GoPro is popular - no doubt, but it is different. I might be old fashioned, but I still see stills and videos as two world apart. Of course, having device which can do both is great, but stills out of video are still not so well done (might change). Power of still is catching the moment or certain configuration and have it frozen and admired as it is - at least to me. Video is something else, video is action, certain continuous event, something that takes turns and should be story from start to the end. Like those russian videos from cars
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
some interesting thoughts on future
- Thread starter Kerry Pierce
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nikon d300 nikon d40
Hrvoje Crvelin
Forum Enthusiast
I do not think it is dead man walking - if I want to give to my kid camera, P&S is ideal at this point.
As for GoPro, I was not aware they could do still and some of those seen on page are really nice. However, GoPro never really got me into thinking of dumping my dSLR and start using it. GoPro, as far as I see it today personally, is ideal (and perhaps best) device to take action primarily from the point of view of action itself. Of course, you can use it for other things, but this is why you buy it. Cameras, dSLR in this case as that is what we discuss primarily, are to capture moments (and videos if you want) from point of view being outside the action. Perhaps, cameras like GoPro will become disruptive to these segment too or simply their technology will be merged into bigger dSLR bodies - hard to say. I think future may have different potential paths and none of them is wrong or right, but most likely the one that will materialize will be the one driven by disruptive technologies pushed by either existing vendors or startups. Hopefully, we won't be stuck in what future has to offer due to patent wars.
As for GoPro, I was not aware they could do still and some of those seen on page are really nice. However, GoPro never really got me into thinking of dumping my dSLR and start using it. GoPro, as far as I see it today personally, is ideal (and perhaps best) device to take action primarily from the point of view of action itself. Of course, you can use it for other things, but this is why you buy it. Cameras, dSLR in this case as that is what we discuss primarily, are to capture moments (and videos if you want) from point of view being outside the action. Perhaps, cameras like GoPro will become disruptive to these segment too or simply their technology will be merged into bigger dSLR bodies - hard to say. I think future may have different potential paths and none of them is wrong or right, but most likely the one that will materialize will be the one driven by disruptive technologies pushed by either existing vendors or startups. Hopefully, we won't be stuck in what future has to offer due to patent wars.
the market for kids is pretty small, and I imagine point and shoot digital cameras wil continue to be made. After all, the still make horse shoes[ATTACH]691263[/ATTACH] [ATTACH alt="Popular point and shoots on flickr said:691264[/ATTACH]
Popular point and shoots on flickr
popular camera phones on flickr
Hrvoje Crvelin, post: 54093541, member: 169455"]
I do not think it is dead man walking - if I want to give to my kid camera, P&S is ideal at this point.
but for younger kids/adults it is the phone camera or even an iPod touch that is the predominate picture taking device
I think the good news is photography is alive and well it's just with different devices than we are used to in the past
and you are right about gopro, where do they go from here? How do the compete with the smartphone juggernaut? Personal drones? Really small?
and I think dslr sales have been disrupted, sales are down which in the long run will affect the pace of innovation in dslrs
Attachments
Kerry Pierce
Forum Pro
I appreciate the time and thought that was put into the discussion on this topic. Lots of interesting and provocative posts.
My own take on the topic is in line with most of you. I think Roger's article is on the money and that lots of things probably will change dramatically over the next 5 years.
Personally, I don't ever see how a DSLR will lose its place in the photographic community. I think that there will always be a demand for quality photos, thus quality equipment must be there. But, that doesn't mean that the high sales numbers that Nikon and Canon et all, have enjoyed over the last decade, will continue. I expect to see the DSLR market shrink back to the levels of the film days or early digital days, ie the d1 & d2 eras.
In the early digital days, Nikon only had 1 "consumer" body, the d100. Then the d70 came along, starting the consumer rush. I think we'll go back to the point where Pro cameras outnumber or equal the number of consumer cameras.
Why? Because a DSLR can do things that no other camera can do, at least at the moment. High speed, focus accuracy with subject isolation, is never going to go out of style. Sports, wildlife, action shooters comprise a large portion of the market. Nothing other than a DSLR will do for that market.
The only question is whether or not Nikon and Canon see that market and are willing to fight for it. Right now, the other makers are catching up. N & C are the leaders in PDAF, high speed, high accuracy AF. That's not a trivial feature. But, the other makers will figure that out sooner or later and it seems that they are working on it.
