• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Death of the DSLR (1 Viewer)

Hey mate

Nice read, I for one could not justify the cost and weight and time needed to buy a dslr against a Lumix dmc-fz38 or such.
If with a little practice i can get shots half as god as yours i'll be happy with a semi compact thing:)

Karpman
 
Hey mate

Nice read, I for one could not justify the cost and weight and time needed to buy a dslr against a Lumix dmc-fz38 or such.
If with a little practice i can get shots half as god as yours i'll be happy with a semi compact thing:)

Karpman

Stop flattering me, I'm sure your pictures will be just as "good".|=)| All you need is the camera and some birds in range of the zoom.
 
It's been superseded by this already, Niels. It's still a long way from a DSLR though in terms of Image Quality and high ISO noise (according to reviews and sample images).

So in that camera we are looking at 25Mpix/cm2, vs 43 in a canon SX20 and 3.1-5.4 in a variety of canon dSLR cameras, so I agree, not quite there yet.

The mere fact that fuji does come with a second generation could indicate some sale of the one I mentioned above

Niels
 
That's an interesting article, Chris. I don't think there is any question that the flapping-mirror "technology" of the SLR and DSLR will be replaced by electronic viewfinders in the fairly near future. There should be no reason why they cannot come up with an EVF that is as fast or faster than the human eye. Once they do that, the advantages (adjustable brightness, electronic info display, etc, etc) will make the reflex system with that stupid mirror a thing of the past.

However, there isn't much advantage to putting say a huge 400mm lens onto a tiny camera body. So it seems that there will always be a place for larger-body, larger sensor cameras. Seems to me, anyway.
 
That's an interesting article, Chris. I don't think there is any question that the flapping-mirror "technology" of the SLR and DSLR will be replaced by electronic viewfinders in the fairly near future. There should be no reason why they cannot come up with an EVF that is as fast or faster than the human eye. Once they do that, the advantages (adjustable brightness, electronic info display, etc, etc) will make the reflex system with that stupid mirror a thing of the past.

However, there isn't much advantage to putting say a huge 400mm lens onto a tiny camera body. So it seems that there will always be a place for larger-body, larger sensor cameras. Seems to me, anyway.

I was thinking the same about the large zoom in a smaller camera body. As I understand it, it's the sensor size, and the lens distance from that sensor, that dictates the lens size. So a large sensor has to mean a large lens, so it can never be truly compact. Or have I got that wrong?
 
That's an interesting article, Chris. I don't think there is any question that the flapping-mirror "technology" of the SLR and DSLR will be replaced by electronic viewfinders in the fairly near future. There should be no reason why they cannot come up with an EVF that is as fast or faster than the human eye. Once they do that, the advantages (adjustable brightness, electronic info display, etc, etc) will make the reflex system with that stupid mirror a thing of the past.

However, there isn't much advantage to putting say a huge 400mm lens onto a tiny camera body. So it seems that there will always be a place for larger-body, larger sensor cameras. Seems to me, anyway.

The EVF does not need to be faster than the human eye, it just needs to be as fast as the speed of light through a DSLR's mirror and pentaprism etc.

Given that the image seen by the sensor has to processed and then passed to the EVF, I can't see this ever happening.

It will get faster. If it gets fast enough to eliminate delays on shooting fast moving subjects such as BIF and sports, then I will be beating a path to their door!
 
I suppose you're kidding about the speed of light - I mean, I agree that it cannot ever be as fast as the mirror arrangement, but I think it doesn't have to be. All it has to be is fast enough to satisfy the human eye requirements, and thereby be fast enough to eliminate the smearing we see in today's EVFs. Given the weird way eyes work (e.g. movie projection, optical illusions, etc), I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to be even close to the speed of light.
 
Interesting article & interesting thread. It seems to me that the key to successful miniaturization lies in sensor technology. When & if someone develops a small sensor capable of producing IQ as good as the current "full-sized" ones, then the whole camera—including today’s big fast lenses—can be down-sized, and the photographic millennium will truly have arrived. A mighty big if of course; I’m no engineer & it may be that it will never be possible to produce a really good “miniature” sensor at a competitive price.
 
