Riebs: I'm enthusiast, not a professional. I'm also "old" approaching 70. In 1985 I was the only one in my group of friends or relatives who owned a complicated DSLR: a Nikon f2. Everyone else owned an Instamatic.
Why would anyone, especially camera manufacturers, think that interest has changed. Cell phones are simply today's Instamatics. The vast majority of picture takers couldn't care less about owning a camera, much less one that took more space than an Instamatic.
Someone (read camera manufactures) believe that just because there are a huge number of images flooding the world that there must be a huge number of individuals interested in using cameras. As a result more cameras are flooding the market, but there is no demand for that volume. No more now than there was 30 years ago.
Cell phones aren't the death of this tool. Camera manufactures mistaking demand are the culprits of their own demise.
That's right on the point.
derekkite: Yes! What I need is a dslr that is wide angle and small aperture with an automatic flash. Then I can have fun!
Come on. I take photos with my phone, sure. Fun, not really. It doesn't focus in low light, it doesn't freeze movement with a fast shutter speed, I can't control a flash detached from the phone, I can't take a shot of the bear or otter up the river. I can't photograph the milky way.
Canon has how many options to set up autofocus, and if done to the circumstances of the shot, gets amazing results. Could it be simpler? I suppose, but Apple's simplicity is 80% due to limiting what you can do. Could some phone manufacturer put together a focus mechanism, lens and sensor that can capture a football game from the sidelines? Nope.
This is nonsense. Phones are wide small aperture photographic devices. I don't consider that to be very much fun.
@derekkiteThat's exactly my point. People who care about photography are not going to complain that much about menu complexity. I suspect that is the case for most of the dpreview readers (including myself). On the other hand, people who don't care that much about taking pictures (beyond let's say posting them on facebook) are probably going to be pretty happy with smartphone camera.
PieterB: I made a guided group tour through Turkey this year with 40 people.There were around 6 d-slr's, 4 mirrorless cams and some 3-4 bridge cameras.And everybody had a smart phone. Apart from me, the other persons toting cameras had absolutely no clue whatsoever how their camera works outside the P/Auto Progamme. Let alone, what aperture or shutter time does and what focal lenght does to your depth of field.Some were wondering why their 4 seconds handeld exposure was so blurry.
They sometimes wondered how I could take a decent shot with my F1,8 and F2.0 lenses in Manual modus while they couldn't take the shot. They always blamed in on the camera.
So, maybe a small percentage of the d-slr users are hardcore and know how their camera operates and how to take a shot outside P mode but most of them want to point and shoot and share and don't have a clue about photography and neither do they want to know.
Hi HowaboutRAW,Thank god people have caught on (or perhaps camera manufactures improved their auto flash algorithm). Believe it or not, people do live and work in midtown. For example, the center of the time square is Earnest and Young building. I am lucky enough to live in Noho but I do end up in time square once or twice a year, usually after a Broadway show. You should check out Book Of Mormon. But to your point, I am just using time square as more of an abstract example. Otherwise, yeah, I avoid the place like wildfire.
MikeNYC: Nonsense argument. The lack of user friendliness is not the problem. A lot of people used to buy DSLRs because compact cameras had horrible image quality(unappealing even to casual user). The whole DSLR market was flooded with people who knew nothing about photography and left their camera in the AUTO mode (and blinded everyone with their pop up flash). These days, the gap between smartphone and DSLR with stock lens in full AUTO mode is marginal. That's where the drop in sales comes from. Unless you are the person who takes photography very seriously, it is hard to justify wasting money and carrying extra weight, when a perfectly good camera is already in your pocket. In the long term, the principle market for DSLRs and mirrorless systems is photography enthusiast and professionals. For casual consumers (who don't really care about learning fine details of photography), smartphone camera is going to be hard to compete with.
@FullframerI don't see a lot of 50mm (equivalent) f1.8 being sold in entry level DSLR kit lens, that would be a great idea. What I am imagining is 18-55 on entry-level cropped sensor vs Iphone . I agree, there is no comparison in terms of pixel level noise, but it doesn't matter for things like facebook. It is not trivial task to get pleasing bokeh out of kit lens on DSLR and you have to compose the picture through a tiny dim viewfinder. But that's not even my point. I am not saying that Iphone is as good as DSLR (or even a large sensor compact). I am simply saying it is good enough for most people. My second point is that anyone who uses DSLR in auto mode with a kit lens is missing out on all the things that make DSLRs great (precise and easy control, specialty lenses and menu customization).
sderdiarian: Let's see, use a mobile device that's multi-functional, light and thin enough to carry in my pocket, has a screen the size of a traditional photo to aid in composition and sharing images, has innumerable apps to add features, OIS and state of the art 16MP sensors with a fast lens covering most shooting situations, takes photos which 95% of the time are of the same visible (i.e., not pixel peeking) quality to lay people as those of a traditional digital camera. Or lug around a 2 lb. DSLR/lens.
