# Superzoom, slayer of the SLR?



## Battou (Sep 15, 2008)

Will Superzoom point and shoot cameras lead to the demise of the SLR camera? ...I Believe so.

I have always maintained that if you can not afford one additional lens after the body with kit lens one is getting the wrong SLR. When you can sell a product that enables versatility through the purchases of additional components, You do it, no ifs ands or buts. SLR/dSLR owners spend hundreds and thousands on glass, It's a must for any SLR owner. But to be an SLR owner....This takes an investment of upwards of $1000 (USD) to buy new and roughly around $500 (USD) to buy used in the digital Single Lens Reflex market. I am just not seeing an appropriate action by camera manufacturers to build the next generation of SLR photographers. Wile the current generation SLR owner knows the real difference and has their SLR. The next generation of SLR owner is literally up shts creek unless mommy and daddy got a couple grand to spare. As you well know photography is an expencive hobbie/profession, and when the next generation photographer can get perceved equality at a fraction of the cost they are going to take it. In comes the ever powerful super zoom with it's ultra-powerful 12x optical zoom with it's 8.0MGP.

The Canon S5 IS has an equivalent 36-432mm 2.7/3.5, with an MSRP of $349.99.  An owner merely needs to push a button to go from portraits to wild life wile the SLR owner is swapping lenses or wishing they had another.  With a focal range comparable to or better than that of some serious enthusiasts the possibilities are almost endless. With so much punch in one tidy little package at a fraction of the cost,  In a world where less is more it comes as no surprise that the superzooms are making huge sales. 

The SLR/dSLR owner wants 85mm they go out and buy either a  Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM or one of the many standard zooms that focal length falls in costing anywhere from $400 (USD) (85mm f/1.8) to $1500 (USD) (100-400 f/4.5-5.6L). Should they wish to go to 400mm they go out and spend roughly $1100 USD on a useable 400mm 5.6L IS USM or $7000 (USD)on a 400mm 2.8L IS USM. These costs are in addition to what ever they spent on their body. Now if we round the focal range of the S5 off to say...35mm to 400mm, How many lenses be they prime or zoom fall in this focal range and are not being sold with this camera on the market?...37. Not including third party glass there are 37 different lenses in the Canon EF line from the cheapest Canon EF 35mm f/2 to the most expensive 400mm, the Canon 400mm 2.8L. You take away all the production costs, all the shipping costs, and what not it's still going to takes a lot of S5s to account for the missing profit from those who use this focal range, hell even half of that focal range. 

Yes, the super zoom may not compare optically to a prime L, but if it's all one ever knew, how will they know what they are missing? What incentive is there any more to buy SLR? Wile optical quality is of huge relevance to those of us photographers who are serious or have had experience with a fine prime lens. Those who can not afford the dSLR price tag turn to the film SLR or the "equally" capable superzoom. Wile film SLRs are full fledged and functional SLR cameras that can be purchased on the cheap they lack the modern convenience the average beginner wants. This in turn sways the decision to the superzoom heavily as many have the modern convenience the average beginner wants. I'm a pretty dedicated SLR user, I my self plan on teaching my kids with film based SLRs from the get go, but how many parents are going to go out and get their eight yearold an SLR camera in this day and age? Even then howmany are going to even consider film? I'm possibly one of the last of the generation where film was the only medium at the time I took up photography. I've meet kids in their elder teens who had never even seen a film P&S let alone SLR. What's more people are under the impression that Exif data is the be all and end all in training aids, this leads me to believe that parents will lean strongly to digital. Be they dedicated to photography or wishing to satisfy the curiosity of their child be they eight or eighteen it boils down to what are they willing or able to pay for a camera that may not survive and/or truly peak the interest.

A superzoom also lacks the buyer loyalty that comes with SLR ownership. As it does not require as many additional pieces that could potentially be utilized post upgrade as noted earlier, owners can change from Canon to Nikon on the fly. This lack of loyalty could potentially breed loyalty to the superzoom point and shoot cameras. However this lack of loyalty is bad for business to put it bluntly. Customers will be less likely to tolerate shortcomings in equipment and move on to a different camera. It is in this that SLR manufacturers will begin to doubt the SLR. With fewer and fewer people who are willing and/or able to spend the kind of money it takes to own and truly use an SLR, eventually they will be to costly to produce and later abandoned.

At this rate fifty years down the road the SLR be it film or digital will be little more than the box camera is today, just a toy for eclectic collectors to take out and play with just to say they did it.


----------



## tirediron (Sep 15, 2008)

Interesting thoughts, but I don't think the "Super-zooms" will ever replace SLRs. I can see SLRs as we know them be supplanted by an as yet unknown technology, but the simple fact is, Super-zooms are geared to the low/mid-range consumer market, and lack the versatility and build-quality of a good SLR. I can however see where they might eat into the entry-level SLR market, but not the prosumer or pro end.


----------



## ksmattfish (Sep 15, 2008)

SLR means a mirror is used to allow viewing through the taking lens.  I say who cares what the technology is, as long as I get to see through the taking lens.  

If they make small compact digital cameras with super zooms and high image quality then my photography will only get better.


----------



## wchua24 (Sep 15, 2008)

nah...for me this will never happened . having a slr camera i giving you complete control of the pictures put come. point and shoot camera now its really evolving but still. cant level with slr. or

maybe next time i will be wrong..haha


----------



## A.S.H.rimp (Sep 15, 2008)

I don't really think that's going to happen...   Just simply due to sensor size.   P&S's don't have the IQ of a SLR, and they never will, because their sensors are too small.   Increase sensor size, and you get a camera that doesn't have 400 mm (equiv.) range.  In order to keep that, you have to increase lense size - and then you get a absurdly huge P&S.  
Na...  SLR's will stay around.


----------



## SpeedTrap (Sep 15, 2008)

Crank that S5 or any other super zoom up to ISO 3200 or 6400 and take a picture.
Get back to me if you think that beats a high end SLR............


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 15, 2008)

Er...take a look around. How many "What DSLR should I buy" and "New to DSLR" threads are there?

I especially hate the last one. It translates to "New to digital single lens reflex". I mean, couldn't they at least make it a proper sentence and add "cameras" to the end of it?


----------



## table1349 (Sep 15, 2008)

Well, If they ever make one with minimum specs like this.....

Specs 

And the lens will max out at 400mm f2.8 and be an f1.4 below 85mm then I might think about it. Untill then it is just a Point and Shoot with High Hopes.


----------



## Overread (Sep 15, 2008)

Battou said:


> Will Superzoom point and shoot cameras lead to the demise of the SLR camera? ...I Believe so.
> 
> I have always maintained that if you can not afford one additional lens after the body with kit lens one is getting the wrong SLR. When you can sell a product that enables versatility through the purchases of additional components, You do it, no ifs ands or buts. SLR/dSLR owners spend hundreds and thousands on glass, It's a must for any SLR owner. But to be an SLR owner....This takes an investment of upwards of $1000 (USD) to buy new and roughly around $500 (USD) to buy used in the digital Single Lens Reflex market.


