DSLR's dead in 5 years

[ajohnw]

I still have my 5D and a 300D as it was called in the UK, read the original Rebel in some other countries. I use late film lenses on them which limits my wide angle capabilities on the 300D.

There are worries for the future though. It seems some one from Olympus occasionally comments on the Dpreview forum. It seems thoughts are drifting towards really making sure only the original manufacturers lenses will work really well on their cameras. The other aspect is how shots are mostly viewed - on a PC screen. In real terms that doesn't require spectacular optics. Neither do compact camera type jpg's. Those look great until some one zooms in. I once compared an original Canon Ixus, 2mp with one of their later powershot offerings with a lot more pixels. 5 or 6 if I remember correctly. The 2mp camera captured a lot more real detail. I suspect many DSLR's are already bordering on this area and could. easily go further at some point. I feel that m 4/3 's latest offerings already have with some lenses at a pixel level. Important to me because I like to be able to double the focal length or more by cropping. Looks like I can still do that but many of the extra pixels in my E-M5 look to be pointless really unless the lenses can match them. Mentioned as all cameras seem to be heading in this direction.

As to mirror less - one draw back really. Manual focusing. The view finder has a lot less pixels than the sensor so if pixel level focusing is needed a magnified view is needed. 7x on the panasonic sensored Pen's. Great fun on cameras without full time image stability. It looks to be easier on an E-M5 but the view is rather restricted. They offer up to 10x on some cameras. Panasonic as far as I am aware don't go that high, not even to 7x. I was tempted by their magnified view within the whole view at one point and Panasonic do have full time IS as it's in the lens but Oly cameras will load up firmware to do what the should do with Panasonic lenses and still offer full time IS. I've mentioned this in case some read the other post and say I'm going to do that now. I think it's worth the switch even on the basis of total weight of the kit even with several lenses and they are a massive step up from bridge cameras. Crop factor of 2 against 1.6. I'm not into big prints but would guess it hardly matters. They look fine filling a 27in monitor and usually at 100% view too depending on the lens and don't show much in the line of softening even at 200%. A full view at 100% would need a 50in plus monitor.

Not that I am hooked of course.

John
-

[chrisletts]

Seems to me an exact parallel with music - cheap, downloadable mp3 has almost taken over the whole industry, again because most people want the convenience of playback over their ipod/mobile phone, rather than the quality of 'proper' hifi.
There are still, however a signficant number of people to whom quality is the key so there is still a market for good hifi and good recordings.
I'd expect photography to go the same way - i.e. the market in cameras may decline seriously but there will always be some of us who value the quality of a good camera, and so they will never dissappear completely.

[NorthernFocus]

Everyone seems to focus on the marketing and forget the physics. At the end of the day photography is all about capturing light. Capturing good detail requires contrast and good contrast requires light. That means big lenses. So for serious photographers, DSLRs or something very similar are here for a while. And we photographers will dictate whether mirrors go away or not depending on whether we buy mirrorless products. I have a Nikon1 body and love it for casual photography. And I've started using live view for landscape work when it's not too bright outside to see the LCD. I just don't see how you get around using a viewfinder for wildlife, sports, etc. or in bright light situations. Some will no doubt cling to the pure optical version but IMO a decent EVF would be fine. I'm all for getting rid of both the noise and vibration associated with that annoying mirror slap. I don't know enough about the performance differences between electronic and mechanical shutter. Mechanical shutter and good EVF are a challenge.

[jcuknz]

As to ajohnw's comment about the focusing screen of the mirrorless ...
Way back with much courser screens than we have today I saw little point in trying to discern mush from mush so I learnt to use AF rather than bemoan the passing of manual focusing. While some camera have increased the number of selected area [36?] which surely slows the process up even if computers are 'fast', Panasonic have offered a variable sized focus area on their top of the line cameras. The smallest area along with touch screen permits one to focus on a particular small area in a similar manner to manual focusing. So long as there is a trace of contrast in the selected area it snaps into focus.

