death of the dslr?

eNo said:

danbek said:

I think everyone can agree that a compact camera (SX110IS / SureShot85 sized), with APS-C sensor, and fixed 18-200 mm f/3.5-5.6 VR lens, priced in the $500-$1000 range, would go a long way towards destroying the consumer DSLR market. But just because that would be an awesome camera doesn't mean that it's physically possible to build it!

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can clarify how it would be physically impossible to build such a camera. Are the Leica M8 (APS-C) and M9 (FF) breaking the laws of Physics? No, they aren't cheap, but that doesn't mean that Nikon, Canon or Sony couldn't come up with something cheaper, especially if compromises of the sort made in a Sureshot type lens are made (built-in, limited aperture range, etc.).

eNo said:

Let me make a caveat that I don't know for dead sure that you couldn't make such a thing,

Click to expand...

Well, now you know.

Click to expand...

Sorry, by "fixed zoom" I meant a camera that has a built-in zoom, like the SureShot that you mentioned or the SX110IS - a point and shoot. That's what I'm talking about because that's the kind of camera that the author of the original article thinks will kill the DSLR.

Note also that the M9/M8 most certainly are not as compact as SureShot/SX110IS when you include the lens (actually the bodies are also a little larger, but the key point is that you still have to bring along a lens).

eNo said:

eNo said:

So let me turn it around ... why do you think they are buying them?Are my first three reasons enough? Are there reasons I'm missing? Are they being irrational, and would actually be better served by a high-end compact?

Click to expand...

They are buying them because they want a more capable P&S. Most of my friends and acquaintances that have jumped into DSLR, get a light camera that they exclusively use in full-Auto mode with the same lens. From where I'm standing, that's a DSLR P&S. I am not putting them down, because for their purposes, that is all they need or want. Give them a compact P&S with some of the advantages of a DSLR built-in, and they'll jump ship.

Click to expand...

That makes sense to me. So I guess the only thing we disagree on is whether the camera that lures them back away from the DSLR will be a point-and-shoot with large APS-C type sensor or something else.

mkryzan said:

There is of course a lot of ego/ prestige/ status stuff going on with owning a fancy DSLR and showing it off at your kids sports event or graduation or family gathering ...

Click to expand...

Maybe. But everyone that I know is only impressed by the camera AFTER they see the pictures that I can get (and they can't).

Yes and No.

It depends. If they would want smaller body then D40, then it would be exactly as you described. If they decide that D40 body size is OK (which I think is just right size) then NIKON could keep existing cam mount size and all DX lenses... including FX lenses as well.
That would make sense, since would not cause havoc in optical mfg.

Replacing mirror box (at first glance) ask for/gives possibility to make cam "narrower"... but that is not reason for getting rid of the mirror box. The main advantage would be much lower mfg cost for Nikon and better back lighted sensor incorporoated in existing body size, superior video (I don't care for) plus realy useful VF containing all needed information. Such cam would be far more advanced above D90 and in small light package.

I understand there may be and will be many different points of view on this subject. I don't try to start pxxxx'ng contest.

DSLRs will be around if not only for the Pros. But I can see a huge drop.. Why,

Price, when you can get a phone cam for free with a 2 year contract. When digital images start looking near dslr. When cheap PS cameras have advanced features like video and DSLRS do not.

So to me if DSLRs are going to be around, they will have to provide, better price, higher performance, more advanced features to justify thier extra bulk and more so thier existance.

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...

JMZ48 wrote:
.

JMZ48 said:

If they decide that D40 body size is OK (which I think is just right size) then NIKON could keep existing cam mount size and all DX lenses... including FX lenses as well.

Click to expand...

Without the mirror box the distance between lens mount and sensor is to short for DX and FX lenses, the lenses would need an adapter to get the right distance. (Just like it’s the case with 4/3 lenses on a micro 4/3 camera).

Such an adapter could be a good way to get people to the new system, but in the long run most users would want dedicated lenses for such a system.

larrytusaz said:

They had no idea about the advantages of having a viewfinder with regards to actually being able to see easily and ESPECIALLY the faster response time that resulted.

Click to expand...

What are the conceptual advantages of a viewfinder?

In the film days it was the ability to view through the lens compared to seeing something through a viewing window that suffered form parallax errors. This was/is a real conceptual advantage.

