What is your opinion about the future of DLSRs?

[SwedishBloke]

The film era came to an abrupt end when digital cameras became more affordable for most people.

Our DLSRs are more advanced than their LSR predecessors, but I suspect that they will only be a brief side note in history. Their successors are already hear in form of EVIL-cameras that lacks the mirror and optical view finder and thus can be made in the size of compact cameras.

Another factor is that the average person seems to be perfectly happy with the photos taken with their iPhone, and don't really care of the different factors you should take in mind when taking a photo.

In a world when teenagers and American soccer mums seems to the traget audience of marketing people, the DSLR will most likely share the fate of the Defender. Except perhaps for professionals as an expensive nische product.

When I bought my DLSR I had certain requirements for the camera I wanted to buy. No scene modes, a physical big body to compensate for big lenses, a big comfy grip, rear and front dials for shutter speed and aperture, and a top LCD-screen.

I don’t have a problem with advances in technology. I just want to be able to buy products that require that you have some knowledge of what you are doing. But when the kids today have fashion bloggers and documentary soap stars as role models that might be too much to ask for.....

So what are you take on the future of DLRS and photography in general?

[Rosscoe68]

DSLRS are dead for sure for the average consumer. there will be a small market for diehards as with vinyl records are still available.
mirrorless newgen / nextgen cameras offer more functionality for less $ than a traditional mirror flip camera. in fact it could be said less likely to go wrong as there are substantially less moving components in them compared to an SLR mechanism.


i really don't understand people complaning about extra features on cameras (or any electronics for that matter) when the new ones offer more features and better quality at a reduced price from the previous versions.

true for some they will never take place of a DSLR, but then i am sure there are some out there that would argue a DSLR will never take place of a Film SLR. each to there own

i personally don't have an issue with manufacturers building into there products usability for the average person. but i find it a little elitest that you feel you should be able to "buy products that require some knowledge of what you are doing"

i would find more reason for being concerned that many licenced drivers don't appear to "have some knowledge of what they are doing", but that is a safety thing on road as opposed to a personal choice of some novice wanting to take some nice pics that won't affect anyone else.


p.s. no offense intended, just passing comment :) . i am having trouble lately with my posts that come across more aggressive than intended.

[PSi]

I wouldn't worry too much. Being seeing wielding a big DSLR is a fashion statement in its own right, ostensibly because it makes the wielder "look like a pro".
As long as race car drivers compete in cars with sponsors' logos and big wings, there will be wannabes who also pimp their rides with stickers they have to pay for, and big wings, of course.
Same goes for cameras; as long as pros use DSLRs for the "right" reasons.
And there will always be people who want the best image quality possible.
Don't forget that the DSLR did not appear at the dawn of digital photography, it was the expensive P&S with 400 by 300 pixels, which eventually got better and cheaper.
The DSLR's popularity took off as soon as they (Canon 300D and Nikon D70) came to market at a reasonable price.

[slug_burner]

DSLRs will find a market in the same people that used SLRs. There will always be people who want to take crisp pics and avail themselves of the features offered by the DSLRs.

Plenty of images coming from phone cameras are not worth the pixles they are captured on.

[JDNSW]

DSLRs will find a market in the same people that used SLRs. There will always be people who want to take crisp pics and avail themselves of the features offered by the DSLRs.

Plenty of images coming from phone cameras are not worth the pixles they are captured on.

Same applies to plenty of pictures from any type of camera! Including DSLRs!

These days I use a "point and shoot" camera, but I used SLRS for forty years, so I am familiar with them. There appears to no good reason why the DSLR should not be replaced by equally capable cameras which do not actually use a flipping mirror for their viewfinder, with consequent improvement in reliability and reduction in cost. This being the case, I would not be surprised to see them eventually disappear (or almost disappear). After all, by the end of the film era, large format cameras had become very rare, and plate cameras even rarer, despite their clear advantages for good photography!

John

[slug_burner]

I don't consider that the mirror is the advantage that DSLRs have over small single lens cameras. I think that the lenses and the ability to change lenses is one of the main advantages. The other advantage the SLRs had over some of the other compacts of their time was the image capture area (film size). I am not up to date on the size of detectors these days but I know that some of the better DSLRs are using full size instead of the 2/3 size detectors used in the majority of the bottom end DSLRs.

