DSLRs are a dying breed

[thomas998]

But none of that is bound by the technology - that is simply productization issues. They can build a mirrorless with that stuff tomorrow.. (would it sell would be something else..). I don't think one should use packaging arguments when they are talking about core technologies and it's applicability. That's more about product marketing.

Actually the last two aren't bound by technology, but they are bound by the brand... You have thousands of dollars of lenses built up over years you aren't going to go out and try to recreate your tools in a mirror less system, the only time you might consider doing that is if someone like Sony comes up with a full frame sensor mirror less body like a NEX that you could use your lenses on... and you would then still lose all the auto focus and special metering that was brand/lens/camera specific.

The only thing that has ever tempted me to walk away from the DSLR is the NEX where I could use my lenses... but because it isn't full frame those lenses would all be cropped... and all would become manual focus... I don't have any desire to go re purchase all those lenses.

 

[flynnibus]

Actually the last two aren't bound by technology, but they are bound by the brand... You have thousands of dollars of lenses built up over years you aren't going to go out and try to recreate your tools in a mirror less system, the only time you might consider doing that is if someone like Sony comes up with a full frame sensor mirror less body like a NEX that you could use your lenses on... and you would then still lose all the auto focus and special metering that was brand/lens/camera specific.

Yes and no...

When talking about new products - the stuff missing in the post I was responding to were purely productization issues. 'Why doesn't my pocket camera have remote shutter?' - because they chose not to include it because it doesn't match the market needs - not technology. Same here.

Now what you bring up about the lens are actually bigger than just brands. But body dimensions and focal point of the lens. Without a shutter, the camera body can be shallower, and the focal point of the lens needs to be different. If you are to take full advantage of mirror less, you need all new geometry and lens. This is a barrier to adoption, but not a hard limit. Even prior to this, the changing technology of focus abilities, motors, stabalization, G rings, etc have all lead to turnover in the use of glass.

 

[ddbowdoin]

Yes and no...

When talking about new products - the stuff missing in the post I was responding to were purely productization issues. 'Why doesn't my pocket camera have remote shutter?' - because they chose not to include it because it doesn't match the market needs - not technology. Same here.

Now what you bring up about the lens are actually bigger than just brands. But body dimensions and focal point of the lens. Without a shutter, the camera body can be shallower, and the focal point of the lens needs to be different. If you are to take full advantage of mirror less, you need all new geometry and lens. This is a barrier to adoption, but not a hard limit. Even prior to this, the changing technology of focus abilities, motors, stabalization, G rings, etc have all lead to turnover in the use of glass.

do you have any insight as to the engineering of lenses, can lenses such as the 70-200 VRII be made smaller or is the size dictated by the necessary engineering and construction of glass elements within the lens? I guess that is my biggest drawback on the mirrorless craze, that I like some physical balance between glass and body and if we can't make lenses smaller (without losing quality) then having top optics on a dinky body would test the strength of the mount and feel awkward in the hands.

I am 100% ignorant on the engineering needs of lenses and how it relates to its physical dimensions and construction

 

[flynnibus]

do you have any insight as to the engineering of lenses, can lenses such as the 70-200 VRII be made smaller or is the size dictated by the necessary engineering and construction of glass elements within the lens?

I am an engineer, but I can't speak directly to 'real world' lens design as done in true industry... but there are physical constraints to the sizes of the lens assemblies and trade-offs. Sure they can make something shorter/tighter, but they tend to lose something else in the optics. The lens you have in your FX/DX setups today are built to be as small as they can within the things they are trying to achieve. So in general, a switch to a mirrorless format wouldn't dramatically alter the lens body as a whole, but would some of the geometry (and size too) to focus the lens to the new length. So would things be smaller? Probably.. but significantly? I don't think so.

It doesn't seem like money is the constraint on the size of lenses. When they build more advanced, they tend to be of similar size. You can do crazy things in optics to reduce size, but they also tend to introduce distortion/artifacts.

 

[ddbowdoin]

I am an engineer, but I can't speak directly to 'real world' lens design as done in true industry... but there are physical constraints to the sizes of the lens assemblies and trade-offs. Sure they can make something shorter/tighter, but they tend to lose something else in the optics. The lens you have in your FX/DX setups today are built to be as small as they can within the things they are trying to achieve. So in general, a switch to a mirrorless format wouldn't dramatically alter the lens body as a whole, but would some of the geometry (and size too) to focus the lens to the new length. So would things be smaller? Probably.. but significantly? I don't think so.

