Did DSLR died or the manufacturers killed it.

[JohnSil]

They still make dslr’s.

Yes they do and at the entry level they are still competitive.

Canon DID just come out with that inexpensive EOS R100. At $500 for the kit, I think that's Canon's wake-up call that it's dslr's will soon be gone!!!

John

 

[tonybelding]

I'm planning to keep my Pentax DSLRs around. I was actually thinking of picking up some new lenses for them.

I was an early convert and advocate for the EVF. Lately I've backed up just a little. Outdoors in bright sunlight, a typical EVF is. . . workable, usable, but under the same conditions the view through a pentaprism is a thing of beauty.

Many EVFs, even newer cameras, are not great. Instead of continuing to push the technology forward, camera makers seem to have decided on "good enough" EVFs.

The best EVF that I've had is on a Panasonic Lumix S1R that I recently picked up. It's a thing of beauty. But. . . The S1R is a big, heavy camera, and the battery life is nothing special despite having a large battery. It's almost like carrying around a cinder block on a strap, close to double the weight of my little Pentax K-S1.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

So why the two big manufacturers never realized the hurdle of the mirror flap in so many years.

Canon and Nikon had to serve their huge user bases that were DSLR based. Sony had no such constraints. And both have produced excellent ML products that not only more than compete with Sony, but also allowed their customer base to keep and used their current lenses.

True for Canon, but Sony did a far better job of allowing people to use their old SLR lenses than Nikon did. And I say this as a long-time Nikon user.

Truth is my EF lenses work better on my R5 than they ever did an on a DSLR.

Not disagreeing. Canon did an excellent job of preserving backwards compatibility.

 

[shawn in ak]

Did 35mm film slrs die or did the manufacturers kill it?

Whatever happened to Betamax? HDDVR? Plasma televisions?

Audio casettes?

When sales dropped because of new technology manufacturers killed them.

Not in US prisons apparently, which is why the equipment exists for the (small) resurgence in tape sales. Plus artists make very little money from streaming (rental) , whereas they do make money from physical product sales - hence why artists like Taylor Swift are producing music on these supposedly dead formats ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_(Taylor's_Version)#Release )

This is why the idea that DSLRs can survive as niche needs examining. It needs a US prison equivalent to keep it going if there is to be a future resurgence. Otherwise there will be no ability to regenerate the technology.

Cars without seatbelts?

It became illegal to sell new cars without them.

My friend released his music on cassette because its getting harder and harder for small artists to compete with the big ones in terms of pressing vinyl. There aren't a ton of plants that produce vinyl. It's not just for prisons....my local record stores have cassettes.

I dunno, I wouldn't count the SLR out long term. Cassettes and vinyl records are hardly dead even if they are an older technology. People want physical mediums and objects that respond to the senses. Older camera tech can play well with people's photographic processes. IMO I'd like to see Nikon at least continue to release limited DSLR cameras. They can use Ricoh's workshop approach with Pentax. I call attention to Nikon because the F-Mount is extremely long lived and of particular high quality.

As far as the question goes, ya gotta have something new for sale if you want a lot of sales. Nikon hasn't released a new DSLR since 2020, and their 2020 DSLRs (D780 and D6) were hardly a good test with the pandemic looming over them and not much promotion on Nikon's part. At some point the argument that DSLRs aren't selling is a self-fulfilling prophecy if new models aren't coming out to at least test the waters.

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Please share your views in favor or against the title, as the case may be.

Technology marches forward. No more picture tube TVs either, nor dial-up internet access, or stand-alone PDAs

The players have shifted, but there's still an enormous PDA market for medical, industrial, and commercial use. They often have features to support those industries, like built-in barcode and RFID readers, optional pistol-grips, etc. Honeywell and Datalogic are the big players. Zebra Technologies, Seuic, and AMobile have also carved out niches. Some Chinese players offer low-cost clones of popular Honeywell and Datalogic devices.

