7
\$\begingroup\$

Disclosure: this is a suggestion as a topic to include on the faq - feel free to express how you'd like to see this handled

There are a large number of websites on the Internet that include details on potential features for future models, so should we allow questions relating to unreleased models on here? (So things like "Will [vendor]'s new [model] support [feature x]?", or "Are [vendor] going to release a new model next week?")

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • \$\begingroup\$ Can someone clarify if "unreleased" means "rumored" or "announced by manufacturer but not available(unreleased!)"? \$\endgroup\$
    – dpollitt
    Commented Jan 12, 2012 at 15:11
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'd say the question here is worded in the sense of "rumoured" as opposed to "announced, but not got through the supply chain to retailers yet" (where hard and fast answers would be possible) \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw Mod
    Commented Jan 12, 2012 at 16:43
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I agree! I just think it is important to clarify, especially since this question is linked directly from the FAQ. I think it would make sense to change this question, and the FAQ wording to "rumored" from "unreleased". \$\endgroup\$
    – dpollitt
    Commented Jan 12, 2012 at 19:39

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
18
\$\begingroup\$

My feeling is that we might want to discourage this sort of thing (similar to Wikipedia's Crystal Ball policy) - if a rumour turned out to be wrong (let's face it, most are) then it might look a bit embarrassing, as this is supposed to be about experts giving advice.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ That's interesting. I did not remember that Wikipedia had an explicit "Crystal Ball" policy. Thanks for the link. \$\endgroup\$
    – Robert Cartaino Mod
    Commented Jul 21, 2010 at 21:49
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ It would be especially embarassing considering that the questions here form a reference, easily accessed from the rest of the web via search engines, and making a post "go away" because it's proved to be wrong isn't really an option. \$\endgroup\$
    – Edd
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 8:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Edd That was my rationale :) \$\endgroup\$
    – Rowland Shaw
    Commented Jul 22, 2010 at 12:39
5
\$\begingroup\$

I think that in certain cases this can be useful. As an outlet for speculation, I agree with other answers that that is off-topic.

However, for the impact of future developments, that seems perfectly valid. For example, I think the following would be on-topic:

  • Rumored camera X supposedly has feature Y; how would that affect my ability to do Z?
  • What would I do with N megapixels?
  • Is there a use for ISO N?

(where N is some bignum)

Another way to put it: I think "ZOMG EQUIPMENT WANT" is off-topic, but contemplation of the future of photography is on-topic.

I think that Thom Hogan does this sort of thing well. I find his articles on future development and their motivation and effects in Nikon-land very interesting.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ The first case could just as easily be asked: "If a (non-specified) camera has feature Y, how would that affect my ability to do Z. No rumored camera need be involved in the question. The second and third case already do not include references to a rumored camera model. \$\endgroup\$
    – Michael C
    Commented Nov 3, 2018 at 23:20
4
\$\begingroup\$

No. It would be pure speculation and there's so much of it on the Internet already.

\$\endgroup\$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .