    new DSLR. But I didn't buy the DSLR as a memory card holder, I bought
    it as a camera. I was aware of what kind of cards it took before I
    bought it. *If* I made the battery type a major purchase factor, I
    wouldn't have gotten the DSLR, and I'd have missed out on many pics,
    and much enjoyment. It's a decision I make.
    But things like battery type, card type, and the like, are relatively
    low in the decision process; ability of the camera to meet my
    photographic needs/wants are much higher.
    I wouldn't buy an Elantra if I needed a pickup truck, just because I
    already had a set of wheels that would fit the Elantra.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 25, 2005
    #62
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Funk Guest

    We probably would benefit from this form of standardization.
    Since the seat and infant seats would be specifically designed to work
    together, they would probably (make that' definitely') work better *in
    most cases* than the hodge-podge of car seat and infant seat designs
    we have now. Throw in seatbelt standardization too, and the standard
    infant/car seat system would be even better.
    Yes, the consumers would benefit.
    That does not say, though, that this *should* be done.
    Instead, standards can (and are) devised to ensure that the same
    benefits are achieved with continued diversity in the marketplace,
    with the result that improvements are made, which that one
    standardized car seat/infant seat system would stifle.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 25, 2005
    #63
  4. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Funk Guest

    Haven't been to a hardware store lately, eh?
    There are many different styles and shapes of staples, and they serve
    a multitude of different purposes.
    There are also different brands that use the same of those many
    different styles.
    Here, diversity is not a problem at all.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 25, 2005
    #64
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Funk Guest

    No, the ability of the computers to lift drudgework,and make mundane
    chores easy and very quick is what made the world own computers.
    What standardization exists helps that ownership be affordable.
    Hardly! The world has many "standard" electrical systems.
    Your electric razor, for example, won't work in many countries.
    And yet, you still need to upgrade your cell phone once in a while, as
    standards change, or you *can't* talk to your friend across town.

    Not all standardization is bad, and vice versa.
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 25, 2005
    #65
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    I'd say it's you that has succumbed to the Ford spin machine.
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2005
    #66
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    ASAAR Guest

    No, diversity is a what you want here, but the reason for it is
    not applicable to batteries. The end product is the staple. You
    need a particular size and shape so that it can do the job properly.
    The stapler is just a delivery system for the necessary components,
    the staples. With cameras it's not the same. Batteries provide
    power but are not the end product. Whether powered by a small
    Li-ion battery, 4 AA cells, or hooked up to a massive lead-acid
    battery supported by a belt around the waist, the pictures would be
    the same and the power supply used wouldn't be affect the picture.
    People don't walk into a store and ask "I've got some AA batteries
    that I need to deplete. What do you suggest that I buy, a camera, a
    radio, or maybe a handheld computer?"
     
    ASAAR, Jun 25, 2005
    #67
  8. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    We are in violent agreement!

    I guess now the problem is HOW to best get the camera manufacturers to
    do the right thing for the consumer (i.e., all employ one or two
    standard Li-Ion battery sizes in consumer cameras).

    Note: Pros can stay with whatever they want as cost & on-the-spot
    availability & reliability has been shown to not be the large factor
    for the pro that it is for the consumer.

    CCN
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #68
  9. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    I think we are all in violent agreement.
    Notice you didn't mention any particular manufacturer in the rebuttal
    above.
    That's my main point.

    We don't have Michelin-sized tires, Continental-sized tires,
    Yokohama-sized tires, Bridgestone-sized tires, etc.

    That's my point.

    My presumption is we don't benefit from Nikon-sized batteries,
    Canon-sized batteries, JVC-sized batteries, etc.

    The size (in increments) is fixed.
    The manufacturer adheres to the standard sizes (not the other way
    around).

    Now that we all agree, how do we go about making this a reality for
    consumer cameras (the pros can fend for themselves as standards are not
    their concern as has been shown many times in these articles).

    CCN
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #69
  10. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Again, notice we're not talking about Kodak-sized paper or
    Olympus-sized paper.

    Also notice the sizes were standardized BEFORE the cameras & personal
    printers existed. For most of us consumers, there is really only one
    dominant photographic-paper size - wouldn't you agree?

    How many consumers really purchase reams of 13x19 photo-quality paper
    from the local store? Likeise with 4x5, 8x10, 11x14, 16x20, etc. Again,
    I am NOT talking about the pro! The pro doesn't seem to care one bit
    about standards (judging from this newsgroup). I'm talking about the
    consumer. The average joe consumer only buys one size of paper. I'm
    sure there is someone who will tell me "yeah, I buy 4x6 paper all the
    time" but I'm talking about the aggregate consumer, not the oddball
    consumer.

    Point is, the camera manufacturer and printer manufacturers conform to
    the existing standard paper sizes and one or two sizes dominate for the
    consumer. It isn't the other way around.
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #70
  11. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Hi Bill,

    It's an O P I N I O N.
    It's an I D E A.
    Maybe even a C O N C E P T.

    Some of us think camera manufacturers should conform to well
    established and to-be-established standards and not that the average
    consumer should have to conform to whatever the camera manufacturer
    dishes out for their best profit margins. You apparently think
    otherwise.