Turns out PDAs are useful. DSLRs, maybe not so much...

 

[Overrank]

Did 35mm film slrs die or did the manufacturers kill it?

Whatever happened to Betamax? HDDVR? Plasma televisions?

Audio casettes?

When sales dropped because of new technology manufacturers killed them.

Not in US prisons apparently, which is why the equipment exists for the (small) resurgence in tape sales. Plus artists make very little money from streaming (rental) , whereas they do make money from physical product sales - hence why artists like Taylor Swift are producing music on these supposedly dead formats ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_(Taylor's_Version)#Release )

This is why the idea that DSLRs can survive as niche needs examining. It needs a US prison equivalent to keep it going if there is to be a future resurgence. Otherwise there will be no ability to regenerate the technology.

Cars without seatbelts?

It became illegal to sell new cars without them.

My friend released his music on cassette because it’s getting harder and harder for small artists to compete with the big ones in terms of pressing vinyl. There aren't a ton of plants that produce vinyl. It's not just for prisons....my local record stores have cassettes.

Yes, I though that might get mis-read. Apparently the only reason that there are plants that can still make cassette shells is that for around 10 years (something like 2005-2015) the cassette was the only music format allowed in US prisons, because it was believed CDs could be used as weapons. Since then they've expanded outside the US penal system !

Currently pre-recorded cassettes are having a renaissance for reasons like you’ve mentioned, and because people want a physical thing. The same is true for the big increase in LP sales, film cameras etc - the possession of something real. It’s why if you were to take a DSLR/MILC to a party no-one would want to know, but take an Instax and you’re everyone’s friend. I’m not convinced that there is sufficient difference long term between DSLRs and MILCs for DSLRs to make a comeback, once they’re gone, they’re gone.

I dunno, I wouldn't count the SLR out long term. Cassettes and vinyl records are hardly dead even if they are an older technology. People want physical mediums and objects that respond to the senses. Older camera tech can play well with people's photographic processes. IMO I'd like to see Nikon at least continue to release limited DSLR cameras. They can use Ricoh's workshop approach with Pentax. I call attention to Nikon because the F-Mount is extremely long lived and of particular high quality.

As far as the question goes, ya gotta have something for sale if you want sales. Nikon hasn't released a new DSLR for 2020, and their 2020 DSLRs (D780 and D6) were hardly a good test with the pandemic looming over them. At some point the argument that DSLRs aren't selling is a self-fulfilling prophecy if new models aren't coming out to at least test the waters.

 

[FrancoD]

" but Sony had bought then ditched the Minolta brand, then screwed over all the A-mount users, so not exactly a great way to treat loyal customers."

similar comments were made about Canon when it dropped the FD mount (1971-1990) to move to the EF type.

Some are still bitter about it now however with that move Canon became N1 having almost half of the ILC market for over 25 years.

Sony when it tookover the Minolta A system aimed to get 10% of that market, Minolta had less than that...

It is now N2 with about 24% of the total market.

BTW, Minolta A mount 1985 -2005

Sony A mount 2006-2016

so it was a 30 year old mount when discontinued...

(BTW, I use the Sony A mount)

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

Please share your views in favor or against the title, as the case may be.

SLRs died. Much the same way rangefinders died.

Remember, the first popular compact film cameras were rangefinders or fixed focus "point and shoots". The SLR was originally a solution to a few exotic applications.

Rangefinders didn't work well with long lenses. They didn't work well closeup, and were essentially useless for macro. Leica had a very broad rangefinder lineup, including accessories like the Viseoflex, which was essentially an SLR viewing system that sat between the camera and a long telephoto lens or macro lens.

The first SLRs were awkward. The finder went black after you shot, and stayed black until the next time you cocked the shutter. The SLR that popularized the instant return mirror, the "Asahiflex" that later became "Pentax" didn't appear until 1954.

• Mirror vibration and noise in early models was horrendous.
• They were heavy.
• Flash sync speeds were terrible, like 1/30 sec.
• The finders were dim, and the focus aids were terrible.
• They forced compromises in wide and normal lens designs.

People shot them because they were enablers for certain types of photography, but they sure didn't want them.

The EVIL (aka "mirrorless") solved a lot of the tradeoffs of the SLR, and gave people back the things the SLR took away from the shooting experience. Yes, the first EVIL cameras were crude, but so where the first SLRs, and so were the first rangefinders.

SLRs had hit many walls. Flash sync speeds were about as good as they'd ever get. We were pretty much at the limits of technology for shooting speed. Finders still sucked.

Because the EVIL camera is so much a computer, it's benefiting from the rapid advancements in computer technology.

• Flash sync speed went 1/30 sec on slow rolling shutters, to 1/250 sec on cameras with enough speed for a very fast roll like Nikon Z9, to 1/1000 sec on global shutter cameras like the Sony A9 III.
• AF zones cover the entire screen, not the 1/4 to 1/9 of the screen area like a DSLR.
• Finders got more and more versatile. I recently observed that the Nikon Z9/Z8 had the equivalent of every interchangeable finder offered for the Nikon F3, F4, F5 "system" SLRs built in. Reduced magnification "high eyepoint" or "sports" finders. Magnifying "chimney" finders. Waistlevel finders.
• Finder latency gets better every year, and we're seeing "blackout free" finders like Z9 now.
• Then there's little things, like being able to compose in B&W, 100% viewfinder coverage even on entry level cameras, etc.

They just keep getting better.

 

[GeoffRG]

It is pertinent to remind everybody that in February 2024 there are more DSLR cameras in use than mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and more native lenses that can be used with them. How much longer that will be the case remains to be seen.

 

[Mackiesback]

It is pertinent to remind everybody that in February 2024 there are more DSLR cameras in use than mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and more native lenses that can be used with them. How much longer that will be the case remains to be seen.

"in use"

I think you mean "been sold".

 

[egk4260]

It is pertinent to remind everybody that in February 2024 there are more DSLR cameras in use than mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and more native lenses that can be used with them. How much longer that will be the case remains to be seen.

I got a closet full of them. Problem is the manufactures don’t care what I have in the closet. They care about what I have on the way. And even that might not matter. Think of poor Ricoh/Pentax making noise about a new camera for a couple years before finally releasing it a couple years back, by which time the market and competition they saw when planning and talking philosophy was rapidly disappearing. Looking at my empty cart for the past several years it appears I have contributed to the current state of DSLR market.

 

[JohnSil]

I'm planning to keep my Pentax DSLRs around. I was actually thinking of picking up some new lenses for them.

I was an early convert and advocate for the EVF. Lately I've backed up just a little. Outdoors in bright sunlight, a typical EVF is. . . workable, usable, but under the same conditions the view through a pentaprism is a thing of beauty.

Many EVFs, even newer cameras, are not great. Instead of continuing to push the technology forward, camera makers seem to have decided on "good enough" EVFs.

The best EVF that I've had is on a Panasonic Lumix S1R that I recently picked up. It's a thing of beauty. But. . . The S1R is a big, heavy camera, and the battery life is nothing special despite having a large battery. It's almost like carrying around a cinder block on a strap, close to double the weight of my little Pentax K-S1.

Maybe I'm not very discerning but I can't tell the difference between my R5 EVF and my 1Dx's OPV!

There was so much animosity toward EVF when they first started to come out. I'm talking all $3000+ cameras, I was expecying this horrible EVF experience when I bought my Canon R5. I really simply could not see a differance and used my R5 and 5Ds side by side in all weathers and lighting conditions.

Personally I feel the argument against EVF is a non-starter! Mostly a lot of noise by those that have never used one! Sure EVF's do things they're designed to do like get brighter oe darker or show focus peaking etc but that can probably all be turned off.

