Consumer DSLR's dead in 5 years

Started Oct 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
hindesite Senior Member • Posts: 2,709
Re: What changed...

Mike_PEAT wrote:

hindesite wrote:

That sounds reasonable, but ignores two major factors that concurrently developed with digital sales. Sure, people did keep their cameras for years (or decades), but why? What changed?

In the old days people would change their FILM, there was no need to change a camera. Today the "film" is part of the camera...if you weren't happy with the "film", or are interested in a new "film" that was released, you have to change your entire camera.

Yes, and guess what? you had to pretty much figure out which film to use and how to use it by yourself - long delays between taking the image and seeing the results, hard to share, hard to get feedback, so hard to improve results or get the best out of the film. So generally, I stuck with what I knew worked.

  • Internet. People are now able to research, compare, complain, exhibit, find solutions, present ideas, etc all very much easier than before, and every body can do this. There is practically no cost to entry or to publish.

In the old days people used magazines for research, to ask questions.

I know that, and what a slow process that was. reveiews might have been faster than DPR but very constrained for space. As to reader contributed content and questions - first you had to take the image, process and print it, mail it to the magazine, have it selected by the editorial staff (who would ensure it fitted with their perception of what was important to readers), wait for it to be published and then buy a copy. Wait next month for selected feedback.

There always have been camera clubs (the one I belong to is 125 years old),

That age is nice, but how does it benefit the member, exactly?

where you can compare, complain, exhibit, find solutions, and present ideas.

Which is great, if you live within travel distance of a club that interests you. Now interests and groups span the world and cross time zones, no problem.

Yes, today anyone can put up a gallery on the net but that's a problem, that's why there's so many mediocre images out there.

That's just elitist snobbery. Shades of Andrew Keen. People always took mediocre images, you just couldn't see them. There are vastly more great and more astonishing photos, many more stories than we've ever seen before. Yet you think this is a problem? I can't see how.

  • Pixel peeping. Very few people ever printed out larger than postcard size, so we were all happy with our images. And we seldom saw other people's images unless they were in books or magazines.

I'd go to the photo lab and compare the different films and prints, so there was "grain peeping" years ago.

Which again is great, if you live near and can afford to have a relationship with a lab (they don't come free!).

I think you pretty much reinforce my point about how slow and difficult everything was, and how dramatically different things are now. And it is going to get even better.

-- hide signature --
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow