December 19, 2014, 03:47:32 AM

Author Topic: Is SLR dead?  (Read 19658 times)

hgascoigne

  • Guest
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2012, 11:45:33 AM »
I have a friend that has a NEX-5n and I've played with it a little bit. It's image quality is on par to that of a 7d for quite a bit less. However, I would never buy one simply because of the ergonomics. It's awkward for me to hold and I much prefer the larger body of the 7d, especially on long days of shooting. Not to mention I prefer the optical vf.

That being said, I easily see both styles of camera coexisting. I know many people, including my friend, that could care less about anything other than taking nice looking pictures. For them, mirrorless is perfect.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2012, 11:45:33 AM »

KitsVancouver

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #91 on: June 30, 2012, 12:52:26 PM »
Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.

This seems like a bit of a different arguement to me, agenst higher image quality generally rather than SLR's as the preffered basis for that quality.

I'd argue that photography had its "shift to convenience" a decade ago with the digital revolution and what were seeing today is a shift back towards quality.

Audio and video already went through their improvement stages.

People care less and less about quality after it's met a minimum standard. That's some unknown level of perceivable difference. Most people don't have the time, care or money to tell the difference of modern technologies.

Maybe our circles of influence are different but the strong majority of women I know don't want an SLR and many of my friends who are early adopters who have SLRs have either augmented or replaced their SLRs with smaller formats.

You don't have to believe me. Look into industry sales numbers. DSLRs sales are growing but at a declining rate.

photogaz

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
    • Photogaz
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #92 on: June 30, 2012, 01:27:44 PM »
Yes, absolutely! I'm willing to offer a recycle service for your SLRs.

Send em to me!

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #93 on: June 30, 2012, 02:12:27 PM »
Look at two other consumer trends:
Music Quality
Video Quality

There was a time when people sat down and listened to music.  Today, people just download compressed music.  there are always going to be audiophiles, but they are the minority.  I'm one of them, but I know it's not the norm. 

Then there is Blu-ray.  Where can you rent those today?  How big is the Blu-ray section in your local electronics retailer?  Again, I've got a movie set-up at home, but I'm the minority.  I didn't think people would ever watch movies and video on small screens, but it's happening.

On one side, we have quality...image quality, video quality, sound quality.  On the other side, we have convenience, weight, on-demand, cost, etc.  I don't know if SLRs will diminish in sales numbers, but for all those that don't think it's even a remote possibility, those people aren't looking outside of their own world.

This seems like a bit of a different arguement to me, agenst higher image quality generally rather than SLR's as the preffered basis for that quality.

I'd argue that photography had its "shift to convenience" a decade ago with the digital revolution and what were seeing today is a shift back towards quality.

Audio and video already went through their improvement stages.

People care less and less about quality after it's met a minimum standard. That's some unknown level of perceivable difference. Most people don't have the time, care or money to tell the difference of modern technologies.

Maybe our circles of influence are different but the strong majority of women I know don't want an SLR and many of my friends who are early adopters who have SLRs have either augmented or replaced their SLRs with smaller formats.

You don't have to believe me. Look into industry sales numbers. DSLRs sales are growing but at a declining rate.

I don't think you can generalise like that, the reality is that peoples desire for quality will be closely linked how how much they value a certain kind of media.

As I said I think photography went though what music has at an earlier stage, when digital cameras first appeared they were not offering near to the same quality as 35mm film yet they quickly came to dominate the market. Those who'se quality needs were met by compact cameras never bothered to upgrade to DSLR's or other large sensor options where as many who wanted the convenience of digital AND high quality upgraded.

DSLR growth slowing really isnt a supprize I'd say since we've just been though a major transition, you had an entire generation moving to DSLR's from either 35mm film or compacts.

Music and video are for me very different cases, I think the former has generally been a media focused on quality for decades with LP's and CD's where as the latter was until recently far less so with TV and VHS. Hence music generally moving towards lower quality where as video moves towards higher, first DVD and then HD.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2012, 02:27:29 PM by moreorless »

Wilmark

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 162
    • View Profile
    • Wilmark Johnatty Photography
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2012, 04:00:28 PM »

Following are couple of shots with my Samsung Nexus Phone camera, which work OK when lighting is good.  It is utter cr**^ in anything less than optimal light, though.