I have not used a DSLR, and I consider myself a serious [ ex-professional] photographer, for some years now and as a flexible 'working tool' consider the bridge and now MFT superior. True if my needs extended in that direction I would get myself a full-frame for what it can do, and consider it quite amazing that its tiny sensor 36x24mm can produce what in film days one would probably use a LF for .... but as then I only infrequently used LF so I don't have need for a DSLR today ...I have DSLR operating features in MFT so I do not need the DSLR, nor do many people sucked into buying them for their snapshots.

Back when I was using my P&S for slightly more demanding photographs, using CU lens for caterpillars, I was struck by the similarity between the LCD and the ground glass screen of LF, except I didn't need a black cloth over my head
and continue to use it in similar situations ['studio-like' using a tripod] ... I have a fully articulated LCD ... have had since my original Nikon bridge camera of c2003.

Then there is the difference between people who turn out technically excellent 'c...' and people who use cameras to take images with meaning ... the latter can do it with a cellphone as well as any other machine.

[ajohnw]

It's worth pointing out that the lack of an EVF and just having an LCD screen is something of a problem for people who use reading glasses and can be a problem for all in bright light. Some cameras from both marks have the focus on a screen touch. It works too.

I had 2 reasons for mentioning manual focusing. There are myriads of m 4/3 to various make of lenses adapters about. They look an attractive way of gaining more lenses but as these are a manual lenses focusing can be difficult even at moderate focal lengths.Where they can be fitted they are not too bad on a DSLR, On M 4/3 I sometimes use a 50mm F1.4 for instance, also a 100mm macro lens - field of view with adequate resolution for the later is rather small even at 5x which can work out with some risk of lack of sharpness. That is a focal length of 2x100x5 mm in 35mm terms. I have also tried a 500mm lens. The other aspect that can be fun even with the auto lenses is adding a controlled amount of blur to back grounds. That sometimes means focusing a little short of the actual subject.. I don't have much of a problem doing that even with a 300D focusing screen. AF - no problem using it. but it's still not a bad idea to check in some circumstances.

Panasonic - Olympus. I started with an E-PL1 and was a little disappointed in the lack of continuous IS. Being fairly hooked on the basis of a small easy to carry camera I then moved to an E-P3 to get easier control when using the viewfinder and found that it did all sorts of things significantly better than the E-PL1 especially marginal focusing conditions especially in low light. That aspect made me think seriously about a contemplated DSLR upgrade - I bought an EM-5. Even better than the E-P3. I like the Olympus menu's but must admit it took a long time to discover what could be achieved with the E-PL1. as they inter react to a certain extent. I even had one lot of setting options disappear but fortunately it remained set.

Either make really it's up to the individual. I'm sure I chose the right one - for me. I always spend some time looking at the manual before I buy any camera. I just like what I saw in the Olympus ones. Some of the obscure options can be useful.

On marketing - a comment from the maybe Olympus person on Dpreview following a complaint about the lack of new lenses - If you buy the ones we do make we will make more types. They have extended the range since but it's still lacking really and sales unfortunately are what makes the world go round.

John
-

[Shadowman]

The day I see a wedding done with a smartphone is when I will worry.
Probably already happened but not by a pro that is charging the happy couple

How about glamour photography? Wouldn't a model or agency want to limit what can get to the Cloud? Obviously, with digital you can still transfer images easily but would a fashion house want their designs getting published before they hit the runway?

[LocalHero1953]

My view on the future of the DSLR is directly related to EVF technology. Once we have an EVF that rivals an optical finder, then the reflex mechanism is on borrowed time. Do away with the reflex mechanism and you can bring the lens back towards the sensor, making it smaller and lighter - that's my theory, anyway. Bring in digital shutters (I understand they are mainly on phones, compacts and some EVILs at present) and you can use EVF/liveview without shutter lag.
And when will EVFs overtake OVFs? Just look at the progress of sensors and LCDs in the last decade.
Couple of comments on previous posts:
- lenses don't have to be big to be high quality - leica manages it!
- there are good back-of-camera LCDs out there. My Ricoh GRD4 has an exceptionally bright screen which works well in bright daylight (well, the English version of it anyway). I think it's made by Sony.
- I don't see the death of the DSLR (if it happens) as the same as the death of quality kit. I'm sure there'll be plenty of the latter around.
- who will be the winners? I think Sony (sensor technology) and Fuji (camera design) will be leaders of the big suppliers.
OK, that's enough of sticking my head above the parapet for today!