Last edited:
When & if someone develops a small sensor capable of producing IQ as good as the current "full-sized" ones,

Then they can apply the same technology to a bigger sensor to produce an even better image. And some people (probably a majority readnig this) will always want the best.
 
I've not read through the article (I will later honest) but the problem I see with shrinking it all down is that you have less control over DOF which would be quite limiting.
 
Death of the DSLR, no way.
The difference between compacts and DSLRs is enoromous and it'll be a long, long time (probably never) before compacts get close to DSLRs
Only when a compact can in one package match a DSLR for pin sharp, noise free images with a 600mm f4 shooting at high iso or with an 85 f1.2 producing a stunning portrait with a beautiful smooth background will it happen and that would take one hell of a compact.
 
I think SLRs will continue for a long time, though probably biased toward the high end of the market. Hard to best that platform for versatility. For many though it is overkill, akin to using the latest fire breathing 8 core computer to surf the web and write letters.

The display (obviously) is the key to replacing the "reflex" part of a premium camera, and they're not there yet. Another area where I personally would like to see growth is the large sensor optical rangefinder camera. You know, a Leica M9 esque camera made by Kyocera, Nikon, Bessa, etc. If Kyocera ever made a "Contax" G3 (think full frame digital G2), I'd be there in a heartbeat!

Some makers, like Panasonic and Olympus, are getting much closer to my ideal these days though and I'm excited for what the next couple of years promise.
 
Cannot see the end of the DSLR for some time yet. Have seen articles of this ilk before.

To kill off the DSLR, a bridge camera is needed with a e,g. 7D sensor, fast focusing, "L" quality glass in the lens and the ability to have an optical zoom of upto 500mm with ISO handling to match. There are other features but that would be a start.
 
Cannot see the end of the DSLR for some time yet. Have seen articles of this ilk before.

To kill off the DSLR, a bridge camera is needed with a e,g. 7D sensor, fast focusing, "L" quality glass in the lens and the ability to have an optical zoom of upto 500mm with ISO handling to match. There are other features but that would be a start.

I am not sure I am reading the same into that article as you do. I think the argument is that with a really good image quality camera having about 5x zoom, 9/10th of the buyers for dSLR will disappear. The sports and bird photographers will still want the then truly special dSLR cameras, but how many birdforum members would be able to afford that solution when the cost cutting of mass production disappears? A return to digiscoping might be in the cards for some people who would like to do different.

Niels
 
It's that old chestnut again! 'Death of the SLR' gets mooted every time some new little thing comes out - last time it was the bridge camera... a compact camera with small sensor and slow operation in an SLR shape body. Ok if you want a compact with a good grip but useless if you need high image quality and fast operation.

These micro 4/3 cameras are a bit of a gimmick, it's Olympus doing their thing of small, small small. That's fine, not everyone wants a big camera but you pay a price when you go down that route. SLRs are now reaching sensitivities of ISO 100,000+ with pretty reasonable image quality. They have super-fast multi-point autofocus and advanced metering, can take photographs at up to 10 frames per second and can be used with very long lenses that gather lots of light. An EVF is no match for a proper optical viewfinder (and is a drain on the batteries where the viewfinder of an SLR is not) and although they will improve SLRs also continue to do so and so will always be ahead in performance and image quality. Give me a compact for snaps and casual shooting, but I'll stick with a proper SLR for serious photography.
 
I think the EVF will probably win medium to long term, but, we will still keep the large sensor, I will not be suprised if we see something similar (using existing sensors and compatibility with existing lenses} from the likes of Canon, Nikon and Sony etc, probably at first in the lower ends of their ranges. The real reason behind it will be cost, as it removes the mirror mechanism ect and so called gimmicks do appeal at the lower end of the market.

Remember that most recent DSLRs are already part way there with live, view, live view is complex with mirror systems, and they need do little more than add the eye level EVF in place of the reflex view finde, and it results in a less complex system for them to manufacture.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top