DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....

[Orangutan]

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.

So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut? Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...

I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.

You said more than merely 'improved live view', you said you want the EVF to allow you to, "...compose using what the sensor can see," in terms of color and DR.

RAW data is 14-bit, displays and EVFs are generally 8-bit - that's a significant gap in color and DR. The highest-end professional video editing displays and EVFs support 10-bit color, and I suppose you are suggesting that displays will catch up...but high-end cameras (I have some in the lab) use 16-bit ADCs, and those will also show up in mainstream consumer imaging down the line.

You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but that's the bad argument here. Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.

I thought it was obvious what Orangutan meant.... guess I was wrong....

So did I, and thanks for the validation.

 

[Orangutan]

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.

So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut? Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...

I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.

You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but that's the bad argument here. Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.

You're being a bit too literalistic. If you read the context of my post, it was in response to the statement that EVF is inferior because it cannot show what the human eye sees. The intent of my response was to say that such a position is irrelevant because the human eye can't see which parts of a scene will be clipped, or which parts of a scene will be in focus, etc. An important reason for Live View (and EVF) is to have the sensor give you helpful information to capture the data you will need for post-processing. Beyond that, it need only be "true" enough to allow the creative aspects of composition.

As a side note: you are correct that sensor tech will continue to improve; however, there's no reason a high-end EVF can't have a couple of dials to spin through the range of what it sees. As an analogy consider flight simulators: for those who don't have surround monitor sets, there are controls to "turn your head" and look out the side windows. An EVF may not present all data at once, but can still present it.

 

[Aglet]

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.

So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut? Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...

I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.

You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but that's the bad argument here. Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.

You're being a bit too literalistic. If you read the context of my post, it was in response to the statement that EVF is inferior because it cannot show what the human eye sees. The intent of my response was to say that such a position is irrelevant because the human eye can't see which parts of a scene will be clipped, or which parts of a scene will be in focus, etc. An important reason for Live View (and EVF) is to have the sensor give you helpful information to capture the data you will need for post-processing. Beyond that, it need only be "true" enough to allow the creative aspects of composition.

As a side note: you are correct that sensor tech will continue to improve; however, there's no reason a high-end EVF can't have a couple of dials to spin through the range of what it sees. As an analogy consider flight simulators: for those who don't have surround monitor sets, there are controls to "turn your head" and look out the side windows. An EVF may not present all data at once, but can still present it.

+1
there are no significant shortcomings on today's better EVFs to prevent them from allowing composition control in most circumstances while also being able to provide a great deal of extra information simultaneously that current OVF systems do not.

 

[Lee Jay]

The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF. How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?

The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag.

If they are the same, then the EVF is doubling the system lag.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.

Sorry, EVFs don't show that, they show the in-camera JPEG conversion, which is way, way smaller than what the sensor can see. I post this example often:

All this example shows is that you don't know how to use a camera.

Baloney. The upper one is NOT underexposed. In fact, there are blown pixels in the raw data. Making the exposure hotter would have resulted in more blown pixels. The way I shot it, I used the absolute maximum available dynamic range of the camera in raw mode.

 

[Clayton]

My gut tells me the lions share of R&D money will go in the direction of whatever will in the end cost less to make, service and support. Therefore its in the best interests of Canon, Nikon etc. to develop products that will satisfy the majority of customers with designs that have no moving parts. Im not saying they wont continue to refine DSLR designs for a while with more sophisticated computer technologies and better sensors, but as soon as they can (maybe several years yet) retire that mechanical stuff they will.

You don’t have to like the idea, but the digital kids of today who live on their smart phones are the professionals of tomorrow. Both using the gear and designing it. So enjoy that decades old mechanical DSLR designs while you can. The generational / technical / digital clock is ticking.

 

[jebrady03]

According to the Wall Street Journal DSLR sales fell in fiscal 2013 by 10%. Pocket size point and shoot cameras by even more and DSLM (mirror-less) cameras by only about 3%.

All of this is in part due to smart phone cameras of course.

*emphasis mine

Other aspect of the article have already been shown to be false. I wanted to address this.

1) Prove it. And...
2) I think not.

Let's put our thinking caps on here... how many people think a smartphone is a substitute for a DSLR or capable MILC?

I'm not going to wait for the vote tally to come in, I'll answer the poll. NO ONE.

This conclusion of yours is GARBAGE.