It doesn't seem like money is the constraint on the size of lenses. When they build more advanced, they tend to be of similar size. You can do crazy things in optics to reduce size, but they also tend to introduce distortion/artifacts.

I guess that is my biggest turn off to those systems... even if Nikon introduced a small FX mirrorless system it would be so odd to have my largest lenses strapped to it.

I don't think my hands could get used to this...

 

[flynnibus]

I guess that is my biggest turn off to those systems... even if Nikon introduced a small FX mirrorless system it would be so odd to have my largest lenses strapped to it.

Yes, but this is another area where maybe innovation is just waiting to happen. Today the camera body is 'the center' of things... imagine if in the future the lens barrel no longer is a big protrusion out the front, but were integrated in a different way with the rest of the camera.

Much like the grip and chamber positions have been reimagined for next generation rifles compared to the traditional form factor... similar innovation may be in the wings for cameras. Think about the classic film camera vs the hand shaped camcorders of today. That's not just about size, but another a change in ergonomics and where the elements are placed...

 

[ddbowdoin]

Yes, but this is another area where maybe innovation is just waiting to happen. Today the camera body is 'the center' of things... imagine if in the future the lens barrel no longer is a big protrusion out the front, but were integrated in a different way with the rest of the camera.

Much like the grip and chamber positions have been reimagined for next generation rifles compared to the traditional form factor... similar innovation may be in the wings for cameras. Think about the classic film camera vs the hand shaped camcorders of today. That's not just about size, but another a change in ergonomics and where the elements are placed...

I'm certainly interested where it will take us in the future...

 

[KeithVH]

". . . imagine if in the future the lens barrel no longer is a big protrusion out the front . . ."

In my best brogue - you canna change the laws of physics.

 

[flynnibus]

". . . imagine if in the future the lens barrel no longer is a big protrusion out the front . . ."

In my best brogue - you canna change the laws of physics.

Who says the bulk of the camera needs to be BEHIND the lens? Open your mind a bit..

 

[KeithVH]

Light comes into the front of a lens, passes through elements, and exits the back of the lens. That light then has to be captured onto an emulsion or sensor. That requires the ability to control and support the capture absent any other light interference. Mirror, sans mirror, I don't care. The first sentence is inviolate (at least as far as standard photography is concerned - minus pinholes). And governed by laws of reflection and refraction.

The only reason the bulk of the camera exists is to support the capture. I'm just not seeing another design that would be valid and efficient. Regardless of what some might think, that 70-200L is the way it is because of physics, not as compensation for <insert crotch comment here>. Hanging a device off of that so the plane of capture is the correct distance only has so many possibilities. As least ones that are functional and marketable.

 

[flynnibus]

And the sensor isn't the bulk of the camera... That's what you keep overlooking.

 

[fractal]

Andrew Reid, a respected observer of the imaging scene and publisher of EOSHD, a web site for digital film makers, adds some further insight into the current industry malaise in a just published article titled Consumer DSLRs “dead in 5 years”. A good read, populated with some scary statistics.

Further Thoughts
Are we observing the end-game of the photographic industry as we know it? Maybe, maybe not. But a look at how quickly the music industry transitioned from LPs, to audio cassettes and CDs, and then to downloads, and the video entertainment industry from VHS, to DVD, to online streaming, is a saluatory lesson in how industries can change almost overnight.

Tablets are now a daily part of our lives. They didn't even exist three years ago. Netflicks and streaming video? They only sold DVDs two years ago.

I hate to say it, but the marketplace for high-end cameras is shrinking faster than Greenland glaciers. Remember Hi-Fi and high-end stereo stores? Almost all gone now. Visit a big box electronics store and what do you see – a wall with 50 giant flat screen TVs and nary a stereo system in sight.

DVD players? Blu-Ray players? Back shelf. 3D TVs? Almost being remaindered. Video rental stores? Are there any still left in your town?

The rate of change in consumer electronics is moving faster than anyone could ever have foreseen, and the photographic industry is now the consumer electronics industry.

The classic DSLR is heading toward the singularity. Nikon's imminent announcement of the retro DF camera is a telling sign-post. When companies start appealing to past glories you know that there's a fork in the road coming.

