Lets Face It, DSLRs, Appear Somewhat Heading In The Way Of The Dinosaurs

[BRJR]

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

 

[davoe]

I use a point and shoot (FZ 50) and like it but until it can auto focus as quickly especially in lower light and shoot almost noise free at ISO 800 then I dont agree.

no i dont wait until its nearly dark before going shooting but many a bird shot I cant get because light is less than perfect.

I thik its the compacts that will be under threat from camera phones

an example of a bird pic that was missed due to poor focussing in lower light and movement.

If id had time to make adjustments i could have done better - but speed is the essence

 

[jimrpdx]

I tried to get away from large-sensor imaging, believing that convenience would outweigh the benefits of a larger sensor. I really disliked carrying large cameras on hikes, then having batteries die or other failures (all my own fault, but let's not go there :|). I went to smaller 35mm, then to small but well-featured digital compacts. I was sure I would get a Lumiz FZ-series next, or a Fuji SuperCCD model.. but after well over a year of reading, handling, shooting & printing, I found I could not live with the compromises that come from pinky-fingernail-size sensors. They are indeed much better now, and the EXR / Exmor-R / &c variants seem to do well, but for noise and resolution I'm pretty much back where I was 10 years ago, carrying the bigger camera but knowing why I do it.

I'm a dinosaur-lover, and I'm proud .

--
Jim R, A200 & stuff -- http://picasaweb.google.com/alphaPDX

 

[Andr3w]

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

lol, sighting KR as a source is laughable.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/analprobe/dissent.htm
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nm/aliens/index.htm

"I offer no warrantees of any kind, except that there are many deliberate gaffes, practical jokes and downright foolish and made-up things lurking. While this site is mostly accurate, it is neither legally binding nor guaranteed. The only thing I do guarantee is that there is plenty of stuff I simply make up out of thin air, as does The Onion."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm
--

 

[graybalanced]

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

You expect me to accept the extinction of the SLR based on what Ken Rockwell says?

Having an iPhone did not make me want to dump my pocket camera. In fact, I upgraded my pocket camera because I got tired of situations where the iPhone simply can't handle it.

My pocket camera, which is nicer than what most people have, has not caused me to dump my DSLR. In fact, I just upgraded my DSLR for all of the situations where the pocket camera simply can't handle it.

Any camera does great outside in the sunshine. When the going gets tough or the light gets low or the enlargements get big, you need to reach for a better tool.

 

[jezsik]

If you want eye-popping images, though, you're going to need a large sensor.

And seriously, stop reading Ken Rockwell.

 

[T3]

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

Just try to shoot a wedding or sporting event with a compact camera. Go ahead, try it! What you'll quickly find is that a compact isn't as responsive, isn't as quick with autofocus, isn't as quick with handling and operation, and doesn't deliver the same level of image quality as a DSLR.

Consider that back in the film days, compact cameras used the same format of "sensors" (ie, 35mm film) as SLRs. Therefore, compact cameras were able to theoretically deliver the same level of image quality as SLRs. And yet, compact cameras never came close to killing off the SLR. SLRs continued to flourish. Today, compact cameras use sensors that are much smaller than SLR camera, so they've actually lost the "same format of sensors" advantage they had back in the fillm days. As a result, compacts can't deliver the level of image quality as a DSLR that uses a much larger sensor. And today, DSLRs continue to flourish, for even greater reason than they did back in the film days!

And by the way, I wouldn't pay much attention to what Ken Rockwell says. He's just a bag of hot air. Why don't you ask him if he shoots weddings and sporting events with a compact camera? Ask him if, given a situation where maximum responsiveness is necessary, if he'd choose to shoot with a DSLR or a compact camera? If he's truly on the level, he'll say that he'd choose a DSLR.

 

[bosjohn]

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

Just try to shoot a wedding or sporting event with a compact camera. Go ahead, try it! What you'll quickly find is that a compact isn't as responsive, isn't as quick with autofocus, isn't as quick with handling and operation, and doesn't deliver the same level of image quality as a DSLR.

Consider that back in the film days, compact cameras used the same format of "sensors" (ie, 35mm film) as SLRs. Therefore, compact cameras were able to theoretically deliver the same level of image quality as SLRs. And yet, compact cameras never came close to killing off the SLR. SLRs continued to flourish. Today, compact cameras use sensors that are much smaller than SLR camera, so they've actually lost the "same format of sensors" advantage they had back in the fillm days. As a result, compacts can't deliver the level of image quality as a DSLR that uses a much larger sensor. And today, DSLRs continue to flourish, for even greater reason than they did back in the film days!

