Gripes.

[AvTvM]

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even the facts that horse-carts and automobiles
1. both use wheels as a primary component to achieve their functionality and
2. both get people and/or goods from place A to place B and
3. both are means of land transportation that cannot fly or swim (very far)
etc.
does not change the answer to the question "is it a disruptive innovation?". Yes it is!

SLRs were a disruptive innovation. Both for users and for an entire industry, that was "severly disrupted" ... and they killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace and superseded them ... for virtually everybody, except a handful of Leica or Voigtlander customers.

 

[Don Haines]

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even the facts that horse-carts and automobiles
1. both use wheels as a primary component to achieve their functionality and
2. both get people and/or goods from place A to place B and
3. both are means of land transportation that cannot fly or swim (very far)
etc.
does not change the answer to the question "is it a disruptive innvoation?". Yes it is!

SLRs were a disruptive innovation. Both for users and for an entire industry, that was "severly disrupted" ... and they killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace and superseded them ... for virtually everybody, except a handful of Leica or Voigtlander customers.

And we are debating this using yet another disruptive technology..... Which I will now turn off, pick up my obsolete book, and read for a while before going to sleep.....

 

[unfocused]

I decided to go to the source: the guy who coined the phrase.

Harvard Business School professor Clayton M. Christensen coined the term disruptive technology. In his 1997 best-selling book, "The Innovator's Dilemma," Christensen separates new technology into two categories: sustaining and disruptive. Sustaining technology relies on incremental improvements to an already established technology. Disruptive technology lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application. (Such was the case with Alexander Graham Bell's "electrical speech machine," which we now call the telephone.)

Here is what he says on his website: http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

By this definition, it sounds to me that cell phone cameras would be an excellent example of a disruptive technology: "lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application."

 

[Luds34]

Why is that a gripe? A gripe might be someone unhappy with a feature, or wanting a new feature that is missing.

People are griping that there is not enough DR. No one gripes or complains that we have enough.

Griping is OK. But playing it back over and over, inserting a gripe into unrelated topics, that is what I find irritating, not the gripe itself.

Hear hear! I agree, +1 here.

 

[benperrin]

By this definition, it sounds to me that cell phone cameras would be an excellent example of a disruptive technology: "lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application."

I don't think cell phone cameras appeal to a limited audience nor do I think that they lack a practical application. I don't think they are superior to professional grade photographic equipment but they are used by many many people.

 

[Tinky]

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even the facts that horse-carts and automobiles
1. both use wheels as a primary component to achieve their functionality and
2. both get people and/or goods from place A to place B and
3. both are means of land transportation that cannot fly or swim (very far)
etc.
does not change the answer to the question "is it a disruptive innvoation?". Yes it is!

SLRs were a disruptive innovation. Both for users and for an entire industry, that was "severly disrupted" ... and they killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace and superseded them ... for virtually everybody, except a handful of Leica or Voigtlander customers.

Haha! I'm guessing you've never ever put a even one roll of film through a rangefinder... you're entrenched now so I guess it's hard to back up, but the two types of cameras are very different. Rangefinders have never been mass market. I've proven with facts that they were developed and produced longer than film SLRs, they famously still get manufactured... why does it have to be this false dichotomy of either or?

 

[Tinky]

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world.

Stop. Read back. Read again.

This is really the most shizrophenic of sentances.

Killed. Superceded. Except where they are not.

I rest my case.

 

[Stu_bert]

By this definition, it sounds to me that cell phone cameras would be an excellent example of a disruptive technology: "lacks refinement, often has performance problems because it is new, appeals to a limited audience, and may not yet have a proven practical application."

I don't think cell phone cameras appeal to a limited audience nor do I think that they lack a practical application. I don't think they are superior to professional grade photographic equipment but they are used by many many people.

Smartphone cameras were disruptive to the compact camera market, they created a new sub market and although they have not killed off the compact camera, it is dying.

I like the wiki definitiion better personally....

 

[benperrin]

Smartphone cameras were disruptive to the compact camera market, they created a new sub market and although they have not killed off the compact camera, it is dying.

I like the wiki definitiion better personally....

No doubt about it. I do think though that the whole point of a compact camera is for portability and decent image quality. Smart phones now have that covered so why buy a compact camera? Also another area where a cell phone camera adds value is the ability to text or share an image through social media straight away. Not a feature that I personally need but many people love that aspect. The only thing I use my s6 edge for is to take photos of notes so I can remember stuff later. I really can't use a dslr for that.

 

[sanj]

Gear snobs.

The kind of people who answer the question "should I buy a 750D or a 760D?" with "a 5D3".

Sometimes this happens because the features the poster wants is not in the 750 or 760.

Stills guys who have switched their camera into video mode, and who have therefore become DoP's.

Hahaha. Yes.

People who have never shot any professional video ever telling video shooters how great AF is. They just don't and will never understand.. video is contiguous. af systems, as yet, are not (and i've been telling folk 'as yet' for the last 25 years)

Yes.

People who confuse somebody stating an anecdotal opinion with emperical absolute fact. Context: Somebody might say, off the cuff, throwaway like "I think canon are losing the plot with the M10, it doesn't even have a hotshoe! haha"

And somebody is bound to reply "And where is your evidence for this? Do you have an assesment of the Canon boards mental health? CSC sales in South Taiwan are up this quarter against Olympus, so really you don't know what you are talking about".

People who don't understand that their opinion alone does not make something, or something not art. Regardless of the artist, they will say as fact that somebodies work isn't art because they don't get it. Philistines basically. Not on the basis of specific taste, but general artlessness.

Is this directed to me? Talking about that guy we had a tiny argument about? Still holding on?

A7 zealots. Yeah, we get it. (or rather, "we don't")

It was aimed at anybody who doesn't get that art can exist outwith their own taste, purview, experience or knowledge, and people who confuse it with craft, skill or aptitude.

If that shoe fits then I guess I was.

The discussion was for HIGH art. Please.

 

[YuengLinger]

Hi Folks.
The thing I dislike most is when a post degenerates in to a slanging match between two people both absolutely certain they are correct, the posts get longer and longer and more venomous and any information pertinent to the thread is lost in the personal attacks.
Fortunately this is a pretty rare occurrence and in general this forum is a pleasant place to visit with a wealth of knowledge freely shared.
I think my photography has improved, and if it has it is solely down to the members of the forum sharing the techniques to facilitate this, so thank you.

Cheers, Graham.

Hear, hear!

 

[Don Haines]

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even the facts that horse-carts and automobiles
1. both use wheels as a primary component to achieve their functionality and
2. both get people and/or goods from place A to place B and
3. both are means of land transportation that cannot fly or swim (very far)
etc.
does not change the answer to the question "is it a disruptive innvoation?". Yes it is!

SLRs were a disruptive innovation. Both for users and for an entire industry, that was "severly disrupted" ... and they killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace and superseded them ... for virtually everybody, except a handful of Leica or Voigtlander customers.

Haha! I'm guessing you've never ever put a even one roll of film through a rangefinder... you're entrenched now so I guess it's hard to back up, but the two types of cameras are very different. Rangefinders have never been mass market. I've proven with facts that they were developed and produced longer than film SLRs, they famously still get manufactured... why does it have to be this false dichotomy of either or?

4x5 and 8x10 cameras are still being made

The one I like best is how computers will make paper obsolete, yet the emergence of computers has been the greatest boon ever to the printing industry....

 

[sanj]

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world.

Stop. Read back. Read again.

This is really the most shizrophenic of sentances.

Killed. Superceded. Except where they are not.

I rest my case.

What he is saying is that automobiles did that for general person transportation. Which it obviously did. At least where I live and wherever I have travelled.

 

[unfocused]

I think I have a new gripe.

People who pick up on phrases that have a specific meaning, like "disruptive technology" and then apply it to everything imaginable.

 

[distant.star]

People who pick up on phrases that have a specific meaning, like "disruptive technology" and then apply it to everything imaginable.

Don't get me started on trash phrases...

"Build quality" -- a term invented by failed journalists who end up working for marketing organs like DP Review. Intellectually lazy and dull individuals who do not know what to say about a product so they fall back on the wholly meaningless term "build quality." No managing editor (including myself) would ever allow such drivel in decent copy. Eventually, of course, it ends up in every forum and feedback post in the English-speaking world.

"Price point" -- a term within a specific marketing context that does not mean what a buyer pays for something. It probably found its way into a press release and from there infected the world. Now every dingaling with a keyboard thinks he'll sound sophisticated by using "price point" instead of "price."

And now back to your regularly scheduled gripes...

 

[scyrene]

I define "disruptive" as major technological progress that opens major new possibilities for customers (photographers) and caused big shifts in businss models for an entire industry.

So you are using it differently to how I understand it. That's fair enough. For instance:

"SLRs were disruptive technology. Fact. The killed rangefinders as a relevant camera design. Fact."

The replacement of one subclass of product with another is not, imho, disruptive. I don't drive, but I'd maybe use the example of manual versus automatic gears - people still drive cars, even if they work a little differently.

