# The end of DSLR ?



## goodguy

Read this and it does worry me.

Point, shoot, collapse: Why big camera companies are the next BlackBerry | Financial Post

What do you think ?


----------



## gsgary

Dont worry me i shoot film Leicas 

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## rexbobcat

Scare tactics for traffic


----------



## cgipson1

yea.. sure... whatever... when crappy phone cameras turn out decent IQ... if they ever do. Haven't seen it yet...

doubt if it will ever happen....


----------



## manaheim

Go out and try to find a high-quality LCD panel.

They're harder and harder to find for anything close to reasonable $... because (statistically) nooooooooooooooooooooooooooobody cares.

It's an interesting thing to consider, but it'll be a while.


----------



## astroNikon

I thought I read an article where DSLRs sales are UP just a short time ago?  One reason other manufacturers are entering the dSLR market.


----------



## goodguy

Well this is how I see this.

It is very cool to have a DSLR in your hand but I think for those who are not real photography fans it becomes old very fast especially if you have a camera on hand with your cell phone.
I also know all of us here will never carry a smartphone in a thought that this is "my everyday camera".
Tiny sensor, no real lens and forget about control or RAW.
I think DSLR and mirrorless cameras market has grown very big because of non photography fans buying cameras but now I simply think the market will shrink back to its real size, the real size is of those who really love photography.
Real fans want to have the big array of lenses, they want the control, they want the RAW, they want the picture quality......etc
These people will continue to buy good cameras so I think/hope the DSLR/Mirrorless market will not disappear but simply shrink back to its real size.

Anyways I dont see a pro photographer going to shoot a wedding with his cell phone  he/she will need a good camera so that already promises the continuation of these cameras.


----------



## cgipson1

manaheim said:


> Go out and try to find a high-quality LCD panel.
> 
> They're harder and harder to find for anything close to reasonable $... because (statistically) nooooooooooooooooooooooooooobody cares.
> 
> It's an interesting thing to consider, but it'll be a while.



True... 

maybe if photography becomes more specialized like it used to be... and components become more expensive, maybe we will see fewer Amateur Pro's! lol!


----------



## timor

goodguy said:


> Read this and it does worry me.


Yeah... maybe you right to be worry. Prices of dslrs will go up when the smartphones take over the world. I guess world will also need a lot of new servers to store the increased avalanche of works. Eventually that might spell the end of any meaningful digital picture taking.


----------



## runnah

The "SLR" part of "DSLR" is certainly going to go away very soon. But the "pro" grade camera will be around forever.


----------



## timor

cgipson1 said:


> maybe we will see fewer Amateur Pro's! lol!


I am afraid of the opposite: More, many more, almost everyone who would like to call that himself.


----------



## ffarl

I've actually thought a lot about this, but from a slightly different standpoint.  I don't worry so much that people will cease to _care_ about the quality of photos.  The nuances of any art form are always most appreciated by those that practice it, meaning that most of what you pro's use to qualify a photo as "Good" or "bad" is lost on most people.  

    I think the factor that's going to drive this trend is going to be that smartphone cameras are EVERYWHERE, and they tend to get lucky just based on the numbers.  When the unexpected happens and there are 100 smartphones shooting 4000 pictures and uploading them to social media without any time to edit more than a smartphone is capable of, someone is going to get lucky and get a "Good" shot.  Probably multiple someones.  And the pro that took the time to get a technically "Great" shot is going to have a hard time paying the bills with his shots.

    Weddings, family gatherings... events where one pays a photographer to show up and shoot can produce the same effect.  One or two pros against another 100 smartphones.  Brides and Grooms don't know what makes a good photo anymore than the rest of the world, so they're likely to have favorites shot by their 16 year old niece.

    I imagine it's how I feel when my band goes on after the opener plays "Free Bird" and "Mustang Sally" for 45 minutes.  I've got songs that I've honed for years, and put my guts out for everyone to see by writing, but it's not always what people want to hear.  Particularly drunk people.


----------



## timor

gsgary said:


> Dont worry me i shoot film Leicas


What's your stockpile of film ? TG film is so separated from digital.


----------



## Ysarex

cgipson1 said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go out and try to find a high-quality LCD panel.
> 
> They're harder and harder to find for anything close to reasonable $... because (statistically) nooooooooooooooooooooooooooobody cares.
> 
> It's an interesting thing to consider, but it'll be a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True...
> 
> maybe if photography becomes more specialized like it used to be... and components become more expensive, maybe we will see fewer Amateur Pro's! lol!
Click to expand...


Be afraid Charlie, be very afraid: An Entire Wedding Shot On An iPhone And Processed Using Instagram | Fstoppers

Joe


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Nikon won't be around in 5 years. Haha. Lay off the crack. Yeah smartphones are that majority of people's everyday camera but dslrs won't disappear. Pros will never use a phone for weddings and the quality in a phone will never match a Dslr. I'm so skeptical about the 41mp camera phone. I doubt it's really that good.


----------



## timor

Devinhullphoto said:


> Pros will never use a phone for weddings and the quality in a phone will never match a Dslr.


You might be surprised. Especially what people are willing to accept as a good quality, if the don't have to pay for it.


----------



## usayit

I'm hoping for this....  It would be nice to have quality and packaging that meets my expectations....   I always have a camera with me and always taking photos, I'd like to reduce this to a single unit in the size similar to that of a smart phone.

I'm not looking for DSLR or dedicated camera quality BUT built in quality of a high end P&S such as a RX100 or LX7 would be great.


----------



## Derrel

"*The future's soooo bright, I gotta wear shades.*"


----------



## limr

Gary's got a point, though. The rise of digital cameras didn't mean the end of film. It did perhaps severely curtail certain things - one-hour photo labs, point and shoots, some of the film stock and processing (I've got a roll of Kodachrome and can't do anything with it!) - but there's still a market, there's still a core population of film devotees, and there are still younger people who started on digital who are at least experimenting with film for various reasons. A Hasselblad is still bad ass.

Will increasing quality of cell phone cameras impact the digital market? Probably will, eventually. I can't see it taking over completely and competing with that core population to whom photography is really important.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

timor said:


> You might be surprised. Especially what people are willing to accept as a good quality, if the don't have to pay for it.


  I don't think they would qualify as a pro then. A pro should want to strive for nothing less than perfect quality. Imagine trying to get close ups at a wedding with your iPhone. You would have to practically climb on top of the stage to get them.


----------



## usayit

The article speaks more to the consumer market.... 

Let me translate that for you all...    its not the photographic specific market.



Recall.... some photographers who worked for black and white low resolution print newspaper for decades also had lower expectations for acceptable quality.


----------



## Gavjenks

Why would this scare you?

*If in fact they can *make tiny little cameras that are cheap as hell and do in fact give better image quality than DSLRs, then wouldn't that be a GOOD thing?


----------



## Derrel

I thought the most significant aspect of the article was this phrase: "*image quality as a primary value is now second to connectivity to Web services like Facebook.*&#8221;

I think the above statement is very important, because if the "camera makers", like Nikon, want to stay relevant in the world of TODAY'S photographic scene, they MUST make it vastly easier to get photos onto the web and social media sites like Facebook, Flickr, Vine, Vimeo,YouTube, and so on. It's difficult for many people, especially older photographers (no offense, but sorry, it's true, old guys...you know who you are, we know who you are too...) to understand that image technical quality is NO LONGER THAT IMPORTANT to "many" people.

Photos are no longer rare things, displayed proudly in frames on desktops, mantles, and walls...no...*photographs* have been replaced, supplanted, by pictures...snaps...shots...shown and shared and distributed in very short timeframes. INSTANT upload and INSTANT sharing, or at least quick and EASY uploading of pictures has become much more of a priority than having higher technical quality.

People are now sharing...distributing..on-line publishing...Facebook-ing, whatever you wanna' call it, their pictures, much more so than taking 24- or 36 frames and carefully selecting one or two images to "enlarge", then taking two weeks to get a print made, in order to show it off over the next three years to in-home visitors. Right now, a d-slr camera is an obstacle to what many people really want to achieve with their pictures....they want to shoot, and share, shoot and show...shoot and publish on the web--NOW, dangit! An iPhone allows instant, remote, in-the-field uploading IMMEDIATELY.

Old-line cameras are phone booths...  smartphones are, well, smartphones...


----------



## sashbar

timor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe we will see fewer Amateur Pro's! lol!
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid of the opposite: More, many more, almost everyone who would like to call that himself.
Click to expand...


I think it would be great if more people would join photography as a hobby. Problem is there will be more average, boring, dull, unimaginative, half-baked photography. It will be getting technically better as technologies progress. It will mean more competition you your run-of-the-mill pro photog.  But creativity will always be as rare as it has been.  As one famous photohrapher once mentioned, the number of images has increased billionfold, but the number of great ones remains the same.