Even to say one EVF is way better than another, I'd have to see that for myself eventhough I've only used one.

John

 

[joseph_AU]

Please share your views in favor or against the title, as the case may be.

Without pressure from Olympus, Panasonic & Sony, Canon & Nikon would be pumping out far more DSLRs than they are today. They simply had to move with the times. The market leaders took their sweet time, but eventually released the Nikon 1 and EOS M systems. Both have been abandoned in favour of their 'real' mirrorless systems without the intentional compromises of these 'interim' systems. Nikon suffered with quality issues and there were more lens errors than you could count. They actually slid from number 2 player to number 3, behind Sony.

When Olympus and Panasonic were making ML cameras, Nikon and Canon said "that's cute". When Sony realized that to beat Nikon and Canon they had to flip the script and produce FF ML cameras, Nikon and Canon said "Uh oh". Of converse it was not overnight, sales figures had to support Sony, and they did.

I am not a Sony guy by any means, but I think their commitment to FF ML designs are really the game changer in this transition. I have to give them credit of that. My Nikons are better for it.

Well said. Yes, Sony was (and still is) the big threat. It's quite amazing how aggressively they just went for it.

 

[joseph_AU]

Nikon and Canon were slower to the market for a different reason: they had HUGE user bases that they had to deal with. Sony simply abandoned their already dying Alpha DSLR line. So their transition was more complicated than the other makers. And the improvements in AF are reason enough to move to mirrorless. And no MFA, either.

Agree.

 

[MarkInSF]

Mirrorless was going to inevitably pass them in sales and capability, and benefit from a new lens standard, so the DSLR was doomed. Camera sales have been declining for years, and continuing to invest in a dying market segment was not something camera makers could afford.

 

[dmanthree]

It is pertinent to remind everybody that in February 2024 there are more DSLR cameras in use than mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras and more native lenses that can be used with them. How much longer that will be the case remains to be seen.

"in use"

I think you mean "been sold".

No, I think "in use" is the correct term, unless you're referring to all-time historical data. But annual? Mirrorless has taken over.

 

[FrancoD]

Customers killed them. The sales figures prove it.

Yes, if the customers had not liked the idea , they would have failed.

At some point there was a huge push from some manufacturers for 3 D TV. People did not buy them, they went away.

Then curved screens were going to take over, same thing.

 

[Trevor Sowers]

No manufacturer would kill a product that would bring them money. Mirrorless just makes more money because it's better.

Incorrect. Mirrorless makes more money because it gave manufacturers the opportunity to sell you an entire new system!!!!!

DSLR's are a mature product and it's hard to give you a reason to upgrade or buy a new one. Then out comes mirroless and now you need a new camera and new lenses.

Marketing man

 

[FrancoD]

No manufacturer would kill a product that would bring them money. Mirrorless just makes more money because it's better.

Incorrect. Mirrorless makes more money because it gave manufacturers the opportunity to sell you an entire new system!!!!!

DSLR's are a mature product and it's hard to give you a reason to upgrade or buy a new one. Then out comes mirroless and now you need a new camera and new lenses.

Marketing man

the fact remains that nobody forced anyone to buy into mirrorless.

Mirrorless struggled for a few years particularly when not supported by Canon and Nikon.

So why did those two switch to mirrorless too ? Because they saw that more and more customers were buying into it and also saw the advantages that mirrorless does offer.

( I don't have a mirrorless camera...).

 

[Ruby Rod]

Remember, it took a while for EVF quality to get where it is today Anybody who doesn't believe me should have a look at the EVF in my old 2004 Panasonic FZ-20! I made some good images with it, but it was close to painful compared to my SLRs.

Speaking of everybody's beloved SLRs, 35mm film was a horrible format. Pros mostly used it on location, but there's a reason fashion and other things were shot on 2 1/4 on up, if at all possible. This becomes obvious when you start scanning older images; the bar has been raised far beyond the best of the old 35 mm film cameras.