The quality of a picture has many facets, what you point your camera at is one thing but the camera is not responsible for that aspect of the picture. Just look at low light pictures taken with phone cameras, they have trouble focusing and the lens is really tested by low light conditions. Point and shoots in good light conditions can produce very good images it is when you go to the edges of the performance envelope that you suffer. The DSLR just has a slightly bigger performance envelope.

[blitz]

Horses for courses, I have my D300s love it, a canon 320 point and shoot (almost buggered now but will get olympus U Tough or similar to keep in my back pack that I take every where with me)

And I regularly use the camera on my phone

The DSLR is for 'photography'

the P&S is so I have a reasonable camera with me at all times

the phone, mainly for work so I can send a photo and talk about it for the work required

[Slunnie]

I think the DSLR will continue amongst those that shoot with SLR cameras. The DSLR replaced the SLR.

I think that the phone, ipod etc cameras will impact on the compact camera market rather than the DSLRs instead. The compact buyer isn't necessarily the same as the SLR buyer, they are a different camera market.

[C0L0N3L]

The end of DSLR's is probably not too far away in the distance...

Video is the next thing. EVIL will make that a lot easier.

Manufactures are always going to try and make things idiot proof. Just because your average soccer mum can take a well exposed picture with the camera in auto, doesn't mean you don't have to know what you are doing. There are many other factors that make a good picture.

Composition is probably a photographers biggest strength now, seconded by creamy bokeh.

And just because people are fine with the pictures they take with their phones doesn't mean they don't know a good picture when they see one.

[locorr]

I'm hoping the new mirror-less camera's still come with a view finder. A very small lcd set inside so it's still visible in sun light. I think that would make the DSLR even better. No shake from the mirror and no lag waiting for the mirror to get out of the way. Perhaps the mirror is the worst part on the camera. I look forward to the speed increases offered by the new camera's.

[JDNSW]

I don't consider that the mirror is the advantage that DSLRs have over small single lens cameras. I think that the lenses and the ability to change lenses is one of the main advantages. The other advantage the SLRs had over some of the other compacts of their time was the image capture area (film size). I am not up to date on the size of detectors these days but I know that some of the better DSLRs are using full size instead of the 2/3 size detectors used in the majority of the bottom end DSLRs.

The quality of a picture has many facets, what you point your camera at is one thing but the camera is not responsible for that aspect of the picture. Just look at low light pictures taken with phone cameras, they have trouble focusing and the lens is really tested by low light conditions. Point and shoots in good light conditions can produce very good images it is when you go to the edges of the performance envelope that you suffer. The DSLR just has a slightly bigger performance envelope.

The bigger performance envelope is not a necessary function of its being a SLR. There is no reason at all why the same functional performance cannot be done without the mechanical/optical through the lens viewfinder - providing a viewfinder with the same functionality, using the output of the image sensor, is easier and cheaper today than providing the mechanics and optics to do it as a single lens reflex. The only reason for not doing it is that it would rob market share from the higher priced DSLRs, but it is unlikely that all manufacturers will stay in line forever. At least for a while, tradition and snob value will keep DSLRs going, but I would not be surprised if this changed very quickly.

John

[PSi]

If by DSLR and SLR, you mean the mirror mechanism (the reflex in R), I wouldn't miss them if they go extinct.
What I believe will be around is the build and image quality, speed of focusing and processing, and most important, the ability to use existing lenses.

[dmdigital]

Think back to the days of the interchangeable penta-prism SLR's.
Along came the electronics and AF and the introduction of data backs.

At present we have the ability to still change lenses and to add more or less film - change to bigger or smaller cards.

What we need (and Thom Hogan has alluded to) is inter-changable/upgradeable sensors.

I envisage the SLR will go eventually but the size of the cameras will stay.
You need an accurate viewing system - view finder is smaller than LCD so aids in small form factor.
You need an interchangeable lens system - consumers want to be able to keep the lenses they have for some time so this may phase over to a new mounting system.
You need quick access to change functions without diving into menus. The key difference between a D3s and a D3100 is the number of buttons and menu short cuts.