----------



## TCampbell

DSLRs have ridden a bit of a wave of sorts.  If you go back to pre-digital... so the 1980s would be far back enough, the "point & shoot" was the simple box camera.  No adjustments but they worked ok for an average easy-to-capture exposure.  That's what _most_ people used.  If you carried an SLR camera then you were clearly a bit more into photography then the rest of the crowd.

When the initial digital cameras came out they were very expensive and not particularly good yet... but eventually they did get to be pretty good. 

Canon started releasing DSLRs in a price point that average consumers could afford -- $899.  As DPReview says "This camera is probably the most fundamentally important step for digital SLR's since the introduction of the Nikon D1."  This basically started a wave of consumer-priced DSLRs that made "SLR" cameras far more popular then they had been in the past.

I saw cannibalization of the point & shoot coming when smart phones really started to improve their cameras.  But they are nowhere even near the point where they're ready to start taking on DSLRs and anyone who thinks otherwise probably doesn't know much about photography.

I once said I didn't believe the mirror would go away in the foreseeable future and for two reasons.  Contrast-detect autofocus systems have a couple of problems.  (1) Firstly, they're almost always slow.  They don't have to be slow, but the focus system relies on lots of analysis across the full image to detect edges and determine if the camera has achieved high contrast.  That needs a lot of computing power.  That'd be a no-brainer for an ordinary computer today, but in order to speed up processing speeds they need to run faster computers onboard the camera and faster computers eat batteries faster.   So there is this deliberate tuning of the performance/battery consumption trade-off and usually the focus system is annoyingly slow (it's a top-complaint).  And (2) due to the nature of the way phase-detect focus works, it not only can tell if a point is in or out of focus, it actually tell in WHICH direction to go to achieve focus AND it can tell how far.  That means as long as there is enough light, you'll notice that your camera doesn't really have to "hunt" for focus... it pretty much goes right to the spot.  Also, phase detect is only analyzing the image at the focus sensor and not the full image -- even a slow processor can determine if focus is accurate VERY quickly.

That was just the way it was and, there are probably a lot of people who are frustrated taking photos of their kids and their kids sports games who couldn't understand why the cameras perform so horribly, get advice, and find out that if you want really fast performance at your kids sports game... get a DSLR.  And this really helps pump up the wave of sales.

Now things are changing.

Processors are getting faster but ALSO getting more power efficient.
Canon has a chip that does phase-detect auto-focus directly on the chip!

We are just at the leading edge of that point where it'll be possible for mirrorless cameras to perform as well as DSLRs.  Only a few cameras are showing this promising level of performance... but only a few years ago, zero cameras were showing this promising level of performance.  So it's not hard to extrapolate that a few years from now this level of performance will be pretty much commonplace.

So we've already hit the point where the person who just wants a no-fuss snapshot (and could give a flip about the artistic quality of the image) are using their using their phones.
And we're well on the way to where non-DSLRs are probably going to have the performance necessary for action photography.  That, I think, will cause a noticeable drop off in DSLR sales (and probably a new boost in point & shoot sales -- at least until phones catch up.)

But there is one last frontier.... and according to the laws of physics, we'll never breach it:  "Big Glass"

Laws of physics dictate things like resolving power (Dawes' limit), diffraction limits, and the quality of circles of confusion (background blur quality aka bokeh).  Dawes' limit _requires_ big glass.  Diffraction limits _require_ big sensors.  You can want to get around those all you want, but as far as we know, those are laws of physics and we aren't able to manipulate the quantum rules that would need to bend in order to change that.

Bottom line:  I suspect we'll see a drop-off in DSLR sales... and large camera bodies may even go mirrorless (but they wont get tiny).  But I think they'll only decline to the point where they become the camera of the pro and photography enthusiast -- which is sort of what they (and their SLR film camera ancestors) were before this whole wave started.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Derrel said:


> "The future's soooo bright, I gotta wear shades."  YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bp2TWNpTA7s



Minitues after I read this it came on my iPod. Hah


----------



## gsgary

timor said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dont worry me i shoot film Leicas
> 
> 
> 
> What's your stockpile of film ? TG film is so separated from digital.
Click to expand...


Looking good just got 100 feet of Orwo un54 and 100 feet HP5 and going to order 100 feet of Orwo N74

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2


----------



## moskva80

goodguy said:


> I also know all of us here will never carry a smartphone in a thought that this is "my everyday camera".



I do these days.


----------



## cgipson1

Ysarex said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go out and try to find a high-quality LCD panel.
> 
> They're harder and harder to find for anything close to reasonable $... because (statistically) nooooooooooooooooooooooooooobody cares.
> 
> It's an interesting thing to consider, but it'll be a while.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True...
> 
> maybe if photography becomes more specialized like it used to be... and components become more expensive, maybe we will see fewer Amateur Pro's! lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Be afraid Charlie, be very afraid: An Entire Wedding Shot On An iPhone And Processed Using Instagram | Fstoppers
> 
> Joe
Click to expand...


True.. but how much difference is there between a pro shooting a phone, and the wanna-be pro's with an entry level DSLR? I would bet on the PRO, no matter the gear!  lol!


----------



## cgipson1

moskva80 said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I also know all of us here will never carry a smartphone in a thought that this is "my everyday camera".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do these days.
Click to expand...


^ Instant total loss of credibility!  lol!


----------



## Devinhullphoto

cgipson1 said:


> True.. but how much difference is there between a pro shooting a phone, and the wanna-be pro's with an entry level DSLR? I would bet on the PRO, no matter the gear!  lol!



She used real lenses though. If it were done with just your phone it would be gross.


----------



## amolitor

As anyone who actually bothers to actually pay attention knows, the Nokia camera is capable is excellent results:

The Online Photographer: Another Print Review: The Nokia's For Real

There's nothing magic about a mirror or a big bulbous black body or interchangeable lenses that makes the pictures better. Also, note the date on that post. This is old news. "Image Quality" is a done deal. The results are in and we know that a good cell phone can deliver perfectly acceptable pictures for all but the most demanding applications, and we've known this for years.


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> As anyone who actually bothers to actually pay attention knows, the Nokia camera is capable is excellent results:
> 
> The Online Photographer: Another Print Review: The Nokia's For Real
> 
> There's nothing magic about a mirror or a big bulbous black body or interchangeable lenses that makes the pictures better. Also, note the date on that post. This is old news. "Image Quality" is a done deal. The results are in and we know that a good cell phone can deliver perfectly acceptable pictures for all but the most demanding applications, and we've known this for years.



_Quote from Article listed: "No, it's not a replacement for RAW, it's not a replacement for an   interchangeable lens camera, it's not a replacement for one of today's   available-darkness wunderkind._" 

I disagree... most phone photos look like A$$! Maybe I haven't seen this "magic" Nokia.... but sounds more like a status symbol in the "I shoot with my phone" crowd!


----------



## amolitor

Oh, I forgot. Mike and Ctein over at ToP are just bloggers, so in Charlie's fantasy land, they don't know anything and are idiots.

Ctein is probably in the top 5 best photographic printers EVER, and definitely in the top 5 color printers. If he says it's good (and he does) we may rely on it. And, unlike Charlie, he's actually looked at the results and evaluated them.


----------



## runnah

amolitor said:


> a big bulbous black body



You're going to get Mish all excited.


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> Oh, I forgot. Mike and Ctein over at ToP are just bloggers, so in Charlie's fantasy land, they don't know anything and are idiots.
> 
> Ctein is probably in the top 5 best photographic printers EVER, and definitely in the top 5 color printers. If he says it's good (and he does) we may rely on it. And, unlike Charlie, he's actually looked at the results and evaluated them.



I don't consider all bloggers to be idiots.. just some!   

Not disputing that a 41 mp camera of any type can make good prints... but I really doubt any pro's (at least real one's) will be buying this Nokia to shoot weddings with.... 

And I also doubt that it is capable of many of of little tricks that make a DSLR so useful!  

Maybe you should buy one of these Nokia's...


----------



## runnah

cgipson1 said:


> Not disputing that a 41 mp camera of any type can make good prints... but I really doubt any pro's (at least real one's) will be buying this Nokia to shoot weddings with....
> 
> And I also doubt that it is capable of many of of little tricks that make a DSLR so useful!




Said every film photographer when digital cameras cams out.


----------



## cgipson1

runnah said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disputing that a 41 mp camera of any type can make good prints... but I really doubt any pro's (at least real one's) will be buying this Nokia to shoot weddings with....
> 
> And I also doubt that it is capable of many of of little tricks that make a DSLR so useful!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said every film photographer when digital cameras cams out.
Click to expand...


Gonna be a Phone PRO, Runnah?


----------



## runnah

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not disputing that a 41 mp camera of any type can make good prints... but I really doubt any pro's (at least real one's) will be buying this Nokia to shoot weddings with....
> 
> And I also doubt that it is capable of many of of little tricks that make a DSLR so useful!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Said every film photographer when digital cameras cams out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gonna be a Phone PRO, Runnah?
Click to expand...