I suspect there may have been a touch of irony in his remark about Ken.

this statement above however isn't quite accurate. The film point and shoots did kill off all but the top of the line pro model slrs or almost killed them off. It was one of the factors that led to the near collapse of some of the major manufactures. They discovered much to their dismay that the point and shoots were being sold at such slim margins that they were making very little profit from selling all those cameras and at the same time killing off the good old cash cows of the entry and mid level slrs. The mark up for the slr was considerably better than the point and shoots and the mark up on lenses and other accessories was huge. Point and shoot buyers don't buy accessories.

One reason you may not see canon and nikon rushing out to make a leica x1 or panasonic gf1 right now is at least the leica style camera will not generate any after market sales and even a five hundred dollar dslr can potentially generate a few hundred dollars in profit from accessories like lenses flashes etc.
--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]

 

[dave]

The film point and shoots did kill off all but the top of the line pro model slrs or almost killed them off.

Absolute rubbish, the high end compact such as the Olympus 35RC, 35 RD, MInolta Himatic 7S, and Konica equivalents were effectively replaced by SLRs, not the other way round get your facts right and don't believe the rubbish you read on the internet.

The Big 5 Monolta, Pentax, Olympus, Nikon and Canon were all going strong with SLRs until the advent of digital in the late 1990's.

The compact as we know it now was designed for the unwashed masses, and was never a serious option for professional or advanced amateurs

 

[T3]

The film point and shoots did kill off all but the top of the line pro model slrs or almost killed them off. It was one of the factors that led to the near collapse of some of the major manufactures.

Care to share where you got this information from? Back in the film days, there were more SLR manufacturers than there are today. It wasn't until the DSLR age that there was a big shake-out amongst SLR manufacturers. Minolta, Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Contax, Vivitar, etc. were all marketing and selling film SLRs in a wide range of levels. There were plenty of entry-level SLRs being made and sold too. Canon, for example, had multiple Canon Rebel models on the market, most recently the Rebel K2 and T2, with the T2 being introduced as late as 2004. So to say that P&S cameras killed off "all but the top of the line pro model slrs" is simply inaccurate and not even close to being accurate.

There has always been a market for P&S cameras, and there has always been a market for SLRs. They are too different markets. One isn't going to kill the other off. It didn't happen in the film age, and it isn't going to happen in the digital age. P&S cameras are great for "point-and-shoot" simplicity and less sophisticated users, while SLRs are great for greater control and more sophisticated shooters. Back in the fillm days, I never camera across a single photographer who said, "Well, I've progressed and advanced so much in photography, but rather than moving up to a film SLR that will give me more control and flexibility, I think I'll just stay with a P&S!" That's why you always had photographers of all types eventually gravitating towards the SLR counter in camera stores.

 

[tsk1979]

Forget image quality for a moment, there are some things a small sensor cam can never do
1. Narrow DOF
2. High ISO clean shots

You can put in fast AF, better processor, good quality lens etc., etc., but there is no way to do the above things.

Apart from that there is stuff like extreme long exposure, which high pixel density cameras can never do without prohibitive noise.

Of course, the winner is a semi small sensor camera (2x crop) and the micro DSLRs which try to provide the best of both worlds. but if you get into the extremes, DSLRs are the only way to go.

Only P&S which dared to tread there? The Sony R1. It was one of a kind. No cam like it either before it, or after it!

--
Tanveer
My galleries - http://tanveer.smugmug.com ,
My site : http://www.tanveer.in/drupal
My Photoblog : http://www.tanveer.in/photoblog

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

I think that DSLR's as we know them today are going the way of the dinosaurs.

And will be replaced by cameras like the Panasonic G1 & GH1 (EVIL) with electronic viewfinders and other offshoots of these types of cameras.



The OVF DSLR's will probably be all but gone, with exception of maybe two or three high end models for those who can't live without the OVF.

And, in 20 or 30 years, we'll still be here arguing about the demise of the EVIL cameras (and still dreaming of the days of old when ground glass focus screens and tiny APS-C and 4/3 OVF's were king) as they are replaced with whatever the new wave of high end cameras are for that time.

Heck . . . in 30 years, digital photography as we know it today will probably be long gone and replaced with some other form of image capture!