Nikon's main business is photography. To survive and be relevant in the marketplace, they must dominate the high end market, which would include the high end DX market. The d300 and 7d have been the TOL DX cameras for years. I suspect that both N & C were satisfied with that, which is why I think the d7k series has been Nikon's focus. It's good, but not better than the d300, until now. But also, now the competition is putting pressure on that market segment. The time has come for Nikon to consolidate their bodies or decide if it's worth continuing in the business.
I'm hoping that they decide to continue and offer a truly great DX camera soon.
For the masses, a smart phone is probably going to be sufficient. I see tons of images, every day, taken with a phone and many/most of those images are truly awful. But, for the moment anyway, they seem to satisfy the casual user, which to me, means the death of the low spec DSLR.
I don't know what will happen with the so-called "enthusiast" market, meaning that I don't know how deep it will be. Maybe they'll go back to the 1 or 2 consumer camera model that they had in the film and early DSLR days.
Kerry
My own take on the topic is in line with most of you. I think Roger's article is on the money and that lots of things probably will change dramatically over the next 5 years.
Personally, I don't ever see how a DSLR will lose its place in the photographic community. I think that there will always be a demand for quality photos, thus quality equipment must be there. But, that doesn't mean that the high sales numbers that Nikon and Canon et all, have enjoyed over the last decade, will continue. I expect to see the DSLR market shrink back to the levels of the film days or early digital days, ie the d1 & d2 eras.
In the early digital days, Nikon only had 1 "consumer" body, the d100. Then the d70 came along, starting the consumer rush. I think we'll go back to the point where Pro cameras outnumber or equal the number of consumer cameras.
Why? Because a DSLR can do things that no other camera can do, at least at the moment. High speed, focus accuracy with subject isolation, is never going to go out of style. Sports, wildlife, action shooters comprise a large portion of the market. Nothing other than a DSLR will do for that market.
The only question is whether or not Nikon and Canon see that market and are willing to fight for it. Right now, the other makers are catching up. N & C are the leaders in PDAF, high speed, high accuracy AF. That's not a trivial feature. But, the other makers will figure that out sooner or later and it seems that they are working on it.
Nikon's main business is photography. To survive and be relevant in the marketplace, they must dominate the high end market, which would include the high end DX market. The d300 and 7d have been the TOL DX cameras for years. I suspect that both N & C were satisfied with that, which is why I think the d7k series has been Nikon's focus. It's good, but not better than the d300, until now. But also, now the competition is putting pressure on that market segment. The time has come for Nikon to consolidate their bodies or decide if it's worth continuing in the business.
I'm hoping that they decide to continue and offer a truly great DX camera soon.
For the masses, a smart phone is probably going to be sufficient. I see tons of images, every day, taken with a phone and many/most of those images are truly awful. But, for the moment anyway, they seem to satisfy the casual user, which to me, means the death of the low spec DSLR.
I don't know what will happen with the so-called "enthusiast" market, meaning that I don't know how deep it will be. Maybe they'll go back to the 1 or 2 consumer camera model that they had in the film and early DSLR days.
Kerry
ImageAmateur
Veteran Member
At a small event last year, I used a recent camera phone, as for specific reasons I did not want to use a DSLR with or without flash.
Pics looked great on small screen. However, when I got them on computer, boy, was I disappointed.
You are right, the masses like the smartphones, likely replacing the smaller cams.
But, people will also realize their limitations.
Really, for capturing memories, they will 'do the job' in a limited way. That may be what is important and if nothing else, yes.
But I agree, the quality is rubbish, even vs a 5 yr old APS-C sensor, let alone the new ones.
Cheers
--
Wishing You Good Light.
Last edited:
Yeah for those publishing content on the web and certain entertainment industries such types of stills will suffice but for more demanding clients and media I dont think it will apply ; just looks at the resolution of 4K / Ultra HD video - its less than resolution of still pictures of any SLR in the last 7 years ....
S
Sonyshine
Guest
Don't you think its low end DSLR's that are being eaten up by mirror less cameras?
I would imagine the DSLR market will go more and more up market into atop end niche as it gets squeezed by go-pro/mirrorless/phones at the bottom and middle?
