RonRaymond: DSLR's are just to big and bulky for the average user, at work if I need a photo of something I use my Samsung Galaxy Note 3 even though I have a SX700, M2, SX60 in my bag. But if I need to capture something hard to photograph like PCBs with Led's on I might reach for the Canon SX 700.
Taking Sunsets Pics I use everything Samsung Note 3, SX700, SX60 and M2.
I have to say make it smaller and better because that's what we the consumer wants. How bout a M2 with a SX60 lens that would be a game changer
It doesn't matter if for you it's horrible or not. It matters if for people using smartphones pictures they got are good enough. And in majority of cases - they are good enough for them, therefore you can see constant rise of smartphones and enormous drop in compact cameras.
RichRMA: A graphic display of why mirrors should be...going away.
"Lag time one most modern cameras is below 10ms. Which is about twice as fast as the fastests human eye refresh rate." - ONLY IN PERFECT LIGHTING CONDITIONS!
In real life lag can go below 1/24 of a second as sensor needs to be exposed for a time, and all that smudging you see in your EVF while in low light is because exposure time can go below 1/24s.
"Nonsense. Some cameras have blinkies, which can show you the highlights/shadows." - FYI: These are useless cause they're made on 8 bit output for EVF, not the full output you get in RAWs.
oselimg: And why this camera wasn't mirrorless one? Mirrorless is the way ahead. There would be no need for videos like this if all cameras were mirrorless. There are many cameras with wi-fi and selfie functions. Why don't they film those?
Bouncy mirror is not really a problem, it's very light, energies involved are tiny, and everything is very well dampened. DSLRs got plenty of space for that. Unlike mirrorless cameras where you have no space at all, so vibrations from mechanical shutter get pronounced all over the body and lens. And if you still have a problem with DSLRs and their vibrations - just use damn mirror lockup feature. Learn your camera.
vesa1tahti: This film shows the absolute oldfascionality of the mechanical shutter. No need to design new DSLRs using this technology from the past. DSLRs are from the past, already now. Let's start to learn to forget their existence and stop to give some support to them in buying these museum monuments.
Karl is right, and raises several very valid points. That dismissal from mirrorless boys is laughable.
I used EVFs for over 3 years and pretty much the only thing I'm missing in OVF is live histogram, but I still will always pick OVF over EVF, precisely because issues raised by Karl and a fact that, well, viewing world on a tiny TV really breaks the connection with a scene and I always, even after 3 years of running with EVFs in my primary camera, got distracted by EVF. Image is different in EVFs, you always have to get back into "I'm operating the camera now" mode, while with a DSLR it's much more transparent, you are always there with a scene, no tiny TVs standing in your way.
Anastigmat: The reason Canon and Nikon have dominated the professional SLRand DSLR market is their ability to manufacture high speed shutters and mirrors. In contrast, companies like Minolta/Sony, Pentax and Olympus simply could not and cannot equal Canon and Nikon in this area.
Oh, Sony A900.... when that camera blasted you could really wake the dead. Canon and Nikons are stealth comparing to the noise A900 made.
And yea - the quickest camera in terms of shutter speed is Minolta.
Which is also an ultimate proof that Anastigmat's post is BS.
Mike5076: Enjoyed the video, well aware of the content before watching, but found it entertaining. I appreciate the the time spent putting this together and perhaps for some of the newer members of the imaging community it offered good insight into workings of a DSLR.
I am hoping that we lose the "R" of DSLR i.e. mirror. Technology is converging on this solution. I also suspect that the disrupter in the DSL market isn't Sony as much as it is Samsung. IQ debates aside, their first real salvo demonstrated that software is effectively free so why cripple a camera with poor software features?
CMOS sensors are the rule of the day, for now and favor rolling shutter. I suspect the next real breakthrough (50 mega pixel canon is a catch up not break through) is a global shutter in a body that is under $4,000 us at 18-24 MP -
Global shutter at these resolutions at video frame rates pretty much leaves ergonomics to the differentiation of vid/stills bodies
If you don't want a mirror - there are compacts (including these with Full Frame sensor) or mirrorless cameras.
