death of the dslr?

interesting article and perspective. (i didn't realize slr sales dipped so low in 97)
I think he is discounting the creative options you can only have with an slr

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php#more

Seems a bit biased to me..

Of course nobody will deny that these new types of mirrorless cameras will make some impact, I just cannot see the SLR become nearly dead.

Simply on price alone, a budget DSLR is far cheaper than cameras such as the EP-1

Once he makes the assumption "Given that owners aren't taking full advantage of their DLSRs...", he loses me. Yes, I'm sure many consumers don't end up buying a system (lenses, flashes, etc.) and use only the kit zoom. However, more than just consumers use DSLRs.

Perhaps the article should have instead been titled "Death of the Consumer DSLR Camera".

There are some pretty large leaps of logic, like:

binary_eye said:

The cameras lack optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders,

Click to expand...

That is like saying that people would not mind going back to manual transmissions because they used to use them before automatic became so popular!

The other big difference is that back int he day, slr came first, then p&s followed. Now, p&s came first and DSLR is following. This is backwards from the previous trend and micro 4/3rds will cause a dent, but death? Not a chance.

I'm hoping for the death of the EVF. Then no matter what new camera came out it'd have an OVF if any viewfinder at all. A guy can dream.

sno1man said:

interesting article and perspective. (i didn't realize slr sales dipped so low in 97)
I think he is discounting the creative options you can only have with an slr

http://www.gearlog.com/2009/10/death_of_the_dslr.php#more

Click to expand...

It's not bad, but pretty typical fair for a gadgetblog following photo equipment. The marketing is right, though, mirrorless cameras will eat into the lower market space for dSLR's, because your average D40/D60/D3000 user is really a compact camera user looking for better quality. The only thing stopping the advance is:

• the m4/3 manufactures themselves. None of the current cameras hit the mark completely and are too expensive for masss appeal.
• Canon and Nikon. Canon has one huge distribution channel, and if they don't want to make a mirrorless camera, then they won't and there won't be much shelf space left over.

sno1man said:

I think he is discounting the creative options you can only have with an slr

Click to expand...

What creative options are only possible with a SLR camera?

The SLR concept will turn into a niche market, just like rangefinder cameras. SLRs will dominate the pro market a bit longer, but eventually even there the concept of using a complicated mirror reflex system just to get a view through the lens will be dropped in favour of newer technologies.

Technology will advance and sooner or later live view will be good and fast enough to be a useful replacement for an optical viewfinder.

The biggest problem is probably the AF system, but with enough computational power in the camera even contrast detection could be very fast. Other solutions could be possible.

myzel said:

sno1man said:

I think he is discounting the creative options you can only have with an slr

Click to expand...

What creative options are only possible with a SLR camera?

The SLR concept will turn into a niche market, just like rangefinder cameras. SLRs will dominate the pro market a bit longer, but eventually even there the concept of using a complicated mirror reflex system just to get a view through the lens will be dropped in favour of newer technologies.

Technology will advance and sooner or later live view will be good and fast enough to be a useful replacement for an optical viewfinder.

The biggest problem is probably the AF system, but with enough computational power in the camera even contrast detection could be very fast. Other solutions could be possible.

Click to expand...

You are correct actually, i was thinking in terms of powershot vs d300. But as a friend that i shared the article pointed out with is Olympus Pen-E there really isnt anything you couldn't do with a dlsr that you could not do with one of those cameras.

I guess i'm old fashioned but I just greatly prefer a optical viewfinder for composing and framing, just dont care for evfs except for lookling at shots after I have taken them

sno1man said:

I guess i'm old fashioned but I just greatly prefer a optical viewfinder for composing and framing, just dont care for evfs except for lookling at shots after I have taken them

Click to expand...

Currently I prefer an optical viewfinder as it has some advantages over current electronic viewfinders.

The current electronic viewfinder are to slow, have to much lag and don’t offer the resolution I want.
All things that will probably solved in the next years.

But I remember a discussion with someone almost 10 years ago about the same topic. Maybe things are moving slower than I expect them to move

davidried said:

That is like saying that people would not mind going back to manual transmissions because they used to use them before automatic became so popular!

Click to expand...

In the US maybe.. Plenty of Old world countries still favour Manual Transmissions and know how to use them.. Automatics are seen; as being for those that can't drive!
--
My galleries at http://www.firestorm.smugmug.com
and
http://picasaweb.google.com/Barry.Humphries

It's not like all DSLR owners are going to suddenly rush out and buy a Leica MD-9 .

Regards,
Chris

Just prior to DSLR - we had the SLR, which had reached saturation point in terms of sales and people might update when a new model came out or when their SLR wore out - new models were fairly few and far between compared to today and there was not the pressure to constantly upgrade.

I think we are again moving towards a similar saturation point following (1) the switch to DSLR (2) new people coming to the hobby as there is more money around etc. sales will start to plateau in the west. Also, technically, the DSLR has come of age, so although we pixel peep in reviews, the truth is that most DSLR's are now very good, so there is less motivation to sell and buy the latest 'must have'.