 
This I definatly agree to - a bridge camera at the same cost as a low end amature DSLR body and kit lens is far superior in what it can take with regard to focal range and for many people the bridge is a far better bet.
That said currently I don't see the superzoom cameras overtaking the DSLR market since they are made by the same people that make DSLRs - any new top end tech goes into the DSLR to keep it ahead of the compact market.
Yes in 20 years time I expect point and shoot cameras will have just as good a noise control as the 5ds of today that is just a simple part of the constant evolution of technology.
As for the focal lengths remember the image size - a point and shoot cann't make a photo as big as a DSLR at the same quality and many who do own good point and shoot cameras know this little fact - heck is there was no reason for the size of a 600mm prime then it would not be the size it is and physically speaking I think there is a limit as to how far out lens technology will and can go which will limit the effectivness ofa point and shoot. Bare in mind also that a superzoom compact has limitations on size and weight to the extreme to remain a low end market choice - this will hamper its evolution since whilst new lens tech might come along its size and weight might simply render it not attractive to  the majority consumer base.
I don't think DSLRs will die out - though I should point out that strictly speaking they are already dieing out as the mirrors are removed in favour of liveview features and digital veiwfinders - so whilst they might be called DSLRs they might not be


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 15, 2008)

I don't think one will replace the other in either direction but I think the two will merge - as indeed we're already seeing with the Micro-4/3rds systems. (Then again, I said the same thing about video cameras and dSLRs 15 years ago and we're just NOW seeing it with the D90  )

The Super-Zoom lenses are mostly low quality - and when combined with the tiny sensors really fall pretty short of a nice lens on a large sensor. 

My Konica/Minolta A2's advanced apochromat 28mm~200mm f/2.4 "GT" lens with 16 glass elements in 13 groups, two anomalous dispersion (AD) and two aspheric glass elements is exceptionally rare for a large lens "Bridge" camera and even it is nowhere near as good as many interchangeable lenses out there. Not even if it were 10mm~500mm. Again, especially when combined with small sensor sizes.

I would keep an eye on the Micro-4/3rds systems though! :thumbup:


----------



## Battou (Sep 16, 2008)

SpeedTrap said:


> Crank that S5 or any other super zoom up to ISO 3200 or 6400 and take a picture.
> Get back to me if you think that beats a high end SLR............



I never said it would, nore do I think it could.



Village Idiot said:


> Er...take a look around. How many "What DSLR should I buy" and "New to DSLR" threads are there?
> 
> I especially hate the last one. It translates to "New to digital single lens reflex". I mean, couldn't they at least make it a proper sentence and add "cameras" to the end of it?


But how many of these "New dSLR users" "Have the money to it takes to own and _truly use_ an SLR" How many of them are getting more than the kit lens.

So, compare that to the number of "What DSLR should I buy" and "New to DSLR" threads over the past year or two posted by users who no longer partisipate on the forum as well as how ever many instances one can find where the New dSLR was sold to pay for something more important like school, of them. Then estimate how many of the ones posted now will be in continued service a year form now.

Also, any "What DSLR should I buy" thread with a proposed budget or assumed cost under $700 should be excluded, I don't care where you go, $700 is the lowest one can expect to pay for a working dSLR with lens and an additional lens from a reputable place including semi reputable Ebay.




Like I said, I am just not seeing an appropriate action by camera manufacturers to build the next generation of SLR photographers. As tirediron made mention to, there is an instability in the entry level SLR market. There is no true "budget dSLR", Manufacturers are marketing SLR's to people who don't need that calibur of camera and then on top of that buyers who might need that calibur of camera, but can't afford it are being given preconceptions that these P-shooters can compete with SLRs well enough to serve as an acceptable substitute.  I'm sorry, No, there is no such thing as an "acceptable substitute" to an SLR.

Crossmarketing and bridging the market is going to have unwanted side effects down the road.


----------



## Overread (Sep 16, 2008)

I think you might be seeing a proble where there is not one - DSLR sales are up at the moment since with the impending crash (ok its not really impending much more) people are getting that bigger TV = that better camera - hence all the new DSLR users. They might not go beyond the kit lens and they might not invest more - which is a waste of the DSLR, but its "what they want" a big pro camera- an image more than a tool.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 16, 2008)

While I agree whole heartedly that the point and shoot will be the demise of the consumer efforts of the DSLR I don't see it being all quite doom and gloom. Simply because of image quality etc there will always be hobbyists and professionals using them. None of the serious people would switch.

The only sales lost will be by consumers who as you said don't know any better. Those people are the ones who buy D40s and Canon 100Ds and never ad another lens other than the kit one to their collection, and those people are never satisfied with their DSLRs anyway and would jump back to P&S once quality becomes a none issue.

Finally market that the SLRs fill is one of control over your image. Suppose for a moment that the lenses are good quality, and sensors are ideal and noise free. One thing you still have with a point and shoot is a tiny sensor causing low depth of field. If one wishes to create depth of field they need to increase the aperture of the lens (good luck on those ones) or increase the sensor size (like the SLRs). Now you have a market situation where one has an obscenely bulky lens 36-432 f/2.7 would be MASSIVE. The appeal of the small point and shoot is lost.

They won't have consumer appeal, but they definitely won't be neglected by their creators, nor will they be of "box camera" status in my opinion.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 16, 2008)

My opinion?  Never in a hundred years will a "superzoom P&S" even put a dent in the dSLR market.  I own a Nikon E8800 (8X zoom plus 10X digital zoom for a nice 80X total).  It does 8MP, has a hot shoe and even shoots RAW format.

It cannot even hold a candle to the now (pretty much) outdated Nikon D200.

Don't worry... SLRs have been around for a looooooong time and will continue to be around for even longer than that.


----------



## bhop (Sep 16, 2008)

Not a chance.. 

My friend is using her brother's Canon G9 at the moment.  As great a camera as it is, the low light quality still isn't there, even compared to my outdated D70, and it's considered in many reviews to be a 'top dog' in the p&s category.  If you can get by shooting at 80-200 iso all the time, it'd be ok I suppose, but I don't see p&s's replacing SLR cameras.  I don't even think they have the same customers. 

 And in 50 years, we'll probably have camera implants in our eyes so even p&s's will be obsolete..


----------



## usayit (Sep 16, 2008)

I think a super zoom can... 

but

it wouldn't be a P&S any longer (at least by our definition today)....  Just like the new Micro-4/3rds format, there will be a melding of technologies between the high end P&S and DSLR. 

It doesn't matter if it is a small compact EVF based camera, P&S,  DSLR, or whatever is currently on someone's R&D desk.  If the quality, functionality, and features are right, there will be some forward movement towards changes in the marketplace.   DSLRs as we know it will be around for years because of current investments in lenses and equipment that all transitioned to digital from 35mm film days.

A complete demise of DSLRs?  Probably not.... just like medium format and their digital counterparts still have a place.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 16, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Finally market that the SLRs fill is one of control over your image. Suppose for a moment that the lenses are good quality, and sensors are ideal and noise free. One thing you still have with a point and shoot is a tiny sensor causing low depth of field. If one wishes to create depth of field they need to increase the aperture of the lens (good luck on those ones) or increase the sensor size (like the SLRs). Now you have a market situation where one has an obscenely bulky lens 36-432 f/2.7 would be MASSIVE. The appeal of the small point and shoot is lost.
> 
> They won't have consumer appeal, but they definitely won't be neglected by their creators, nor will they be of "box camera" status in my opinion.



Digitally enhanced DOF blur?


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 17, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Digitally enhanced DOF blur?



Won't help in dark situations where that F/5 lens is just too slow.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 17, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Won't help in dark situations where that F/5 lens is just too slow.



Digitally enhanced light to go with the digitally enhanced blur? :lmao:

A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs.


----------



## skieur (Sep 17, 2008)

tirediron said:


> Interesting thoughts, but I don't think the "Super-zooms" will ever replace SLRs. I can see SLRs as we know them be supplanted by an as yet unknown technology, but the simple fact is, Super-zooms are geared to the low/mid-range consumer market, and lack the versatility and build-quality of a good SLR. I can however see where they might eat into the entry-level SLR market, but not the prosumer or pro end.


 
Oh, I don't know about that. Superzooms are already quieter without the mirrors and vibration of DSLRS. The technology just came on line to make a gigapixel camera chip possible to produce almost 3D images. Some innovations in lens design could certainly make a small superzoom that could handle from wide angle to extreme telephoto and macro with a super IQ and no picture noise extremely useful and a necessary backup for most pros and probably even their primary camera on some shoots.

Not having to change lenses at all and maintaining the same image quality of DSLRs, for example, would certainly cause the market for DSLRs to drop like a rock. Not possible now, but certainly not impossible given the fast improvements in technology that are occuring.

skieur


----------



## epp_b (Sep 17, 2008)

> Superzooms are already quieter without the mirrors and vibration of DSLRS.


So?  Superzooms don't have real viewfinders.  It's a long way off before tiny LCDs can replace viewfinders.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 17, 2008)

The largest reason why those P&S cameras they cost so little is because of their tiny sensor size. We all know what tiny sensors do... If you have a P&S camera, you know how much noise they produce when bumping the ISO


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 17, 2008)

A.S.H.rimp said:


> I don't really think that's going to happen...   Just simply due to sensor size.   P&S's don't have the IQ of a SLR, and they never will, because their sensors are too small.   Increase sensor size, and you get a camera that doesn't have 400 mm (equiv.) range.  In order to keep that, you have to increase lense size - and then you get a absurdly huge P&S.
> Na...  SLR's will stay around.



Thats exactly what I wanted to say


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 17, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> Won't help in dark situations where that F/5 lens is just too slow.





gryphonslair99 said:


> Digitally enhanced light to go with the digitally enhanced blur?



Well if they use IR and UV spectrums they don't need that at all. They can also use microwave radio pulse signals to create a depth map (AKA z-buffer) in order to perform the digital DOF and in that case light amount doesn't matter at all. And this isn't some far fetched futuristic thing either. Some video auto-focus systems already do this. They don't "image" or map the returning signal but that wouldn't be hard to do.


----------



## Garbz (Sep 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Digitally enhanced DOF blur?



Show me one that looks good. I mean they work great with a DOF map. But if you have 2 lenses to generate a DOF map then you may just as well have a big SLR  The rest of the photoshop efforts just seem really poor in comparison.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Show me one that looks good.



http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5021211&postcount=1
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=5022065&postcount=2
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showpost.php?p=4623367&postcount=1
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?f=121&t=526053




> I mean they work great with a DOF map. But if you have 2 lenses to generate a DOF map then you may just as well have a big SLR  The rest of the photoshop efforts just seem really poor in comparison.



Nah, you wouldn't need two lenses. Just split it like they do for the AF and metering systems now. But I dunno if I would claim CG DOF blur was bad. It can be sure but I guess about 70% or 80% of the DOF rack effects and blur we see in motion picture films is computer generated - and mostly without a depth map. Depth maps in combination with contrast and edge detection algorithms would speed things up tremendously and allow for the camera computer to make intelligent decisions about what to blur and how much. I mean these cameras have dual CPUs in them now - I think it could be done.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 18, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Digitally enhanced light to go with the digitally enhanced blur? :lmao:







gryphonslair99 said:


> A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs.



Exactly!


----------



## djacobox372 (Sep 18, 2008)

A.S.H.rimp said:


> I don't really think that's going to happen...   Just simply due to sensor size.   P&S's don't have the IQ of a SLR, and they never will, because their sensors are too small.   Increase sensor size, and you get a camera that doesn't have 400 mm (equiv.) range.  In order to keep that, you have to increase lense size - and then you get a absurdly huge P&S.
> Na...  SLR's will stay around.



Great point! So many people forget that it's the crop factor that enables P&S to achieve long zooms.... an image will always look best when taken through the largest possible glass on the largest possible sensor, regardless of the technology used.  

Of course human vision is a limiting factor, which will make large sensor cameras like current dslrs more of a specialty tool in the future--similar to 4x5 view cameras.


----------



## skieur (Sep 18, 2008)

epp_b said:


> So? Superzooms don't have real viewfinders. It's a long way off before tiny LCDs can replace viewfinders.


 
Oh, real viewfinders require vibration and mirror flapping? 

skieur


----------



## Garbz (Sep 20, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> But I dunno if I would claim CG DOF blur was bad. It can be sure but I guess about 70% or 80% of the DOF rack effects and blur we see in motion picture films is computer generated - and mostly without a depth map. Depth maps in combination with contrast and edge detection algorithms would speed things up tremendously and allow for the camera computer to make intelligent decisions about what to blur and how much. I mean these cameras have dual CPUs in them now - I think it could be done.



Yeah I should have really said MOST of them look crap. The third one is actually very convincing, but something seems off about the first two. That said I wonder how long it took.

A hardware solution would be perfectly acceptable if it could be made. I guess the range finder focusing systems could be adapted to this type of purpose. What I was mainly talking about is post processing DoF in software only without a DoF map is either crap or rarely worth the effort. 

There are people here who don't spend the 5 minutes to run their photos through a RAW converter let alone spend the time to do a DOF adjustment. That's where the movie argument falls down too. Post production takes longer than actual filming, something lots of photographers try to avoid. But if a hardware solution comes in to play along with automatic firmware DoF adjustment then I'm sold 

I can't for the life of me find it but I remember reading an article about a Phd student who created a camera that takes 3D images where DoF and Focus are photorealistically selected in post processing.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

You must be talking about Plenoptic cameras using light fields?  Yeah that's looking pretty good!

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera-150dpi.pdf

https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/lfcamera/lfcamera.avi

http://www.linuxelectrons.com/news/...ate-light-field-camera-banishing-fuzzy-photos

http://www.refocusimaging.com/gallery/

http://graphics.stanford.edu/~hanrahan/


Yup, I'm fully expecting this technology to make it into dSLRs within a year or two. They're pretty late already though - this was discussed at SIGGRAPH '96 and demonstrated at SIGGRAPH 2000.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

I was talking about something that was using bounced wave technology of some sort to generate a z-buffer (or DOF map if you prefer) and then in turn use that to "enhance" DOF in a dSLR. This could all be done in camera on the fly using current technology most or all of which is already on-the-shelf.

I mean there already are handheld 3D Echocardiography systems that do this in real-time @ 40fps.   Why not the same kinda thing using frequencies more sensitive to surfaces like some of the AF systems do for high-end video gear?  

It's kinda out there but I could see it...


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1271753&postcount=8

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1368624&postcount=29


----------



## patrickt (Sep 21, 2008)

My brother-in-law has a super zoom and he would hate to get a DSLR. I have a DSLR and would hate to get a super zoom. 

The original thread should have been titled, "Super zoom wins on tight budget" but my brother-in-law and I can both get a couple of extra lenses.

He likes the convenience of the super zoom.

I like the flexibility of the DSLR.

I don't see either one eliminating the market for the other.


----------



## Sabin (Sep 21, 2008)

Well one of my main reasons fory buying a DSLR is because with my p&s I can never zoom in as far as I want to. The other reasons were because of the low-light noise issue, the fact that the viewfinder doesn't suck. So if a super zoom can fix all those issues it might have gotten my buisness. Of course they just don't have that same "look" as a big DSLR camera. There's just something about a big camera with a big lens that says "I have the _right _to take a picture of whatever I want!"


----------



## epatsellis (Sep 21, 2008)

I think most are missing the target audience for a super zoom, the average person who just wants to take pictures. My wife has an S2IS and loves it, couldn't get her to use my SLRs if I tried, just too heavy and awkward for her. Heck I use the darn thing for ebay pictures and non critical work. 

I did do an entire ad campaign for a local winery with it, just to prove a point to a friend that it's not what you use, but how you use it. While not up to my standards, IQ wise, the ads were being reproduced on newsprint. Here's  a couple from the series (and before anyone complains about the grapes in the second image, the entire series was comped to help the winery get off the ground, I had a $0 budget):


----------



## Battou (Sep 21, 2008)

patrickt said:


> The original thread should have been titled, "Super zoom wins on tight budget"
> 
> ...
> 
> I don't see either one eliminating the market for the other.



