Can prosumer digicam make DSLR obsolete?

[andrew thow]

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

 

[Melanie Kipp]

Perhaps it's because they tend to be faster ( think sports shots ) and that you have better control of DOF, which is hard with our prosumer cameras.....

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

--
Please visit me at:
http://www.caughtintimephotography.com

 

[john farrar]

No, I don't think they can make the DSLR obsolete because the DSLR, just like the film SLR, is the preferred camera design for pros and semi-pros. The reasons given will be better control of depth of field, better abilities to capture action, and the ability to use a range of accessories including 'legacy' glass and lighting.

People who bought into prosumer cameras because DSLRS were too expensive are presently convincing themselves that the new breed of DSLRs are almost as good as the top notch models costing 4x as much and so there will be a migration by this class of purchaser away from the 'prosumer' cameras of today. And whether it will make them any better a photographer is a moot point.

However, just as was the case with film cameras, there are always going to be bridge cameras that do most of what the DSLR does but without the interchangeable lenses, and it is to these that many new photographers will come. Too, as the market matures, consumer cameras will improve steadily in the ways they handle noise and the reduction of picture-taking lag.

So we're going back to the old days again for a while as digital becomes the 'normal' or 'regular' method of taking photographs. Manufacturers know there's plenty of money to be spent in the bank accounts of all those who read the glossy ads in the camera magazines.

Beyond digital, perhaps Holography and another cycle of buying over-expensive technologly will roll into view and become the must-have photo equipment of tomorrow.
John.
======

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

I'd bet for "other way around". DSLR's have a few major advantages:

+ AF speed. Contrast-detection AF might never match phase-detection in speed an accuracy.

+ Flexibility. You can tailor the camera to make the trade-offs that suit your photography, instead of going with the somewhat lowest-common-denominator trade-offs the manufacturer has chosen. For example, I'd rather have a bright, high-quality "normal" prime than a darker, lower-quality wide-range zoom.

+ Noise, sensitivity, depth of field control. These are all related to sensor size. A large-sensor ZLEV would be totally feasible, if they manage to produce a sensor that can be sampled fast enough for live preview, but currently all ZLEV's have small sensors with more noise, lower sensitivity, and way too much depth of field for many purposes.

+ Viewfinder. EVF's are improving, but they still have a long way to go in resolution and refresh rates to match the immediacy of a good TTL OVF... for some applications (such as situational and action photography) at least.

I currently own a D7i and some film gear, and am seriously considering the plunge into DSLR territory. These are some of my reasons.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[Lin Evans]

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

Just as in the 35mm film world there are SLR's and Compacts, there is a substantial market for both in the digital world.

The dSLR has all the obvious advantages enumerated here on these threads, but the major disadvantages concern size and weight. For a professional photographer, the size/weight factor is just something we have to endure to get those special shots. For the non-professional who just wants a great photo scrapbook of a holiday/vacation, hauling around 10 or 12 pounds of camera gear can quickly become a major obstacle to enjoying the experience.

The great quality available with the upper end prosumer cameras is a great boon to the tourist market. Most casual users of compact 35mm film cameras never print larger than 5x7 or so, and neither do users of prosumer grade digicams. The important thing is that the potential with both is there to print up to 8x10 if desired, and still get excellent results with a camera which can fit into a pocket or purse and with digital, it's possible to take literally thousands of photos with no more than a few high capacity CF cards. The only down side being the necessity to recharge a couple sets of batteries overnight. With film, to get a similar quantity would require a rather large storage capacity just to carry the film while awaiting processing.

I don't see one or the other becoming more dominant, but that they will continue to sell in equivalent ratios to SLR versus Compact film cameras. There is absolutely a place for each and an excellent market in the future for improved versions of both.

Lin
--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Lin Evans wrote:
[snip]

Just as in the 35mm film world there are SLR's and Compacts, there
is a substantial market for both in the digital world.

I'm not so sure that the market for ZLR's (the closest analogue to "prosumers") is very substantial. I've no doubt about the future of compacts and super-compacts, but I think we may be near the end of the golden era of the ZLEV -- zoom lens electronic viewfinder. They may retreat into the rather small niche occupied by film ZLR's.

