I find comparing them to be an interesting exercise. I think it can be good for demonstrating when their differences matter and where they do not ^_^
I always get a bit twitchy at the 'amateurs/professionals/masters' line that so frequently comes up. It tends to have the taste of an argument being made by amateurs picturing themselves as masters and taking their low cost equipment as evidence.
Meh, moving post processing onto such limited devices never seemed like all that big of a plus to me, but that is an old debate. Even predating digital cameras you had argument between instant polaroid and film+developing. Polariods were indeed more convenient and people loved them for that, but I would not describe them as ever really surpassing film based cameras in terms of producing good pictures.
Esp not the new mirrorless (yeah, they are not DSLR, but they are often functionally very similar) with a pancake lens. Those are not that much bigger than smartphones.
Guess it depends on what kinds of pictures one is taking. If the bulk of their work are social shots of random things then yeah, this makes sense. If you are doing photography that already involves planning and setup, then it is a rather different beast. DSLRs are not generally 'lug around all day' cameras, they are tools. It is kinda like comparing a leatherman or swiss army knife to a set of wrenches. Sure you can carry the pocket knife anywhere and it is great for unexpected situations, but if you are planning to really work on something you bring actual tools.
I keep a point and shoot (and a leatherman) in my coat, but I would not restrict myself to their limitations if I am going to be doing something with intent.
That is a pretty limited advantage though, depending on your use case. If you do product photography, portraits, landscapes, anything that involves planning and intent, well, instant access in your pocket matters much less.
It also means the lower bound of the higher end market goes up. One of the problems with niche markets is they have to be above a certain size in order to serve the entire market. If they are too small, economics of scale result in only a niche within a niche being able to afford the high premiums. We can already see that with B&W cameras, the few that are on the market are very expensive, which blocks out most of the market that does want them. Rinse lather repeat.
The problem with niches is they need a certain critical mass to be worth supporting, otherwise they have to make due with whatever the more general market puts out.
Within photography you only have to ask the question, when was the last time you actually saw a still camera for sale? They are still made for niches within photography, usually up in the MF range, but they have vanished from the DSLR market.
Or an even better example, B&W cameras. For the people who use them, colour ones just do not compare,but so few do that very few manufacturers bother to produce them and most people have to settle for colour cameras in B&W mode. So I guess it could be said that they are still built and supplied for their niche, however the niche is small enough that only a small percentage within that niche can afford them.
As someone who is really terrible at natural language, I ended up pushing my advisor and taking multiple foreign languages in college and yeah, it really did hurt my GPA and left less time for directly marketable skills. On the other hand I found managers surprisingly understanding when they looked at my transcript and saw which classes had the good grades and which ones I struggled in... and years later now that I am out of the entry level positions hiring managers seem more impressed at the multiple attempts (even if I have lost the skills) then the various technical classes (which I have also lost the skills).
In such cases I would label the vendor either an, as you say, douche bag, or less than competent. Generally companies that want to support long contracts like that have to find some sort of balance where developers are spread around and doing both new development and older support. Put someone in either category too long and bad things tend to happen.
One of the things that really ends up concerning me is that dependency tree and how it can quickly branch off in all sorts of unexpected directions as packages bring each other in.
One thing I really loathed about using maven in a production environment was the younger developers looking at the fact you could set the version numbers you wanted as a panacea against needing to worry about what an update will do.
Good example of 'toy' vs 'tool'. With toys, expecting things to go wrong and spending time to investigate and learn is a fine thing. For tools, time spent making the tool work is time spent not using it to do work.
I think the 'for years' part is where the disconnect between the two professional use cases (or camps) tends to happen. The people really pushing rolling distributions are not really thinking about production systems that will be running for the next 5-10+ years, but instead on rapidly changing stuff that you do not have to plan more than a few months in advance.
I wonder how much of it is a case of web developers gaining more status within computing and their priorities seeping into other areas. Rolling releases tend to sound rather webapp inspired to me.
While many consider it gouging, this is why I like support contracts. A nice signed piece of paper saying 'yes, we WILL support the version you are using even if our active development moves on'.
Over the last decade or two, both developers and users have simply become to a certain, rather low, level of stability being normal. The economic prize tends to go to companies that play fast and lose, more conservatives ones that are careful end up not being 'sexy' enough and wither.
This really strikes me as something that is going to heavily depend on what the systems are actually doing, how tied to the distro-supplied software the usage is, and how often the releases are.
Even within 'rolling release' distros there is a huge variation in exactly what that means in terms of changes, updates, frequency, which parts are rolled vs versioned, user control over backdating. This combines with a bit of a matrix of use cases for one to find exactly how much manpower using such a distribution within an organization will eat up. So yeah, 'it depends' pretty much sums it up.
If I had not already commented, I would mod you up ^_^
My personal experiences with police have generally been similar to the later, with anything outside the norm being simplier to deny than them taking any thought/risk, but mileage will of course vary.
Law enforcement is complaining that the university did not notify them, so the issue is not the appropriateness of people calling law enforcement when they see something, but of expectations of informing the police before they do things.
I imagine if the school did contact them first, they would either have been told 'why are you telling us this?' or 'don't place the cameras, it is politcally safer for us to simpy nix it'.
Look at the bright side, if they had been in Boston instead the students would have been arrested for placing 'hoax devices' and have police talking about how lucky the people were that they were not simply shot.
Slashdot Mirror
I have seen fantastic pictures taken with pinhole cameras, but one would be hard pressed to describe them as 'good', much less 'superior' devices ^_^
I find comparing them to be an interesting exercise. I think it can be good for demonstrating when their differences matter and where they do not ^_^
I always get a bit twitchy at the 'amateurs/professionals/masters' line that so frequently comes up. It tends to have the taste of an argument being made by amateurs picturing themselves as masters and taking their low cost equipment as evidence.
Meh, moving post processing onto such limited devices never seemed like all that big of a plus to me, but that is an old debate. Even predating digital cameras you had argument between instant polaroid and film+developing. Polariods were indeed more convenient and people loved them for that, but I would not describe them as ever really surpassing film based cameras in terms of producing good pictures.
Esp not the new mirrorless (yeah, they are not DSLR, but they are often functionally very similar) with a pancake lens. Those are not that much bigger than smartphones.
Guess it depends on what kinds of pictures one is taking. If the bulk of their work are social shots of random things then yeah, this makes sense. If you are doing photography that already involves planning and setup, then it is a rather different beast. DSLRs are not generally 'lug around all day' cameras, they are tools. It is kinda like comparing a leatherman or swiss army knife to a set of wrenches. Sure you can carry the pocket knife anywhere and it is great for unexpected situations, but if you are planning to really work on something you bring actual tools.
I keep a point and shoot (and a leatherman) in my coat, but I would not restrict myself to their limitations if I am going to be doing something with intent.
Even poor lenses give someone a leg up over phone cameras if the quality of the stills is the person's goal.
That is a pretty limited advantage though, depending on your use case. If you do product photography, portraits, landscapes, anything that involves planning and intent, well, instant access in your pocket matters much less.
In other words, a hipster restaurant that tries to market itself as anti-hipster, and cares more about image then customers.
It also means the lower bound of the higher end market goes up. One of the problems with niche markets is they have to be above a certain size in order to serve the entire market. If they are too small, economics of scale result in only a niche within a niche being able to afford the high premiums. We can already see that with B&W cameras, the few that are on the market are very expensive, which blocks out most of the market that does want them. Rinse lather repeat.
Oh dear expletive no. Trying to be like the smart-phone market is probably one of the things that is really hurting them.
The problem with niches is they need a certain critical mass to be worth supporting, otherwise they have to make due with whatever the more general market puts out.
Within photography you only have to ask the question, when was the last time you actually saw a still camera for sale? They are still made for niches within photography, usually up in the MF range, but they have vanished from the DSLR market.
Or an even better example, B&W cameras. For the people who use them, colour ones just do not compare,but so few do that very few manufacturers bother to produce them and most people have to settle for colour cameras in B&W mode. So I guess it could be said that they are still built and supplied for their niche, however the niche is small enough that only a small percentage within that niche can afford them.
As someone who is really terrible at natural language, I ended up pushing my advisor and taking multiple foreign languages in college and yeah, it really did hurt my GPA and left less time for directly marketable skills. On the other hand I found managers surprisingly understanding when they looked at my transcript and saw which classes had the good grades and which ones I struggled in... and years later now that I am out of the entry level positions hiring managers seem more impressed at the multiple attempts (even if I have lost the skills) then the various technical classes (which I have also lost the skills).
Why did you not take German then?
In such cases I would label the vendor either an, as you say, douche bag, or less than competent. Generally companies that want to support long contracts like that have to find some sort of balance where developers are spread around and doing both new development and older support. Put someone in either category too long and bad things tend to happen.
One of the things that really ends up concerning me is that dependency tree and how it can quickly branch off in all sorts of unexpected directions as packages bring each other in.
One thing I really loathed about using maven in a production environment was the younger developers looking at the fact you could set the version numbers you wanted as a panacea against needing to worry about what an update will do.
Good example of 'toy' vs 'tool'. With toys, expecting things to go wrong and spending time to investigate and learn is a fine thing. For tools, time spent making the tool work is time spent not using it to do work.
I think the 'for years' part is where the disconnect between the two professional use cases (or camps) tends to happen. The people really pushing rolling distributions are not really thinking about production systems that will be running for the next 5-10+ years, but instead on rapidly changing stuff that you do not have to plan more than a few months in advance.
I wonder how much of it is a case of web developers gaining more status within computing and their priorities seeping into other areas. Rolling releases tend to sound rather webapp inspired to me.
While many consider it gouging, this is why I like support contracts. A nice signed piece of paper saying 'yes, we WILL support the version you are using even if our active development moves on'.
Over the last decade or two, both developers and users have simply become to a certain, rather low, level of stability being normal. The economic prize tends to go to companies that play fast and lose, more conservatives ones that are careful end up not being 'sexy' enough and wither.
Is it not nice to find something that jerks and idiots of all political stripes can agree on?
This really strikes me as something that is going to heavily depend on what the systems are actually doing, how tied to the distro-supplied software the usage is, and how often the releases are.
Even within 'rolling release' distros there is a huge variation in exactly what that means in terms of changes, updates, frequency, which parts are rolled vs versioned, user control over backdating. This combines with a bit of a matrix of use cases for one to find exactly how much manpower using such a distribution within an organization will eat up. So yeah, 'it depends' pretty much sums it up.
If I had not already commented, I would mod you up ^_^
My personal experiences with police have generally been similar to the later, with anything outside the norm being simplier to deny than them taking any thought/risk, but mileage will of course vary.
Law enforcement is complaining that the university did not notify them, so the issue is not the appropriateness of people calling law enforcement when they see something, but of expectations of informing the police before they do things.
I imagine if the school did contact them first, they would either have been told 'why are you telling us this?' or 'don't place the cameras, it is politcally safer for us to simpy nix it'.
Look at the bright side, if they had been in Boston instead the students would have been arrested for placing 'hoax devices' and have police talking about how lucky the people were that they were not simply shot.