I think that this fear of new tech is common for folks of your...vintage.

Like I said, the analog function of a mirror moving is old fashioned the weakest point of a camera body. If you do away with the mirror who says the body has to be huge and bulky? I'd love it if my camera was the same size as my phone and performed as well.


----------



## sashbar

I still keep the image taken years ago with an old pre-smart era Nokia phone.  And actually my current phone contract is coming to an end soon...


----------



## TheLost

I've been flamed for saying this stuff before...  but who doesn't like a good bbq!

Who needs a sports photographer when we'll have 8k robot video cameras all around stadiums?  (8k video = 7680 × 4320 = 33mp).  With a couple hundred cameras shooting 30-60fps and a few low-paid interns plucking stills from the video stream... sidelines should get less crowded.   Don't think this will happen?  google "pulling stills from 4k video".  (Sidenote:  Your iPhone 5s does a dang good job of picking the best photos it takes in 'burst mode'... those low-paid interns may vanish too).

If you would have told me in 1995 that Apple would be a leader in tech i would be sooo freeking rich right now (I was a contractor at apple during the 'powerpc' days)...  It doesn't take much to make a market shift.  Nikon isn't adapting (canon is... a bit)..  Where is Nikon's built in WiFi in its cameras?  Build in GPS?  Did you know that Nikon's app for iOS isn't iPad compatible?!?!?!?!   Companies like Sony and Fuji are innovating... creating... trying...

How fast did it take Kodak to fall?  Polaroid?  Minolta? 

How long can Nikon last on just DSLR sales?  Canon at least has other markets..

Welcome to the post PC area!


(WHY DIDN'T I BUY APPLE STOCK WHEN I HAD THE CHANCE!!!!)


----------



## timor

sashbar said:


> View attachment 57372


Yummy


----------



## gsgary

amolitor said:


> Oh, I forgot. Mike and Ctein over at ToP are just bloggers, so in Charlie's fantasy land, they don't know anything and are idiots.
> 
> Ctein is probably in the top 5 best photographic printers EVER, and definitely in the top 5 color printers. If he says it's good (and he does) we may rely on it. And, unlike Charlie, he's actually looked at the results and evaluated them.



This guy is in the top 5 look at his client list R O B I N   B E L L - Photographic Printer


----------



## grafxman

I wonder if I'll be able to attach my SigMonster (Sigma 300-800mm 2' long 13 pounds) to my new phone in a few years?


----------



## JTPhotography

This is awesome news. It means the DSLRs will be in the hands of the people who are serious about using them, people like us.


----------



## sashbar

grafxman said:


> I wonder if I'll be able to attach my SigMonster (Sigma 300-800mm 2' long 13 pounds) to my new phone in a few years?



You will not need it. You will have a phone camera with 300 MP and x20 digital zoom with DoF correction that will deem all this bulky, heavy expensive glass redundant. But you will be able to use "lense filters" that will replicate your favourite lenses..  not in a few years but at some point in the future definitely.


----------



## Coasty

People have been predicting the end of stuff you years. They said the same stuff about the daguerreotype and that&#8217;s still around.


----------



## cgipson1

sashbar said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if I'll be able to attach my SigMonster (Sigma 300-800mm 2' long 13 pounds) to my new phone in a few years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will not need it. You will have a phone camera with 300 MP and x20 digital zoom with DoF correction that will deem all this bulky, heavy expensive glass redundant. But you will be able to use "lense filters" that will replicate your favourite lenses..  not in a few years but at some point in the future definitely.
Click to expand...


Wow.. every wanna-be pro's dream... you don't even need to buy a camera to be a professional.. just buy a phone!  lol! And the MWACs can get it in PINK.... lol!

And hipsters can get a version that looks old, and beat up... and takes OOF pictures with built in Lens Flare! 

And it will have built in single image HDR with 600% oversaturation for the overcooked HDR types....


----------



## cgipson1

Coasty said:


> People have been predicting the end of stuff you years. They said the same stuff about the daguerreotype and that&#8217;s still around.



Good point! And people are still buying film cameras and film!


----------



## goodguy

I would like to add one more valid point to this discussion.

I have been collecting mechanical wrist watches for few years and right from the get to I heard doomsday talks about cell phone killing the need for watches and thus this hobby is doomed.
Well I think the people that said this simply dont take into account that there are lots of people out there that want to have a high precission mechanical watch on their wrist-not because they need it but because they want it.

Yes cell phone pictures are ok but it cant give us what a good modern camera can and the market to good cameras may they be DSLR, Mirrorless or some other technology will always be there, its not gonna be as big as it is now and maybe we will see decline in amount of cameras to choose from but we still have a DSLR or DSLR like camera for sale with much better capabilities then what a cell phone can offer.

Can a cell phone give in the future exact same quality as a good camera ?
I doubt it but just for argument sake lets say yes, this will mean A LOT of technology will be invested into such a tiny chip which will mean very expensive cell phone, cell phone that will be able to produce very good pictures that most cell phone users dont need and dont want to pay for.
If I can buy an Android for lets say 600$ which can take good enough pictures or a cell phone that will cost over 1000$ or probably more and can take very good pictures.
I think most people will vote with their wallets and buy the cheapper one thus making the more expensive cell phone unwanted by most.

I think mechanical watches and good cameras will be with us for another long while, the market will probably change but we still will have the tools to enjoy our hobby


----------



## robbins.photo

Ok, well first let me attach a CPL to my cell phone so I can get a halfway decent shot through this glass and.. hmm.. wait, nope.  Lol - I'm sure most folks use their cell phone cameras a lot, but I have yet to see a professional photo shoot where the photographer whips out his cell phone and points it at the model.  Never seen anyone hire a guy to photograph their wedding after finding out he's planning on using his Galaxy S3 to do the job with.  

If good cameras are a dying breed, why are there so many companies out there making them?  Are high end camera sales off?  Well sure, but for a lot of us a camera is a luxury item.   The high end cameras, a high dollar luxury item.  So what happens when the economy gets bad and people have to tighten their belt a bit.. well, sales of high end luxury items tend to suffer.  Natural ebb and flow.  The reason Blackberry went the way of the dodo is because they neglected to change to meet the needs of the market.  And while that may have been bad news for Blackberry, well it's not like everyone stopped buying all cell phones and they stopped being manufactured as a result.  

But this is not the case in the DSLR world.  They continue to update their product, come out with new products to fit various needs, etc.  This article, in a word, is total crap.


----------



## robbins.photo

sashbar said:


> grafxman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if I'll be able to attach my SigMonster (Sigma 300-800mm 2' long 13 pounds) to my new phone in a few years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You will not need it. You will have a phone camera with 300 MP and x20 digital zoom with DoF correction that will deem all this bulky, heavy expensive glass redundant. But you will be able to use "lense filters" that will replicate your favourite lenses..  not in a few years but at some point in the future definitely.
Click to expand...


Show me a single digital zoom at even 2x that doesn't completely suck - then you might have something there.  Haven't seen a digital zoom yet that doesn't completely stink on ice, even at 2x much lese 20x.  As for lens filters, true, I don't need many of them anymore.  But there are a few that are still critical for certain images, CPL being at the top of that list.  You can't post process out reflections off of glass easily, in fact it normally turns out to be nearly impossible.  True, I don't need warming or cooling filters anymore, but there are some that cannot be replaced by post processing.  ND being another example.


----------



## cgipson1

Amazing the schlock people will write in blogs and online magazines, isn't it! So much BS! All for getting those readers that for some reason think what is written is a good idea, no matter how nonsensical! Whatever happened to responsible journalism? (oh.. wait, this is the interwebz.. where any clown with a keyboard can spew nonsense all over the place! Attracting those that take a silly OPINION as gospel, with no facts or rational thought to back it up!)


----------



## robbins.photo

goodguy said:


> I would like to add one more valid point to this discussion.
> 
> I have been collecting mechanical wrist watches for few years and right from the get to I heard doomsday talks about cell phone killing the need for watches and thus this hobby is doomed.
> Well I think the people that said this simply dont take into account that there are lots of people out there that want to have a high precission mechanical watch on their wrist-not because they need it but because they want it.
> 
> Yes cell phone pictures are ok but it cant give us what a good modern camera can and the market to good cameras may they be DSLR, Mirrorless or some other technology will always be there, its not gonna be as big as it is now and maybe we will see decline in amount of cameras to choose from but we still have a DSLR or DSLR like camera for sale with much better capabilities then what a cell phone can offer.
> 
> Can a cell phone give in the future exact same quality as a good camera ?
> I doubt it but just for argument sake lets say yes, this will mean A LOT of technology will be invested into such a tiny chip which will mean very expensive cell phone, cell phone that will be able to produce very good pictures that most cell phone users dont need and dont want to pay for.
> If I can buy an Android for lets say 600$ which can take good enough pictures or a cell phone that will cost over 1000$ or probably more and can take very good pictures.
> I think most people will vote with their wallets and buy the cheapper one thus making the more expensive cell phone unwanted by most.
> 
> I think mechanical watches and good cameras will be with us for another long while, the market will probably change but we still will have the tools to enjoy our hobby



The market will always change - but certain realities will always be with us and you hit the nail right on the head.  Sure, there will always be a lot of people for whom a cell phone camera will be more than sufficient.  If you just want to turn the thing around and make a stupid face and post it to the internet, well then that's all you'll ever really need.  But there are those of us who enjoy photography, and a cell phone camera is just never going to fit the bill for us no matter how good they get.  Now granted as technology improves the DSLR's will get lighter, maybe a little smaller - but there is a certain size factor that they will never get below as a function of their design.  There is a reason why I bought a mountain bike rather than going with a big wheel, at 6'2" a big wheel is completely impractical for me, and so is a cell phone sized or pocket sized camera for the type of photography I do - even if they did have some more advanced features.