The dSLR has all the obvious advantages enumerated here on these
threads, but the major disadvantages concern size and weight. For a
professional photographer, the size/weight factor is just something
we have to endure to get those special shots. For the
non-professional who just wants a great photo scrapbook of a
holiday/vacation, hauling around 10 or 12 pounds of camera gear can
quickly become a major obstacle to enjoying the experience.

True enough. Still, an SLR with a well-chosen lens doesn't weigh 12 pounds. More like 2.

[snip]

I don't see one or the other becoming more dominant, but that they
will continue to sell in equivalent ratios to SLR versus Compact
film cameras. There is absolutely a place for each and an excellent
market in the future for improved versions of both.

Both compacts and SLR's, I agree... but where do the big-zoom "prosumers" fit in?

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[Lin Evans]

Just as in the 35mm film world there are SLR's and Compacts, there
is a substantial market for both in the digital world.

I'm not so sure that the market for ZLR's (the closest analogue to
"prosumers") is very substantial. I've no doubt about the future of
compacts and super-compacts, but I think we may be near the end of
the golden era of the ZLEV -- zoom lens electronic viewfinder. They
may retreat into the rather small niche occupied by film ZLR's.

The dSLR has all the obvious advantages enumerated here on these
threads, but the major disadvantages concern size and weight. For a
professional photographer, the size/weight factor is just something
we have to endure to get those special shots. For the
non-professional who just wants a great photo scrapbook of a
holiday/vacation, hauling around 10 or 12 pounds of camera gear can
quickly become a major obstacle to enjoying the experience.

True enough. Still, an SLR with a well-chosen lens doesn't weigh 12
pounds. More like 2.

[snip]

I don't see one or the other becoming more dominant, but that they
will continue to sell in equivalent ratios to SLR versus Compact
film cameras. There is absolutely a place for each and an excellent
market in the future for improved versions of both.

Both compacts and SLR's, I agree... but where do the big-zoom
"prosumers" fit in?

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

Hi Petteri,

The size weight thing will vary a great deal, but to get similar performance in terms of overall focal length to what can be done on a pocket size prosumer, I can't get by with less than 10 or 12 pounds myself.

Let me give you an example. I shoot a variety of dSLR's professionally (EOS-1D, DCS-760, D30 and a 1Ds and 10D on order). The lightest of these would probably be the D30/10D - so to have the battery life similar to my Sony F717, I have a vertical grip. Then to get a decent wide angle, I must have at least one wide angle lens to overcome the 1.3 to 1.6 (camera dependent) crop factor. To get the equivalent in focal length of my Nikon CP4500 with Eagle Eye OpticZoom 5x, I need to carry a 100-400 plus a 1.4x tele. For the mid range, I carry a 28-105. That makes three lenses and a 1.4x tele converter. Then there is the rather larger battery charger and cables, the extra batteries and other peripherals. Typically, if I use a really compact bag, I'm right at 10 pounds. If I throw in my 70-200 F2.8, I'm about 12 pounds. We haven't even discussed macro.....

Would it be "possible" to substitute lighter lenses, etc., for this combination? Possibly - but then I sacrifice the very thing that the sDLR is being used for - superior quality and versatility.

For a similar focal length range - (actually better) - with my Nikon CP4500, I have simply the camera, an Xtend-a-View, a small 5x and a 1.7x tele and a tiny battery charger. With this combination I get everything from about 8x macro to about 1300mm in focal length range. Total weight? Way under 2 pounds and fits in a very compact camera case.

Sure, many people would never think of taking a 70-200 and 100-400 lens and perhaps a 100mm macro with them on a trip - but I wouldn't leave home without them because I don't want to miss an opportunity for a once in a lifetime shot simply because I didn't have the necessary equipment along.

I suspect that there are many who just don't' want to have the bulk, and this is probably why the compact digicams are doing so well. Obviously price plays an important role here, but as time goes on, price differentials between dSLR's and compact digicams will close dramatically.

