It makes me really upset that you don't tell us the slope of the line, which is of course the important thing. I have to estimate it by hand. Xezlec (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Bogus chart edit
First of all, DCS cameras are DSLRs, so their price includes certain extras, which the digicams lack. Kodak didn't announce the DCS 460 before 1995, so that camera is ahead of its time. If put under the next year, the curve suddenly loses its shape.
The Kodak DSLR model for the year 1994 was the DCS 420, which had a 2 megapixel resolution and cost more than the DCS 460 in 1995, so the pixel/dollar ratio was way lower for that camera.
The chart is falsely precise when it comes to cameras' announcement dates, as some of the cameras weren't available in Australia by the time indicated in the chart and sometimes, the suggested price fell before the camera even made it to the market.
Furthermore, the chart varies wildly when it comes to the feature set of cameras presented. Disregarding the DCS 460, the first digicams were extremely lacking even in basic functionality, while later models in the chart have advanced photographic functions and improved handling (including zoom lenses, larger LCDs and higher performance electronics). E.g. a DX3600, introduced three months before DX3700, has lower resolution, but a much higher price (warranted by a 2x zoom lens), which would be indicated with a sharp dip in the curve. CX4200 and CX4300 are another example. The latter has a zoom lens and was only slightly more expensive at introduction than the former, which combined with its higher pixel count, fit the line perfectly.
The chart is extremely selective with the models picked to uphold the shaky theory. If it was to be populated with all cameras ever made by Kodak (based on announcement date and the announced price), the line would vary wilder than a seismometer during a Richter magnitude 9 earthquake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.153.194.14 (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- This is a case where the chart is probably a lot of nonsense, but the law it describes is well-documented and referenced. Therefore, although the fundamental law is probably unsound, the existence of the law is most definite. The law should really be debated with the author of the law rather than Wikipedia. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I created the graph and collected the original data so i am happy to debate its accuracy.
Yes - I was selective in the models shown - I only showed the 'ground breaking' Pixel/$ cameras, and fairly naturally yes - they were all at teh simple end of teh spectrum. You clearly can't compare a no-zoom point and shoot with a DSLR!
I am happy to debate ... (Sorry I have not looked for a long time so this is all very old now!!)
Barry.hendy (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