As for mirrorless - I just don't see it ever dominating the market.  Ok, granted they've had pretty good sales numbers, but there are a whole lot of folks who will go out and buy something just because it's new and high tech and the latest and greatest thing out there.  Also for some people compact is more important than features, so yes there will be a market for that sort of thing.  But for a semi-serious amateur like myself or a pro photographer, well tiny cameras just don't hold much fascination for us at all.


----------



## amolitor

It doesn't make for a very expensive cell phone, though. It adds to the cost, sure, but as you drive more and more of the features into software, the costs drop. The much vaunted DSLR has been pushing features into software for a while. Why correct distortion and chromatic aberration in the lens when you can do it free in software? And so on. The DSLR isn't going to die, but the market segment's going to shrink, more or less indefinitely. We don't know the shape of the tail, but it's probably pretty fat, as tails go.

The only mystery is why charlie always seems to start wandering off into ranting about mysterious unnamed bloggers all the time. Did a blogger kill his pa? Does he love a blogger who does not love him back?


----------



## cgipson1

amolitor said:


> It doesn't make for a very expensive cell phone, though. It adds to the cost, sure, but as you drive more and more of the features into software, the costs drop. The much vaunted DSLR has been pushing features into software for a while. Why correct distortion and chromatic aberration in the lens when you can do it free in software? And so on. The DSLR isn't going to die, but the market segment's going to shrink, more or less indefinitely. We don't know the shape of the tail, but it's probably pretty fat, as tails go.
> 
> The only mystery is why *charlie always seems to start wandering off into ranting about mysterious unnamed bloggers all the time.* Did a blogger kill his pa? Does he love a blogger who does not love him back?



I really like some bloggers! Like OrionMystery... He is a great PHOTOGRAPHER! And he doesn't just talk a good photo, he actually takes them! Thom Hogan is another good one... knowledgable, and has meaningful blogs! And he is a Photographer also! I do think a lot of Bloggers are pedantic people with knowledge they can't apply to the real world... and are often very full of themselves.. self-proclaimed experts, and all!

Now you have me wondering why you are attacking me like this? I have not mentioned your name in a single post... are you being paranoid? This is the 3rd or 4th post where you have specifically named me.. for whatever reason! I find it offensive, and rather troubling! I might think you don't like me or something!


----------



## usayit

amolitor said:


> It doesn't make for a very expensive cell phone, though. It adds to the cost, sure, but as you drive more and more of the features into software, the costs drop. The much vaunted DSLR has been pushing features into software for a while. Why correct distortion and chromatic aberration in the lens when you can do it free in software? And so on. The DSLR isn't going to die, but the market segment's going to shrink, more or less indefinitely. We don't know the shape of the tail, but it's probably pretty fat, as tails go.



Yup... and let's not forget that people are already carrying a mid to high tiered wifi enabled camera plus a smart phone.   Add up the sticker cost of both and you are already closing in on the $600-1000usd range.


----------



## Steve5D

timor said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> maybe we will see fewer Amateur Pro's! lol!
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid of the opposite: More, many more, almost everyone who would like to call that himself.
Click to expand...


Why are you afraid of that?


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> I don't think they would qualify as a pro then.



Maybe I missed it but, as a professional photographer, I'm compelled to ask: What's the qualification process for being a pro?


----------



## usayit

The camera they carry apparently.....


----------



## cgipson1

Steve5D said:


> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they would qualify as a pro then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed it but, as a professional photographer, I'm compelled to ask: What's the qualification process for being a pro?
Click to expand...


There isn't one... unlike every other PROFESSIONAL trade or career! No tests, no certs, no standards, no continuing education, no proof of ability, no adherence to ethics, nothing... all it takes is being able to press the shutter button on a camera apparently! 

Proven daily!   

Available with no education, no literacy, communication or math skills, no degrees or diplomas, no ability or skill or experience... just any camera you can afford... and the statement "I am a professional Photographer!"

It doesn't even require much of an investment.. buy a used Rebel on Ebay... and boom, you too can be a professional Photographer!

I am sure there are those out there already charging (so they are professionals, right?) for cell phone photos.....


----------



## Steve5D

Coasty said:


> People have been predicting the end of stuff you years. They said the same stuff about the daguerreotype and thats still around.



But how many people are actively involved in using it, even on a recreational basis?

Statistically, probably pretty close to none...


----------



## cgipson1

Steve5D said:


> Coasty said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have been predicting the end of stuff you years. They said the same stuff about the daguerreotype and that&#8217;s still around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how many people are actively involved in using it, even on a recreational basis?
> 
> Statistically, probably pretty close to none...
Click to expand...


Heck.. people are still doing tin types even ( a TPF member even)...  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...10-my-first-tin-type-wet-plate-collodion.html


----------



## Steve5D

cgipson1 said:


> There isn't one... unlike every other PROFESSIONAL trade or career! No tests, no certs, no standards, no continuing education, no proof of ability, no adherence to ethics, nothing... all it takes is being able to press the shutter button on a camera apparently!
> 
> Proven daily!
> 
> Available with no education, no literacy, communication or math skills, no degrees or diplomas, no ability or skill or experience... just any camera you can afford... and the statement "I am a professional Photographer!"
> 
> It doesn't even require much of an investment.. buy a used Rebel on Ebay... and boom, you too can be a professional Photographer!



So, for you, only the two extremes exist? Either someone has absolutely no training and consumer level gear, or they've got fine art degrees and a pair of 1Ds MK-Whateverthelatestverstionis?



> I am sure there are those out there already charging (so they are professionals, right?) for cell phone photos.....



This is what the whole "pro/amateur" debate comes down to for some people: equipment. Someone just can't be a professional without the proper "pro" gear. Yet these same people will bemoan those who go out and buy expensive gear. These people completely disregard the necessity for a "professional" to actually act "professionally".

That's nonsense.

At the San Diego County Fair's photography exhibit, they have an entire section devoted to cell phone photography. All of the photos exhibited are very, very good, and some are truly, truly outstanding. Some are for sale, some of them sell, and some of them sell for impressive sums of money. Some are taken by people known to be "professional photographers". Do they give up that title for no other reason than they sold a cell phone picture?

Of course not. But, yet, that _seems _to be the opinion you hold.

I go the to Rolex 24 at Daytona every year. There's a guy there, every year, who sells photos in his booth. They're _really_, _really _good. His booth is always packed with people holding cash in their hands, and he sells photos from the time the gates open until the time they lock 'em up.

He shoots with a Digital Rebel.

I don't mean to turn this into the "pro/amateur" debate, but the question begs to be asked: Photography is, first and foremost, an art form. In that regard, it's no different than painting, or sculpture, or poetry or pottery. Why, then, does there always seem to be a small, and thankfully wholly ineffective, segment of photographers who believe there should be some form of accredidation to be a "professional photographer"? 

What makes photography so different and special?

I'm looking at a handmade vase on my bar right now. It's a very nice vase. Someone put this on a potter's wheel and made it. They formed the vase and worked the clay and the end result was this vase on my bar.

I guess my question to you is this: Should I be more concerned with the artist's formal education and qualifications to make vases, or should I just enjoy the fact that I've got a really nice vase?


----------



## cbarnard7

cgipson1 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Devinhullphoto said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think they would qualify as a pro then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed it but, as a professional photographer, I'm compelled to ask: What's the qualification process for being a pro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There isn't one... unlike every other PROFESSIONAL trade or career! No tests, no certs, no standards, no continuing education, no proof of ability, no adherence to ethics, nothing... all it takes is being able to press the shutter button on a camera apparently!
> 
> Proven daily!
> 
> Available with no education, no literacy, communication or math skills, no degrees or diplomas, no ability or skill or experience... just any camera you can afford... and the statement "I am a professional Photographer!"
> 
> It doesn't even require much of an investment.. buy a used Rebel on Ebay... and boom, you too can be a professional Photographer!
> 
> I am sure there are those out there already charging (so they are professionals, right?) for cell phone photos.....
Click to expand...