I'll keep my mirror and the OVF it provides. I used EVFs for over 3 years now, and I always gladly return back to optical viewfinders.
Eric Calabros: Thank you DPR, it was amazing to see people who think mirrorless camera doesnt need mechanical shutter
Yea, people already tried fully silent cameras. You know how it ended? With microphones generating artificial shutter sound.Thanks, but I'll pass.
Frank_BR: Canon 7D: 10 fpsPhantom Flex: 10,000 fps
It's clear to me that the mechanical parts of a camera are with their days numbered. In a few years the cameras will be fully electronic, and will take hundreds or thousands of high-resolution pictures per second.
"ISO 1000 images are chock full of noise in the shadows -- because light itself is noisy"
Boky: That mirror flippin’ around will definitely cause jerkiness, especially at slow shutter speeds when firmness is needed most.... case in point for mirrorless I suppose.
That inertia is tiny, mirror is very light and thin - that's why it looks quite dramatic, but in reality energies involved are minuscule.If you want to look for a real problem - a combination of large shutter with small body causes notably higher vibrations that easily propagate to the lens if camera got a short flange distance. Look: A7 mirrorless cameras. There's plenty of discussions about that issue, but I guess everyone came to realize that it's just something that can't be fixed unless we get full electronic shutters without the issues current electronic first curtain got.
WayneHuangPhoto: Market over-saturation, higher overall quality in dslrs resulting in consumers hanging onto their cameras longer, and declining consumer demand.
Yep. These and smartphones killing off small sensor compacts are the reasons for number we see.
I doubt we'll ever have dedicated cameras regain as huge sales as they got ~4 years ago, when P&S were at it's peak.
Those that don't want big and bulky got smartphones.
Those that want comfortable grip got DSLRs.
Mirrorless, large sensor compacts and P&S cameras fit in between with first two having minuscule market share. and P&S rapidly shrinking as people discover that smartphones deliver comparable quality to small sensor compacts.
It's simple as that, really.
W5JCK: As long as Canon continues to sit on its corporate backside and turn out lackluster improvements that are merely minor updates to cameras long ago released, they will continue to slide. They need to innovate and push the envelope. Minor tweaks to outdated designs just won't cut it in today's market. That is why so many of us have jumped off the Canon wagon in search of better equipment.
"They're not particularly good photographs mostly." - I disagree.
"put a Zeiss on the Canon body and you'll be impressed by the better results" - that's truth for every single system. Not just Canon. Zeiss produces the best lenses on a market right now, probably the only company that can rival them is Leica, but that's where they story ends. Keeping that in mind though - they change for them accordingly.
WordsOfFarewell: I bet it's because Sony and Nikon upped their game significantly so people rather buy their stuff. Would be interesting to get their numbers as well.
Sony is loosing money, it has some periods reporting income, but then goes under back again.
Frank_BR: Leica was the THE camera of the '50s. Leica was trapped in outdated camera technology.Leica was a big name in lenses.
It's the same situation of Canon today.Canon is the Leica of twenty-first century.
"Canon is the Leica of twenty-first century" - I'm sure Canon users are very happy hearing that "news" of yours. This means their brand will keep the lead for next 85 years - which IMHO wouldn't be all that surprising.
They seem to agreed with Sony on patent exchange, so they'll get best sensors on a market back again, and the next generation of cameras they'll release by all means seem to be another breakthrough. 2015 might be very interesting year to Canon, and Nikon doesn't seem to stay much behind either with their upcoming 50MPx DSLR. Big question though is if all these mirrorless companies heavily loosing money going to survive next 5 years? Samsung can sponsor their cameras for as long as it wants to, so can Fujifilm, but others don't have that comfort.
The Squire: Should be reworded:
"Other people making better cameras than us is cited as a big cause for the slowdown in sales..."
Camera-phones have been around a long time now. Can't keep using that excuse. And in the mean time other companies have grown their camera division sales.
SO, what's the real problem Canon?
