Computers have been pretty modular for a while, cars are becoming more modular over time, even houses etc...
Why is nobody coming forth with a more modular approach to DSLRs? It seems that Canikon etc. are all stuck in the 20th century regarding certain ideas:
- Make AA filter BTO (build to order) (only D800E does this)
- Make Bayer filter BTO (only Leica M9 does this)
- Make two or three APS-C and FF bodies with different builds, then offer two or three sensors for each.
Suppose Canon had an 18 and 28 MP FF sensor, I could choose a 5D3 with 18MP and 7fps or 28MP and 4fps or a 1DX with 18MP and 12fps or 28MP and 8fps, or something like that.
If they then stopped holding back on software-only features, intentionally crippled firmware and atrocious usability issues it would be really great!
So what I'm wondering, are there technical reasons against this, or is it just the capitalist reality biting us (i.e. we get the worst possible product instead of the best possible, where worst possible is defined as just good enough to make us want to upgrade, and just good enough to keep up with the competition, but no really innovative steps forward unless absolutely forced to by outside pressure).
Why is nobody coming forth with a more modular approach to DSLRs? It seems that Canikon etc. are all stuck in the 20th century regarding certain ideas:
- Make AA filter BTO (build to order) (only D800E does this)
- Make Bayer filter BTO (only Leica M9 does this)
- Make two or three APS-C and FF bodies with different builds, then offer two or three sensors for each.
Suppose Canon had an 18 and 28 MP FF sensor, I could choose a 5D3 with 18MP and 7fps or 28MP and 4fps or a 1DX with 18MP and 12fps or 28MP and 8fps, or something like that.
If they then stopped holding back on software-only features, intentionally crippled firmware and atrocious usability issues it would be really great!
So what I'm wondering, are there technical reasons against this, or is it just the capitalist reality biting us (i.e. we get the worst possible product instead of the best possible, where worst possible is defined as just good enough to make us want to upgrade, and just good enough to keep up with the competition, but no really innovative steps forward unless absolutely forced to by outside pressure).