Charlie-

You sure do get worked up about those "amateur-pro's" don't you?! 

Photography is such a subjective art that everyone and anyone could potentially make money and do well- even with a cell phone camera! If I snapped a pic of Obama cheating on his wife with my cell phone, you better believe I'd make more money off of that than I would a professionally done picture of the Grand Canyon.

But don't worry- If you're good, you're good. Nobody wants an awful, blurry picture of their first kiss as a married couple. If your work is better than someone with a used Rebel from ebay (and your portfolio proves it) then you're fine. If it's not, maybe you're not as good as you think!


----------



## cgipson1

cbarnard7 said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I missed it but, as a professional photographer, I'm compelled to ask: What's the qualification process for being a pro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one... unlike every other PROFESSIONAL trade or career! No tests, no certs, no standards, no continuing education, no proof of ability, no adherence to ethics, nothing... all it takes is being able to press the shutter button on a camera apparently!
> 
> Proven daily!
> 
> Available with no education, no literacy, communication or math skills, no degrees or diplomas, no ability or skill or experience... just any camera you can afford... and the statement "I am a professional Photographer!"
> 
> It doesn't even require much of an investment.. buy a used Rebel on Ebay... and boom, you too can be a professional Photographer!
> 
> I am sure there are those out there already charging (so they are professionals, right?) for cell phone photos.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Charlie-
> 
> You sure do get worked up about those "amateur-pro's" don't you?!
> 
> Photography is such a subjective art that everyone and anyone could potentially make money and do well- even with a cell phone camera! If I snapped a pic of Obama cheating on his wife with my cell phone, you better believe I'd make more money off of that than I would a professionally done picture of the Grand Canyon.
> 
> But don't worry- If you're good, you're good. Nobody wants an awful, blurry picture of their first kiss as a married couple. If your work is better than someone with a used Rebel from ebay (and your portfolio proves it) then you're fine. If it's not, maybe you're not as good as you think!
Click to expand...


Look at my images and make up your own mind! lol!

I don't even shoot professionally anymore.. so SHOULD care less! But I do care... and admittedly it does bother me that the profession has fallen to this! ( and that blurry first kiss happens way too often.. which is one of the reasons I dislike the whole issue)!


----------



## Braineack

Ysarex said:


> An Entire Wedding Shot On An iPhone And Processed Using Instagram...



...and it looks it.


----------



## cbarnard7

cgipson1 said:


> cbarnard7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There isn't one... unlike every other PROFESSIONAL trade or career! No tests, no certs, no standards, no continuing education, no proof of ability, no adherence to ethics, nothing... all it takes is being able to press the shutter button on a camera apparently!
> 
> Proven daily!
> 
> Available with no education, no literacy, communication or math skills, no degrees or diplomas, no ability or skill or experience... just any camera you can afford... and the statement "I am a professional Photographer!"
> 
> It doesn't even require much of an investment.. buy a used Rebel on Ebay... and boom, you too can be a professional Photographer!
> 
> I am sure there are those out there already charging (so they are professionals, right?) for cell phone photos.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charlie-
> 
> You sure do get worked up about those "amateur-pro's" don't you?!
> 
> Photography is such a subjective art that everyone and anyone could potentially make money and do well- even with a cell phone camera! If I snapped a pic of Obama cheating on his wife with my cell phone, you better believe I'd make more money off of that than I would a professionally done picture of the Grand Canyon.
> 
> But don't worry- If you're good, you're good. Nobody wants an awful, blurry picture of their first kiss as a married couple. If your work is better than someone with a used Rebel from ebay (and your portfolio proves it) then you're fine. If it's not, maybe you're not as good as you think!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look at my images and make up your own mind!
> 
> I don't even shoot professionally anymore.. so SHOULD care less! But I do care... and admittedly it does bother me that the profession has fallen to this! ( and that blurry first kiss happens way too often.. which is one of the reasons I dislike the whole issue)!
Click to expand...


I think your pictures are great! I'm not going to hire someone like myself over you, so don't worry! (Although I consider myself very much to be an amateur photographer on all fronts). Even if I start selling some prints, I still wouldn't consider myself to be a professional because I don't do it for a living (as my primary means of income). I would just be happy someone likes my work enough to hang on their wall. I think the amateur-pro thing happens in pretty much everything, though. It may not be considered, "Amateur-Pro" but there are plenty of people who think they can just pick up something and be as good as someone who's been doing it for years. 

And let's be honest-

There are good professionals and there are great professionals in everything. The great professionals will always get irritated when they are compared to good professionals, no matter what the trade is! 

Can you imagine how many entertainers are rolling in their graves because Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are the two biggest names out right now? :X


----------



## fjrabon

Like others have mentioned, I do think the dSLR is on the way out, but not solely because of camera phones.  I think pretty soon its going to be something like:

camera phone < Fuji X100 like camera < medium format camera 

Camera phones are collapsing the market for regular point and shoots, which I think will go extinct long before dSLRs.  I think point and shoot cameras will be dead in 3 years.  Completely dead.  They're getting pinched on both ends, for the casual shooter, the camera phone is a much better solution, and for the pro who wants a point and shoot, things like the X100 are obliterating it at the higher end.  

Then I think a combo of something truly innovating like the Lytro and dropping prices of digital medium format will kill the dSLR, with the X100 type offerings killing it from the bottom end.  

So yeah, I agree dSLRs are on the way out, but not because of camera phones.  Camera phones are killing the point and shoot market, not the dSLR market.


----------



## cbarnard7

Braineack said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> An Entire Wedding Shot On An iPhone And Processed Using Instagram...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...and it looks it.
Click to expand...


I think the composition for some of the shots is nice, though. It isn't my cup of tea, but hey- someone loved them and that's all that matters, right?


----------



## Steve5D

cgipson1 said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coasty said:
> 
> 
> 
> People have been predicting the end of stuff you years. They said the same stuff about the daguerreotype and that&#8217;s still around.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how many people are actively involved in using it, even on a recreational basis?
> 
> Statistically, probably pretty close to none...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heck.. people are still doing tin types even ( a TPF member even)... http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...10-my-first-tin-type-wet-plate-collodion.html
Click to expand...


And, again, statistically the number of people doing that are so insignificant as to be virtually non-existent.

Don't misunderstand. I'm not in agreement with the piece on the link. I just don't think that it's ever going to be an either/or situation...


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Steve5D said:


> Maybe I missed it but, as a professional photographer, I'm compelled to ask: What's the qualification process for being a pro?


  IMO you're a pro if you make money in it. I know that statement wouldn't sound right. Basically I can't see any real pro being ok with the quality of a camera phone. They will and should always strive to get the best quality and that just isn't gonna happen with a phone.     

The wedding photos that were taken with an iPhone were good but she was also using more than just the phone. She had a special adapter that allowed her the use of real lenses. If you were to use just a phone, the wedding would have had lame photos. You would have to practically stand in front of everyone's view to get some shots if you wanted close ups. As of now cameras on phones look good while you view them on the phone. However they always seem to look worse on a computer. Using a digital zoom would just destroy the image.    

Let me edit that. Not just make money. I made money doing a wedding but I wouldn't dare say I'm a pro. But people who make a living off I their photos and that is their career. That to me is a pro.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Let's say you're a pro photographer and for the past 12.5 years you've been doing high fashion for magazines or advertising. Then one day camera phones take over the market and you decided to use your iPhone 7s for those photos now because the DSLR is dying. How would you use all the lighting and flashes? (Maybe you could, I don't know. I'm not a strobist) Phones as of now are terrible with being able to see an entire scene. You can take a photo and the sky will be blown out to no end to get your subject in exposure, or let's says you're shooting a landscape and you want the sky to show then the foreground would be dark and underexposed. You probably couldn't edit these small sized jpgs much. Definitely not for a fashion shoot where they typically completely change how the model actually looks. 

I just don't see that ever happening.


----------



## cgipson1

cbarnard7 said:


> Can you imagine how many entertainers are rolling in their graves because Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are the two biggest names out right now? :X



Good point! lol!


----------



## Derrel

cbarnard7 said:
			
		

> Can you imagine how many entertainers are rolling in their graves because Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are the two biggest names out right now? :X




Check out Miley Cyrus's vocal abilities from a couple of nights ago... VERY impressive performance actually.

- Yahoo Screen


----------



## limr

fjrabon said:


> Like others have mentioned, I do think the dSLR is on the way out, but not solely because of camera phones.  I think pretty soon its going to be something like:
> 
> camera phone < Fuji X100 like camera < medium format camera
> 
> Camera phones are collapsing the market for regular point and shoots, which I think will go extinct long before dSLRs.  I think point and shoot cameras will be dead in 3 years.  Completely dead.  They're getting pinched on both ends, for the casual shooter, the camera phone is a much better solution, and for the pro who wants a point and shoot, things like the X100 are obliterating it at the higher end.
> 
> Then I think a combo of something truly innovating like the Lytro and dropping prices of digital medium format will kill the dSLR, with the X100 type offerings killing it from the bottom end.
> 
> So yeah, I agree dSLRs are on the way out, but not because of camera phones.  Camera phones are killing the point and shoot market, not the dSLR market.



