DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....

[emko]

you can only sell certain amount of cameras to people that want them, now what happens do they upgrade to the next version? well last few years we have not had that much improvement as we did in the years before so maybe people are just holding on longer to older cameras then before? cant that be a possibility or is cell phone just good enough for people these days?

Can this problem cause R&D to slow down? as they are making less profit? has massive amount of camera sales made cameras improve at a faster rate? I really hope we don't end up at a point where the cameras get more expensive and less improvements happen.

Also what happens when we hit the limit of IQ? we can only add so many MP at one point we will hit a limit on that as well. Sounds scary hope everything turns out fine and we continue to have great cameras at a reasonable price.

 

[Hillsilly]

In the longer term (at least, for Nikon ), the answer to increasing camera sales is 300cm 8k tvs. With 33.2mp resolution, I'd suspect you'll start seeing some IQ differences between phones and cameras and there'll be another surge in camera purchases.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Said it before and will say it again, DSLR's won't be leaving anytime soon, and it won't be mirrorless that kills them. Low end DSLR's may be gutted because the market for them is much less than it used to be because of the advances in cell phone cameras - where you used to need to get the better camera to get decent shots, cell phones keep getting better and in the eyes of the consumer - quality matters less and less as most want instant social network gratification. In the eyes of many, a superior picture matters less than instant sharing.

that's the bottleneck right now, the IQ on low end SLR's is kind of wasted on the majority of the low end, and no matter how small you make it, unless the camera is your phone there is a large segment of folks that want one device. You go out for the night with your friends, your phone fits in your pocket, your camera does not!

 

[Clayton]

Nothing like crapy smart phone pictures ............

http://conversations.nokia.com/2013/08/29/15-stunning-collage-photos-taken-on-a-nokia-smartphone/

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-smartphone-photos-2014-5?op=1

what will smart phones be capable of in 3-5 years? Good question. Probably not worse then they look today.

 

[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.

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.

Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers. Economics of scale and all of that. Im a DSLR guy myself. DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only. How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment? I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.

I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do. Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.

 

[dgatwood]

I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do. Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.

I did just shy of thirteen there myself. The thing is, AFAIK, Apple hasn't ever actually designed an image sensor. They buy the parts from vendors like Sony. Even the QuickTake cameras used sensors by Kodak and Fujifilm. In some cases, they might request some custom changes to the part (probably not for cameras), and they might even do their own lenses (not sure), but not sensors. And many of the same advancements that improve the images from cell phone sensors also have practical applications for larger sensors. So the DSLRs get a free economy-of-scale boost from those Apple cell phones.

Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers. Economics of scale and all of that. Im a DSLR guy myself. DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only. How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment? I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.

Most people who buy DSLRs do so because they want much, much better photos than they will ever be able to get from any cell phone camera, no matter how advanced. Even if they add an optical zoom and reach 100% quantum efficiency, there's only so far you can go with a sensor that's only 6mm across diagonally before the camera becomes infeasibly thick to use as part of a phone.

I mean, yes, there might occasionally be people who get in over their heads with DSLRs and end up using them like point-and-shoots without zooming. Some of those folks might decide to go back to using a cell phone, but... I'd expect those sales to make up a small enough percentage of sales to get lost in the noise.

Thus, although I could certainly be wrong, I don't see the DSLR market shrinking very much unless it is due to market saturation, which can only be combatted by updating the hardware sufficiently to make people want to upgrade. Then again, I also don't expect to see it growing by leaps and bounds.

 

[Clayton]

Good points dagatwood ----

One thing also keeps popping into my head, we keep concentrating on "stills" but the DSLR video revolution (launched 6 years ago) was responsible for a certain percentage of DSLR sales a figure no one really has. What percentage of Canon sales in full frame and APS sensor cameras over the last 6 years were not “primarily” for high quality stills at all.
To what degree has the video market helped keep the DSLR platform relevant? No one really knows.

One thing is for sure many video geeks have found stills using their DSLRs a new and wonderful thing and thats helped for sure. But just like in the RED camera world there are large single sensor video / cinema cameras that can produce commercial grade still images used in advertising. The lines are getting fuzzy. That market (Video using large single sensor cameras) is shifting somewhat now. I feel the jury is still out on what the numbers will be going forward. One thing is guaranteed, Its a pretty exciting time to be a camera geek for sure. 8)

 

[moreorless]

Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers. Economics of scale and all of that. Im a DSLR guy myself. DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only. How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment? I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.

I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do. Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.

Personally my view is that Canon have probably taken the right decision in trying to target video more with there very high end professional releases. For the amateur market I suspect that phones are "good enough" for more people than they are with stills simply because your looking at lower resolution output.

To me its looked like Canons tactics in recent years have generally been to target the high end markets with quality and the low end markets with price whilst tending to focus less attension on the middle. Honestly I cans ee the logic behind that too I think the "gadget" market is a very tough one to go after, you have consumers with limited amounts of money to spend who also demand constant advances.