This thread is great in that respect - I like to understand people. Your position and motivations are totally understandable, and I respect that, even though I differ in one or two respects. It's easy to gripe until you realise people are talking from a different position

Wikipedia probably has a reasonable definition

"A disruptive innovation is an innovation that helps create a new market and value network, and eventually disrupts an existing market and value network (over a few years or decades), displacing an earlier technology"

Would that not mean that quite a few of the technologies highlighted are indeed disruptive?

As you gave a great example, I've always been interested why the UK and I think, but cannot be sure, Europe, still has a preference for manual over automatic? Further I fine it amusing when there is a perception that it suits older (ie cant drive as well), types. However, in North America, isnt it fair to say automatic is indeed disruptive and only a small portion of the market has manual ? Again, not a native, so only based on rental vehicles...

I read that article. I suppose it's hard to be sure how to interpret the definition - one type of car replaced by another type of car doesn't strike me as disruptive, as the overall market and landscape are the same (and I can't as a non-car person tell what the internal workings are). The car replacing horse-drawn transport on the other hand, would be truly disruptive (to add yet another analogy).

 

[scyrene]

Just off the phone to Mr Zeiss Ikon, and an email came in from Voigtlander.
They confirmed your assertion is wrong. They both produced, and in fact launched new models of rangefinder subsequent to Canon or Nikon's most recent film SLRs.
SLRs didn't kill their brands. Digital did. Although The Leica rangefinders are still going.

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world. Furthermore, even the facts that horse-carts and automobiles
1. both use wheels as a primary component to achieve their functionality and
2. both get people and/or goods from place A to place B and
3. both are means of land transportation that cannot fly or swim (very far)
etc.
does not change the answer to the question "is it a disruptive innovation?". Yes it is!

SLRs were a disruptive innovation. Both for users and for an entire industry, that was "severly disrupted" ... and they killed rangefinder cameras in the marketplace and superseded them ... for virtually everybody, except a handful of Leica or Voigtlander customers.

Ha! I hadn't read this far down, someone else used the horse vs engine example before me.

The difference between the two forms of transport is far greater than the difference between rangefinder and SLR. There was a whole ecosystem of horse breeding and raising, stabling, not to mention the vast quantities of dung and older animals that had to be disposed of. Not to mention the increased speed and range of cars meant that modern motorway-based societies could develop (and that had a knock-on effect on railways etc).

Both rangefinders and SLRs are portable machines made in factories. You could replace one with the other without much in the way of other effects.

I still think your bar is too low. Any product replacing another is disruptive? So did the iPhone 3G disrupt because it replaced the original iPhone?

 

[Tinky]

Automobiles KILLED and SUPERSEDED horse drawn carts. It does not matter at all, that horse-drawn carts are still produced and used in many parts of the world.

Stop. Read back. Read again.

This is really the most shizrophenic of sentances.

Killed. Superceded. Except where they are not.

I rest my case.

What he is saying is that automobiles did that for general person transportation. Which it obviously did. At least where I live and wherever I have travelled.

The units could be microwaves and paraffin flames, could be led bulbs and candles. Its the samantics i'm questioning, and the wrong assertion that rangefinders were superceded by slrs...

It's like saying tapes wiped out vinyl. The two technologies co-wxisted quite peacefully for 60 years. SLRs may have won the mass market, but that isn't the same thing as a causal demise.

For him DSLRs are better, for me two actually, but the user experience and app,ications ffor rangefinders are so different that it actually wasn't unheard of for folk to have both.

He says SLRs killed off rangefinders. They didn't. They honestly really didn't. Not from my experience of camera clubs, or my experience of camera retail.

 

[scyrene]

Actually I guess if it's to mean anything, 'disruptive technology' (and I promise this is my last post on it, as it's way off topic) has to be seen as a spectrum. Like most things I suppose.

 

[sdsr]

I don't want the mirror, but I want my 15th Century glass bricks, mechanical apertures, focus rings (I barely want AF!), and aperture rings. I like the physical process of handling lenses and like the character that lenses, especially older ones, add to the process (if I have a gripe, it's with the assumption that the best lens is necessarily the one which is sharpest and has no "flaws"). Will this magical new camera's software allow us to choose, say, the bokeh of a Helios 44-2, of a Zeiss Biotar 75mm or ....? Doesn't sound like much fun to me....

To each their own!

Yes, there is a segment of "retro photographers" who enjoy touching and turning precision wheels, twist focus and aperture rings, pushing knobs, cranking film rewind levers and to "fondle" heavy, nicely machined, solid metal cameras and heavy, polished glass of yesteryear. I think of them as "machine operators" - their boyhood dream must have been to become a (steam!) locomotion engineer or (propeller!) aircraft pilot.
That's fine with me (and no insult intended)!

Is referring to "retro photographers" as "machine operators" much different from Truman Capote's dismissal of Kerouac as "typing, not writing"?