Oh yes, and you already have the mobile device under your monthly phone bill as compared to investing $1,000+ in an ILC, and it's upgradable every two years to the newest technology.
Each device has its place, but for most the discussion is long over. And there's no turning back as smartphone cameras continue to improve.
Cameras must instead reawaken interest in photography as an intentional art form and means of expression that's also just a wonderful way to spend one's downtime.
You have forgotten, three pound tripod, light reflector and photo assistant. But, honestly, I agree completely. You have to interested in art of photography and even than you can do a lot with Iphone. Mostly, photography is about light and skill. The camera doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough for the intended purpose. For most people smartphone will be good enough.
Jefftan: All cameras has an "auto mode" . Most people just do not care about photography enough to carry a real camera. That is not the fault of camera manufacturer or there is anything they can do about this
The days before smartphone when everyone would buy a digital camera to take pics would never come back. From now on cameras are for real photographer and there is nothing wrong about that
right on the point
I rarely meet people who know how to use their DSLR. I like in nyc and most of the tourist have their camera in auto mode (with kit lens) blinding everyone at night with their pop up flash (trying to illuminate all of time square). There are fewer of these people lately and I think I have smart phones to thank for that. @HowaboutRAW Large sensor will always have an edge in terms of pixel quality, on the other hand I don't find exposure or white balance to be all that accurate in DSLR auto modes. My point is that if you are going to use yoru DSLR in auto mode, you are better of not wasting money on one to begin with.
beber: You know what has been a hot camera lately, GoPros. GoPros are fun, simple, offer something that no other phone or camera did at the time, and cost around $300.
To me that is the golden combination. Offer something, new and fun for around $300 and watch it sell like crazy.
Exactly. Could someone put a 1 inch sensor into rugged camera, with wide-ish lens for 300 dollars. I'll buy that in a second.
Are you familiar with 80-20 rule? You only need get few simple things right to get 80 of functionality. Football, sports, ultrawide photography are all a small niches (remaining 20 percent or even less). For most people, smart phone camera will be as good as DSLR and 80 percent of time just as functional
mrkarisma: What fascinates me is how all digital camerrs I have owned my smartphone is the best when it comes to exposure. All Nikons I have owned is absolutely useless in getting the exposure right. Its a mystery how my smartphond and my Olympus EPM2 almost always gets it right on the first exposure but with my Dslrs i need at least 2 tries and often more before Nikons irratic exposure algoritm gets it right. No wonder people loves to shoot with their smartphones. I once tried shooting in full auto with my D600 one day and about 1 image out of 50 had OK white balance, exposure and focus. Compared to my Oly Epm2 and my smartphone that gets it right about 40 times of 50.
yeah, but most of people don't care to look at pixel level detail. Though I agree, if you plan to shoot in AUTO, DSLR is not the camera for you.
Nonsense argument. The lack of user friendliness is not the problem. A lot of people used to buy DSLRs because compact cameras had horrible image quality(unappealing even to casual user). The whole DSLR market was flooded with people who knew nothing about photography and left their camera in the AUTO mode (and blinded everyone with their pop up flash). These days, the gap between smartphone and DSLR with stock lens in full AUTO mode is marginal. That's where the drop in sales comes from. Unless you are the person who takes photography very seriously, it is hard to justify wasting money and carrying extra weight, when a perfectly good camera is already in your pocket. In the long term, the principle market for DSLRs and mirrorless systems is photography enthusiast and professionals. For casual consumers (who don't really care about learning fine details of photography), smartphone camera is going to be hard to compete with.
subzerohf: I carry an iPhone 4S everywhere I go. The camera on it is as good as most (if not all) compact cameras. In my opinion, the 1" sensor is truely another marketing scheme to prolong the death of compact cameras. But hey, who am I to stop the mighty marketing machine? People will love it and be happy to pay up. Besides, "one-inch" sensor sounds pretty awesome to the ears of the untrained. People like round numbers.