Best regards,

Lin

--
http://208.56.82.71

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Lin Evans wrote:
[snip]

The size weight thing will vary a great deal, but to get similar
performance in terms of overall focal length to what can be done on
a pocket size prosumer, I can't get by with less than 10 or 12
pounds myself.

Oh, I've no doubt about that. My point is... do you need all the range of focal length? OK, being a pro and shooting assignments, you probably do -- but then, do you need to pack all of it on every shoot?

I'm a fairly experienced and pretty enthusiastic amateur (about 20 years of film under my belt), and very much in the "prosumer digital" or "semi-pro (film) SLR" market segment.

Since I shoot pictures for my own pleasure, I get to pick the kinds of pictures I shoot. I've found that there are three focal lengths I really enjoy: 50 mm, 28 mm, and 85 mm. Or thereabouts. The rest I can dispense with. I take better pictures with primes than with zooms, and I'm not talking about image quality: they make me frame with greater care and put more thoughts into the pictures (if I have the time), and let me seize the moment more spontaneously without the added distraction of the zoom position to consider. Bottom line: I have more fun and the pictures turn out better and more interesting. Furthermore, zooms just don't offer the available-light flexibility I want.

[snip inventory]

Would it be "possible" to substitute lighter lenses, etc., for this
combination? Possibly - but then I sacrifice the very thing that
the sDLR is being used for - superior quality and versatility.

Or would it be possible to pack a few much lighter primes and modify your shooting style to match? I'd say... possibly.

For a similar focal length range - (actually better) - with my
Nikon CP4500, I have simply the camera, an Xtend-a-View, a small 5x
and a 1.7x tele and a tiny battery charger. With this combination I
get everything from about 8x macro to about 1300mm in focal length
range. Total weight? Way under 2 pounds and fits in a very compact
camera case.

Yep, same goes for my D7i, too.

However... the last time I went traveling, to Lebanon, I packed both my D7i and my AE-1 w. 50 mm. I found myself picking up the AE-1 more often than the D7i, and unsurprisingly most of my favorite pictures from that trip came from it. Sure, the D7i has more zoom range flexibility, but the AE-1 has more Ev and DoF flexibility -- and given a choice, I'd rather have the latter.

IOW, I think it's a bit fallacious to insist that a "fair" comparison between a DSLR and a prosumer covers the same zoom range. Zoom range is a known strong point of prosumer digicams. By giving up some of it, you gain a lot in other departments -- image quality, Ev flexibility, available-light performance, DoF control. Trade-offs, you know. Always trade-offs.

Sure, many people would never think of taking a 70-200 and 100-400
lens and perhaps a 100mm macro with them on a trip - but I wouldn't
leave home without them because I don't want to miss an opportunity
for a once in a lifetime shot simply because I didn't have the
necessary equipment along.

It's funny, but I "see" things differently depending on what kind of camera I have on me. For example, I'd never have considered taking this picture if I'd been packing the D7i (too much dynamic range and timing too critical):



...and I'd never have considered this one, if I'd been packing the AE-1 (too difficult lighting to meter correctly for my skills; not wide enough):



Both are among my favorites from last year... and I wouldn't even have been conscious of missing them if I hadn't had that particular camera with me. Being a pro, you probably see photographs much more easily than I do, but for me, having one type of camera with me limits the field to something I can handle more easily.

I suspect that there are many who just don't' want to have the
bulk, and this is probably why the compact digicams are doing so
well. Obviously price plays an important role here, but as time
goes on, price differentials between dSLR's and compact digicams
will close dramatically.

Yep. However, I think that the same thing is going to happen to digital as happened to film: we have compacts and sub-compacts to the left, at all prices and qualities, SLR's to the right, also at all prices and qualities -- with specialty cameras like ZLR's, MF, view cameras, and rangefinders living in their own little niches.

Most snapshooters will want something pocketable, and most serious amateurs or professionals will want something that performs like a true SLR. I think.

Cheers,

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[andrew thow]

From a marketing point of view, there is no way in hell that makers would butcher their DSLR market by having comparable prosumer cameras. As DSLR remains a highly lucrative, high margin market.

Therefore, currently the most innovative maker of prosumer cameras still is Sony. In terms of features, are there any DSLRs that can match the 717???

