Death of the DSLR (1 Viewer)

This piece brings to mind Mark Twain's comments on hearing reports that he died: "news of my death is exaggerated."

Anytime someone gazes into the crystal ball he/she risks getting it wrong. As others here have pointed out, technology will change how images will be made. But, to declare one set of tools dead is probably going to far. The easiest example is to look at film. Digital photography hasn't rendered film dead. Kodak, for example, while ending one line of film (kodachrome) has released seven new professional films over the last three years. http://www.kodak.com/global/en/prof...catalog/kodachrome64ProfessionalFilmPKR.jhtml

Remember the Polaroid land camera. A company has purchased polaroid's equipment to ensure that film for the old polaroid cameras are still available.

As for DSLRs, last year the New York Times reported that DSLR sales have been expanding, and that sales weren't expected to peak until 2012 (I won't speculate on the effect of the current economic crisis). see http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/dslr-sales-go-up-as-prices-go-down/

Do we go a step further (which you can get out of the article) and say that even a simple point and shoot is now obsolete with electronics that serve more than one function. Apple's Iphone is the prime example. Chase Jarvis' new book points out what can be done. See The Best Camera Is The One That's With You: iPhone Photography by Chase Jarvis.

The article that generated this discussion left out an important component. That is, the differences between the purchasers of the the small point and shots, the superzoom cameras, and DSLRs (nevertheless, those who shot solely with film, cell phones, etc.). The manufacturers, I am sure, are well aware of the differences between purchasers of the DSLRs, the point & shoots, and the other purchasing options. Until there is a vast sea change in the technology, they are going to produce and market cameras that will increase their revenue. Thus, every year or so Canon and Nikon will come out with a new entry level DSLR. There will also be several new point & shoot cameras. A new superzoom that will have greater reach than last year's model. And, if the manufacturers are lucky, we will buy them and debate the merits and flaws of these cameras until new ones come along, and the cycle will continue.

While the technological changes are interesting, to declare the death knell over one tool is an over simiplication.

More or less on topic (and not being a Troll |=)|):

I wonder if releasing so many entry-level DSLRs is good in the long term. As I said earlier, I don't own one, but I've noticed some of the cheaper ones don't do so good at high (800 and up) ISOs. I assume they are still much more responsive than a compact, and probably better at lower ISOs.

But if I get a DSLR it will be for the lower noise at high ISO more than any other reason. I suppose that I'll get one eventually, but wonder if others might have been put off by some reviews of noise at higher ISOs.

ChrisKten said:

I wonder if releasing so many entry-level DSLRs is good in the long term. As I said earlier, I don't own one, but I've noticed some of the cheaper ones don't do so good at high (800 and up) ISOs. I assume they are still much more responsive than a compact, and probably better at lower ISOs.

But if I get a DSLR it will be for the lower noise at high ISO more than any other reason. I suppose that I'll get one eventually, but wonder if others might have been put off by some reviews of noise at higher ISOs.

Click to expand...

I'd agree that the high ISO performance of the entry level DSLRs isn't as good as the more expensive models but they are still a good deal better than any compact I've seen.

ChrisKten said:

I've noticed some of the cheaper ones don't do so good at high (800 and up) ISOs.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure some of the higher priced ones do either !

ChrisKten said:

This may be unfair, but I think it's possible that some have just responded to the thread title, and not the article. I would imagine that some older members would have responded similarly when the first Digital Camera was introduced. I can imagine Film being defended with an almost religious fervour. Shouts of "Digital will never replace Film", must have been common.

I don't have a background in Physics, so I don't understand today's technology behind reproducing an image digitally. But I, like almost everyone else, have no idea what tomorrow will bring. Camera manufacturers have some idea, but even they don't know what advances there'll be in 5 years. And even if they did, they wouldn't tell the Consumer. The tried and tested strategy of releasing incremental updates to products works too well to change it.

So I think that, if it suits the Camera Manufacturers, I'll be using a compact in 5 years time that's as good as present day DSLRs. It's not about whether it can be done, but about whether it will be profitable in the future to do it.

All MHO of course, I'm sure that most will disagree.

Click to expand...

Actually my friends, who were into photography, were excited by the possibilities of digital from the very start and I remember conversation when we just presumed film's days were number and it was just a case of the technology improving and the cost coming down. Never had a converstaion with anyone about the death of slrs - until this one.

Steve Babbs said:

Actually my friends, who were into photography, were excited by the possibilities of digital from the very start and I remember conversation when we just presumed film's days were number and it was just a case of the technology improving and the cost coming down. Never had a converstaion with anyone about the death of slrs - until this one.

Click to expand...

TBH, some of what I said was me being a troll to kick a bit of life into the thread. But I do remember years ago, that some "journalists" made a big deal of Digital never replacing Film. I think the argument was based on how many Megapixels it would need to reproduce the same resolution as Film, but digitally. In fact I'm not even sure if that milestone has been reached today, but I'm sure others here will know if it has.

ChrisKten said:

TBH, some of what I said was me being a troll to kick a bit of life into the thread. But I do remember years ago, that some "journalists" made a big deal of Digital never replacing Film. I think the argument was based on how many Megapixels it would need to reproduce the same resolution as Film, but digitally. In fact I'm not even sure if that milestone has been reached today, but I'm sure others here will know if it has.

Click to expand...

Depends on which film you are talking about (and which scanner you use to can it). A standard "professional" 300dpi scan of a 35mm film would give you an image with the same resolution as one from a 8.3MP sensor - so that has been frog-leaped some time ago. Right now the large sensor of the "top of the line" FF pro-cameras are reaching the resolution of the 60mm medium format (as far as I can see), but large format is still some way out in the distance (does anybody actually use large format film anymore?). Of course all these things mean nothing if you don't use the very, very best lenses.

Thomas

some 200 years ago some well qualified scientists said that all the air would be sucked out of train carriages at speeds over 20 mph, and 30 years ago a well qualified engineer told me that a 3,000 tonne train could not regularly run at 60 mph.

Truth is that it is the market that determines what what will happen, and it is likely that a point will be reached where the performance of non dslr cameras with interchangeable lenses but without reflex viewfinders will satisfy the needs of the market and that market will include today's typical dslr user. Lots of people still hang on to and use film slr cameras but the market for them has virtually died out. Just a few years ago most slr users would not have dreamed of using a dslr and would have argued that digital will never replace film, but now they do use dslrs and the reason is down to lower cost and convenience.

It is perfectly likely that within a year or two Canon, Nikon and others will introduce cameras equivelent to the micro four thirds cameras, that are able to use existing lenses. This will simply be down the fact that it will be cheaper and simpler to produce cameras that do not have the mechanics of the reflex viewfinder, the cameras will retain eye level viewfinders but it will be electronic rather than optical.

The issue of bridge cameras is different to the issue of cameras with interchangeable lenses but I don't see bridge cameras vanishing any time some and I don't see them replacing camers with interchangeable lenses, its simply that tomorrow's camera with interchangeable lenses (still using existing lenses) is likely to have an electronic rather than a reflex viewfinder so technically it will not be a dslr.

I can’t see compact cameras replacing the top end DSLR’s but certainly taking a huge bite out the lower market.

One example of many I’ll give you is corporate photography. Not so long ago Company’s would commission photographers, (or employ one on staff) for most of the let’s say the mundane type of work, mug shots etc.

Although not exactly mind-blowing creative, it gave the photographer a regular source of income. Now those same companies have bought a Lumix and taking them their selves, and got rid of the photographer.

Inter-changeable lenses are expensive and heavy to carry.

I can’t see company’s like Sony, Panasonic, not improving their product, they won’t take on Nikon or Canon in the DSLR in a large-scale fight, and so they’ll aim lower.

With regard to financial reports, I’ve been involved with enough Corporate Annual reports to understand the importance of sentence and word phrasing. “Solid growth” is ambiguous at the very least, 40% increase in sales is positive. To get a true picture, all the Companies results would need to be analysed and put in context.

Nikon sales are down by about one third, which would indicate to me that there is a general slump.

Years ago there was an article in AP by a pro on - coincidentally the Olympus XA Ron describes elsewhere.
He was fully confident that it could be used to get professional results but his paying customers wanted a 'proper' camera if they were going to pay him.

As for sales,
I'm afraid that when it comes to selling most things to the consumer; size and a badge saying 'pro or sport' matters - no matter what is strictly logical. The problem there is that this part of the market probably provides the profit for the manufacturer by ensuring sensible economic bulk manufacture. When this dries up the cheap volume slr ceases to be economic.

Add in businesses putting off their hardware refresh programme, it is hardly suprising that Nikon sales are down.

hollis_f said:

Sorry to be boring by repeating myself - but any technological advances that can make a compact as good as today's dSLRs will also be applicable to tomorrows dSLRs to make them even better. And the laws of physics aren't going to be changing anytime soon - which means that having a huge lump of glass to collect the light and big buckets to detect it is always going to be better than a small lens and sensor.

Yes, it's possible that they might make a PnS that's 'good enough'. Oh wait, they already do! Most people use their cameras to take photos to display on their computers or digital frames, or to stick on Facebook. Virtually any PnS made over the last 5 years is good enough for that.

In fact, I see the market changing in totally the opposite way to Ben Gottesman. Instead of dSLRs dying away, I think we're going to see the death of the bridge camera and the PnS, leaving the market split between dSLRs (for people who want to take real photos) and camera-phones.

We're seeing cameras in phones that are 'good enough' for Facebook - and have the huge advantage of being able to upload the images straight to Facebook or Flickr. I know of several people that have given up with their PnS cameras, because their phone does the job adequately and they've always got it with them.

And a lot of those phone-camera users also own dSLRs - for when they want to take more than a simple snapshot.

So why bother with an in-betweener when the 'good-enough' and portability factors are better solved by a phone and the high-quality end is better covered by a dSLR?

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I don't forsee the death of the DSLR quite as readily as some people. Granted, the Lumixes, etc, of this world are more convenient and lighter to carry, as well as being cheaper (as are mobile phones with cameras), but until you can get the same sort of quality from a bridge camera or a point and shoot as a DSLR with decent lenses then I can see serious photographers not giving their DSLRs up easily.

Yes, the lower-end DSLRs might see a run for their money from higher-quality bridge cameras, but not the mid range ones or the top end ones.
As for phone cameras, you see these used constantly, more in fact than a P&S. I have been at events where there has been a mix of DSLRs in the hands of amateurs and pros and cameras on phones, both far outnumbering the bridge or point 'n' shoot variety. Personally I don't use my phone's camera, mostly because it's old and crap rather than a lack of desire to use it.

The death of the DSLR was predicted in the 1990s when 35mm compacts became popular, especially zoom compacts. It didn't happen. Then the APS system which threatened 35mm came along until it was prematurely snuffed out by digital - I had seen APS SLRs, I wonder what would have happened if digital photography hadn't taken off in the way it did? The whole world of photography is constantly changing and it will be interesting to see what happens over the next decade.

As Mark Twain once said: 'The report of my death was an exaggeration'.