As I did nothing but 4x5 B&W for the last 25 years, I would like to have a manual digital camera that is high quality.

Some people blindly rely on whatever automation they can get and have no desire to learn beyond that point. The rest of us could use better technology in an emergency. I don't think it will change the way people work. I'm keeping my incident meter.

I still like to make my own settings.

I can see different responses to this is you are asking about a consumer camera vs. a pro or prosumer. I think that higher-end cameras should always allow more control, but I with think that consumers would welcme all the help they can get.

I've been a photographer for over 61 year. I never turned "pro" although I have made money out of it. I consider myself a ver advanced, semi-pro, ameteur. If the camera has all of the bells and whistles, and still lets me choose exposure and apiture, sure, I'll buy it. I have never bought a point-and-shoot camera for myself.

I support these features so long as they can all be over-ridden by the photographer.

I would like an full frame digital versión "exactly" like the Olympus XA4. No more nor less.

Be it my Canon 20D or 5D I still prefer the manual setting in most situations.

No matter how "smart" the camera, it always comes down to the person using it how good a photograph will be. Technology can only assist and not be a replacement for a photographer's ability.

I wouldn't buy a "smart" camera just for that one reason. The camera I would consider must provide the flexibility of M, Av, Tv, and RAW AND it must be superior to comparable cameras.

Artificial intelligence is genuine stupidity. All automation only works some of the time. Without the option to override it we will have thousand dollar 1950s era box cameras with less quality.

If the new technology allows more people to experience the pleasure of photography thaen it's a great thing. A camera will never take the place of good composition, lighting, framing etc. What constitutes a "good" image will always be the result of how the photographer uses their own vision of the moment.

As I get older and my visual acuity lessens I tend to rely on the technological aspects of the newer cameras to compensate. Particularly in situations where lighting is tricky and crisp focusing is called for...

I love technology; I consider myself an 'early adopter' beginning the the early PCs (think 'floppy disks') as well as digital cameras. However, there has been a tendency to use techno-fads as a marketing tool and not necessarily as either a) productivity, or b) qualitative enhancements. Techno features need to be evaluated, as everything else, against the intended use of the camera ... and not to forget, the equipment already at hand. Can't go out buying new 'gitzmos' just because the ads sound attractive. One man's opinion.

I like to control the camera, but technology can provide useful adjuncts when you need them. However, I would love to see a well made simple DSLR like a Nikon F or Olympus OM1. Wouldn't that be fun!

I wouldn't base a decision on just one aspect of the questionaire; while it is true that some enthusiasts may prefer ' smart ' to 'craft', it is good to have ALL the options available. I personally normally shoot in man' mode, however there are times, when there is not ample time to set up, and in these situations smart features are good to have.Image quality, which is based on "smart" technology, in my opinion is far more important.

When you are 67 and wearing trifocals your ego is no longer involved in photo taking and "built in" help is just that, a help!

I agree that the new teck is great. But, the standard manual settings are a nesessity for artistic work. A choice of all or some manual settings are always needed.

This technology opens the door for thousands of people to get more creative with the camera. That is a good thing.

I think this technology will help the average camera user develop better images. And anything that helps people create better photos is a good thing for all of us.

As long as I can over-ride the stupid internal computer and make my own creative decisions, then it is OK.

First of all smart cameras still can not handle many situations. Second if we make them to smart people will not neeed to know anything about photography. Thats very sad.

I prefer film.

It's not uncommon to be in an "it's now or never-no re-shoots situation". Therefore, I find occasions to use my knowledge, past experience, as well as, backup shots determined by the smarts of the camera. Beats crying over the losses.

I'm a die hard of my old minolta, everything is manual, thats how i learned alot of techniques, but I also love the new technology, I think it better helps photographers capture the image they truly want, without having to hope it came out right and being disappointed when it didn't, the craft is still very much in the hand of the photographers, if someone isn't taking good photos, it's them not the camera, even if you give them a thousand dollar camera, their pictures still won't look right.

On a digicam I look for a viewfinder too and prefer a swival twist monitor.

I'm always open to new technology but will still refer back to what got us here originally when it becomes necessary or helpful.

Smart is great. Especially when it provides me with information and options to execute my vision and get the picture. Smart is even better when I can opt out, because I'm smarter than the computer, its just quicker and has better arithmetic.

As a learning tool you want the best autofocus and metering available. For creativity, you want to be able to make adjustments yourself.

If "smart cameras" make it easier to take good photos, then more people will be interested in photography.