Where you got it mostly right is where you said "in part due" because there are multiple factors involved in the lack of sustainability in the DSLR market. Saturation is possibly the main culprit.

 

[unfocused]

According to the Wall Street Journal DSLR sales fell in fiscal 2013 by 10%. Pocket size point and shoot cameras by even more and DSLM (mirror-less) cameras by only about 3%.

All of this is in part due to smart phone cameras of course.

....there are multiple factors involved in the lack of sustainability in the DSLR market. Saturation is possibly the main culprit.

Yes!

The OP plays the classic game of having a pre-conceived notion and then trying to make (partial and misleading) statistics "prove" the conclusion.

I would agree that saturation plays a much larger role in any decline in DSLR sales than either cell-phone or mirrorless cameras (including both fixed-lens and interchangeable lenses.)

Over the last decade, digital technology followed a classic pattern. It was a disruptive technology that made everything that went before it (film) obsolete. The worldwide conversion to digital drove DSLR sales more than anything else. And, because it was an immature technology, the pace of development and resultant obsolescence (either perceived or real) meant that buyers were replacing their cameras at a much more frequent pace than historical market trends. (A film SLR was good for a minimum of 10 years, often much longer).

Now, the initial pent-up demand for digital technology has been satisfied and the pace of development is slowing. It's a natural cycle and, while early adopters and gearheads will be disappointed, most consumers are likely to settle back into the pattern of replacing their DSLRs much less frequently – just as they did with SLRs.

I doubt if any of this comes as a surprise to Canon and Nikon – both long time leaders in the marketplace and no doubt well-positioned for the long haul. This is one reason why I personally would never consider any of their competitors for a primary system investment. (I would consider Fuji for a secondary system, but would not be buying into the system to the extent I have Canon or would do with Nikon).

Being more familiar with Canon than Nikon, I think I see the company developing and experimenting with strategies to retain its profitability despite a shrinking marketplace.

They have developed a mirrorless interchangeable lens system in the most established DSLR format -- APS-C;
They are offering a traditional DSLR in a size that is competitive with mirrorless;
They produce two top-selling full frame cameras racking up sales that far exceed their competitors;
They set an industry standard for high-end APS-C with their 7D and are likely to unveil the next generation soon, giving us a very good idea of where they see that market headed;
The are rapidly re-purposing their point-and-shoot models to focus on smaller, but more stable, niche markets;
They are using their market position and expertise to capture a growing segment of the video market up and down the line from entrance level to multimillion dollar Hollywood productions;
They are making major plays for other rapidly growing markets, such as security;
And, the list goes on and on.

The jury is still out on the future of mirrorless. Right now, it has been a bust in Europe and the Americas (not just Canon but all manufacturers). Some people believe that the relative success of mirrorless in Asia is a sign of the future. But, it's entirely possible that the opposite is true. Is the Asian market on the cutting edge and showing the way of the future? Or, will the initial fascination in Asia fade and consumers there fall into the same pattern as European and American enthusiasts -- ultimately deciding that the compromises required of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are too great and turn instead to DSLRs?

Interesting that on this forum, there is such an intense debate over what is really an insignificant point -- whether the future lies in optical or electronic viewfinders. Really, who cares? If electronic viewfinders reach a point where they offer more than optical viewfinders, the technology will transition. If they don't, then optical viewfinders are likely to remain the industry standard. Other than a fascination for technology that borders on being a fetish, there is no logical reason to care.

 

[dak723]

I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs. They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them. I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job. I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera. They are cameras, that's all!

The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones. For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures. So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet. When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else. Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR. That's what my crystal ball says!

 

[emko]

people suggesting that people buy a big dslr to show off is so dumb, i really don't like taking it out in public make people think i am a pro or something but i try not to care as i just love the way it fits in my hand's even the 550d i had felt good but once i got the 5diii its so much better. Maybe we will get some kind of hybrid view finder with both evf and ovf for dslrs. I have yet to try those smaller mirrorless FF cameras but then whats the point if you put on a 24-70mm and it will feel very unbalanced.

its just horrible i want small camera for ease to carry around and a dslr for how nice it fits in my hands.

 

[Don Haines]

I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs. They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them. I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job. I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera. They are cameras, that's all!

The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones. For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures. So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet. When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else. Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR. That's what my crystal ball says!

+1000000

 

[Orangutan]

Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)



(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.

 

[Don Haines]

Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)

(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.

actually..... I would love it if I could use the Wi-Fi on the camera to connect to a smartphone or tablet and have the device act identically to the screen on the camera, or in the case of a tablet, have all the controls at your fingertips...

 

[Dylan777]

I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs. They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them. I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job. I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera. They are cameras, that's all!

The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones. For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures. So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet. When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else. Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR. That's what my crystal ball says!

There was an article I saw 3-4yrs ago. It said "DSLR will die within 5yrs" :

 

[moreorless]

I doubt if any of this comes as a surprise to Canon and Nikon – both long time leaders in the marketplace and no doubt well-positioned for the long haul. This is one reason why I personally would never consider any of their competitors for a primary system investment. (I would consider Fuji for a secondary system, but would not be buying into the system to the extent I have Canon or would do with Nikon).

I suspect theres a lot of truth in this, what many view as resting on their laurels is infact a decision not to over invest in a market that's inevitably going to contract.

Personally I still feel that a lot of mirrorless systems sales are exploiting a gap in the market that other products could target. Most obviously I think that fixed lens compacts have a lot of room to grow, for years they stayed with 1/1.7' sensors but now are rapidly advancing and provide real benefits over systems cameras when it comes to size saving. Equally I think both Canon and Nikon could look to market smaller but high quality DSLR bodies, something the size of the SL1 but with controls and build aimed at a higher end market.

 

[Lee Jay]

There was an article I saw 3-4yrs ago. It said "DSLR will die within 5yrs" :

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/1456578

Make sure you look at the date.

 

[mkabi]

Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)

(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.

actually..... I would love it if I could use the Wi-Fi on the camera to connect to a smartphone or tablet and have the device act identically to the screen on the camera, or in the case of a tablet, have all the controls at your fingertips...

Im sure you can already do that...
Check 6D plus EOS app on your smart phone...
Of course it isn't perfect but it can do what you want...

 

[Clayton]

“2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in a long long time (maybe even decades). After the official numbers have been published by CIPA (the Camera & Imaging Products Association)”

http://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2013/

I truly believe that VIDEO has kept DSLR sales more robust then they might otherwise have been up till now.

Of course a smart phone is not an equal replacement for a DSLR. Not sure who would think that. But thats not the point. The point is that enough customers feel that smart phones are good enough. That has clearly effected digital cameras sales across the board. Oh and Apple and Samsung will keep improving their technology which will result in even more erosion of dedicated camera sales.

 

[Don Haines]

Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)

(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.

actually..... I would love it if I could use the Wi-Fi on the camera to connect to a smartphone or tablet and have the device act identically to the screen on the camera, or in the case of a tablet, have all the controls at your fingertips...

Im sure you can already do that...
Check 6D plus EOS app on your smart phone...
Of course it isn't perfect but it can do what you want...

That's the first "kick at the cat".... I expect future versions to be better and we will probably see this on all the new DSLRs and mirrorless cameras from this time on....

 

[privatebydesign]

Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)

(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.

actually..... I would love it if I could use the Wi-Fi on the camera to connect to a smartphone or tablet and have the device act identically to the screen on the camera, or in the case of a tablet, have all the controls at your fingertips...

Im sure you can already do that...
Check 6D plus EOS app on your smart phone...
Of course it isn't perfect but it can do what you want...

You have been able to access Live View on a phone or tablet since the 1D MkIV and the 5D MkII, 2009-2008 via a Canon WFT. You have been able to control the camera and view and download the images since at least 2002 with the 1Ds and the WFT. Not to mention various third party work arounds.

 

[moreorless]

“2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in a long long time (maybe even decades). After the official numbers have been published by CIPA (the Camera & Imaging Products Association)”

http://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2013/

I truly believe that VIDEO has kept DSLR sales more robust then they might otherwise have been up till now.

Of course a smart phone is not an equal replacement for a DSLR. Not sure who would think that. But thats not the point. The point is that enough customers feel that smart phones are good enough. That has clearly effected digital cameras sales across the board. Oh and Apple and Samsung will keep improving their technology which will result in even more erosion of dedicated camera sales.

I'd argue this is probably the reason why Canon and Nikon have been investing more in their FF DSLR products over the last 2-3 years as there the area least likely to feel the pitch from improved phone cameras. Indeed I'd say mirrorless along with compacts is the area most likely to feel the pitch.