    That's OK.
    You can disagree or agree.
    You can respond or ignore.
    You can even question our credibility for such an opinion.
    You can even tell us how much smarter you are then we so that's why we
    should believe your particular opinion.

    But why must you always seem to insult?

    CCN
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #71
  12. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Really?
    And, I must suppose, you have some sort of expertise and/or experience
    that will lend credence to your pronouncement?
    Is your knowledge of the [infant car seat] market such that you know
    better than the [car seat] manufacturers? Can you list your
    credentials?

    Note: The quote above is verbatim from YOUR recent post in this same
    thread.

    :)
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #72
  13. Siddhartha Jain

    CCN Guest

    Hi Bill,
    I don't know if you're just saying this because you love to argue or
    because you truly don't get the point?

    If I walked into 10,000 offices and cubicles around the country, would
    I REALLY see this diversity of staple sizes you are talking about in
    the common office desktop stapler?

    If you really think that, then you just don't get the point.
    If you just want to argue, then you'll never get the point.

    CCN
     
    CCN, Jun 25, 2005
    #73
  14. Siddhartha Jain

    missingdata Guest

    Not sure what you've been looking at, but I have yet to see any camera
    that will prevent a cf card from being inserted 90-degrees rotated.
    The card is not square -- it is wider than it is tall, so, when
    rotated, there is nothing to stop it from reaching the pins. Sure, the
    keyways on the card prevent it from being inserted upside down, or
    180-degrees rotated, but not 90-degrees rotated. Try it.
     
    missingdata, Jun 26, 2005
    #74
  15. Siddhartha Jain

    Darrell Guest

    Yet people still manage to insert CF cards wrong. People still manage to
    bend cardslot pins...
     
    Darrell, Jun 26, 2005
    #75
  16. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Funk Guest

    Hmmm...
    I just tried this on my DR, and you're right, the card can be inserted
    sideways.
    I'd never thought of trying it the obviously wrong way.
    But, I guess I committed a cardinal sin: I underestimated the
    stupidity of people. Why anyone would attempt to insert a card the
    obviously wrong way, and then try to *force* it when it won't work, is
    beyond me. But I guess they do, despite my idea that's it's obviously
    wrong.

    If I'm lucky, I learn something every day. And it's only about
    7:35am...
     
    Bill Funk, Jun 26, 2005
    #76
  17. Siddhartha Jain

    missingdata Guest

    They try to force it because all they remember is that '...gee, it was
    all the way in before I popped it out...', and '...since I just
    borrowed this camera from a friend, I better put it back the way it
    was. I must have to push harder....'

    I am no particular lover of either CF or SD, but what I was trying to
    point out was that when SD was created, the creators tried to make it a
    little more idiot proof than CF after seeing some of the field damage
    CF incurs. By designing the SD contacts to be 'pushed out of the way'
    by anything that can fit in the slot [even if it is smaller than the
    slot], they have pretty much avoided the 'bent pin' problem. Sure, if
    you reach in there with a dental tool or mini fish-hook or some other
    clearly foreign object, you might be able to hook one of the contact
    wipers and yank it out of place, but a wrong-way card, or even a sub
    size card is unlikely to cause damage, whereas with CF, you can damage
    the pins with the card itself.
     
    missingdata, Jun 26, 2005
    #77
  18. Siddhartha Jain

    Skip M Guest

    Just as an aside, Ford tried a Michelin supplied wheel/tire combo on the
    Mustang GT several years ago, TRX or something similar. Odd sized tire and
    wheel, specific to each other. You might remember the three spoked wheels
    on Mustangs in the '70s? Didn't go over well, either...
    One of the problems with standardization of batteries, for instance, is that
    camera shape, size and power requirements can vary from camera to camera,
    not to mention from mfr. to mfr.
     
    Skip M, Jun 27, 2005
    #78
  19. Skip M wrote:
    []
    I'm not suggesting that a "one battery fits all" approach is sensible, but
    a limited standard range such as we already have in primary batteries. I
    can see a need to a flatter battery for very compact cameras, and perhapsa
    range of something like 7V at 500mAh, 1000mAh and 2000mAh for larger
    cameras.

    The new cameras should then be made to accommodate those batteries, rather
    than the other way round. There are many very similar shaped batteries
    right now, so we may not be talking major changes, just slight changes to
    allow interchangeability.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jun 27, 2005
    #79
  20. Siddhartha Jain

    Bruce Graham Guest

    I agree totally! On a long trip my wife and I have a PDA, a P&S camera,
    a 350D, a pair of CB radios, a GPS, two cellphones (GSM and CDMA), two
    headlights, tailights, torches and a couple of personal radios - on
    bicycles.

    Carrying the chargers is the killer. While I like the convenience of Li-
    Ion single battery swapping, for travel I want NiMH AA's and AAA's.

    But if the Li-Ion packs were all designed to fit dual or quad AA or AAA
    slots we could have the best of both worlds. Some cameras do this now and
    I think that is the answer.

    (I need three chargers for the above - one for the 350D, one for
    cellphones and PDA and one for the AA's/AAA's powering the other stuff.)


    Bruce G
     
    Bruce Graham, Jun 28, 2005
    #80
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.