Simple Math

PhotoTraveler wrote: People don't need kludges and parts slapped together, they just want a single solution that works.

While I understand the essence of your comments, I must remind you that we are having fun in an industry that thrives upon "slapped together kludges" of L-brackets, camera plates, vertical grips, flash brackets, flash modifiers, gimbal heads, reversible lens shades, bellows, tele-extenders, and external battery packs of every flavor. Find me a "single solution" for all that and I'll share my ice cream with you.

If modular is anti-progress, then why are the most advanced cameras enabled to change lenses, hence in a modular manner?

There is a balance against technology. Many items as they are simplified are also complicated at the same time. One thing gets simpler, while a new tech emerges and such that brings new found complexities till those are simplified with time.

The shifts do not always move at the same pace, and sometimes you have massive leaps (Mirrorless cameras are massive jump in simplify).

One thing to also remember is interchangeable lenses is a fundamental design aspect of interchangeable lens cameras.   Making other parts modular not so much.   

Further the most advanced cameras are not interchangeable lens cameras. No one is swapping lenses on the Hubble, spy sats, deep space probes, etc.

Also for interchangeable lens cameras, the need for interchangeable lenses is do to limits on optics. You can't make a lens that is both retalinear and fisheye at the same time as one example. But that's not to say things will always be this way (a need for multiple lenses that is). Higher resolutions will progressively reduce the variety of lenses.

If Light feild technology scales well, the focus parts of lenses will go away.

My bet is that in time the entire imaging path of cameras will become solid state. FL is completely controlled by cropping, and focus could end up being something like the lightfeild approach.

Getting back to the main point, the comments on modularity are focused towards those who want camera bodies to be split up into various chunks and interchanged. This isn't going to happen. Camera makers have been progressively making cameras more integrated over time,   View Cameras -> Medium Format -> SLR -> P&S, they keep removing chunks of modularity.   If it doesn't have to be modular it won't be.   Items like batteries and memory are still removable for now, but probably not for ever. Interchangeable memory cards may not be around for much longer. (Cameras may not have much memory on board at all in a time after memory cards go away too as a step even further as cameras will just use WiFi/ethernet/Cellular networks to transfer them off as you go).

pelt wrote: If modular is anti-progress, then why are the most advanced cameras enabled to change lenses, hence in a modular manner?

NOPE!... I understand the whole Modular concept in all but I don't see a problem with the traditional DSLR style camera. The NEX system appeals to me because it is small and compact. That's why I feel Sony should really concentrate on designing lenses to be smaller and more compact to utilize the benefits of the NEX system. the Ergonomics are off IMHO. the Nex Body is similar to that of a Point and Shoot while having the ability to change the lenses is great placing a 70-400 G on the NEX 7 is crazy. Mounted on a tripod perhaps it is fine, but then it really isn't such a benefit at that point now is it?

Having a modular system like that you'll have to keep track of so many odd parts and such then whats the point? where is the convince of a smaller system that is capable of doing what the BIG boys do?

PhotoTraveler wrote: People don't need kludges and parts slapped together, they just want a single solution that works.

I know everybody is entitled to their opinion, but I do hope you speak for yourself here. Others might think differently and may not agree with you. I know for sure you're not speaking for me

PhotoTraveler wrote: Making other parts modular not so much.

How about the many other interchangebla parts we have seen in the past with rangefinders, SLR's and 6x6 cameras, digital backs, technical cameras,.... If it works why not?

PhotoTraveler wrote: Further the most advanced cameras are not interchangeable lens cameras. No one is swapping lenses on the Hubble, spy sats, deep space probes, etc.

Allthough you're technically right most of the discussion on this forum is about cameras used in the hands of serious amateurs and pros on earth. Down here cameras with fixed lenses are (most of the time) simpler than the DSLR/SLT/EVIL's that are the main topic of this forum.