Thread: What is your opinion about the future of DLSRs?

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.