PS why do we still call them DSLRs anyway? When did we last need to avoid confusing them with TLRs (like my Rolleiflex T)? For that matter, are there any DTLRs? Let's call them DRs, for the sake of accuracy!

[nimitzbenedicto]

If DSLRs are out, why this new Nikon DF?

http://www.cameraegg.org/nikon-df-camera-images-silver/

[jcuknz]

If DSLRs are out, why this new Nikon DF?

http://www.cameraegg.org/nikon-df-camera-images-silver/

Deaththrows?

We have a plant here in NZ which only blooms when its existence is threatened. I cut mine down as the fool who planted it did so over a sewer drain though not before it had wrecked my brick wall and gate post. One of my neighbours told some kids off for swinging on the wall leaning into the street but it was rock steady apart from the tree roots under it pushing it over

And how antiquated can you be ... a fixed LCD ... I was fully articulated a decade ago
With a NIkon too.
EVF have been superior to optical for years, but so many people have taken the wrong path led on by the conservative diehards.

[revi]

How about glamour photography? Wouldn't a model or agency want to limit what can get to the Cloud? Obviously, with digital you can still transfer images easily but would a fashion house want their designs getting published before they hit the runway?

I think that's a different problem: the designs are probably not seen by anyone but employees or professional photographers hired to get pictures of them ready. Both of those have contracts with confidentiality clauses, so if any image hits the web before the release-by date, someone is in trouble...
More or less the same with models and agencies: there's contracts involved, the equipment used isn't important in that respect.

In any case: the Cloud isn't public storage. You can allow public access to (parts of) it, but you can do the same for your local hard disk (although the latter might be a bit harder to set up).

[ajohnw]

My view on the future of the DSLR is directly related to EVF technology. Once we have an EVF that rivals an optical finder, then the reflex mechanism is on borrowed time. Do away with the reflex mechanism and you can bring the lens back towards the sensor, making it smaller and lighter - that's my theory, anyway. Bring in digital shutters (I understand they are mainly on phones, compacts and some EVILs at present) and you can use EVF/liveview without shutter lag.
And when will EVFs overtake OVFs? Just look at the progress of sensors and LCDs in the last decade.
Couple of comments on previous posts:

- lenses don't have to be big to be high quality - leica manages it!
- there are good back-of-camera LCDs out there. My Ricoh GRD4 has an exceptionally bright screen which works well in bright daylight (well, the English version of it anyway). I think it's made by Sony.
- I don't see the death of the DSLR (if it happens) as the same as the death of quality kit. I'm sure there'll be plenty of the latter around.
- who will be the winners? I think Sony (sensor technology) and Fuji (camera design) will be leaders of the big suppliers.
OK, that's enough of sticking my head above the parapet for today!

PS why do we still call them DSLRs anyway? When did we last need to avoid confusing them with TLRs (like my Rolleiflex T)? For that matter, are there any DTLRs? Let's call them DRs, for the sake of accuracy!

In some cases they are already superior in general use terms. They actually brighten the view when that is needed. How effective that is seems to relate to how much is spent on the camera in Olympus's case. You might say they are ahead of the pack although Canon have done this sort of thing for years. In many areas just how firmware is set up influences the cost even though the manufacturing cost is exactly the same. Comparing the E-PL1 and E-P3 the body on the later would clearly cost more but both use the same sensor so general performance could be the same. Olympus keep firmware on there own sites and provide software which downloads and installs it. They might be doing this to avoid it being hacked. Attempts were made to hack E-PL1's and people had to provide a fake server.