I would imagine the DSLR market will go more and more up market into atop end niche as it gets squeezed by go-pro/mirrorless/phones at the bottom and middle?
S
Sonyshine
Guest
I agree for now.... but 8K is just around the corner....and the point of the article is where will we be in five years time - not today or even next year.....although I admit I have no more idea than anyone else!
Hrvoje Crvelin
Forum Enthusiast
I think mirrorless is quite ambiguous and as such it might not only be lower (and mid) end. I think there are some really nice pieces of technology out there like lycra and apparently sony already has some patents on similar things coming from their end... this is what makes classics like Nikon and Canon - and their users - being under loop as it is clear they will have to make a move. Perhaps this Photokina, perhaps next. The worst thing would be to jump with conclusion as one will always lead until next model comes so certain time is needed to see where does the flow go. Mirrorless as such is rather interesting concept and compared to mirror (at least right now) has edge on development. Will all this pieces (or most) be brought under one umbrella or some other lane will happen - remains to be seen. My biggest fear personally is loss of lens usability as that is always disruptive to user base - imagine if Nikon says we just have to go with new lens mount to make max of new technologies and those to come - this certainly would cause flow in and flow out of user base, but I suspect some folks might be offended by it - especially if they invested big money into glass recently.
I think this is an unfounded fear. Lens mount is the greatest asset Nikon has. Of course they may bring an alternative mount for some new type of camera, but the mainstream mount on their SLRs will most certainly stay the same for the duration of Nikon existence. Doing otherwise would be akin to selling securities and then declaring them to be paper, this would be such a blow to Nikon's "faith and credit", they would not survive as a company. The appearance of Df and a stress they put on using legacy lenses seem to indicate that Nikon management does indeed understand this.
Now, what happens with all those lenses if Nikon goes down anyway. I'm hoping this won't happen any time soon, and if it does, some other company would buy whatever remains of Nikon and continue to support the F-mount because this would be an easy way to acquire a large existing customer base.
Last edited:
n057
Veteran Member
Last edited:
BackroadsTraveler
Leading Member
Exactly! DSLR sales are down in pure numbers, and that will likely continue. But I suspect the 'upper end' of both FX and DX are relatively healthy.
This gives me hope that there will, indeed, be a replacement for the D300. A 'flagship' DX from Nikon, and probably Canon as well.
ImageAmateur
Veteran Member
I agree, although Nikon lenses, due to register distance, with an adapter depending whether available, can be used on just about any other mount out there, M 4/3 , Sony, Pentax, and Canon, as per the huge number who use MF Nikkors on Canon 5D's.
Yes, AF is lost, but at least the lenses can be used
--
Wishing You Good Light.
Last edited:
Robert Cohen
Senior Member
>> For the masses, a smart phone is probably going to be sufficient. I see tons of images, every day, taken with a phone and many/most of those images are truly awful. But, for the moment anyway, they seem to satisfy the casual user, which to me, means the death of the low spec DSLR. <<
Most users have always been satisfied with low quality photos. Decades ago I worked in a camera shop and I saw what people did with both their Instamatics and their adjustable cameras. Most were snapshots that weren't well composed and were rather blurry. But that was good enough for them, just as cell phone cameras are good enough for most people today - with the added benefit that the camera is always with them.
Most people just don't need or want a DSLR with all of the settings and controls and the large, heavy body and lens. There'll still be a market for quality cameras but it'll likely be a lot smaller than what the industry has become accustomed to for a decade.
Most users have always been satisfied with low quality photos. Decades ago I worked in a camera shop and I saw what people did with both their Instamatics and their adjustable cameras. Most were snapshots that weren't well composed and were rather blurry. But that was good enough for them, just as cell phone cameras are good enough for most people today - with the added benefit that the camera is always with them.
Most people just don't need or want a DSLR with all of the settings and controls and the large, heavy body and lens. There'll still be a market for quality cameras but it'll likely be a lot smaller than what the industry has become accustomed to for a decade.
Yes. Used to stand at tourist attractions and what folks use disposable cameras. Then, I believe camcorders took over for families. The real advance at the consumer level is the addition of quality video and, now, WiFi. At the consumer, not enthusiast or even hobbyist, level, I think folks want video and many smart phones do that quite well. But the OEMs haven't really rationalized their lines yet. Nikon still has 3 DSLR DX levels plus the FX models.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum