- Dec 17, 2013
RustyTheGeek said:K said:If all bodies were compatible to all lenses 100% - it would be a very, very different camera industry. Without being tied down to a collection of proprietary glass - anyone could shop any body - and this kind of competition would drive newer tech and features much more rapidly. Bodies would be much more capable than they are today and less expensive too. It would also force innovation in order to stand out. Features that exist today and now, but that are just a dream for DSLR's would probably already be incorporated.
Something we take for granted with most of these camera bodies is RELIABILITY. If the camera industry was as you wish above, totally committed to lightning fast adoption of bleeding edge technology before the competition, the cameras would suffer from the same problems of reliability and failure as computer, networking and smartphones do. It has been normal for over 20 years now for most of these products to ship ASAP with beta or incomplete buggy firmware/software with the intention of fixing it later via a firmware or software update.
Personally I am very glad that cameras are usually more solid and reliable out of the box and I believe this is due to the slower adoption of the newest technology. The emphasis still seems to be on delivering a new product that can stand on its own and a future firmware will merely make minor adjustments as issues are discovered and fixed. We all complain about it but I think many times it is for the best.
In essence, I would rather have a new camera with 10 new great features that are dependable and work to expectations rather than have 18 new great features, half of which disappoint and cause problems that I can't endure.
Thank you Rusty, as that seems to be something which is overlooked here quite a bit.