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

I'd bet for "other way around". DSLR's have a few major advantages:

+ AF speed. Contrast-detection AF might never match phase-detection
in speed an accuracy.

+ Flexibility. You can tailor the camera to make the trade-offs
that suit your photography, instead of going with the somewhat
lowest-common-denominator trade-offs the manufacturer has chosen.
For example, I'd rather have a bright, high-quality "normal" prime
than a darker, lower-quality wide-range zoom.

+ Noise, sensitivity, depth of field control. These are all related
to sensor size. A large-sensor ZLEV would be totally feasible, if
they manage to produce a sensor that can be sampled fast enough for
live preview, but currently all ZLEV's have small sensors with more
noise, lower sensitivity, and way too much depth of field for many
purposes.

+ Viewfinder. EVF's are improving, but they still have a long way
to go in resolution and refresh rates to match the immediacy of a
good TTL OVF... for some applications (such as situational and
action photography) at least.

I currently own a D7i and some film gear, and am seriously
considering the plunge into DSLR territory. These are some of my
reasons.

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[Jeff Smith]

Is it possible that the niche for high end digicams with zooms with be bigger than the ZLR film niche because many who would never have considered the ZLR in lieu of their SLR film camera have now owned and liked the digital equivalent?

I am sure there are many SLR film users who, like me, bought their first all-in-one zoom digital camera because the DSLRs were too expensive. Now that the DSLR is getting closer to my price range, I find myself questioning whether that is what I need. I have gotten great photos with my Olympus C2100. If I could get a 5 megapixel version of the C2100 with higher ISO and acceptable noise level, I suspect I would have everything I need for a price of a 38-380 f 2.8 image stabilized lense for a DSLR.

 

[slipe]

There are some definite advantages that the prosumer camera can exploit. Sony has demonstrated that you can put an f2 lens on a 6X zoom at reasonable cost and Minolta that you can put a versatile 28-200 on one. I think Jeff brings up one of the great possibilities and that is of a 10 or 12X stabilized zoom. Unfortunately Olympus seems to have dropped the idea after their excellent 2Mp camera.

DLSRs might be getting cheaper but the lenses aren’t. If you are willing to spend the money and carry a bag full of lenses you can duplicate the versatility of the prosumer camera and get better quality. But as the prosumer cameras improve they could draw some of the clientele from the DLSRs. I don’t think they will ever be as good, but they are getting very appealing.

Now if we could only get Oly to revisit the stabilized long lens.

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

Is it possible that the niche for high end digicams with zooms with
be bigger than the ZLR film niche because many who would never have
considered the ZLR in lieu of their SLR film camera have now owned
and liked the digital equivalent?

Could very well be. I hadn't really considered that point. OTOH I'm not very hip to the kind of people who currently own SLR's either -- I noticed that some of them are really cheap compared to what they were last time I was shopping for one, and some even lack what (to me) are basic photographic controls. If these are the ones that sell the best, it's probably true that the people buying them might easily want to go for a ZLR instead.

[snip example from life]

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[Petteri Sulonen]

From a marketing point of view, there is no way in hell that makers
would butcher their DSLR market by having comparable prosumer
cameras. As DSLR remains a highly lucrative, high margin market.

True enough. I think that's why Canon never updated the Pro90, and Nikon dumbed down the CP5700 in several subtle but significant ways. And Fuji's positioned its S602Z well below the DSLR market too, although IMO it's a lot of camera for the price.

Therefore, currently the most innovative maker of prosumer cameras
still is Sony. In terms of features, are there any DSLRs that can
match the 717???

Minolta isn't doing too badly either. Their D7 line is a very solid piece of work, and highly innovative in its way (although designed for a very different kind of photographer).

Petteri
--
http://www.seittipaja.fi/index/

 

[BobTrips]

Now if we could only get Oly to revisit the stabilized long lens.

I'm not sure that we should look to Oly/Canon/Nikon/Fuji or other real/potential dSLR manufacturers to produce the 5-6 meg, long zoom, IS camera that so many of us desire. As pointed out above that may provide too much competition for their more expensive models.