IMG_20120609_122617A by drjlo1, on Flickr


When you say Nexus - are you talking about the Galaxy Nexus running Android 4? I have that phone and the camera is utter crap - I dont think i have taken any pictures this good with it under any conditions. What app are you using or any special settings? Its so bad that i have black listed any future purchases from Samsung because of the poor photo performance in a flagship phone.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2012, 12:32:09 PM by Wilmark »

KitsVancouver

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #95 on: June 30, 2012, 04:03:51 PM »
You're wrong about video quality. Video stores are dying and bluray sales are falling off the charts. Many brick and mortar stores don't even give any shelf space for it.

If you're on this message board you're already far more of an enthusiast than the average Joe. IMO, the difference in IQ and flexibility (lenses etc) are far greater between SLRs and compacts than between SLRs and micro 4/3 and the like.

Anyways, no one can prove the future. We can only see what happens. IQ is the most important thing for me regardless of size but if there was a way to prove it, I'd wager that convenience (where acceptable IQ exists) is for most, the most important thing.

moreorless

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 670
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #96 on: June 30, 2012, 04:53:50 PM »
You're wrong about video quality. Video stores are dying and bluray sales are falling off the charts. Many brick and mortar stores don't even give any shelf space for it.

Video stores are dying because business is moving to net rentals/sals/streaming.

Sales of physical media are I'd guess down but HD streaming is growing and HD generally is moving towards the standard for TV viewing.

Quote
If you're on this message board you're already far more of an enthusiast than the average Joe. IMO, the difference in IQ and flexibility (lenses etc) are far greater between SLRs and compacts than between SLRs and micro 4/3 and the like.

Anyways, no one can prove the future. We can only see what happens. IQ is the most important thing for me regardless of size but if there was a way to prove it, I'd wager that convenience (where acceptable IQ exists) is for most, the most important thing.

The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.

Now whether the DSLR market might be replaced with something new such as mirrorless that offers the same or better image quality is certainly questionable but thats a very different arguement to saying it will die because people don't care about image quality.

As I said I think photography had its big shift to convenience with the digital revolution, that was a massive shift that did convince many people who took photography serious to accept a drop in quality to start with. I don't think that a mere size difference will have as big an effect personally, espeically as many users are happy with the form factor of the DSLR.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #96 on: June 30, 2012, 04:53:50 PM »

iaind

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 313
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #97 on: June 30, 2012, 05:42:21 PM »
In keeping with EU directives I am happy to recycle any 1DX 5DII/III or 7D that anybody has.
5DIII + BGE11 / 5DII + BGE6 / 40D + BGE2N /8-15 4L / 17-35 2.8L / 24 3.5L TS-E /24-70 2.8II L / 24-105 4L IS /Zuiko 50 1.4/ 100 2.8L Macro IS / 70-200 2.8L /180 3.5L/ 300 4L / 100-400L

Rocky

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #98 on: June 30, 2012, 05:59:19 PM »
With the pancake 40mm f2.8 lens, canon is trying to make the 5D  "not too much bigger" than the "interchangeable lens mirrorless". Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some  "interchangeable lens mirrorless".  Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #99 on: June 30, 2012, 06:04:19 PM »
Is video going higher quality?   VHS was pretty crap, but analogue broadcast was excellent, the DVB system is MPEG2 based, and like over applied JPEGs you can get banding and shadow mush etc. 

Bluray is excellent (so long as compression kept in toe) streaming... not so much.

Maybe it's because I work in video that I'm more critical of these things, but I wouldn't want to watch a streamed movie on my 40" telly.

preppyak

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 807
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #100 on: June 30, 2012, 08:12:52 PM »
The DSLR market as it is today really doesnt depend on the average Joe if you ask me, the average Joe was happy with his compact and is now probabley happy with his camera phone so never bothered with a DSLR in the first place.
Go to any major vacation destination and it will blow your mind how wrong you are. There are usually as many, if not more, users with a DSLR than there are with a compact camera. And its only going to be more true as people aren't gonna supplement their iPhone with a P+S camera, they'll supplement it with a m4/3 camera or a DSLR. Now, many of them are wasting the potential of a DSLR, by putting a super-zoom on the front, never learning settings, and using it like a P+S; but without those users, DSLR's would cost 2-3x what they do.

Canon would never had considered things like a touch-screen if they didn't care what the average joe was used to.
Canon should also make a 30mm f2.8 EF-S for the Rebel. That will really make the Rebel close to the size of some  "interchangeable lens mirrorless".  Both will have much better Ergonomics than any mirrorless.
Even then, the body of those mirrorless cameras are still half the size of a rebel. An NEX with a pancake lens can fit in your jacket pocket; a T4i with the 40mm probably can't, at least not conveniently.