No, The thread title is exactly what I wanted, as I do see camera manufacturers foolishly merging the two classes of cameras. 

"Super zoom wins on tight budget" is merely stating fact, everyone and their brother knows that the superzoom is the only fast option for digital for those on a tight budget, but that is not what I am talking about. 

Manufacturers are cross marketing and bridging gaps that should not be bridged in my oppinion. Combining the two markets into one effectivly kills both. 

Make this full frame digital with a 20mm to 800mm range and you have the camera of the future. It's only a matter of time before they figure out how to make that lens optically sound.





Sabin said:


> Well one of my main reasons fory buying a DSLR is because with my p&s I can never zoom in as far as I want to. The other reasons were because of the low-light noise issue, the fact that the viewfinder doesn't suck. So if a super zoom can fix all those issues it might have gotten my buisness. Of course they just don't have that same "look" as a big DSLR camera. There's just something about a big camera with a big lens that says "I have the _right _to take a picture of whatever I want!"



No offence intended, but obviously your P&S was not a true superzoom. I chose the Canon S5 for two reasons. The current superzooms will exceede anything you have for your dSLR distance coverage wise, the S5 is the _shortest_ of the current Superzoom class, It exceedes my straight lens to body capability and I pay a fraction of what most people pay for glass. Yeah, I can beat it with the use of a teleconverter, but then I am sacrificing image quality....though not to the same degree but much the same way the superzooms do. Almost defeats the purpose as the most common teleconverters simply crop and magnify a portion of the lens to make it seem longer.

Also, if you look at the S5, it is designed to have the look and feel of a dSLR and I simply do not see that concept comming to an end any time soon.


----------



## Battou (Sep 21, 2008)

epatsellis said:


> I think most are missing the target audience for a super zoom, the average person who just wants to take pictures. My wife has an S2IS and loves it, couldn't get her to use my SLRs if I tried, just too heavy and awkward for her. Heck I use the darn thing for ebay pictures and non critical work.
> 
> I did do an entire ad campaign for a local winery with it, just to prove a point to a friend that it's not what you use, but how you use it. While not up to my standards, IQ wise, the ads were being reproduced on newsprint. Here's  a couple from the series (and before anyone complains about the grapes in the second image, the entire series was comped to help the winery get off the ground, I had a $0 budget):



Wile I agree with you on the "it's not what you use but how you use it" to most degree, I do have to point out the flaw in your logic as it pertains to target audience.



			
				Canon Powershot S5IS Press release said:
			
		

> "The PowerShot S5 IS digital camera meets the demands of active family photographers and discerning photo hobbyists looking for high-end features and maximum photo flexibility, while maintaining the light weight, trim profile and affordability of a point and shoot digital camera," said Yuichi Ishizuka, senior vice president and general manager, Consumer Imaging Group, Canon U.S.A. "With a broad range of features and a powerful ultra-zoom lens, it is no coincidence that the PowerShot S5 IS digital camera's look and feel evokes the sense of a small, lightweight SLR."


----------



## epatsellis (Sep 21, 2008)

Battou, 
While I understand their position, from where I stand, and what I see talking to the average John Q. Public, the view of this class of camera is that it's perfect for them. I on the other hand, have either a G10 or S5 on my (erm, wife's) Christmas list, with the preference to the G camera. There are times when a superzoom is handy, and while the G10 doesn't have the reach of the S5, would likely become my carry camera.  For those that find the S series lacking (either raw mode, or other "features") a quick Google search will yield some interesting hacks/alternate software that can be loaded on an SD card to enable long exposures, RAW capabilities, etc. It was only a matter of time, in my view.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 21, 2008)

Battou said:


> No, The thread title is exactly what I wanted, as I do see camera manufacturers foolishly merging the two classes of cameras.
> 
> "Super zoom wins on tight budget" is merely stating fact, everyone and their brother knows that the superzoom is the only fast option for digital for those on a tight budget, but that is not what I am talking about.
> 
> ...



Since I shoot Canon DSLR's I will stick to it and it's accessories alone.  Does you S5 cover a range from 14mm to 1200mm? The S5 is a 12X optical zoom based on a 6mm to 70mm lens, while the Canon DSLR range is 85X. Technically it could be 8mm with a Sigma Peleng to 5400mm with the longest telephoto Canon ever produced which would make it 675X.  However the Peleng is a Sigma and the 5400mm is impossible to find for sale at this point.  What Superzoom covers an 85X optical range?  

When you zoom with any lens the very act of zooming in creates a crop on the sensor.  The telecoverter reference really means nothing unless you want to compare the image degradation of a EF 1.4X telecoverter on say the 400mm f2.8 to the TC-DC58B Teleconverter Lens 1.5X for the S5. 

The Olympus IS-3DLX you linked to is only a 5X zoom and from looking at the specifications it wouldn't come close to the specs of the 1D MIII I linked to in a previous post.  Plus the 1D MIII will use the range of Canon lenses I refered to.  Want full frame, the IS-3DLX doesn't come close to the 1Ds MIII specs either and it uses the same range of Canon lenses.

Like I stated in a previous post..."A VW Beatle and a Rolls Royce Phantom may both be motor cars, but they will never fill the same needs."  Sorry no offense, but this thread is basicly comparing apples to vegetable peelers. Both usefull in the kitchen, but you really can't swap em around.


----------



## Battou (Sep 21, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Since I shoot Canon DSLR's I will stick to it and it's accessories alone.  Does you S5 cover a range from 14mm to 1200mm? The S5 is a 12X optical zoom based on a 6mm to 70mm lens, while the Canon DSLR range is 85X. Technically it could be 8mm with a Sigma Peleng to 5400mm with the longest telephoto Canon ever produced which would make it 675X.  However the Peleng is a Sigma and the 5400mm is impossible to find for sale at this point.  What Superzoom covers an 85X optical range?
> 
> When you zoom with any lens the very act of zooming in creates a crop on the sensor.  The telecoverter reference really means nothing unless you want to compare the image degradation of a EF 1.4X telecoverter on say the 400mm f2.8 to the TC-DC58B Teleconverter Lens 1.5X for the S5.
> 
> ...



You missed the point, I'm not comparing. I'm bicthing about the manor that P&S and dSLR markets are being crossed and merged and it is my firm belief that this is going to result in dSLRS becoming nothing more than that fixed lens SLR similar to the olympus 35mm SLR I linked earlier only bigger.



I don't know about you but I sure ain't going to be driving a Rolls Royce Passat, screw that.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 21, 2008)

Battou said:


> You missed the point, I'm not comparing. I'm bicthing about the manor that P&S and dSLR markets are being crossed and merged and it is my firm belief that this is going to result in dSLRS becoming nothing more than that fixed lens SLR similar to the olympus 35mm SLR I linked earlier only bigger.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about you but I sure ain't going to be driving a Rolls Royce Passat, screw that.




I didn't miss the point.  You belief is wrong.  Kind of like the belief in Military Intelligence.  Ain't never happened, ain't happening now and it ain't never gonna happen.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> When you zoom with any lens the very act of zooming in creates a crop on the sensor.



Just to butt in for a sec...  This isn't true unless your camera or lens is broken or something.   99.99% of zooms in use on a dSLR or "super zooms" (if we're now calling bridge cameras "super-zooms") do not work by cropping. They actually do magnify _the scene_ onto the same sized area of the sensor or film plane. 

I suppose there could be a few micrometers of difference in the overall size of the image they project onto the sensor between the two ends of a zoom lens but nothing you could interpret as "he very act of zooming in creates a crop".