This is essentially the pattern that has happened with film cameras. Digital point and shoots pretty much killed production of most film point and shoots because they made 'photography' even easier for people who take pictures mindlessly. Cell phones are likely to do the same to digital point and shoots because it's easier, more convenient, better quality (in some cases), and most importantly, _easier to share _(as I believe Derrel pointed out).

And there might not be a lot of production of new film SLRs but the used market is still pretty robust among the people who are still interested in _film _photography that isn't mindless. Even more so with medium-format cameras.

Switch this to digital, and we'll probably get not the destruction of the DSLR, but a shift in the market in who is buying those DSLRs and how many of them are being sold.

There will ALWAYS be masses of people who will want mindless pictures, and if they can get better looking pictures with less effort, then that is going to drive the mainstream market as well as the technology required to supply that market. But the point that was made about tin-types and daguerreotypes is _not _that they are viable options for the masses, but that _they are still around!_ If the theory is that newer technology OBLITERATES old technology/processes, then it's automatically disproved by the fact that old technology/processes have not been obliterated, even 150 years and countless market shifts after their inception.


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> I know that statement wouldn't sound right. Basically I can't see any real pro being ok with the quality of a camera phone. They will and should always strive to get the best quality and that just isn't gonna happen with a phone.



I took a picture of Mount St. Helens with my iPhone 4S, because I wanted to "check in" on Facebook. I sold a copy of that photo; a 12x18" print, for $80.00.

I assure you, I was quite satisfied with that and I am, by every measure, a professional photographer.



> As of now cameras on phones look good while you view them on the phone. However they always seem to look worse on a computer.




See, I disagree with that. I see plenty of cell phone photos (iPhone & Droid) that not only look good on a computer screen, but also look good when printed out. The buyer of my Mount St. Helens photo didn't pay me because the photo sucked...



> Let me edit that. Not just make money. I made money doing a wedding but I wouldn't dare say I'm a pro. But people who make a living off I their photos and that is their career. That to me is a pro.



I see "professional" as something more than just earning a living at something. One must also conduct himself in a professional manner.

With that in mind, I know a lot of "professional" photographers who aren't "professional" at all.

With regards to the topic (jus to pull it back on track), I think it's an important discussion to have. Cell phone cameras _are _capable. They are. And the reality is that companies like Apple and Samsung aren't going to be developing products that are _less _capable. Instead of signing onto the "doom & gloom" aspect of the discussion, I prefer to subscribe to the "could this, somehow, benefit me?" aspect of it.

I would never have thought of shooting a wedding with  cell phone, but the fact of that matter is that someone has. I think it would be naïve to think that they're the only couple to come up with the idea. So, instead of demeaning those who do it, why wouldn't I consider whether or not I could make money with it? Why wouldn't I consider having a camera phone which is capable of producing results that a couple might want? I'm not saying I'm going to get rid of my DSLR's, but if my DSLR's produce results that the happy couple isn't necessarily looking for, I lose the gig.

How does that benefit me as someone who relies on his photography to pay his bills?


----------



## Dao

Devinhullphoto said:


> How would you use all the lighting and flashes? (Maybe you could, I don't know. I'm not a strobist)



Someone did.


----------



## Tee

Derrel said:


> Check out Miley Cyrus's vocal abilities from a couple of nights ago... VERY impressive performance actually.  - Yahoo Screen



Speaking of Miley- anyone catch Terry Richardson's  hotel shoot with her? *cheesy grin*


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> Let's say you're a pro photographer and for the past 12.5 years you've been doing high fashion for magazines or advertising. Then one day camera phones take over the market and you decided to use your iPhone 7s for those photos now because the DSLR is dying.



The flaw in this is in your reasoning that, because "the DSLR is dying", I would somehow be compelled not to use one.

Why would I choose to _not _use my DSLR's?

I drive a 14 year old Ford Explorer. It's not a less capable truck just because it's old. It still does everything it was designed to do...


----------



## amolitor

Equating the DSLR with professional is an interesting notion. Certainly DSLRs as currently sold are The Professional Kit, they have many properties that are necessary for the working professional, which other lines of cameras simply don't have.

Still, look at the cell phone. What is the single most important thing for a working professional? That damn thing has to work. You gotta be able to take a picture. What's basically the most reliable piece of electronic equipment ever built? The cell phone. DSLRs, on the face of it, are completely mad as professional gear. They are littered with mechanical components, the interchangeable lenses make sealing the body hard and create endless problems with dust and so on. Properly conceived, a professional camera should be as solid-state as possible -- no mirror, electronic shutter, touch controls, etc. If at all possible, no interchangeable lenses, either.

I can't speak to the actual future, since these things are driven more by emotion than technology, but strictly on what would actually work best a professional camera would be entirely solid state, except possibly for a sealed zoom lens (mainly because a big enough sensor to make digital zoom work over a Very Big Range is not feasible for the next several years, and it's just not clear what surprises quantum mechanics and the chip wizards have in store for us 10 years out). Giant sensor, stretch the zoom range with a digital zoom, use light-field tech to make aperture issues go away. Since the lens is not interchangeable, each lens can be specifically calibrated to the camera, to really do a good job of removing lens design issues in software.

Build this thing to cell phone standards and you've got a camera you can use as a hammer in a pinch, and it'll still probably work.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Steve5D said:


> The flaw in this is in your reasoning that, because "the DSLR is dying", I would somehow be compelled not to use one.  Why would I choose to not use my DSLR's?  I drive a 14 year old Ford Explorer. It's not a less capable truck just because it's old. It still does everything it was designed to do...



I had that reasoning because a lot of this thread seems to worry people when most of the people here are either pro or wanna be pros. Yeah I'm sure phones will win over the everyday person but the people on here aren't just everyday snap a photo kind of people. The article says nikon won't be around in 5 years which means they seem to believe that phones will rule ALL not just the mom down the street. That's why I mentioned a scenario that had awful reasoning.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Steve5D said:


> I took a picture of Mount St. Helens with my iPhone 4S, because I wanted to "check in" on Facebook. I sold a copy of that photo; a 12x18" print, for $80.00.  I assure you, I was quite satisfied with that and I am, by every measure, a professional photographer.  See, I disagree with that. I see plenty of cell phone photos (iPhone & Droid) that not only look good on a computer screen, but also look good when printed out. The buyer of my Mount St. Helens photo didn't pay me because the photo sucked...  I see "professional" as something more than just earning a living at something. One must also conduct himself in a professional manner.  With that in mind, I know a lot of "professional" photographers who aren't "professional" at all.  With regards to the topic (jus to pull it back on track), I think it's an important discussion to have. Cell phone cameras are capable. They are. And the reality is that companies like Apple and Samsung aren't going to be developing products that are less capable. Instead of signing onto the "doom & gloom" aspect of the discussion, I prefer to subscribe to the "could this, somehow, benefit me?" aspect of it.  I would never have thought of shooting a wedding with  cell phone, but the fact of that matter is that someone has. I think it would be naïve to think that they're the only couple to come up with the idea. So, instead of demeaning those who do it, why wouldn't I consider whether or not I could make money with it? Why wouldn't I consider having a camera phone which is capable of producing results that a couple might want? I'm not saying I'm going to get rid of my DSLR's, but if my DSLR's produce results that the happy couple isn't necessarily looking for, I lose the gig.  How does that benefit me as someone who relies on his photography to pay his bills?


 That's great that you've sold an iPhone photo. I guess my point was invalid because I use the nearly ancient iPhone 4. Since then great leaps have been made on phones.


----------



## usayit

You can't use today's technology (iphone) and its current limitations to write off a trend....     The trend hints at a need and technology usually strives to provide solutions afterwards.   You don't provide solutions to needs that don't exist.   Discussions like these really should focus on design concepts.... not implementations of it.

For instance....

A camera that took 135 film and had a mirrorbox to provide TTL viewing that manifested itself into what we now know as an SLR.  Early ones were not really that great.   * Design concept. *

It first was written off as a toy camera because no self-respecting professional photographer would shoot with such a small frame.   Its too small for the quality print that people expected.  It wasn't until the Korean war that photojournalists were really embedding themselves into the conflict rather than shooting the perimeter of it.... the after results.  They needed a durable, reliable, small, easy to operate cameras.  * Need.  Trend. *

Companies identified the need and produced implementations of the SLR design concept that met those needs.  They (modern SLRs) proceeded to become the dominating preference for journalists and photographers alike.  * Technology solution. *


----------



## Derrel

Tee said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Miley Cyrus's vocal abilities from a couple of nights ago... VERY impressive performance actually.  - Yahoo Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Miley- anyone catch Terry Richardson's  hotel shoot with her? *cheesy grin*
Click to expand...