Now the only advantage is, that the live view screens aren’t responsive and fast enough and don’t have enough resolution and it’s only a matter of time these problems are solved.

larrytusaz said:

And my thinking is this--we're designing SLRs around THESE people?

Click to expand...

No, but if the camera manufacturers decide to offer those (beginners, p&sers…) people a camera that with the image quality and AF speed of a current dSLR many of those who bought a dSLR as p&s will buy the new camera system.

No, because removing the mirror reflex system of a camera doesn’t result in a p&s fully automatic camera.

larrytusaz said:

Sorry, but that offends me as someone that took the time to learn what f-stops, shutter-speeds, white balance, ISO, rule of 3rds, etc all were.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but f-stops, shutter speed, white balance, ISO and composition have nothing to do with the mirror reflex system of a dSLR.

There is no need for a SLR system to get a camera that offers control over all photographic aspects.

larrytusaz said:

If others can't step up and do the same, they deserve nothing but point & shoots.

Click to expand...

Honestly, most don’t want anything but a p&s - a simple to use camera that is capable of good image quality, but it must have a fast AF and be responsive.

Current p&s cameras with these tiny sensors don’t have good image quality (but they get closer), have slow AF and aren’t responsive.
That’s why some currently buy dSLRs.

Not realy. What you call "adapter" could be just build in to camera body - as is now. That means, ie the existing D40 body could be used as is with no change. Taking the mirror box out won't change anything. When picture is taken by D40 (or any other Dxx) the mirror is out of the way, so changing VF from mirror to other modern style won't matter and won't require changes in the body width.

Such change and adaptor would be needed only when camera width (thickness) is changed to slim line. For average person's hand it does not need to change at all. Sure, I'm not talking about flat (pocketable cam) slim cam with colapsable lenses.

JMZ48 said:

What you call "adapter" could be just build in to camera body - as is now.

Click to expand...

Sure, that would be possible. I just think that it’s not the best way to get backward compatibility.

An adapter (spacer ring) is a good solution to get backward compatibility with older lenses while offering optimized lenses for the shorter flange distance.

Building a camera with the same flange distance as current dSLR wouldn’t make the camera smaller/thiner. If the camera is the same size as current dSLR, why remove the SLR mechanism at all?

I think the main advantage of a camera system with interchangeable lenses without a SLR mechanism is the smaller/thiner size of the camera and lenses.

This has been coming for a long time. The Sony R1, were it full-frame, and did it have the means to change lenses without dust getting in, obviously is a superior machine, in principle. It is silent. It,s shutter lag for both manual and autofocus is a mere 0.007 seconds- 12 times as fast as a 5D markII, and 8 times as fast as a Nikon D700.

Except for the shutter there are no moving parts involved. No cost, no wear, nothing to go wrong. The mirror-box itself results in hugely overwrought grotesquely distorting and fiendishly heavy and expensive optics having to be developed to make up for its interference in the image path. Compare their size to Leica lenses and the mirror and its box are the reason why. The only reason.

I am still waiting for a FF Sony R2, as fast, with interchangeable lenses, the size of a Leica M9. This has been possible for at least as long as I can remember knowing that it is.

I'm not sure I understand why folks are lining up behind the argument that small cameras beyond Leicas cannot have reasonably large sensors.

The Canon Sureshot has been mentioned, but there were a score of "full-frame" 35mm compact cameras in film days: ones with zoom lenses such as the Olympus Stylus and Konica Lexio and ones with fixed focal length lenses, such as the Olympus XA, Rollei, and Minox cameras, and oddities such as the dual focal-length Canon 35/70 camera. These all featured high quality lenses - way above today's crop of digital P&S cameras, which were reasonably fast at f2.8+ that were not the size of a beer can.

So what happened? We went to compact cameras with sensors that were 1/10 or 1/20th the size of 35mm cameras, with horrendous low-light and high ASA performance and f4+ lenses. Three to five years ago, Fuji tried to make a go of promoting the benefits of a larger sensor, but petered out in the megapixel race. Personally, I think that most consumers did not care, overjoyed by the convenience of digital instant feedback and the prspect of unlimited shots.

Recently, we are seeing a rebirth of the larger sensor compact camera, with micro FourThirds and Panasonic's LX3 and Canon's S90/G11 at different ends of the price, quality, and size range. I'm certain that EVF technology will improve and the improved IQ will see these cameras take an increasing share of both the P&S and DSLR markets. I'm looking forward to a new generation of these cameras.