--
BTW, what "ain't gonna happen"? You mean movies on dSLRs? Live View on dSLRs? EVFs on dSLRs? Voice Memos on dSLRs? etc.?  Those were all on bridge or P&S cameras first before hey found their way to dSLRs...  So, I guess in a sense we can see Battou's pov. No?


----------



## table1349 (Sep 21, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Just to butt in for a sec...  This isn't true unless your camera or lens is broken or something.   99.99% of zooms in use on a dSLR or "super zooms" (if we're now calling bridge cameras "super-zooms") do not work by cropping. They actually do magnify _the scene_ onto the same sized area of the sensor or film plane.
> 
> I suppose there could be a few micrometers of difference in the overall size of the image they project onto the sensor between the two ends of a zoom lens but nothing you could interpret as "he very act of zooming in creates a crop".
> 
> ...



A crop is of the field of view of the lens.  When the lens magnifies it does so in part by cropping it's own field of view.


----------



## Sabin (Sep 21, 2008)

Battou said:


> No offence intended, but obviously your P&S was not a true superzoom.


 
I never said it was a superzoom, sorry if I implied that. If I had known about super zoom cameras when I bought my new one I might have sprung for that instead because it answers all of the gripes I had with my old camera.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> A crop is of the field of view of the lens.  When the lens magnifies it does so in part by cropping it's own field of view.



Yeah, I guess you can think of it that way. You said "crop on the sensor" tho so I thought I would add the needed correction.


----------



## Battou (Sep 22, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I didn't miss the point.  You belief is wrong.  Kind of like the belief in Military Intelligence.  Ain't never happened, ain't happening now and it ain't never gonna happen.



Obviously you did, Otherwise you would not be using analogies to argue a point that is in fact the base of my complaint. You are right the two classes of cameras are for two different needs. So why is it that camera manufacturers are pushing P&S cameras to a range both optically and controlability that only an SLR should be able to satisfy wile at the same time dumbing down SLR's and making them idiot proof?


If you sit back and think about it, Compact point and shoot cameras have been a prooving ground and refining aria for new technology that once proven in functionality and practicality is worked into the upperclass SLR for years now. Is it really that hard to fathom that it's entirely possible that these monsterous yet compact lenses on the Superzoom P-shooters is a trial in fixed lens technology that once reach a certain level of range and optical preformance be applied to the SLR. If you take into account the idiot proofing of SLR's and making them as easy to use as a standard P&S by default, I can see only one conclution. A fixed lens, full frame dSLR with the option of full manual control for the professional market and _maybe_ a couple fixed lens, crop frame dSLRs with the option of full manual control for the hobbiest/amature market.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 23, 2008)

Battou said:


> I can see only one conclution. A fixed lens, full frame dSLR with the option of full manual control for the professional market and _maybe_ a couple fixed lens, crop frame dSLRs with the option of full manual control for the hobbiest/amature market.



So you think they're going to do away with their #1 cash cow of aftermarket lens sales?

I don't. That would be stuuuuuuupid.


----------



## Battou (Sep 23, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> So you think they're going to do away with their #1 cash cow of aftermarket lens sales?
> 
> I don't. That would be stuuuuuuupid.



Yes I do, and I agree with you that would be a mistake of epic proportion, But anywho.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 23, 2008)

Battou said:


> Obviously you did, Otherwise you would not be using analogies to argue a point that is in fact the base of my complaint. You are right the two classes of cameras are for two different needs. *So why is it that camera manufacturers are pushing P&S cameras to a range both optically and controlability that only an SLR should be able to satisfy wile at the same time dumbing down SLR's and making them idiot proof?*
> 
> 
> If you sit back and think about it, *Compact point and shoot cameras have been a prooving ground and refining aria for new technology that once proven in functionality and practicality is worked into the upperclass SLR for years now. Is it really that hard to fathom that it's entirely possible that these monsterous yet compact lenses on the Superzoom P-shooters is a trial in fixed lens technology that once reach a certain level of range and optical preformance be applied to the SLR. If you take into account the idiot proofing of SLR's and making them as easy to use as a standard P&S by default, I can see only one conclution.* A fixed lens, full frame dSLR with the option of full manual control for the professional market and _maybe_ a couple fixed lens, crop frame dSLRs with the option of full manual control for the hobbiest/amature market.




You need to go back and do a little research on cameras and improvements.  Infact a good study of the history of invention, manufacturing would be good. That is were your whole thought process breaks down, you have it backwards.  Improvements are a trickle down effect, not trickle up.   

I will ask once again, since you never seem to address this, what point and shoot comes close to a 1D MIII, 1Ds MIII, D3, etc. in function?  NONE.  

30 years ago only luxury cars had radios as OEM equipment.  They had to be ordered with non luxury cars.  Now you can't find a car on the lot without a radio.  They upgraded the standards for the non luxury vehicle when things got cheap enough to do so.  Find a car without electric windows and door locks. Same thing there.  

Did you think that P&S cameras were always going to be 6 meg cameras with only basic functions.  As technology advances in the DSLR's and the cost comes down to produce that technology they will add it to the lower end DSLR and then to the P&S.  Thats the way of the world in all areas of manufacturing.  Enginerring anything is a costly, time consuming process.  Manufactures don't look at improvements and say lets see what we can do for the low profit item and then re-enginere it for the high end.  They design for the best and then when production is up and running and costs come down then they look at how they can change it and fit it into the lesser product at a decent cost. 

As for a proving ground, what has been created, and proven on a P&S that was moved over to the DSLR.  Lack of shutter lag?  Truely highquality fast glass?  FPS?  High ISO noise reduction?  The only thing that has come over are the "this would be cool" sell me gimics like Live view and now video.  

And before you go into how great these are stop and think.  Other than for closeup/macro work on a tripod how many people do you really see shooting a DSLR at arms length using live view full time.  Exactly.  Same thing with video.  If someone is serious about video capabilities they buy a video camera.  All your going to get from a DSLR video is some youtube quality stuff of some guy pucking in his buddies car or falling off his skateboard onto his face.  

P&S cameras will continue to improve, but then so will DSLR's.  The high priced technology feeds the DSLR market and trickles down to the lower end DSLR's and then the P&S.


----------



## Overread (Sep 23, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> And before you go into how great these are stop and think. Other than for closeup/macro work on a tripod how many people do you really see shooting a DSLR at arms length using live view full time. Exactly. Same thing with video. If someone is serious about video capabilities they buy a video camera. All your going to get from a DSLR video is some youtube quality stuff of some guy pucking in his buddies car or falling off his skateboard onto his face.


 
but remember a DSLR is not a refined tool - it is an advanced photographic tool, but it is not specialized for a specific use in the same way as say a sports car is specialized for speed.

So you get features for macro that studio shooters won't ever touch - video that the press will use - mirror lock up that sports photographers won't use....
the list goes on 

*ps examples given are only rough - none are perfect of course*


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 23, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> All your going to get from a DSLR video is some youtube quality stuff of some guy pucking in his buddies car or falling off his skateboard onto his face.



I've created TOP quality TV commercials with dSLRs (actually bridge cameras). The Matrix "bullet-time" effect was created with dSLRs. If we keep getting 1080P and 1080i in models with interchangeable lenses I can guarantee there will be a critically acclaimed  film that uses them in at least one or two scenes. I know I would and I'm a known factor in Japanese film-making circles. 

Basically you're saying everyone including yourself who uses a dSLR is a simpleton without a thought in their head.

-- 
(BTW there's a TV show which is still (now 4th season) produced on nothing more than a few laptops and 4 Konica/Minolta A2's)


----------



## Mystwalker (Sep 23, 2008)

That "superzoom" is just a P&S with a LONG zoom.

It's price is very tempting though - for $350, I would not mind carrying one around in pocket.

BUT it will not replace my 30D - yet.  I originally jumped to DSLR due to shutter lag of P&S - not read anything that tell me current P&S have solved this problem.

Also, to my eyes, there is a IQ difference between P&S vs DSLR.  I guess this is an area that P&S can easily improve, but that will increase price of P&S.

Lastly, unless it's a "long" lens (100-500, 150-500), I do not think I can use a walk around that has variable "f".


----------



## Mike_E (Sep 23, 2008)

UMM, 30 years ago 35mm was used by most people but if you wanted the best you went to 4X5 or even 8x10.  

Then as now size matters.  

(and no, motion is this case is a bad thing!)     :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 23, 2008)

LOL!

"*Sigma announces the development of a 14 megapixel high definition digital camera, packing the full spec of a DSLR into the body of a compact camera.*"​
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092305sigma_dp2.asp


----------



## Overread (Sep 23, 2008)

I rather like that!
and it has a hotshoe as well so one can use a (sigma) flashgun - looks like a very nice bridge type compact for a photographer!


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 23, 2008)

It's not a bridge type though. It's a compact through and through.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 23, 2008)

Here's some info on the Foveon X3: http://www.foveon.com/article.php?a=67


----------



## table1349 (Sep 23, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I've created TOP quality TV commercials with dSLRs (actually bridge cameras). The Matrix "bullet-time" effect was created with dSLRs. If we keep getting 1080P and 1080i in models with interchangeable lenses I can guarantee there will be a critically acclaimed  film that uses them in at least one or two scenes. I know I would and I'm a known factor in Japanese film-making circles.
> 
> Basically you're saying everyone including yourself who uses a dSLR is a simpleton without a thought in their head.
> 
> ...



Really, which one?

The concept that this thread is about is what will become the norm, not the unusual.  There have been many very accomplished and highly regarded photographers over they years that took and instamatic in the days of film or a cheap little P&S now and done a project.  It did not however turn into a replacement for their normal, day to day shooting gear. 


Call me when Dreamworks Studio, MGM, Sony, Universal, Warner, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Disney or New Line Cinema replace their current production equipment with the D90 or the 5D MII.  Until then your are just talking about the _Heisenberg Compensator_ of the some day in the future production world.   Until then I will excitedly be waiting to see if it is the Teletubbies, a manga cartoon or the next Godzilla movie that is filmed in it's entirety on a DSLR.


----------



## usayit (Sep 23, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> LOL!
> Sigma announces the development of a 14 megapixel high definition digital camera, packing the full spec of a DSLR into the body of a compact camera.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092305sigma_dp2.asp



I think that sigma is going to be a hard sell.

* Their retail channels are slim... not too many camera shops carry sigma.  
* I believe their offerings are going to be challenged by this:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092208olympus_micro_four_thirds.asp 

All olympus has to do is follow through and actually deliver the final product.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 23, 2008)

Overread said:


> but remember a DSLR is not a refined tool - it is an advanced photographic tool, but it is not specialized for a specific use in the same way as say a sports car is specialized for speed.
> 
> So you get features for macro that studio shooters won't ever touch - video that the press will use - mirror lock up that sports photographers won't use....
> the list goes on
> ...




True, but then most photographers don't know how to use their camera bodies to the fullest anyways.  Especially with the custom functions now available on DSLR camera bodies.  I would submitt that the basic features of an SLR or a DSLR are still features that a photographer would want to have available.  They are not the same features that a cinemaphotographer would necessarly want to have for their work.  Are their times when there might be a want for a crossover.  Yes.  Is it something that is wanted on a day to day basis by the majority of the serious users?

I would suggest however that the DSLR is a refined tool.  Not as refined perhaps as the older SLR's but still refined.  An SLR and the DSLR are designed to take still photographs.  A movie camera and the modern digital camera are designed to take sequences of film or images.  Their workings are quite different for their basic function.  

Even though my old 8mm movie camera that the folks gave me had three different lenses on it that could be rotated allowing for more flexability, I never once thought for a minute that it would replace the 35mm production movie cameras.  I was right, it never did.

While point and shoots will undoubtly improve in function and quality so will the DSLR's.  They will coexist in the world of photography each having it's own distinct advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## Battou (Sep 24, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> I will ask once again, since you never seem to address this, what point and shoot comes close to a 1D MIII, 1Ds MIII, D3, etc. in function?  NONE.



It has not been addressed because it is irrelevant as far as this conversation goes, but since you asked so god damn nicely. I never said, and never will say any current P&S camera can hold a candle to the 1D series. Unfortunately it is not the current generation of photographer I am worried about. Never once did I say that you and I are just going to throw our Canons out the window in favor of some P&S on steroids, in fact I said quite the opposite.

From the original post


Battou said:


> Yes, the super zoom may not compare optically to a prime L, but if it's all one ever knew, how will they know what they are missing? What incentive is there any more to buy SLR? Wile optical quality is of huge relevance to those of us photographers who are serious or have had experience with a fine prime lens. Those who can not afford the dSLR price tag turn to the film SLR or the "equally" capable superzoom. Wile film SLRs are full fledged and functional SLR cameras that can be purchased on the cheap they lack the modern convenience the average beginner wants. This in turn sways the decision to the superzoom heavily as many have the modern convenience the average beginner wants. I'm a pretty dedicated SLR user, I my self plan on teaching my kids with film based SLRs from the get go, but how many parents are going to go out and get their eight yearold an SLR camera in this day and age? Even then howmany are going to even consider film? I'm possibly one of the last of the generation where film was the only medium at the time I took up photography. I've meet kids in their elder teens who had never even seen a film P&S let alone SLR. What's more people are under the impression that Exif data is the be all and end all in training aids, this leads me to believe that parents will lean strongly to digital. Be they dedicated to photography or wishing to satisfy the curiosity of their child be they eight or eighteen it boils down to what are they willing or able to pay for a camera that may not survive and/or truly peak the interest.



It's todays beginners, those who have not shot an SLR of any form that I am concerned about. Especially those on tight budgets, You put perceved eqality in their hands and who is to tell them otherwise...People of the last generation like us. Well eventually we will be dead and that responsibility falls on the photographers of the following generation, this generation. I repete "I am just not seeing an appropriate action by camera manufacturers to build the next generation of SLR photographers." Howmany SLR's are being sold to people who can't afford to buy and/or never will buy another lens, and how does that compare to the number of those who have a minimum of three lenses. Then How does the difference compare to the number of superzooms sold to people looking to get into/get their kids into photography. From what I am seeing the balence of power between SLR to P&S in enthusiastic hands is going to be considerably weeker than it was thirty years ago. Not dead but weeker, I do not see the SLR as we know it lasting anymore than a couple user generations.  




gryphonslair99 said:


> Did you think that P&S cameras were always going to be 6 meg cameras with only basic functions.



No, I did not believe that P&S cameras would sit idle, I do however believe that there comes a point where the line must be drawn limmiting the flexibility of P&S cameras, requiring those who are truely interested to move up to an SLR. Something more than just optical quality, Range is a mighty fine place to put a limit on as far as I am concerned, there is no reason for a pocket camera to have the reach we see in the modern superzooms, None. I also feel that marketing SLRs like that bigger better badder TV, boom box or what ever, SLRs are a tool not a status simbol.

If I did believe that P-shooters were always going to be 6 meg cameras with only basic functions, Do you seriously think I would be complaining about the potential repricussions of their development?




gryphonslair99 said:


> And before you go into how great these are stop and think.



Before I can even start going into how great these are I would have to first actually use them, and that ain't happening. I'll admit you have me on that with some of the larger stuff like IS, AF and what not, but don't use any of it so I could not care less how it's developed. That was a mistake on my part based on the gimics I find so utterly pointless.




Battou said:


> Obviously you did...