Terry Richardson's Diary

Terry Richardson's Diary


Terry uses a LOT of direct, straight-ahead, on-camera flash. You know, flash right above the lens, in the hotshoe. Huh. And his pictures are in magazines from all over the world. Who wouldda thunkit?


----------



## Steve5D

cbarnard7 said:


> Can you imagine how many entertainers are rolling in their graves because Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are the two biggest names out right now? :X



Probably none. They're dead.

But seriously...

Justin Bieber is the textbook definition of "flash in the pan". In the grand scheme of things, he (like Miley Cyrus) are nothing. Hell, look at Justin Timberlake. I've got a daughter who's 27, so I lived through the whole 'NSync thing. They were, at one point, the biggest act on the planet. Now, Wikipedia lists Timberlake as an American actor and businessman before it identifies him as a singer. 

Basically, Bieber and Cyrus, as musical acts, are pretty meaningless...


----------



## Derrel

Steve5D said:
			
		

> Basically, Bieber and Cyrus, as musical acts, are pretty meaningless...



Twenty million parents said the same thing about The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, Steve...

What's your point? That you're too old to be in tune with the very young, CD- and MP3 download- and concert-ticket-buying kids of today?


----------



## amolitor

What are you talking about, Derrel, The Beatles could actually sin.. ok well they could play their instru.. um. Yeah, ok. I guess.

Some of the guys in The Stones can really play, though!


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> That's great that you've sold an iPhone photo. I guess my point was invalid because I use the nearly ancient iPhone 4. Since then great leaps have been made on phones.



No, your point is invalid because it's wrong.

You said photos on an iPhone look worse when viewed on a computer. Honestly, the same can certainly be said about DSLR's, too. The way you presented it, though, suggests that you believe it only applies to camera phones, and I do believe that's what you meant to convey. 

I don't keep up with iPhone specs, so I don't know if the camera in the iPhone 4 underwent significant changes for the iPhone 4S but, if it didn't, there's not a single reason  why your iPhone shouldn't provide you with a sellable image...


----------



## amolitor

There are a lot of people, often not _actual_ professionals, who are emotionally invested in their gear. If you went out and dropped a couple grand on something, the idea that some jerk with a cell phone can make a better picture than you has got to be pretty painful. There won't be any convincing those people of, really, anything, since their argument isn't rational in the first place. In order to change their position, you have to take away their pain, and that's simply not going to happen because the money is Gone, and here's this camera.


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flaw in this is in your reasoning that, because "the DSLR is dying", I would somehow be compelled not to use one. Why would I choose to not use my DSLR's? I drive a 14 year old Ford Explorer. It's not a less capable truck just because it's old. It still does everything it was designed to do...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had that reasoning because a lot of this thread seems to worry people when most of the people here are either pro or wanna be pros. Yeah I'm sure phones will win over the everyday person but the people on here aren't just everyday snap a photo kind of people. The article says nikon won't be around in 5 years which means they seem to believe that phones will rule ALL not just the mom down the street. That's why I mentioned a scenario that had awful reasoning.
Click to expand...


I don't see the majority of folks here being pros or even aspiring pros. In fact, there have been polls which run completely counter to what you're saying is the case. The fact of the matter is that the majority of people here are hobbyists, and are quite content with that.

Whether someone thinks that Nikon will e around in five years is absolutely meaningless to me. I've got a friend who drives a Saturn, and another who drives a Pontiac. Both cars work just fine, despite the fact that those two car companies have gone tits up. Hell, they can even get repair parts for them, so it's likely they'll be able to drive them for some time...


----------



## Steve5D

amolitor said:


> There are a lot of people, often not _actual_ professionals, who are emotionally invested in their gear. If you went out and dropped a couple grand on something, the idea that some jerk with a cell phone can make a better picture than you has got to be pretty painful. There won't be any convincing those people of, really, anything, since their argument isn't rational in the first place. In order to change their position, you have to take away their pain, and that's simply not going to happen because the money is Gone, and here's this camera.



^^^^

THAT.

In another life, I collected watches. Nice ones. I had Omega, Breitling, Ulysses Nardin, Rolex, Ball, Oris... the list goes on. I'd spent thousands upon thousands of dollars out of a deep appreciation for the horologist's art.

The painful irony is that a quartz Timex is a far more accurate time piece than any of those...


----------



## kathyt

Derrel said:


> Tee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Miley Cyrus's vocal abilities from a couple of nights ago... VERY impressive performance actually.  - Yahoo Screen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Miley- anyone catch Terry Richardson's  hotel shoot with her? *cheesy grin*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Terry Richardson's Diary
> 
> Terry Richardson's Diary
> 
> 
> Terry uses a LOT of direct, straight-ahead, on-camera flash. You know, flash right above the lens, in the hotshoe. Huh. And his pictures are in magazines from all over the world. Who wouldda thunkit?
Click to expand...

Her mother must be proud.


----------



## Steve5D

Derrel said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, Bieber and Cyrus, as musical acts, are pretty meaningless...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty million parents said the same thing about The Beatles and The Rolling Stones, Steve...
Click to expand...


So you believe that Justin Bieber is going to permanently change the landscape of popular music like The Beatles did?

That's funny...



> What's your point? That you're too old to be in tune with the very young, CD- and MP3 download- and concert-ticket-buying kids of today?



How am I not in tune with them? I fully acknowledge that acts like Cyrus and Bieber are absolutely huge because of how beloved they are by their fans. Their problem is that their fan base, will mature. They, however, will just get older...


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Steve5D said:


> No, your point is invalid because it's wrong.  You said photos on an iPhone look worse when viewed on a computer. Honestly, the same can certainly be said about DSLR's, too. The way you presented it, though, suggests that you believe it only applies to camera phones, and I do believe that's what you meant to convey.  I don't keep up with iPhone specs, so I don't know if the camera in the iPhone 4 underwent significant changes for the iPhone 4S but, if it didn't, there's not a single reason  why your iPhone shouldn't provide you with a sellable image...



I'm wrong but who cares? My point was that a 8-10mp camera isn't bad but the phones don't have the flexibility of a real camera.


----------



## Mendoza

One thing smartphones cannot really replicate is how _ergonomic_ a good dSLR is.  A firm and steady grip on the camera is important to me.  The shape, materials, and heft of my Canon 7d provide that.  My smartphone does not; I always find it physically awkward to take pictures with.  (I also prefer an optical viewfinder and am not averse to physical buttons.)


----------



## cbarnard7

It's funny- the better the camera on the phone, the worse the phone itself becomes. Dropped calls, poor quality (at times)...but hey, I can take cool pictures! 

I'd at least rather see someone snap a pic with their iPhone than their iPad...good Lord that looks stupid every time!


----------



## TheLost

> _Nikon recently said they have a five year plan to address this. And my view is, that five year plan should have come out five years ago, Mr. Chute said._
> _Theyre not going to be around in five years._



Whats going to happen to Sale's when more and more people read these types of articles?
Point, shoot, collapse: Why big camera companies are the next BlackBerry | Financial Post


----------



## usayit

Devinhullphoto said:


> My point was that a 8-10mp camera isn't bad but the phones don't have the flexibility of a real camera.



Once a need presents itself (starting too) technology will solve that problem too.  Stop getting hung up on implementations and specifics... think concepts.  They are much more valuable but take a bit more thinking to identify.

Samsung Galaxy NX: Android-driven DSLR

There is not much difference between an Samsung android smart phone and that DSLR above.


----------



## Derrel

Speaking of upcoming technology Nexus 5 Lytro-like, lightning-fast MEMS camera outed in leaked files | News | TechRadar

Leaked details of an upcoming phone that has Lytro-like image refocusing abilities in post....hmmm...amolitor mentioned this earlier...seems like Google's already working on this new advance in smartphone hardware and technology.

As to the article referenced at the start of this thread: according to Hogan, the numbers in the article are VERY DUBIOUS...as in inaccurate, misleading, or well, "dubious", to put it nicely...

see this article disputing/calling into question the statements in the article   "They're Not Going to Be Around in Five Years" | byThom | Thom Hogan

ONE extract, just one, of several: "*Claim: the rate of market decline is accelerating each quarter. Actual: no, it isn't for DSLRs or mirrorless. The first quarter decline was 23.2%, the second quarter decline was 14.97%. That's de-acceleration. What seems to be happening throughout the article is that they are mixing DSLR numbers with all camera sales numbers, which seems to make the stated problem&#8212;which is a real problem, mind you&#8212;seem worse than it might be.* "


----------



## Devinhullphoto

usayit said:


> Once a need presents itself (starting too) technology will solve that problem too.  Stop getting hung up on implementations and specifics... think concepts.  They are much more valuable but take a bit more thinking to identify.  Samsung Galaxy NX: Android-driven DSLR  There is not much difference between an Samsung android smart phone and that DSLR above.



I'm only hung up because the article talks about current sales, so I'm talking about current technology. Who knows what the future will bring? None of use for sure.


