iPhone and device convergence

PCWorld asks whether TomTom for the iPhone points the way towards the end of dedicated, single-purpose devices.

In comparison to Apple's intuitive touch interface, I've found it highly frustrating to deal with other devices. Simply setting the volume on an XM receiver yesterday was a maddening exercise. The conference phone at my office has a screen with labels for the buttons beneath them, but I keep expecting the labels themselves to be useful. My two-way pager has one of the worst interfaces I've ever used. Hardware manufacturers tend to be incompetent at interface design.

So as much as possible, I'll gladly replace single-purpose devices with my iPhone. More convenient, vastly better interface, always with me: what's not to like?

On the other hand, as a photographer, I would never replace an SLR with an iPhone, but I'll have my phone with me more often than my "real" camera. If I traveled extensively through major metropolitan areas, I might need a dedicated turn by turn GPS device. I still need a pager, because my cell phone is not nearly annoying enough, and doesn't hold a charge as long.

So no, we'll continue to have dedicated devices, but hopefully most consumers will need fewer, and hopefully Apple's strengths in interface design will compel other gadget manufacturers to pay more attention to usability.

I know what I want for Christmas

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/seitz-d3.shtml

$38k? Not sure who in my family loves me that much, but I'll ask around.

Camera criteria

I mentioned in an earlier post that I'm interested in purchasing a new camera in the not-too-distant (but by no means near) future. While considering my options, I want to keep several criteria in mind.

• Weight. My current camera is much too heavy to be comfortable carrying around for any length of time.
• Size. A light-weight camera is nice, but only part of the equation. Pentax seems to be making pancake prime lenses that would make carrying around a small camera that much easier.
• Size, the counter-argument. Many of the entry-level SLRs are too small, or at least their grips are uncomfortably small. Plus, a very small SLR is unwieldy with very large lenses.
• Image quality. There are two factors of particular concern to me: image size (aka megapixels) and high ISO performance. Anything 10 megapixels or higher should be fine (although don't think I'm not drooling about the new 20 megapixel cameras), but quality at ISO 3200 and higher is of greater importance, and to some degree will be inversely proportional to the number of megapixels.
• Viewfinder quality. I gave up on my Canon 300D because I was tired of looking at the scene through a tunnel. Give me a large, bright viewfinder, or I'll stick with my 1D.
• Responsiveness. I don't need 8 frames/second, like my 1D has, but my 300D with a very slow boot time and impossible lag after filling the buffer was difficult to tolerate. 3 fps with at least a 10 image (RAW) buffer would be sufficient, I think, although I'd miss my 1D's speed a little.
• RAW is a must; DNG output would be nice, but not essential. (Having said that, Adobe's DNG converter must be able to handle the camera's native files.)
  
• Lens cost. I don't want to buy a camera only to discover that the lenses I want are unreasonably expensive. Canon's lenses, while quite pricey, will likely be my primary point of comparison.
• Interchangeable lenses. I'd like a pocket camera to have handy at all times, but my primary camera must be an SLR, rangefinder, or perhaps one of the new Micro Four Thirds SLR-like cameras. (My iPhone is a serviceable pocket camera, albeit limited.)
• Battery life. I'll have to research the SLRs driven by AAA batteries carefully; that doesn't seem like a recipe for long battery life.
• Image stabilization. While I appreciate the advantages of lens-driven image stabilization, I'd like to have it in the body as well.
  

Note to self: do not buy a camera without handling it first. Thank goodness for Roberts.

To buy, or not to buy

In 2004, almost entirely by accident, I discovered that I enjoyed photography. Over the next two years I took tens of thousands of (digital) photographs on a Canon 300D, better known in the U.S. as the original Digital Rebel.

For various reasons, I stopped shooting so much; around the same time that my interest waned, I "upgraded" from my 6 megapixel camera to a 4 megapixel professional model that was several years old, the original Canon 1D. Fewer megapixels, but that doesn't matter much; I upgraded because I wanted a large, bright viewfinder, and because the 300D was terribly slow at autofocus and shooting speed. As I liked to joke, I could shoot at three frames per second...for one second.

The 1D, on the other hand, can shoot at 8 frames per second for several seconds. Quite an upgrade.

Unfortunately, it's also a heavy beast with poor high ISO characteristics, and lacks several other features that a modern camera takes for granted, such as the ability to zoom while reviewing an image on its LCD, and the ability to shoot more than an hour on a single battery.

And the batteries are heavier than a small camera.

So, it's time to consider upgrading again. I probably won't buy anything any time soon, but I'll use this blog to keep track of my thoughts on various options.