And we'll probably argue about that as well . . .

Just like film vs digital or RAW vs JPEG . . .

All of this is a vicious never ending cycle that will continue forever after all of us are long gone!

--
J. D.
Colorado

I do understand its a Jeep thing . . . thats why I bought a Dodge!

 

[MusicDoctorDJ]

Forget image quality for a moment, there are some things a small sensor cam can never do

1. Narrow DOF
2. High ISO clean shots

And here I thought you said we were going to forget image quality for a moment . . . LOL

--
J. D.
Colorado

 

[Chris59]

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)

That DSLRs are going the way of the dinosaur is probably correct if you consider that dinosaurs "ruled" the Earth for hundreds of millions of years. As for KR, if that is all the "evidence" you have to back up your claim, it is very poor "evidence" indeed.

One only needs to look at the ever increasing variety of DSLRs on the market, their continual improvement and the increase in sales (global financial crisis nothwithstanding) to see that DSLRs are not only surviving but thriving.

That is not to say that something other than a physical mirror reflecting an image through the lens will not eventually replace DSLRs sometime in the future, but to suggest that point and shoots and cameraphones will replace the DSLR is lunacy. Invoking a quote from KR only reinforces my opinion.

 

[GodSpeaks]

While I do have, and like (not love) my p&s (LX3), I would never give up my DSLR. The image quality from my DSLR is just sooooooooo much better than even my LX3.

Fact is, I make prints - large prints - and the DSLR shines here. But if you do not make prints then a p&s is probably good enough.

To each their own, of course, but I doubt the DSLR is going to go away anytime soon.

--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[Travel_G]

Same bird, same situation, same pb (although with another brand of superzoom) .



--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/guillaumeserandour/

 

[gillbod]

"Go Shoot", KR, now says:

If by KR, you mean Ken Rockwell, then I think the advice should be taken with a grain of salt. He always gets caught up in the moment and exaggerates things.

 

[RedFox88]

1. And, this trend should accelerate, as more and more small, compact and smaller cameras/Bodies/lenses (and, lets not forget camera phones) continue to advance technologically.

P&S and compact digital cameras are on their way out. Why pay $200 for a camera when your $100 phone has a 5MP (only 0.5MP needed for facebook) camera with flash, a personal organizer, internet, TV video, word processor, MP3 player, and you always have it with you?

Also most people college age or younger are almost always using their photos for just social networking sites which means very small web images. Less than 1MP needed and facebook won't take an image bigger than 604 pixels on the long side.

2. Why, heck, on his website, "18 November 2009, Wednesday", under "Go Shoot", KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

If you haven't heard about KR, he says something different every month or so. Before it was "only real photographers shoot film - it's the REAL raw". It's all eye catching headlines to grab your attention and you were stupid enough to believe it!

 

[toomanycanons]

A few comments:

1. Those who decry "carrying a big heavy dSLR kit" aren't necessarily saying they don't like their camera's output, they just don't like the weight and hassle. Try this: buy a lightweight camera body (like my D40 or an Olympus E-450), put on a lightweight zoom (like my D40's 18-55 at around 210 g), don't carry any other lenses or tripods or filters or such. It's a whole 'nother way of looking at carrying a "big heavy kit".

2. It's amusing the effect Ken Rockwell has on you all here at DPReview. It's like shouting "Bill Clinton" in a room full of Republicans. People's natural knee jerk reactions range from quiet seething to red-faced shouting. If you don't get KR, just don't say anything. It doesn't matter if you consider KR "wrong", really, it just doesn't matter.

3. I love taking out any camera I own (including my FZ50, my TZ5 and my Canon point and shoots) but I have to say that if it's really important that I be prepared to get some potentially great shots I'll take my Nikon D40/90 with an 18-135 lens on.

4. I love OVFs, I hate EVFs. I'll never understand why there are those who just can't wait till OVFs are not available anymore (not that I believe that, just that they hope that).

5. What else? Oh, yeah, I love reading Ken Rockwell's comments on anything. Carry on.

 

[Robert 55]

you've got a load of things to unload

anyway on his website a certain MR seems to be moving to MF for much of his expenditure
Of the R's I prefer M over K

BTW: your thread is now 15 hours running without you. Maybe time for some new thoughts?

KR, now says:

"I don't even use DSLRs anymore except in the studio. In the field, I use a point-and-shoot."

--
Robert
http://www.pbase.com/robert_michael