"Camera-phones have been around a long time now. Can't keep using that excuse" - it's about smartphones, not phones with a camera. Smartphones are killing compacts, and every company heavily invested in them has lower and lower sales of cameras. Canon still is one of the best on a market, as they at least make profits unlike most of the competition, most importantly Sony which is loosing money in a huge amounts.
Add to this a factor that progress in sensors slowed down - which again is something causing every single company to suffer, as people don't have the need to update their cameras anymore - and you got the reasons behind header of this articles.
mpgxsvcd: Canon is delusional. They can’t even see that the downward trend for them is steadily increasing. Nikon has started to right its ship. However, their “perceived” quality issues are not helping them.
Sony is making great cameras but they simply don’t know how to get the word out there to the mass public. That and they simply haven’t had enough time to build up their lens lineup yet.
Samsung made a killer product with their NX1. However, it too suffers from a lack of publicity.
M4/3s is hanging in there. They have a devout following with their diehard consumers. However, compact and super-zoom cameras like the LX100 and FZ1000 actually hurt their m4/3s sales. The lenses offer them more profit but Panasonic is concentrating more on their compact cameras right now. Olympus is doing much better by producing great glass and great camera bodies to go along with that glass.
Canon market share always been more or less the same during digital age. They never had a "gigantic portion of the market". You have no clue what you are talking about.
"People just are not going to buy Canon Rebel cameras or their compact cameras this year" - people never bought Rebel for their compact camera. They bought Canon compacts for their compact camera. Many of them won't buy compacts cause they've got smartphones. Everyone know that, you're not discovering anything new here.
Upgrades won't be as often as they were 4-5 years ago, but this is a problem for every single company, not just Canon, everyone are suffering. Only Canon got largest user base on a market, so when these people finally do decide to buy a new camera - Canon got them covered, these new Rebels are going to be there, and Canon is going to earn more money market-wide on upgrades than anyone else (again: large user base).
Master Yoda: There's nothing especially shocking in this report. The old Canon / Nikon dynasty has been slipping for some time now. Sony, Panny, Fuji, etc. have been whittling away at them with great success. Sadly, smartphones have hurt traditional camera sales as well. Neither Canon or Nikon are exactly starving. The market share is simply being shared with the above entities I mentioned. It's called competition and overall it will be good for the end user to have more choices other than just Canon/Nikon.
"All I suggested was that the other camera companies have indeed managed to lure away a good number of Canon/Nikon customers" - from zero you can only go up. They managed to offer something new so naturally some people moved away, many if not most of them never should have owned a DSLR in the first place cause it's not the type of camera they wanted.
But as far as I see it - DSLR and mirrorless market seems to slowly stabilize in Europe and USA. Asians seems to be much more prone to mirrorless (I guess it's because they're shorter with smaller hands, so feel more comfortable handling them and they still think that staring at a tiny TV is something great), but that's about it.
Also note that a large portion, if not to say: vast majority of mirrorless shooters also own DSLR for their serious shooting.
justmeMN: The results from other camera manufacturers will be even worse. As an example, Olympus' camera division has been losing money for years.
Yea, Sony says the same, but somehow nothing happens. Oly played all it's big cards already. I can't see them comming up with something that would make people pay in like they did for example with OM-D.
"Good colour is real easy to see." - good color is a very vague term. People shoot fashion with Canon precisely because of a good color. What might be a good color for you isn't for others. Many companies these days, notably Nikon and recently Sony in it's E-mount lineup, cut corners on the color filters what results in their own problems with depth of color, getting better ISO results in effect. Overall what counts is the photograph you get, and Canon really does produce great results praised by many much more competent people that you HowaboutRaw. Problem Canon got is with ISOs and dynamic range, not colors. Don't be ridicioulus.
snapa: IMO, the G12 that I used for 4 years was the last good fixed lens camera Canon made. Since then, it has been all down hill from their. I have yet to see anything from Canon (with a fixed lens) that has interested me, at all. Sony and Panasonic has put a major hurting on them for many years, and for very good reasons, they have made better cameras!
Everyone know how to pull better images from Sony sensors than Sony itself. Everyone.It's trulry pathetic that Sony still cannot set a benchmark when compared to the competitors using the same sensor.