I would love to be able to custom build my camera.
In addition to physical size/shape, the User Interface is extremely important and so easy to allow customization.

Why can't we have more control given back to the left hand. A lens mount control ring (OM / XZ style) works brilliantly.

With the advent of interconnectability between cameras and "smart" devices, I can see HUDs on glasses and voice control being a future feature.

We may end up with a simple black box on the end of our lens, with everything else wirelessly distributed...

I, for one, really like the new Flickr, but I have detected some grumbles from others? Is it simply because we don't like change?

Yes - I do mean camera customisation but not using bespoke modules. Instead there would be a choice of body modules that you could select from and so build your custom configuration.

In effect your asking for a customised camera.
Surely personal options being added on request would reflect greatly in the price.

I like the new look.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21646256@N08/

DPNow is linked from the Barking Photographic Society Group

http://www.flickr.com/groups/barking...aphic_society/

Thanks for the comments everyone I ought to add that I like the fact that my smartphone can take half decent snaps, for example. Even though it's pain in the backside to operate compared to a conventional camera and the creative options with a fixed lens and tiny sensor are limiting. But the best camera you have is the one you have with you. What does make me squirm is that so many are jacking in perfectly good cameras that shoot better than their smartphones simply because of convenience and - maybe - laziness in this modern era?

Read any of the collective wisdom on modern audio "standards" and the race to the bottom seems to be in full flight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war

This reminds me so much of the "pixel count conflicts".

It has been estimated that I'd need something like 250MP to get close to my much loved Kodachrome 25.

I guess if you are going to listen to the cRAP that is todays excuse for music on a solid state device that has 12000 other equally bad "songs", while sharing ear wax with someone on a train, then maybe Hi-Fidelity is not your No1 concern...

I agree with most of what you said. As someone who spent dacades shooting slow transparency film using a tripod and only primes my work supplied camera is a Kodak branded POS with no viewfinder and no manual control.

I do believe your quite right Ian.

We get what we pay for. Our Pensions are not doing very well - but the Internet is phenominal for searching the ENTIRE World for the CHEAPEST PLACE to buy an single product.

The "convenience" of the internet "seach" is disposing of "Local made; supplied; supported distribution channels". The Internet is also increasing local unemployment in distributon and manufacturing. Companies pay less in "Dividends to shareholders/investors.

So do we get more, as stated above, by saving more, using the internet ?

I for one would LURVE to see a BUY BRITISH campaign, again Where possible we support a "Local Distribution" point - I do not care how much cheaper an Olympus camera maybe, I like to buy from Park - I have known them for many years, trust them and find their knowledge and service excellent.

As regards "Sound Systems" and "TV" & "Computers" Budget is the key to what Quality one may afford - then Spec within that. I prefer not to look at the very top of the markets - I am not in the market for that Quality

The Post service makes me laugh - the Post Office is the biggest single buyer of IT - the cost has gone up I do not know how many % in 30 years - yet today, 1st Class does not mean NEXT DAY letter delivery

Phone cameras have no place in my life. If I cannot take an E-1 or E-5 there is little point to me, lack of control to quality. Phone Cameras may be "good" but Jack of all trades to me . Now, if I were younger, and not into photography, and wanted "snaps" for social networking - a phone camera would be just marvellous


My favourite quote 1819-1900 John Ruskin

"There is hardly anything in the world today that some man can't make just a little worse and sell just a little cheaper, and the people who buy on price alone - are this man's lawful prey."

I have now posted a preview article on the new Lumia 925 here:

http://dpnow.com/9202.html

Oh, forgot to mention that the 925's screen is an AMOLED type once again. The 920 had an LCD screen.

Let's recap. So maybe I was asking too much of Nokia to show a Pelican Imaging 41 megapixel camera phone. What we do have is a super luxury version of the Lumia 920, with a more stylish and lighter metal frame body and an improved camera plus improved software. The 925 is certainly stylish and desirable.

I have also had a very impressive demo of the 925 camera in very low light used without flash. It managed a very reasonable result where my Samsung Galaxy Note failed.

Now someone asking questions about South American market.

Q&A session, first question from a journalist all the way from Singapore. Wonder if he was flown in by Nokia?

Promises of more innovations later this summer from Nokia...

Well done Ian. This is excellent reporting.

Vodafone guest has just said the 920 was too heavy and Nokia could have done better which is why he likes the 925

I have a slot to interview some of the technical people later today.

The Lumia 925 will ship in June for 469 Euros (no contract).

Now we're recapping on features like Nokia Music and Maps which are staples of the Lumia range.