And here is the confirmation



gryphonslair99 said:


> Really, which one?
> 
> The concept that this thread is about is what will become the norm, not the unusual.  There have been many very accomplished and highly regarded photographers over they years that took and instamatic in the days of film or a cheap little P&S now and done a project. *It did not however turn into a replacement for their normal, day to day shooting gear.*



Never once did I say or imply that todays photographers where going to replace their dSLR with one of these things. This is a long term projection based on what I see in the market today and in its history. It has nothing to do with accomplished photographers, it has everything to do with the photographers who don't even have a camera yet. It's about what they buy/have given to them for their first cameras, the incentives (or lack thereof) they have to move up to SLR from the point and shoot they could afford/got for their birthday and the ones teaching them. 

The conclution I came to was that history will repet it self, 30 years ago 35mm was popular and 8x10 was superior.....Now 35mm is allmost obsolete and 8X10 is shot only by the truly dedicated. Thirty to fifty years from now that 1D you are so adamately defending will be of little interest to the average photographer, because I imagine they will have a one peice kit that will do it all. Not all that much different from my having little intrest in a Sinar, being relitivly content with my 35mm SLR and all.




Frankly, I don't give a rats ass if you think I am wrong in my conclution, To each his own, But I'm not going to have this thread deraild with repeted analogies arguing a misinturpritation. That is what pissed me off.


----------



## Flur (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm a noob here and I've actually learned a lot from this thread.

That said, I think there is a factor here that you might be forgetting.  For a long time DSLRs were the domain of professional photographers only, and you had to have talent and money to become a professional photographer.  It was similar to becoming a writer.  But times have changed - look at the millions of blogs on the internet from people who fancy themselves writers and photographers.  A good chunk of those people would love to take pics and write for a living and quite a few of them do.  And these aspiring professionals are doing searches for information on how to take better pictures and finding sites like this and learning about IQ and bokeh and seeing side-by-side comaprisions of images from P&Ss and FF DSLRs.  Yes, for people who don't know and don't care, the superzooms and advancements in P&S cameras might pull people from the entry-level DSLRs.  But the number of people who are caring is increasing.

I think there are a lot of people who want quality cameras that they can toss in their bag and take wherever they go.  The major camera companies are working to fill that void.  But that doesn't mean that many of the same people don't also want a professional-level quality DSLR.  The superzoom market isn't hurting the DSLR market, it's bringing younger, less wealthy photographers into the fold.  It's a gateway drug.


----------



## table1349 (Sep 24, 2008)

Battou said:


> It has not been addressed because it is irrelevant as far as this conversation goes, but since you asked so god damn nicely. I never said, and never will say any current P&S camera can hold a candle to the 1D series. Unfortunately it is not the current generation of photographer I am worried about. Never once did I say that you and I are just going to throw our Canons out the window in favor of some P&S on steroids, in fact I said quite the opposite.
> 
> From the original post
> 
> ...



I refer you to your initial statement:  *

"Will Superzoom point and shoot cameras lead to the demise of the SLR camera? ...I Believe so."

*Definition of Demise:

*1. **a.  Death.*
*b.  The end of existence or activity; termination: the demise of the streetcar.*

*2. * _Law_  Transfer of an estate by lease or will.
*3. * The transfer of a ruler's authority by death or abdication.

To this I will again refer you to what I have stated above.  No the super will not lead to the demise of the SLR camera.  So the 1D MIII and the 1Ds MIII are relevant.  They are SLR cameras.  The superzoom will not lead to their demise. 

If you had asked, will the rise of the Superzoom make changes in the SLR market or in SLR's as we know them today.  The answer is quite possibly. Improvements in technology always bring about change. But in this case the question as you asked referred to Demise?  And again I say NO.


----------



## mr2medic (Sep 25, 2008)

Ok, after reading this whole thread i would just like to put in my two cents worth. First off, it sounds like someone is afraid that the P&S is getting to close to what their SLR can do; whether it really can or can't isn't the point. Second of all I don't mind having the "bridge" cameras around, and actually like to see them improve just like the SLR. Saying that these are going to keep new buyers from getting into digital when they can get a P&S that can do better is, in my opinion, completely unfounded. I for one got started taking pictures with one of these "bridge" cameras. As i took more pictures and started using other features of it i started realizing it couldn't necessarily do everything i wanted it to as well as i would like. So once i saved enough money i got myself a DSLR and an extra lens. Point being is that you shouldn't look at it like they are going to kill off the lower end DSLR. In my opinion and from what i've observed talking with other friends who have a SLR, most people don't just jump straight into the deep end of photography. In my case if i had never bought that "bridge" camera i would never have got in to the SLRs. To spend upwards of 1-3k depending on what you get when you make your initial purchase of a SLR, you would either have to have a bunch of money to waste or be just plain stupid when you don't even know if you are going to like the hobby.
And as far as the comment about getting the wrong SLR if you can't afford a kit lens, that just irritates me. While i did get a second lens when i bought mine (which i accidentally dropped and broke), I don't feel like that is quite right. I was lucky enough to have the money to get a second lens but if i didn't i still would not have changed my mind. Again, in my opinion, if you are buying a SLR camera you should buy the best body you can afford while still being able to afford at least one decent lens. While yes you can buy a different body at a later time. It simplifies the learning curve when you only need to worry about one lens, and if i need another one later i can always go back and buy another a month or two down the road. If i don't have the lens i can always rent one until i have the cash available to buy it. I would rather rent a lens which is much easier to learn the controls on than renting a camera body and figure out the hundred different controls on it.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 25, 2008)

Flur said:


> For a long time DSLRs were the domain of professional photographers only, and you had to have talent and money to become a professional photographer.



That's not even close to being true is it? I've been into photography for... umm... I guess about 60 years now. When the first dSLRs came out professionals didn't even want to touch them. They were considered by news and acquisition services a little after awhile but when they came out they seemed to have been purchased mostly by rich hobby geeks. They certainly didn't require any extra talent.




mr2medic said:


> it sounds like someone is afraid that the P&S is getting to close to what their SLR can do...



:lmao:  Hehehehe... Awesome post!


----------



## Joe S (Sep 25, 2008)

I honestly feel that when the photographer is looking for the next better in quality they will always find the money to step up to SLR. 

While the average person may not admit to seeing the difference in a photograph, it is there. High quality glass on full frame bodies provides an image quality that is unsurpassed. Next time you are looking at billboards, or any print advertising look at the quality of the images. Most of them will stand out as high quality shots while others just look average.

But then, equipment isnt everything either. The point and shoot is called that for a reason after all.


----------



## skieur (Sep 29, 2008)

Look at it differently.  What technological improvements would be necessary for the compact camera to make the DSLR obsolete and are those improvements possible?

It seems to me that the only critical necessity is either a smaller full frame chip or a smaller than full frame chip with full frame capabilities.  That is certainly not beyond but is currently theoretically possible.

Therefore, compact cameras could slay the DSLR.

skieur


----------



## table1349 (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Look at it differently.  What technological improvements would be necessary for the compact camera to make the DSLR obsolete and are those improvements possible?
> 
> It seems to me that the only critical necessity is either a smaller full frame chip or a smaller than full frame chip with full frame capabilities.  That is certainly not beyond but is currently theoretically possible.
> 
> ...



 Smaller Full frame chip.  Smaller full frame isn't full frame, it's cropped. :scratch:

Here is a small list of the technological improvements that I see as being needed to fulfill you desire. 

1. Crop sensor that has the pixel density of a full frame chip. 
2. High ISO noise reduction capabilities comparable to the most modern of   DSLR's with multiple processors. 
3. A real electro/mechanical shutter. 
4. Fast FPS with no lag. (tied to #3)
5. Real viewfinder with various metering modes. (Looks like we are back to an DSLR now without the interchangeable lenses)
6. Quality Build for everyday shooting.
7. Very high quality, fast glass.  f1.4 across at least part of the range.  f2.8 for the rest.  
8. Glass range from 10mm to 1200mm( with the standards of #7)
9. Multitude of truly useful custom functions. 
10. Total manual control, AV, TV, modes.