What I would love to see though is a digital equivalent of the Nikon FM10. Simple, robust and bullet proof... and a lot cheaper than a Leica.

[Rosscoe68]

nextgen (EVIL - Electronic Viewfinder Interchangable Lens) camera are interchangable lens cameras without being slr's. some have a view finder p top for traditional style photography,some don't and just rely on the LCD
sony, olympus, Panasonic, samsung are a few that come to mind already on the band wagon to have replacements for DSLR's.

[300+]

The leaked specs of the translucent Sony A77 are about the only thing stopping me from buying a D7000. If it is a good as they are bragging it does suggest that Sony are taking the market seriously again...

Cheers, Steve

[SwedishBloke]

It doesn’t have to do anything that I consider myself to be better than those who are content with something that does just require the push of a button to achieve their goal. Neither does it mean that I want to show off by using a physically large DLSR.

It has to do with control. I want to be able to for example with the rear and front dial of my DLSR be able to instantly change the aperture and shutter speed while looking through the view finder to adjust the way the picture will turn out in the way I want it to do. That is not possible with a mobile phone camera, or something you can do as fast with a point n’ shoot, EVIL-camera without having to dig in the menu systems.

I do have a fairly competent point n’ shoot camera as well, with HD-movie recording etc. And it is great in some occasions, but when I really want to take a photo that matters and have the full control of the process I use my DLSR.

The list with advantages my DLSR have over my point n’ shoot and cameras/cellphones with touch screens are of course several more than those I’ve already mentioned. Like being able to take better pictures in low light situations without flash due to the larger sensor. Another factor that is important for me is that the dedicated physical buttons that makes it possible to change settings on the camera without having to take of my glows when I work in cold temperatures. You don’t have that problem in Australia, but trust me that you don’t want to expose bare skin if you don’t need to in say – 34 c. Having to rely on a touch screen, if it even works properly in that temperature ( which I doubt ), that requires direct skin contact would definitively be a big problem if you don’t fancy the idea of freezing your fingers off.

There could of course be pro-EVIL camers with all the advantages I’ve mentioned, but with something like that hasn’t been released yet. The one’s announced to date has been simply point n’ shoots with a bigger sensor and the possibility to change lenses and shoot in RAW.

In the future there might be proper alternative to the optical view finder. But today’s electronic viewfinders, and most defintively live view systems, doesn’t measure up yet imo.

The same goes for computers. Some would be content with buying a computer that has all components bundled in to a single piece, like an iMac. They don’t have the need, desire, or knowledge to be able to change the components of the computer by themselves and that is just fine by me. But I want to be able to have that control. I’d like to be able to change the screen, processor, harddrive, PSU etc. if I should fancy that.

This is also the reason why I think the Defender is such an interesting vehicle. It has an engine you actually can work with yourself. If your brand new Mercedes would die on you while driving along a deserted road. You can check the oil and perhaps change a sparkplug, but anything beyond that and you are screwed since the engine is hidden behind a ton of plastic and you need a diagnostic computer to have a clue what is wrong in the first place.

[mrapocalypse]

They could have done it years ago so there must be a reason they don't. I would say it's a much nicer way to take pics and the people who buy DSLRs prefer the optical VF.

DSLRs outperform their LCD by about 5-1 I think. It would need to be a pretty amazing LCD to be as nice a place to be as an optical VF looking through good glass off a front surface mirror.

I think it's one of the last real differences that separate video from stills and I think the companies are hanging onto it.

Ian.

[greg-g]

I've held of upgrading my D90 to a D7000 so I can see what Nikon does with its upcoming EVIL camera.
I would love a smaller quieter camera with the performance of the D7000 and also keep my old lenses.

[3toes]

Evil cameras are already major players in the new camera sales Market. They are appealing to both the point and shoot player and DSLR customer. They are carving out a new Market segment at a very fast rate. That it is not Nikon or Canon doing this is more to do with investment in current technology while others are innovating. Down side is that so far the sensor is smaller than DSLR.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk