[TER-OR]

The inexpensive smart phone is the primary device for many of the world's less affluent. Cellphones are the primary communications device, pop a tower in a remote village with solar charging capacity and you don't have to cut paths through the wilds for copper or fiber lines. It's cheaper this way. They're also not paying what we pay for the premium devices, but cheap Chinese cellphones.
This should be welcomed, as they can now be connected to services, education, and society as never before. Here in the US a homeless person can have access to a phone for jobs, family etc. communication - this is a good thing and would not necessitate cutting-edge technology.

Over 300 million people in India have no access to a power grid at all, there is still a lot of progress to be made. It will be distributed infrastructure, little islands of cell coverage and solar charged batteries. That alone will be a revolution compared with lighting houses with crude kerosene lamps, and the particulate pollution they create. The same situation exists in a lot of Africa, Asia and South America. Stay tuned, the world is changing.

And banking. That has been revolutionary for small industry. That people no longer have to stuff cash in their homes means a lot. Like Asia, using the cell account as a bank or having access to a "traditional" bank in electronic form means a lot.

---

Last edited by TER-OR; 02-18-2015 at 10:11 AM.

[Wired]

According to Business Insider more people have mobile phones than electricity or safe drinking water.

Thats all kind of screwed up right there....

[MadMathMind]

Thats all kind of screwed up right there....

Not a surprise. Giving people what they want is a great way to distract them from their lack of what they need.

But "safe drinking water" is heavily skewed. You can't drink tap water in China. That's 1.3 billion people who don't live in otherwise horrible conditions (cities are good, rural area...not so much, but...) who don't have potable water. In fact, it was only recent in Seoul that the tap water became potable.

[wildman]

Giving people what they want is a great way to distract them from their lack of what they need.

It has little to do with what "people" want and need and everything to do with what commercial multinational corporate interests want and need.

[normhead]

I guess to understand why one would have a cell phone and not safe drinking water, you have to look at the political structure. Safe drinking water is obviously not obtainable, without the action of corrupt governments. Where as cell phones can be cheap, and easily obtainable. To get one, you need a revolution and democracy. To get the other, you need ac couple of bucks.

[TER-OR]

And don't forget, people are accustomed to their water and sanitation situations. That can be tough to change, there's a big push to bring composting toilets to many rural areas, as doing their business in the bushes is not safe or sanitary. But there's a lot of inertia to move. Building water filters also isn't high-tech, though it can be. It can also be simple, using charcoal, gravel, sand, etc. in big drums and simple pumps to move it around.

The shiny new phones might have greater social impacts, as people start to learn what's available. It can be very democratizing. It should also be encouraged, since education is the best way out of nearly all poverty problems worldwide.

[Dlanor Sekao]

No if Your a Pentaxian ! YES if Your a Nikkonian....!

[magkelly]

Learning photography and acquiring my gear has definitely at times made me a little poorer but then again it's also given me a way to make more $$$ so I have no major complaints on that score. Photography is as expensive as you make it. You can do photography with a cheap P&S or an old film camera or you can do it with a top of the line DSLR. It's up to you as to how much you want to spend. I first learned real photography with a Fuji P&S and an old Spottie. It was years before I got my first DSLR. Now I have 3 but I'm doing photography for a living and the cameras are basically paying for themselves...

[Kerrowdown]

s photography only for the rich.?

If it is... I've failed again.

P.S. Got 4 out of 5, but tough with images that size, even when clicked on.

[Joel B]

By western standards I am far from rich. So here is how someone at my income level can find photo nirvana!
K100D Used $150.
sd card $12.
Old laptop free
Picasa free
Hugin free. Normhead suggested this one
Total $162.
And it creates this:

[lesmore49]

Interesting question. I joined a local camera club about 5 years ago. I went to a couple of meetings and I was struck by a couple of things. A number of the members were newer to photography...say 5-7 years, had good cash flow and were always looking for the 'best' equipment. Discussions seem to center around what was the best lens, best DSLR body, full frame better than ASP-C and invariably was Nikon better than Canon...or vice versa.

Since I was the only Pentax guy, other members seemed to either 'feel' for me....or wonder out loud...why didn't I have a Nikon of Canon.

But I digress. I noted that some members were Canonites for a year or two...then would suddenly show up with Nikon equipment, having traded in their Canon stuff for Nikon. Or the opposite, get rid of their Nikon stuff for Canon. Always with the intention of getting whatever seemed to be the latest, new 'better' equipment.

They would show their work and most of the time I was unable to see any great improvement.

I've also found that my entry level Km...seems to be just about as capable at taking quality pix as my much more expensive K-5. BTW, both are top notch.

Oh...I don't attend any more camera club meetings. Their focus was more about the perceived status of their equipment then actual photography, IMO.

[Venturi]

The expense of photography only begins with the camera gear. Time is the greatest expense, and it never stops sending bills.

[TaoMaas]

I think casual photography has gotten relatively less expensive while serious photography has gotten more expensive. In the film days, a K1000 with a 200mm f4 could do almost everything that an LX with a 200mm f2.8 could do at a professional level. Now, an *ist D, at 6 megapixels, isn't going to cut the mustard compared to 25+ megapixel cameras when you submit your pics for publication.

[reeftool]

I would love some of the high end gear I see but they aren't always an advantage. I have been the photographer for the motorcycle and quad ice racing circuit this season. I didn't apply or ask, I just showed up as always, taking pictures of my friends so they could share their racing shots. Between the cold and the wind, the "official" guys bailed out. Their cameras failed as the temps dropped and auto focus doesn't work when the snow and ice get flying. My K5 and 30 year old K300/4 have performed beautifully all season so far. I have been asked what camera I use and when I say Pentax I get " Huh? Really?"



I won't say my investment is cheap but it's considerably less than what conventional wisdom would say I need to shoot reliably at a sporting event such as this. Here's a link to the other 428 shots taken over 5 hours last Sunday. My K5 was under $1000 when I bought it. I used my 18-55 kit lens last week because the HSM motor in my Sigma 17-70 doesn't work well in prolonged low temps. (Like just slightly above 0F). I have never had screwdrive lenses fail in the cold. I will admit that being an old coot gives me an advantage with a manual lens since I have been using them for decades.
https://plus.google.com/photos/+RichardMersereau/albums/6116435123132105313

[TER-OR]

The old adage is 'it's a poor craftsman who blames his tools.'
That said, the right tool for the right job - when you know it will be cold, use the tools which you know will work. (A spare battery kept in a warm pocket is all I've ever needed on cold Husky Huddle days)