That's just the first ten that I could think of in about 2 minutes.  There are many more.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Look at it differently.  What technological improvements would be necessary for the compact camera to make the DSLR obsolete and are those improvements possible?



Well, sure.. it could be done if we think in the opposite direction. Take a classic dSLR weld the lens in place, remove the mirror box and hardwire Live View to an EVF or replace it all with a range finder... and boom instant compact with dSLR features. It's not even much of a technological challenge. I doubt it will happen tho and for the same reason that Nikon manufactures and markets 6 or 7 dSLRs, 3 or so Bridge Cameras and 4 or 5 compacts all at the same time - not to mention all the other camera makers that do this. If they wanted to consolidate their product line I guess they would keep 1 or 2 of their compacts and 2 or 3 of their dSLRs and ditch the super-zooms all together.

To use the all too popular car analogy that would be like chevy putting all their racing/sports features into their station-wagons and then eliminating their line of sports cars.  Sure it could be done but I doubt very seriously it would ever happen.


----------



## Patm1313 (Sep 30, 2008)

I think dSLR's will last. They are more comfortable to use (IMO) than P&S's. They allow for different lenses, which unlike P&S's, they each have their own qualities. They also allow for filters. The next generation of "photographers" aren't really photographers at all. They gaze at their LCD screens, holding the camera 3 feet from their face, and take pictures of themselves in the mirror to put up on their favorite profile website (mysace, facebook, etc.). You see, as long as 3d photogaphy isn't introduced, 2d photographers, and the dSLR will still be around.

How the hell do I know?

Well, I'm what you might call the "next generation". I'm 13, and I bought my first dSLR a couple months ago. I looked at the P&S's, and I realized that if I was going to keep expanding (and investing) in photography, I should go with a dSLR.

Now, P&S's have their own purposes, like being cameras for those not technically inclined, or for those that just want to take pictures of the beach and their kid's birthdays. That's fine and dandy, but as long as photography is around, so will the dSLR.

(This is one of my better posts...)


----------



## McQueen278 (Sep 30, 2008)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Well, If they ever make one with minimum specs like this.....
> 
> Specs
> 
> And the lens will max out at 400mm f2.8 and be an f1.4 below 85mm then I might think about it. Untill then it is just a Point and Shoot with High Hopes.



I have to say, I'd buy that camera as long as it could focus at the max aperture precisely and manually.


I've often wondered why we've never seen a simple metal body like the Pentax K1000 with all mechanical features and a m42 or k mount, an 8mp sensor where the film used to go, circuitry in the empty space where the film canister was and a TTL meter.

As you can see, I'm not much for point and shoot cameras or super-zooms.  This would be my ideal snapshot camera.


----------



## skieur (Sep 30, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Well, sure.. it could be done if we think in the opposite direction. Take a classic dSLR weld the lens in place, remove the mirror box and hardwire Live View to an EVF or replace it all with a range finder... and boom instant compact with dSLR features. It's not even much of a technological challenge. I doubt it will happen tho and for the same reason that Nikon manufactures and markets 6 or 7 dSLRs, 3 or so Bridge Cameras and 4 or 5 compacts all at the same time - not to mention all the other camera makers that do this. If they wanted to consolidate their product line I guess they would keep 1 or 2 of their compacts and 2 or 3 of their dSLRs and ditch the super-zooms all together.
> 
> To use the all too popular car analogy that would be like chevy putting all their racing/sports features into their station-wagons and then eliminating their line of sports cars. Sure it could be done but I doubt very seriously it would ever happen.


 
Hey, they said film cameras would last forever and Kodachrome 64 is apparently being phased out shortly so the demise of film cameras is coming.   Marketing is the major determining factor in determining change in camera technology.

A small superzoom camera with still and video capability along with the quality of a Nikon D90 and a 35mm lens equivalent of 28mm to 450 mm. at f. 2.8 to 3.5 would certainly sell, if the price was also right.  The only question is how far away are we from this being technologically possible.

skieur


----------



## manaheim (Sep 30, 2008)

You so rarely see one thing utterly replace another.

Think of...

- digital will replace film
- microwaves will replace ovens
- computers will replace paper
- tv will replace radio

You certainly see cases where it happens, but not often... CDs have NEARLY replaced cassette tapes, for example.  (nearly... not entirely)

That being said... 18-432?!  LOL  That's bonkers.


----------



## mrodgers (Sep 30, 2008)

skieur said:


> Hey, they said film cameras would last forever and Kodachrome 64 is apparently being phased out shortly so the demise of film cameras is coming.   Marketing is the major determining factor in determining change in camera technology.


That said, everybody and their brother is toting around a dSLR anymore.  I just got a new puppy a week ago for my girls.  This past Saturday, my brother-in-law had organized a dog carnival at his local state park with the help of the AKC.  I went to it with my little ole superzoom, but unfortunately I realized immediately the state of my batteries upon turning it on (dead as dead can be ).  I was surprised by the amount of people that came, but it wasn't anything like you would see in the big city.  I counted at least 10 people walking around with dSLR cameras (probably 75 people total attended if that).  I don't think I saw a P&S camera the whole day.

What I mostly wonder when I am somewhere with my little superzoom with people walking all around me toting dSLR cameras is, how many of them are shooting in full manual mode like me and my trusty cheap camera and how many are shooting in full auto.  My guess is the full auto folks outnumber the full manual (or partial manual Av and Tv modes).

The point?  Digital SLR cameras _are_ being marketed to the everyday person.  More and more people are carrying D40's and XTi/XSi cameras (and better than those as well) around with the little dial set to the green auto setting.


----------



## dklod (Sep 30, 2008)

I dont know enough about the history and progress of photography to answer this, but all I'll say is: I have a superzoom (12x) camera. I got it as a bridge camera to myfirst DSLR almost 2 years ago. In the beginning, I found it great for what I was using it for. Fully manual, long exposure options. I had alot of fun with it. Then I needed more, long before I thought I would. Higher F stops, better low light perfomance. Then I borrowed a DSLR a few months ago for the first time. Im not sure I have taken a serious photo with the point and shoot since. There are alot of areas (reduced noise, better image quality at full zoom just as starters) that would need massive inprovements, but at what cost??? By the time these are corrected, what price range would we be at?? Likely around the same as an entry level DSLR and there is not much difference now. Most people out there that have compact cameras need nothing more than to be able to capture a childs bday or of a holiday.


----------



## Bifurcator (Oct 1, 2008)

skieur said:


> Hey, they said film cameras would last forever and Kodachrome 64 is apparently being phased out shortly so the demise of film cameras is coming.   Marketing is the major determining factor in determining change in camera technology.



Different thing.  Yes automobiles replaced horses as a means of transportation but Shetlands never replaced Clydesdales and family cars never replaced sports cars. See?



> A small superzoom camera with still and video capability along with the quality of a Nikon D90 and a 35mm lens equivalent of 28mm to 450 mm. at f. 2.8 to 3.5 would certainly sell, if the price was also right.  The only question is how far away are we from this being technologically possible.
> 
> skieur



How far away?  We passed that ability 7 or 8 years back - just in mass-produced consumer level goods.  

Unless there are interchangeable lenses it won't happen in the foreseeable future. 



manaheim said:


> You so rarely see one thing utterly replace another.
> 
> Think of...
> 
> ...



Yup, and you're still talking on the car vrs. horse level and not the sports car vrs. family car.




dklod said:


> I have a superzoom (12x) camera.
> 
> I had alot of fun with it.
> 
> Then I needed more, long before I thought I would.



Exactly.


----------