I am not saying larger sensors are not superior. I'm just saying it is the skill of the shooter that matters more than the sensor size. Check this out: http://connect.dpreview.com/post/2863436371/leaving-my-dslr-at-home-iphone-experiment
It all depends on what you want to do with your camera. I am not really a big zoom guy, so iphone works out great for me. I actually bought sony hx7v and returned it. The quality of pictures wasn't that much better then my iphone and it was actually surprising slow in operation. So I am sticking with my iphone and D90 until full frame cameras become common again. All I need is a "cheap" full frame rangefinder and fast 50 (and maybe 24mm). By the way, shame on Nikon for using 1 inch sensor in their mirror-less system.
I think we can all agree that blindly adding vintage (or other effects) to every pictures does not necessarily make for amazing photography. Perhaps Instagram is to blame for popularizing these effects (which were always available to pros). It is not 'debasing real photography' , it is just another technique, which can be used masterfully. I am not a big fan of Instragram, but I do use Hipstermatic. It is fun, I can get the look of my old Yashica or Smena rangefinders without having to buy film. It often masks the digital noise of Iphone camera. In fact, since the effects cannot be removed, it is almost film like experience.
pvphoto: In recent time, except few minor exception maybe Nikon is just lugging behind Canon on all fields. and also behind Sony for sure. Nikon needed years to abandon 10-12MPix DSLR cameras and it happened also only because they have to keep tempo that Canon and Sony put with their 15-18 Mpix cameras. All Nikon innovation is something like: going from 6400 ISO to 12800 ISO, putting more AF points in AF sensor etc. and that kinds - nothing substantial and breakthrough.
Canon is making G1X on with 14.2 Mpix and 1,5 inch sensor, metal body and much more and sells this for 799 USD and Nikon is pretending that it is in its own world (I am NIKON) trying to sell V1with 1inch sensor - 10 Mpix (history for sure) and lens that is nothing impressive and size of Olympus for same focal rang in M4/3 for 800 USD.Probably they are not too serious but market is not place for jokes.Nikon should stop living in their own world.
I don't know who is lagging behind who, but IMHO the real credit for innovation goes to Fuji. It is too early to say, but for someone like me (who uses mostly ultra wide to normal lenses) Fuji X-PRO1 has the potential to replace my Nikon SLR.
T3: I feel like Nikon's choice to go with such a small sensor for their mirrorless system is akin to Olympus's choice to go with the small 4/3 sensor for their DSLR system. In the end, the choice of such a small sensor (relative to the competition) is what killed them-- or at least hindered their popularity.
I never liked Oly 4/3 slr's. The viewfinder was always too small form me (that's just another drawback of small sensor size).
CriticaI - maybe that is just me but I don't see how Nikon came up with that particular sensor size. I think m4/3 cameras are small enough, sony has managed to produce small APS-C cameras (with ridiculously large glass) and Canon has managed to squeeze something APSC into G1-x.
MikeNYC: wow, emotions are running high. But in my opinion dpreview has a point. This is not the camera everyone wished for. But to be fair, the nikon 1 system might get better with next generation of cameras and new lenses. As is , it looks like a perfectly decent p&s camera.
One thing though is hard to argue with, the small sensor size is always going to be a problem if you like shallow depth of field (and perhaps to a lesser degree high ISO performance). It is hard to argue with physics.
AnHunt- I agree but I would surprised if the high ISO part is still true for the next iteration of the olympus sensors.
pengch - that's certainly putting an optimistic way of looking at it.
But jokes aside, the only real advantage of smallish sensor (as far as I can see) is smallish optics. Nikon had to draw a line somewhere between compacts and dslrs and in my opinion they needed up too close to compacts. The price is another issue. Interchange lens compacts are pricy in general but I feel Nikon has taken it to the next level.
wow, emotions are running high. But in my opinion dpreview has a point. This is not the camera everyone wished for. But to be fair, the nikon 1 system might get better with next generation of cameras and new lenses. As is , it looks like a perfectly decent p&s camera.
Andrew Booth: Bottom line - these are fashion cameras, that don't offer the photographic control that anyone serious about picture taking would aspire to.
Let's look at depth of field of the lenses compared to full frame:
The Series 1 10mm f2.8 lens is equivalent to a 27mm f8 lens The series 1 10-30 f3.5-5.6 is equivalent to 27-81mm f10-f14
This is a joke. 81mm f14? Try getting good background separation on your portraits with that!
And even if you use a fast full frame Nikkor via an adapter (say a 50 f1.8), you're still shooting at an equivalent of f5 due to the crop factor.
Andrew is right. It doesn't matter what glass you put on it, you'll have to work pretty hard to get shallow depth of field.