It makes it smaller, which is nice, but the very nature of the EF mount means that Canon's DSLRs aren't gonna match the small size of a mirrorless. But, as you pointed out, ergonomics are the trade-off for having a small camera

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #101 on: June 30, 2012, 09:37:52 PM »
Apologies, but I just read the first post and tl;dr the whole thread.

Short answer: yes.  Reason: IQ.

What, you ask, does SLR vs mirrorless have to do with IQ?

Just google for "3chip camera."  Bayer filters currently filter about 2/3 of all incident light.  A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness).  I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption?  (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

As soon as manufacturers find a way to make an EVF fast and accurate enough for pros there will be no reason to stick with SLR's, and they should be left in the gutters of history.

Besides, when I take a picture I don't want to see the world the way it really is, I want to see it the way my camera sees it.



weixing

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #102 on: June 30, 2012, 11:59:36 PM »
Hi,
Apologies, but I just read the first post and tl;dr the whole thread.

Short answer: yes.  Reason: IQ.

What, you ask, does SLR vs mirrorless have to do with IQ?

Just google for "3chip camera."  Bayer filters currently filter about 2/3 of all incident light.  A mirrorless pro-level camera with a 3chip design would allow closer to 100% of incident light to be used, and without the other problems introduced by the Bayer pattern (sharpness).  I.e., would you rather have a 36MP camera with a Bayer pattern, or a 24MP camera with 3 individual color sensors, and three times the light absorption?  (Yes, of course I pulled those MP numbers out of the air, but it's got to be cheaper to build three lower-density sensors, without Bayer or AA filter, than a single higher-density sensor with Bayer and AA.)

As soon as manufacturers find a way to make an EVF fast and accurate enough for pros there will be no reason to stick with SLR's, and they should be left in the gutters of history.

Besides, when I take a picture I don't want to see the world the way it really is, I want to see it the way my camera sees it.
     Err... I think 3chips camera and this thread is not related as you can built a 3chips DSLR also.

    Anyway, DSLR probably will not be replace by the mirrorless camera for the next 10 years.... But I think mirrorless system definitely will replace DSLR some day in the future as the main camera system once manufacturer able to produce an EVF or the live view as good as the optical one and improve the focusing speed to as fast as the DSLR at an affordable cost.

  Have a nice day.
 

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #102 on: June 30, 2012, 11:59:36 PM »

Orangutan

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 767
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #103 on: July 01, 2012, 12:31:54 AM »
     Err... I think 3chips camera and this thread is not related as you can built a 3chips DSLR also.
It seems like the trichroic beam splitter would need to be where the mirror is located in a DLSR, so it would throw off the geometry.  I haven't done the calculations, so I could be wrong.  Also, if it were possible someone (like Sony or Pentax) would have tried it by now.

Quote
Anyway, DSLR probably will not be replace by the mirrorless camera for the next 10 years
I would guess it'll start inside 5 years with studio-oriented models.

Quote
  Have a nice day.

And you as well.

silat shooters

  • Power Shot G7X
  • **
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #104 on: July 01, 2012, 12:44:58 AM »
I think we're about to see some major improvements in Mirrorless cameras.  As the iPhone forces camera manufacturers to improve their P&S and small Mirrorless cameras to offer consumers a reason to buy them, the DSLR is bound to get squeeze somewhat.  But I recall 25 or so years ago, when film P&S cameras started incorporating zooms of 38-200mm, folks back then where saying the same thing.  The SLR is dead, why would anyone buy one when you could get a tiny camera with a zoom range that covered 90% of most shooters needs. 

Well, it seems the SLR weathered that storm.  I have a Sony NEX 5N and it's a terrific little camera and far easier to carry than my Mark III.  But as good as it is, the files are not as creamy.  Thankfully the Mark III focuses in another stratosphere, so there are things my DLSR can do that my 5N can't.  But I also have a GH2 and have played with the OM-D and both of those are very nice cameras.  The GH2 especially, is the best hybrid camera to date.  So the M4/3rd people have finally figured out a formula that works, and now their sensors are finally up to the game. 

I think the DSLR will have to become more innovative with new technologies while retaining the optical viewfinder and continue to become more powerful with frame rates, AF, and yes meg count (it still sells cameras).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Is SLR dead?
« Reply #104 on: July 01, 2012, 12:44:58 AM »