Sony seem to be concerned about viewfinder pixel counts as last time I looked they were clear leaders. As a review put it an unprecedented step. Often the LCD screen has less pixels than the viewfinder.

Plastic lenses? As an engineer I don't really see any problems with them. One Oly example seems to have a loose part however when it's actually being driven and used it goes rigid. Why this approach - probably down to a long term use of plastic focusing etc threads in lenses. I took a 70's lens apart. Focusing was via plastic threads and the feel obtained via specialised greases. Very common approach in optics in general especially the grease. Plastic bayonet fittings may not be as bad as people might think either. They could conceivably out last metal.

Oly also have done something that might just crop up elsewhere. A fixed length zoom. I'm not too keen on trombone zooms and always feel that they look stupid. Maybe some like having one that extends more than others but I doubt it. I'd guess they have gone this way because the lens can be used in a power zoom mode or manually. The zoom ring is just slid into one of 2 positions. The lens is much bigger than a typical telescoping compact's zoom so doing it the trombone way would involve moving more mass. Moving internal bits is easier. This wasn't the case on old style fixed length purely manual zooms. Why do this - bridge and compact users are used to this sort of thing plus another bell and whistle to offer. I jus had to have one when I bought my EM-5 and had no idea it had power zoom There are other Compact System Cameras about, that's what some call them CSC's, and m 4/3 lenses are bigger than some others and fixed length zooms bigger still. My feeling was that the smaller sensor types wouldn't really offer anything over a typical bridge camera. When I last read it seems that the bridge camera market wasn't too bad so the small sensor CSC's may be a dead end. Why buy, changing and carrying lenses about is a pain.

How will it all go in the future? Basically there are all sorts of things they might throw at us but I feel mirrorrless and maybe shutterless as well but the later has been around for a long long time so there may be some problem going further than very cheap compacts. It's surprising what those can do too. I seem to remember that Canon now have a part electronic shutter. The problem seems to be reading the image after the shot is taken. Frame transfer sensors are the best but seem to be extremely expensive. In these the entire image is read in one go. One other method reads and exposes strips so has the mechanical moving slit shutter distortion problems when moving objects are photographed.

John
-

[Colin Southern]

I wonder if the person predicting the demise of DSLRs in 5 years is the same person who predicted a paperless society in 5 years ...

... 15 years ago!

[jcuknz]

I wonder if the person predicting the demise of DSLRs in 5 years is the same person who predicted a paperless society in 5 years ...... 15 years ago!

I see the forecast as not really the total demise but rather their use by every Tom Dick and Harry which makes them the preserve of the professional such as yourself. The problems faced by postal services around the world is evidence of the decline in paper usage. We could have a paperless society except for the conservative distrust of computers and convienience of having hard copies.

I see a problem in the conservative attitudes of the professional circle in conflict with the brilliant geeks at the factory. People such as myself had no problem in accepting the new features of the bridge camera, which I consider to be the camera type that digital brought us, on changing to digital becuase in my ignorance/innocence I didn't want a loan at the time to afford the DSLR and was introduced to what the Nikon geeks had come up with and I still rate the camera as the best in my stable though passed over by others with more and/or different features. Though I was using it only a couple of days ago, laziness on my part as MFT was downstairs and Bridge was up here. I would have had to downsize the MFT for the job as 5Mp was ample. Further labour saving

Hence my comment about the latest Nikon, fixed LCD. Then there is Live View and the limitations that apparently mainstream DSLRs have in that respect. I did buy a DSLR once, admittedly a Canon hand-me-down from a professional, but I bought it for a specific purpose, to use extension tubes and bellows I had from film days, and I quickly developed a distaste for its bulkiness and limited ability. On getting MFT it was completely redundant and disposed of.

Continuing regrets, that R&D was not put into developing a larger sensored bridge camera, and that Lumix changed the lens design from fixed of the FZ30 and FZ50 to the trombones of today along with from constant or near constant to what other makers foist on still photographers .... FZ200 being an exception in that.