I will not bore you with how many DSLR's I have owned but it verges on the embarassing, however, I now own a very competent D5000 and a couple of good lenses - I won't ask people to judge on my choice of camera but is shares the D90 sensor and has a respectable rate of frames per second, good auto focus etc ... my point is, despite my previous buying compulsion, I do not feel any need to change this camera anytime soon. It is more than adequate for my needs, some of which are quite demanding.

To me, the market feels like it is consolidating, with some of us perhaps choosing to go for more or better glass than constantly chasing new bodies.

anecdotally, it seems DSLRs were making a headway with the Canon Rebel series having quite a lot of impact until 2008/09 when consumer sales generally crashed ... disconcertingly I see many such cameras today with the users having little idea how to use them (many don't use the viewfinder! it's completely foreign to them!) and probably not overwhelmed by the results and not into expanding their investment ...

DSLRs are a niche market, and likely getting smaller and while the cost of electronics has come down and camera prices are OK, the cost of lenses is going up ....

this where smaller cameras like the Canon G10 or S5is (or whatever iteration they are up to by now) and other models from Nikon or Panasonic offer a compelling alternative ... AND these cameras do offer excellent quality of pictures under most circumstances ... frankly I have been amazed by what the samller cameras can do.

Nobody prefers the S5is (I think it's now an SX10 or something like that) EVF or how slowly it shoots , but sheer range of possiblities that camera offers is impressive ... I bet every DSLR owner owns a non-slr camera as well.

If anyone thinks that something like a G11 is as good (better term is useful) as a DSLR ..... then they clearly do not need a DSLR....... probably a fairly common situation.

It is only when you needs cannot be met by the limitations of a good compact that moving to a DSLR makes sense.

cdun46 said:

It's not like all DSLR owners are going to suddenly rush out and buy a Leica MD-9 .

Click to expand...

No, but if the camera manufacturers get it right a DX or FX sized sensor camera without a mirror and pentaprism could be the next* camera for many dSLR owners.

I don’t expect the change to happen over night, it will be a gradual transition just like the transition from film to digital.

*) or the next camera after the next dSLR

a digital rangefinder type with an APS size sensor, live view, viewfinder, video, interchangeable lenses, etc.

small size, light weight.

sure would kill at least the lower end of the dslr market along with part of the compact camera market.

--
John

That is right. Why should Cannon and Nikon undercut the branch they seat on?

They are technicaly ready to roll off the new mirror-less camera with large CMOS and existing lenses but they have no need to rush to it. First they will harvest DSLR as long as possible.... then switch to cheaper mirrorless design in a flash.

This is why NIKON is enlarging DX line of lenses and FX is falling far behind... by over (20) lenses...
See recent Tom Hogan's article about "Missing lenses redux":
http://www.bythom.com/MissingLenses2009.htm
Clearly visible trend.

I foresee future in "range finder" type camera with 1.5 crop back lighted sensor :
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09102701toshibabackilluminatedsensor.asp

Such cam will have new tech, hi qual color view finder, and will be equipped with full spectrum of DX lenses to choose from.

Hopefully somebody will engineer a transparent-enough image sensor so that an optical finder/AF system could be done without a mirror. That would be the best of both worlds.

davidried said:

davidried said:

The cameras lack optical viewfinders (OVF), and some analysts believe that the photo enthusiast would never be willing to forgo these, but this is a fallacy. Most new DSLR customers have been shooting for years with digital point-and-shoots that don't have optical viewfinders,

Click to expand...

That is like saying that people would not mind going back to manual transmissions because they used to use them before automatic became so popular!

The other big difference is that back int he day, slr came first, then p&s followed. Now, p&s came first and DSLR is following. This is backwards from the previous trend and micro 4/3rds will cause a dent, but death? Not a chance.

Click to expand...

Read the whole article. Gottesman points out that before the SLR, there were a whole slew of less-featured, fixed focus film cameras, the equivalent of digital P&S. His historical comparison forms the basis for a compelling argument. As someone who switched from a Canon SLR, a lowly T50, to a Sureshot some time around 1992, I certainly identify with Gottesman argument and think it makes a great deal of sense. No doubt his use of the word "death" is hyperbole-in-the-title to attract readership. But the overarching prediction that many consumers who have jumped into the low-entry DSLR market to achieve more quality will jump back to an APS-C or full frame Sureshot-like camera with built-in zoom lens when it becomes available is sound, and really, kind of obvious. That really will be too bad, because many will not enjoy the learning experience that comes with DSLRs. I've learned more about photography in the last 2 years of DSLR shooting than I ever did in the previous 20.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Rule of Thirds is meant to be broken, but only 1/3
of the time.



D80/D90 gallery: http://esfotoclix.com
Photo blog: http://esfotoclix.com/blog1

Aside from question of photographic purpose, I think he's wrong that it will be physically possible to put a DSLR-size sensor into a small point-and-shoot body. I posted the follow in the comments to the article:

sno1man said:

But I'm stating that point-and-shoot cameras with
DSLR-sized sensors are coming ...

Click to expand...

I'd like to question this premise.

Take as an example the SX110IS. Isn't the entire reason that they are able to put a 10x image stabilized zoom into such a small body the tiny sensor? It's not like you can just put an APS-C sensor in there and expect the optics to work.

In other words, isn't there a basic law here, which says that if you increase the size of the sensor, you must increase the size of the lens?