 

[RustyTheGeek]

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...

+1 Ditto!

 

[RustyTheGeek]

As I read through the back and forth of this thread, I'll just say that we are witnessing a lot of trends that are swinging back and forth as the entire market, both lay person consumers and professionals buy all kinds of technology, try to figure it all out and how it fits their needs. Not only is the pendulum swinging, but there are many pendulums swinging within multiple spaces simultaneously. This is why it is so hard to see the future of photography gear as well as other tech devices. Many of the traditional device tech spaces are becoming blurred together.

IMHO, there still exists a market that values convenience, small size and simplicity (Camera Phones and P&S). Another market that values high quality and performance (DSLR, etc.). The needs are going to exist for both for a long time. 10 years from now, I don't expect to see a major sports event sideline filled with professional camera phone shooters. And I also don't expect to see a lot of people talking and texting on hybrid DSLR phone devices. There is a need for both types of devices now and in the future. The technology inside these devices will continue to advance but the form factors will still be important for a long time to come.

 

[3kramd5]

The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag. I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

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.

If someone can offer me an EVF with zero distinguishable lag and a dynamic range and color gamut matching the sensor, I'd eat the battery weight. I suspect producing a 12+ stop display may be challenging, however. They may be able to do it with clever back- and side lighting, but that would jeopardize the accuracy.

 

[Rocky]

This is not the first time that members try to ring the "death bell" 0f DSLR or mirroless. Personally, I cannot see any reason why either group should do that. If you look back into the film days, SLR and range finder(interchangeable lens) cameras has been co-exist since the1930's. Each type has its advantage and disadvantage. Which one to pick depends on personal choice, requirement and the pocket book. Leica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss etc. are all in both camps. Range finder can do anything a SLR can do ( with the right attachment), may be a little bit clumsy. Until 1970's, range finder has only one company left (LEICA). SLR over-run the range finder. The range finder cannot complete with SLR is due to higher price ( complexity and precision of the view finder and range finder leads to much higher price) and versatility. Now we are in digital age. I can see the co-existance of both DSLR and the mirrorless. I do not expect one will over-run the another for a long long long time.

 

[Camerasheik]

I imagine similar conversations took place in Britain in the 1960's when the first Japanese motorbikes arrived in the UK. At first they just weren't good enough, compared to Nortons and Triumphs. Early adopters were sneered at, the proud riders of Brit iron rumbled and roared into the distance (usually stopping around the corner to fix oiled plugs).

But the Japanese persisted and they got better, bit by bit. More Hondas and Kawasakis appeared and people started to actually enjoy them, their ease of use and their reliability gained supporters. The Brit manufacturers secure in the vocal support of their customers dismissed the upstarts.

As the product developed their handling improved, their performance improved - they were of course always more reliable.

Then another new generation of products arrived and suddenly they were faster, better handling and of course still more reliable and cheaper - much cheaper. Almost overnight the British bike industry disappeared, the manufacturers just couldn't grasp that people are ultimately pragmatic, often conservative but ultimately pragmatic.

Why buy a bike that is slower, doesn't handle or brake as well and is a hassle to own and use when compared to the new stuff and much more expensive? Answer only an idiot or sentimentalist would and there just weren't enough of those about to support an industry.

I own a Canon 60d, I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm thinking of upgrading, so I await the new 7D mk2 with interest. But I wonder how good will it be? How much better for example will it be compared to a Panasonic GH4?

It will definitely be a lot more expensive, the body will likely be 20% heavier and (assuming the 7D is an APSC) all of the lenses will be much larger.
So will the new Canon's feature set and image quality be a sufficient step above the GH4 to justify the cost and weight?

Will I go from my old Triumph to a flash Norton or jump for the Kawasaki?

 

[JohnDizzo15]

Not sure if this was stated as I kind of speed read through the five pages of previous posts.

But like I've stated before, the real killer feature would be to make the viewfinder a hybrid ovf/evf like Fuji has done on the x100/s and xpro.

This would give us the best of both worlds and the option to use whichever is best suited for the user/scenario.

Yes, I am aware that there will then be issues with parallax. But it is a small nuisance to maintain the benefit of having access to both types of VF in the same body.

Battery life would also be prolonged which is my biggest beef with mirrorless now.

I personally would love to see a full sized (dslr shape) mirrorless offering from Canon so long as it featured the hybrid vf. The larger form factor would appeal to my ergonomic preferences and also allow for a much larger battery than what is currently used in most small mirrorless bodies.

 

[iaind]

I'm hoping Canon drops the Eos-M and pulls out of the mirrorless market entirely. That way, they can focus their R&D activities on improving and enhancing their DSLRs, camera features, sensors and lenses.

I'd have to disagree. I really like my EOS M, in it's own right, but also as a small/light backup body that integrates with my Canon system.

+1


With a 100-400L attached you have a choice of 3 tripod/monopod mounts

 

[moreorless]

I imagine similar conversations took place in Britain in the 1960's when the first Japanese motorbikes arrived in the UK. At first they just weren't good enough, compared to Nortons and Triumphs. Early adopters were sneered at, the proud riders of Brit iron rumbled and roared into the distance (usually stopping around the corner to fix oiled plugs).

But the Japanese persisted and they got better, bit by bit. More Hondas and Kawasakis appeared and people started to actually enjoy them, their ease of use and their reliability gained supporters. The Brit manufacturers secure in the vocal support of their customers dismissed the upstarts.

As the product developed their handling improved, their performance improved - they were of course always more reliable.

Then another new generation of products arrived and suddenly they were faster, better handling and of course still more reliable and cheaper - much cheaper. Almost overnight the British bike industry disappeared, the manufacturers just couldn't grasp that people are ultimately pragmatic, often conservative but ultimately pragmatic.

Why buy a bike that is slower, doesn't handle or brake as well and is a hassle to own and use when compared to the new stuff and much more expensive? Answer only an idiot or sentimentalist would and there just weren't enough of those about to support an industry.

I own a Canon 60d, I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm thinking of upgrading, so I await the new 7D mk2 with interest. But I wonder how good will it be? How much better for example will it be compared to a Panasonic GH4?

It will definitely be a lot more expensive, the body will likely be 20% heavier and (assuming the 7D is an APSC) all of the lenses will be much larger.
So will the new Canon's feature set and image quality be a sufficient step above the GH4 to justify the cost and weight?

Will I go from my old Triumph to a flash Norton or jump for the Kawasaki?

You could of course just as easily point to many products that were talked up as likely to upset and existing market that roundly failed to do so, indeed Sony themselves have been behind two of the most famous ones in recent decades with Betamax and Minidiscs.

Where this question becomes relevant of course is whether it should inform your buying decisions today. In that reguard I have a lot more confidence that the EOS and F mounts will be well supported in 5 years than I do any current mirror less mount.

 

[Don Haines]

Not sure if this was stated as I kind of speed read through the five pages of previous posts.

But like I've stated before, the real killer feature would be to make the viewfinder a hybrid ovf/evf like Fuji has done on the x100/s and xpro.

This would give us the best of both worlds and the option to use whichever is best suited for the user/scenario.

Yes, I am aware that there will then be issues with parallax. But it is a small nuisance to maintain the benefit of having access to both types of VF in the same body.

Battery life would also be prolonged which is my biggest beef with mirrorless now.

I personally would love to see a full sized (dslr shape) mirrorless offering from Canon so long as it featured the hybrid vf. The larger form factor would appeal to my ergonomic preferences and also allow for a much larger battery than what is currently used in most small mirrorless bodies.

And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.

 

[Don Haines]

And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.

For comparison,
70D, LP-E6 battery, 1000 pictures per charge
EOS-M, LP-12 battery, 230 pictures per charge

LP-E6 is 7.2V and 1800mAh
LP-E12 is 7.2V and 875mAh

If you look at in term of pictures per Ah, the 70D is 555 per Ah and the EOS-M is 265 per Ah.... so assuming the same battery capacity you are still at only half the life on the EOS-M as the 70D

 

[dgatwood]

And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.

For comparison,
70D, LP-E6 battery, 1000 pictures per charge
EOS-M, LP-12 battery, 230 pictures per charge

LP-E6 is 7.2V and 1800mAh
LP-E12 is 7.2V and 875mAh

If you look at in term of pictures per Ah, the 70D is 555 per Ah and the EOS-M is 265 per Ah.... so assuming the same battery capacity you are still at only half the life on the EOS-M as the 70D

Of course, according to the official Canon numbers, the 70D only gets about 230 shots in live view, or 152 shots per Ah. I can't imagine why its battery life in live view mode is only half that of the EOS-M, rather than being about the same, but there you go. Either way, the point remains that active displays draw a lot of power.

 

[Loswr]

And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.

For comparison,
70D, LP-E6 battery, 1000 pictures per charge
EOS-M, LP-12 battery, 230 pictures per charge

LP-E6 is 7.2V and 1800mAh
LP-E12 is 7.2V and 875mAh

If you look at in term of pictures per Ah, the 70D is 555 per Ah and the EOS-M is 265 per Ah.... so assuming the same battery capacity you are still at only half the life on the EOS-M as the 70D

Of course, according to the official Canon numbers, the 70D only gets about 230 shots in live view, or 152 shots per Ah. I can't imagine why its battery life in live view mode is only half that of the EOS-M, rather than being about the same, but there you go. Either way, the point remains that active displays draw a lot of power.

FWIW, this past week I shot over 500 frames (and a 90 s movie) on a single fully-charged LP-E12 in my EOS M (and I could have shot more, but I swapped in a fresh battery as soon as the red-flashing indicator came on). I shot about the same number of images on my 1D X, and used less than 35% of the LP-E4N's capacity (no need for the spare battery this trip).