Perhaps the product that so many of us Pro90/UZI fans want will come from some company such as Toshiba. They've made a stab with their 12x IS 2 meg camera - not a great product, but a beginning.

--
bob
http://www.pbase.com/bobtrips
http://www.trekearth.com
pictures from a bunch of places (esp. SEA and Nepal)

 

[Jimmy Chen]

Therefore, currently the most innovative maker of prosumer cameras
still is Sony. In terms of features, are there any DSLRs that can
match the 717???

But the question is, when you want a camera to take photos, are you looking for extra features such as movies, or the ability to take the best image you can?

For an example I need to take lifesize or larger marcos, its hard for me to do that with my F707. So all the built in features is not going to help me on this. This is not an issue with DSLRs that do not have as many features as the F717.

DSLR has that one advantage fixed lens camera cannot offer and it is reason enough for many.

--
jc
Sony F707
http://www.reeftec.com/gallery

 

[keith]

What happened in the film market?

Various manufacturers bought out reduced fromat film (remember 110, disc etc, even APS ) but these basically suffered from the resolution limitations of the film so no-one developed decent cameras and lenses for them , and the market stayed with SLRs - plus , for the masses, a single wide to tele zoom - probably of dubious quality.

And many interested anateurs have stayed with this format - probably with mid range SLR's and a pair of half decent zooms.

What many do not realise is that the small sensor "procumer" like the 717, 7i etc, can produce stunning quality - certainly 8*10 and bigger with no real problems (IMO BETTER that most 35mm). - within their limitations.
So what are the limitations?

no real WA or tele - but most amateurs don't have / cant afford them anyway.

Noisy at high ISO - yes - but so is film, and the advantage of changing ISO on the fly is vast - the alternative of changing film just doesn't happen.

DOF problems - probably the most annoying as one tries to get mote "artistic".

Can't take slides - which is important to some people who want to project and don't want to buy a digital projector as well.

Advantages? - live preview and histogram - a facntastic advance IMO

real time feedback - has certainly improved my photography and made it more interesting.

It's my view that most 35mm users - even reasonably ones could replace their 35 mm cameras with one of these and not notice, except that they might take better pictures.

That should stir things up a bit.

Keith

 

[Gediminas 8]

Perhaps the product that so many of us Pro90/UZI fans want will
come from some company such as Toshiba. They've made a stab with
their 12x IS 2 meg camera -

Did you mean Panasonic?

 

[Derek Clarke]

I don't see electronic displays beating optical ones any time soon, when all they do is replace a mirror flip with an even more distracting image freeze.

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

--
Derek

 

[Iku Kawachi]

If you meant the DMC-FZ1, please don't mix up Panasonic and Toshiba... where Panasonic actually has a meaningful partnership with Leica, Toshiba sells some of the worst digital cameras out there. They used to be a lot more competitive, back in the early days of consumer digital photography...

The DMC-FZ1 is great, but the "brick" shape of the body and its generally miniscule size sorta defeats the use of the IS. On the other hand, it was actually fairly pleasant to hold... the 2 megapixel resolution is a bit subpar for today's standards.

On a further note, I daresay Panasonic has no idea where the rest of the market is in terms of resolution. They sell an exclusive audio player/digital camera/"short" digital video camera in Japan for about 45,000 yen ($380), but it only takes VGA!

Perhaps the product that so many of us Pro90/UZI fans want will
come from some company such as Toshiba. They've made a stab with
their 12x IS 2 meg camera -

Did you mean Panasonic?

--

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?photographersearch=Iku%20Kawachi&distinct_entry=true

 

[keith]

If that was all they did the I would probably agree.

They do have advantages though = low light working, live preview/histogram, no mechanical bits to break/wear out.

They are not perfect, but they are good enough 90% of the time, bettter that optical 10 % of the time and worse 10% (accuracy was never my strong point)
keith

Or is it the other way around? Cheap DSLR like the *ist-D or 10D
eating into the market of prosumer camera like S602Z or CP5700 or
D7Hi???

Wat's is it that make DSLR still so desirable in the age of EVF and
LCDs image composing? I understand that the DSLR cannot do this due
to its inherent design of the flipping mirror.

--
Derek