[dabhand]

The simple answer to the survival of any product is whether people will continue to want to use it at whatever it's price / convenience is - technical arguments are interesting but manufacturers are really interested in profit; for those with short memories think Kodak.

Digital technology and its usage has advanced / changed terrifically in the past 10 years - the next 10 will be even more radical and the only thing I feel confident in saying about it is that it will be driven by the mass market and specialist technologies (inc DSLRs if they still exist) will come at a premium price.

Now that may seem an anathema to those of a conservative bent, and I'm not saying it's my preference, but competition is hard, margins are tight and immediacy / ease of use are the main goals of the majority of today's consumers - technical superiority comes a long way down the list.

[nimitzbenedicto]

The simple answer to the survival of any product is whether people will continue to want to use it at whatever it's price / convenience is - technical arguments are interesting but manufacturers are really interested in profit; for those with short memories think Kodak.

Digital technology and its usage has advanced / changed terrifically in the past 10 years - the next 10 will be even more radical and the only thing I feel confident in saying about it is that it will be driven by the mass market and specialist technologies (inc DSLRs if they still exist) will come at a premium price.

Now that may seem an anathema to those of a conservative bent, and I'm not saying it's my preference, but competition is hard, margins are tight and immediacy / ease of use are the main goals of the majority of today's consumers - technical superiority comes a long way down the list.

True.

It's profit after all that determines the life/death of ANY product.

No matter how many technicians/etc debate/discuss it to death, it doesn't matter vs the reality of profits.

[Manfred M]

True.

It's profit after all that determines the life/death of ANY product.

No matter how many technicians/etc debate/discuss it to death, it doesn't matter vs the reality of profits.

I can't totally agree here. While a company will certainly is not interested in making a product where they are not making sufficient profit; what is far more important is whether the consumer is buying the product.

A good photographic example would be film cameras. They did not virtually disappear because of insufficient profit margins, but rather because no one (other than a few film photographers) was buying them. The same goes for a whole string of products, from audio turntables (again, a few audiophiles are still buying vinyl records, and in fact there has been a bit of a renaissance of the genre over the past few years), CRT computer screens, etc. You can't sell a product that no one is interested in buying and there is certainly no profit in that...

[DanK]

Nobody I know buys DSLRs because they like mirror slap. They buy them because of what they do--allowing you to switch lenses and to have a viewfinder that accurately represents what the camera sees with that lens. Will EVFs improve enough in 5 years to replace optical viewfinders? I haven't a clue. However, I think it is almost certain that we will still have cameras that replicate the functions of DSLRs. On the other hand, I do think they may get increasingly expensive. It seems plausible that the number of people buying them may shrink as technology makes cheaper alternatives, like cell phone cameras, more capable. Companies won't continuing producing them for long if they don't make money doing it, and if the market for the high-end cameras shrink, they will have fewer customers across whom they can amortize their fixed costs of development and production. I.e., lower volume means higher prices.

[ajohnw]

The simple answer to the survival of any product is whether people will continue to want to use it at whatever it's price / convenience is - technical arguments are interesting but manufacturers are really interested in profit; for those with short memories think Kodak.

Digital technology and its usage has advanced / changed terrifically in the past 10 years - the next 10 will be even more radical and the only thing I feel confident in saying about it is that it will be driven by the mass market and specialist technologies (inc DSLRs if they still exist) will come at a premium price.

Now that may seem an anathema to those of a conservative bent, and I'm not saying it's my preference, but competition is hard, margins are tight and immediacy / ease of use are the main goals of the majority of today's consumers - technical superiority comes a long way down the list.

The 1st paragraph sums it all up in a nutshell except that the camera market also relies on upgrades - gee it's got to be better if it has that many pixels mainly then comes the bells and whistles. Also think what has happened to the large format market. It's way way more expensive than it was since going digital and for many professionals it's a must.