No – DSLRs won't completely die out. You can still buy high-end stereo gear after all – if you search for them. But I agree with Andrew and other industry observers. DSLRs will diminish in market share and likely will become a niche product for wealthy enthusiasts. Mainstream enthusiasts will move to so-called mirrorless system cameras and the mass market will happily take pictures with their smartphones while uploading them in real-time to Facebook.

Sony has seen the writing on the wall better than most. So have Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic. Nikon and Canon have had an ostrich-like mentality and are therefore about to be side-swiped by a market shift oftsunami proportions. Unless their market planners grow the cojones needed to adapt to the changing marketplace, in a few short years there'll be a lot of executives in Japan staring out the window at atrain that has swiftly left the station.

Don't misunderstand. The photographic industry will remain vibrant. It just is going to require the photo industry counterparts of General Motors to be aware of the shifting ground beneath their feet before it topples them.

You and I will likely continue to do our photography with some terrific new camera gear in the years ahead. It just may not be from the same companies that we've been buying from in the past.

October, 2013

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/pdn_photoplus_2013.shtml#update

 

[ford91exploder]

do you have any insight as to the engineering of lenses, can lenses such as the 70-200 VRII be made smaller or is the size dictated by the necessary engineering and construction of glass elements within the lens? I guess that is my biggest drawback on the mirrorless craze, that I like some physical balance between glass and body and if we can't make lenses smaller (without losing quality) then having top optics on a dinky body would test the strength of the mount and feel awkward in the hands.

I am 100% ignorant on the engineering needs of lenses and how it relates to its physical dimensions and construction

The 70-200 VR II is about as small as it can be based on the speed of the lens, To keep it small at Distances of 20' and shorter maximum focal length is reduced from 200 to 135MM

 

[ford91exploder]

agreed... street is all about maneuverability and remaining inconspicuous. With Bresson, his focus was the actual moment, as he coined "the decisive moment". He cared very little for the quality of his negatives, he was more focused on a pure moment in time.

That was Cartier-Bresson's genius he could capture the decisive moment, If he were doing this today he would probably use an iPhone because he loved simple tools. His camera was a beat up Leica IIIf as I recall but he was and remains one of the masters of photojournalism. He also did not believe in cropping he used the image as composed and taken.

 

[KeithVH]

flynnibus, I do get what you're saying. Honest. I am open to other design possibilities. Yes, the world is changing in regards to technology and photography.

However, I fall into the category of prosumer/semi-pro. I color my views based on my perceived needs. At the point I can get the same IQ from a superzoom that I'd get from my 300/2.8 and either a 1.6 of FF body, I'll be happy to buy it. And I don't even pixel peep. But I don't think I'll be opening up my wallet in my lifetime for such a device. I guess I'm the 1% (along with some others here). For Carl or Candy Consumer, what is out there now is more camera than they can properly use. New developments, at this point, are, in many cases, superfluous.

That being said, and sounding a little hypocritical, I won't be taking anything but a couple of P&S on our next trip. Devices probably more than 2 years old. Traveling cross-country with gear is a pain, especially when I just want to relax and take snaps. I can't justify constant spending on devices for the latest and greatest. And I think even consumers will, at some point, get fatigued with ANY camera maker who does nothing but continually introduces new equipment with only marginal improvements every few months. I'll wait for really big game-changing gear.

 

[ABQ]

Andrew Reid, a respected observer of the imaging scene and publisher of EOSHD, a web site for digital film makers, adds some further insight into the current industry malaise in a just published article titled Consumer DSLRs “dead in 5 years”. A good read, populated with some scary statistics.

I agree that the stats can be scary, but at some point, the progress is acceptable to me if the result is of better quality. What I mean is, I'm willing to accept the eventual death toll of the DSLR if there is something else out there which can capture the same image. I another thread on this forum, I had discussed how the last 3 cars I've bought are all manual transmissions, bought not for the "I'm cool as I know how to drive a stick" factor, but more because they were cheaper and got better fuel economy than their automatic counterparts. But even those stats are going inverse over time due to better and cheaper technology.
A similar analogy may be land line vs mobile phones. Eventually, though it's certainly not there yet, call quality may progress enough that the need for anyone, anywhere, to have a land line may be gone. Myself and many folks I know haven't had one in years, but I will never say the voice quality and reliability on my cell phone is better than my old 3 thousand pound rotary dial Bell phone was.

 

[fractal]

I agree that the stats can be scary, but at some point, the progress is acceptable to me if the result is of better quality. What I mean is, I'm willing to accept the eventual death toll of the DSLR if there is something else out there which can capture the same image. I another thread on this forum, I had discussed how the last 3 cars I've bought are all manual transmissions, bought not for the "I'm cool as I know how to drive a stick" factor, but more because they were cheaper and got better fuel economy than their automatic counterparts. But even those stats are going inverse over time due to better and cheaper technology.
A similar analogy may be land line vs mobile phones. Eventually, though it's certainly not there yet, call quality may progress enough that the need for anyone, anywhere, to have a land line may be gone. Myself and many folks I know haven't had one in years, but I will never say the voice quality and reliability on my cell phone is better than my old 3 thousand pound rotary dial Bell phone was.

Sony NEX, Fuji X series, and Olympus all give you "DSLR equivalent" IQ. There are some compromises ( battery, AF, less lenses, less of a complete system) but the mirrorless are much easier to carry around.

The new mirrorless Full Frames ( RX1 and A7r ) are producing results on par or better than Canon 5d and Nikon D800/e.

 

[ABQ]

Sony NEX, Fuji X series, and Olympus all give you "DSLR equivalent" IQ. There are some compromises ( battery, AF, less lenses, less of a complete system) but the mirrorless are much easier to carry around.

The new mirrorless Full Frames ( RX1 and A7r ) are producing results on par or better than Canon 5d and Nikon D800/e.

So would you think then that Nikon and Canon are only going to continue making DSLR's until a certain profit margin is no longer retained? Then it's all over? btw, that crazy Zeiss lens mounted on the iphone in that article you linked just makes me so sad. I don't even know if it's real, but I imagine it is. I'm thinking of the day when I'll see a photographer in the camera pit at a baseball game with a monstrous Hasselblad hanging off his iphone now.

 

[fractal]

So would you think then that Nikon and Canon are only going to continue making DSLR's until a certain profit margin is no longer retained? Then it's all over? btw, that crazy Zeiss lens mounted on the iphone in that article you linked just makes me so sad. I don't even know if it's real, but I imagine it is. I'm thinking of the day when I'll see a photographer in the camera pit at a baseball game with a monstrous Hasselblad hanging off his iphone now.

Why is it that every other electronic hand held device has become smaller over time except for the camera? We went from boomboxes, to walkman, to ipods/mp3; We went from desktops to laptops to ipads/tablets; We went from Michael Douglas beach phone in Wall Street to flip phones, to Razors to now watchphones.

Cameras however, until very recently, have become bigger and bigger. A Canon or Nikon Full frame rig is some serious gear to carry around vs a 35mm Nikon circa 1970's or 80's. Even a typical DSLR with a kit lens requires a padded neck strap to make a day of it bearable. Now that mirrorless has shown up at a fraction of the size and weight with equivalent IQ you would think that most would flock to it - but for some reason they still are not considered "serious" cameras by the average "joe" or soccermom.

 

[flynnibus]

Why is it that every other electronic hand held device has become smaller over time except for the camera? We went from boomboxes, to walkman, to ipods/mp3; We went from desktops to laptops to ipads/tablets; We went from Michael Douglas beach phone in Wall Street to flip phones, to Razors to now watchphones.

For the same reasons TVs grow bigger... not smaller Visuals.. you can't shrink what people see and retain the same comfort. Additionally, we are still dealing with light, optics and physics... we can shrink how much space it takes to pack some electronics... but we can't alter how light travels

Now that mirrorless has shown up at a fraction of the size and weight with equivalent IQ you would think that most would flock to it - but for some reason they still are not considered "serious" cameras by the average "joe" or soccermom.

This is held back purely by the purist who wants to see the image 'un-processed' and as the glass sees it... the entire principle behind the SLR camera. But holding onto this notion will die as the newer generations become the dominate market. This will die off as the 'compromises' become less and people just don't care about the tradeoffs. The artificial representation of the image will become 'good enough' and the SLR body design will die.

The form factor we are accustomed to with the big glass and viewfinder keeps the SLR body around more than probably the actual image preview concerns.