People seem to find it hard to accept that all DSLR's are aimed at what is mostly a consumer market. It wouldn't surprise me if the sales ratios exceeded 10 to 1 professional or hope to be on all models and even more so at the cheaper end. Same with lenses except possibly at the very very expensive end. I don't think that the sensor aspect of these will change much. It's just logical that they will go mirrorless. They might also get disproportionally more expensive to other types. The full frame models probably already have. The same might just happen to APS.

Something along the lines of M 4/3 might topple APS for many. One odd side effect is that smaller sensors allow higher pixel densities but cameras are and or have gone so far in that direction that yet more is questionable really. I wonder what happens if a bayer type 4 pixel square gets to the dreaded diffraction limit. There might be some point in that - an answer to Foveon types which seem to be disregarded anyway. Some compact and bridge camera sensors are probably already at that level. Foveon might get "better" or some other technology crop up.

Bridge camera sales have been said to still be buoyant. Probably at the end of more and more pixels or getting there as this has been a relatively easy upgrade for manufacturers on these and compacts for a long time now. How to tempt people to buy. CSC's seem to be the hope. Maybe Nikon have done the right thing. Bigger but still small sensor. The crop factor seems to be about 3. That in itself would go some way to fixing the resolution problems many on here don't like. They are great for web galleries as some put it as they are. Double the the size of the sensor and they could be fine for most pc screen type showing and the lenses would still be small. Smaller then 4/3 in fact. Maybe they will put the same sensor in a bridge camera.

I have been to 2 well attended weddings over the past couple of years. No cameras at all other than the so called pro. Phones being used by everybody except me and one other who was trying to sell shots at the reception -canon of course. Probably around 100 guests at each. People are used to having cameras take pictures from the end of their nose these days even photographing themselves and a group of others at the same time if their arms are long enough. Why buy a compact? The optics on the ones i use have improved since the intro of hdmi video but the optics on iPhone's seem to be pretty capable as is the sensor and software it uses.

One area that I feel doesn't help explain the advantages of better cameras is at the pro end. They often don't exploit the capabilities of the gear they use and can't even be bothered to PP for a decent level of detail in a white wedding dress or what ever so often shots don't look any better than could be taken with an iPhone. This even applies to some famous photographers who's links have been posted on here. They even picked the shots that are shown on their web pages. They are often expensive people too. This sort of thing also goes back to film days so it's nothing new but lots more people use cameras regularly now and if their results are as good as the pro's why bother buying extra prints? If compacts are no better than iPhones why buy one get a super zoom bridge instead.

In Turkey I saw a number of people taking shots with full sized iPads. They have a brilliant preview screen.

John
-

[nimitzbenedicto]

I can't totally agree here. While a company will certainly is not interested in making a product where they are not making sufficient profit; what is far more important is whether the consumer is buying the product.

A good photographic example would be film cameras. They did not virtually disappear because of insufficient profit margins, but rather because no one (other than a few film photographers) was buying them. The same goes for a whole string of products, from audio turntables (again, a few audiophiles are still buying vinyl records, and in fact there has been a bit of a renaissance of the genre over the past few years), CRT computer screens, etc. You can't sell a product that no one is interested in buying and there is certainly no profit in that...

Something seems wrong here.

Of course, it goes without saying , the capitalist thinks about a "buyer".

Where in the world can you find business without the buyer????

How can you make a profit without a "buyer"????

Not only wrong but "funny".

Why, because at the end, you fully agree with me.
i.e. if a product doesn't make a profit for the capitalist, it will die.

I can't totally agree here. .....................

You can't sell a product that no one is interested in buying and there is certainly no profit in that...

[pnodrog]

There are instances where a manufacture offers items for sale and sometimes below cost simply to keep their brand name available in that segment of the market. A prime example is F1 cars where the main reason to have them available is for the overall promotion of the brand. This example is rather extreme but over the years there have been a number of car models that only existed to assist in the sale of more popular models. Cars are certainly not the only product where some items exist not for the volume of sales but to enhance or protect the image of the brand.

It can also occur when a manufacturer continues to produce a product that is unprofitable due to having a very competitive and potentially extremely profitable replacement product under development and do not want a gap in supplying that segment of their market.