----------



## limr

Then there's this:


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Derrel said:


> Speaking of upcoming technology Nexus 5 Lytro-like, lightning-fast MEMS camera outed in leaked files | News | TechRadar  Leaked details of an upcoming phone that has Lytro-like image refocusing abilities in post....hmmm...amolitor mentioned this earlier...seems like Google's already working on this new advance in smartphone hardware and technology.  As to the article referenced at the start of this thread: according to Hogan, the numbers in the article are VERY DUBIOUS...as in inaccurate, misleading, or well, "dubious", to put it nicely...  see this article disputing/calling into question the statements in the article   "They're Not Going to Be Around in Five Years" | byThom | Thom Hogan  ONE extract, just one, of several: "Claim: the rate of market decline is accelerating each quarter. Actual: no, it isn't for DSLRs or mirrorless. The first quarter decline was 23.2%, the second quarter decline was 14.97%. That's de-acceleration. What seems to be happening throughout the article is that they are mixing DSLR numbers with all camera sales numbers, which seems to make the stated problem&mdash;which is a real problem, mind you&mdash;seem worse than it might be. "


  From my understanding as cool as those Lytro cameras are, they produce tiny images. I wish was would be changed. I would buy one if they made the sizes larger.


----------



## amolitor

As always, these markets are driven more by emotion than reality, but as a pro, why on earth WOULDN'T you want a light field camera?

All that mucking about with focus and aperture and DoF, sure, you're good at it and you spent a lot of time perfecting your skills. But as an _actual professional who is paid to get the shot, not to be awesome at farting around with camera settings_ why on earth would you NOT want the ability to push all that crap to post? Now you'll get the shot every time, instead of almost every time. If you have to play with settings on the fly to get the shot at all, sure, a professional has to be able to do that. An actual professional will drop any of that crap the second it becomes unnecessary. Only hobbyists have the luxury of mucking around doing extra work and missing shots. Sure, it's fun. I enjoy it as much as the next guy. My mortgage doesn't depend on me being able to do it, though.


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> I'm wrong but who cares? My point was that a 8-10mp camera isn't bad but the phones don't have the flexibility of a real camera.



Which isn't remotely similar to the comment I was responding to...


----------



## The_Traveler

I don't see the purpose in arguing/worrying about a future that no one has any control over.
Except for ego strokes in being right eventually and soothing a desperate anxiety about what one's already invested, the discussion seems fairly pointless.

The earth may split in half tomorrow and most of us will go shooting into the sun, along with our equipment. 
And I'm ok with that.


----------



## amolitor

The_Traveler said:


> The earth may split in half tomorrow and most of us will go shooting into the sun, along with our equipment.
> And I'm ok with that.



I AM NOT!


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Steve5D said:


> Which isn't remotely similar to the comment I was responding to...



Oh well. I'm done caring about it.


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which isn't remotely similar to the comment I was responding to...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well. I'm done caring about it.
Click to expand...


Perfect; thanks...


----------



## The_Traveler

amolitor said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> The earth may split in half tomorrow and most of us will go shooting into the sun, along with our equipment.
> And I'm ok with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I AM NOT!
Click to expand...


Well, do something about it.

No, I didn't think so.

I'm either Buddhist or existentialist in that I try to take things as they come.
This kind of argument is pretty meaningless to me, except that it provides some amusement as people try to preen their own images.

My attitude is reinforced by having been to a large art show on Sunday where 15 or so galleries around the country showed their wares. 
Every 'famous' photographer I could think of was represented from AA to CB - yes I realize that it doesn't go far alphabetically - with prices from 3000 - 35000 per piece. 
The most enlightening thing was that many of the pieces that I knew just didn't look so good in person. Yes, each was printed and matted perfectly but in artistic terms, if you didn't know who did them, they weren't so impressive.

A local co-op gallery , Multiple Exposure Gallery of Virginia, was there, with prices about $300 per piece and their work stood up incredibly well in comparison to the titans.

All of that put some stuff into perspective for me. 
Nothing I, or we, do is 'important' in any real sense.  
Like stepping out of a river, any place one holds in life quickly disappears.
All this silly discussion of what the future might be and the relative importance of developments is silly ego involvement.
(Not to mention the 'I'm a pro' kind of prancing around that happens.)

Make the kind of art that you want so that you are happy and like it.
Buy and use what you think is best and don't worry about tomorrow.
Be happy if you like your own work, enjoy the approval of others, but if they don't approve, relax about it.


----------



## ffarl

Derrel said:


> cbarnard7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you imagine how many entertainers are rolling in their graves because Miley Cyrus and Justin Beiber are the two biggest names out right now? :X
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check out Miley Cyrus's vocal abilities from a couple of nights ago... VERY impressive performance actually.
> 
> - Yahoo Screen
Click to expand...


   A part of me died suffering through the first minute of this.  It's like a technically perfect picture of Hitler's naked arse.


----------



## Mendoza

The_Traveler said:


> Nothing I, or we, do is 'important' in any real sense.
> Like stepping out of a river, any place one holds in life quickly disappears.
> All this silly discussion of what the future might be and the relative importance of developments is silly ego involvement.
> (Not to mention the 'I'm a pro' kind of prancing around that happens.)
> 
> Make the kind of art that you want so that you are happy and like it.
> Buy and use what you think is best and don't worry about tomorrow.
> Be happy if you like your own work, enjoy the approval of others, but if they don't approve, relax about it.



Ok Lao Tzu, way to derail a perfectly mundane thread with your philosophical contribution. 
(Just grinding your beans... they haven't invented a font for sarcasm yet.)


----------



## The_Traveler

Mendoza said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I, or we, do is 'important' in any real sense.
> Like stepping out of a river, any place one holds in life quickly disappears.
> All this silly discussion of what the future might be and the relative importance of developments is silly ego involvement.
> (Not to mention the 'I'm a pro' kind of prancing around that happens.)
> 
> Make the kind of art that you want so that you are happy and like it.
> Buy and use what you think is best and don't worry about tomorrow.
> Be happy if you like your own work, enjoy the approval of others, but if they don't approve, relax about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Lao Tzu, way to derail a perfectly mundane thread with your philosophical contribution.
> (Just grinding your beans... they haven't invented a font for sarcasm yet.)
Click to expand...


I use* [sarcasm]*.....*[/sarcasm]

*(A few years ago (OK, a lot of years ago) I spent some time in a Taoist commune in Manitou Springs, CO run by Gia-Fu Feng a famous Taoist scholar.)


----------



## kathyt

The_Traveler said:


> I don't see the purpose in arguing/worrying about a future that no one has any control over.
> Except for ego strokes in being right eventually and soothing a desperate anxiety about what one's already invested, the discussion seems fairly pointless.
> 
> The earth may split in half tomorrow and most of us will go shooting into the sun, along with our equipment.
> And I'm ok with that.


Now this is a point worth repeating.


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> Mendoza said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I, or we, do is 'important' in any real sense.
> Like stepping out of a river, any place one holds in life quickly disappears.
> All this silly discussion of what the future might be and the relative importance of developments is silly ego involvement.
> (Not to mention the 'I'm a pro' kind of prancing around that happens.)
> 
> Make the kind of art that you want so that you are happy and like it.
> Buy and use what you think is best and don't worry about tomorrow.
> Be happy if you like your own work, enjoy the approval of others, but if they don't approve, relax about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Lao Tzu, way to derail a perfectly mundane thread with your philosophical contribution.
> (Just grinding your beans... they haven't invented a font for sarcasm yet.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I use* [sarcasm]*.....*[/sarcasm]
> 
> *(A few years ago (OK, a lot of years ago) I spent some time in a Taoist commune in Manitou Springs, CO run by Gia-Fu Feng a famous Taoist scholar.)
Click to expand...


Manitou Springs is COOL... although doesn't have the same vibe it did many years ago.. too touristy now!

That would have been a wonderful experience.. Lew! I am envious!


----------



## cbarnard7

cgipson1 said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mendoza said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Lao Tzu, way to derail a perfectly mundane thread with your philosophical contribution.
> (Just grinding your beans... they haven't invented a font for sarcasm yet.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I use* [sarcasm]*.....*[/sarcasm]
> 
> *(A few years ago (OK, a lot of years ago) I spent some time in a Taoist commune in Manitou Springs, CO run by Gia-Fu Feng a famous Taoist scholar.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Manitou Springs is COOL... although doesn't have the same vibe it did many years ago.. too touristy now!
> 
> That would have been a wonderful experience.. Lew! I am envious!
Click to expand...


I was actually in Manitou Springs yesterday...drove around to try to get a shot of some fall foliage at Rampart Reservoir and guess what? It's in Pike NATIONAL forest, so the road was closed and then drove around like an idiot until I got to Garden of the Gods. Cool old place, though.


----------



## amolitor

It's always easy to see in hindsight who was, nominally, breaking new ground. In the moment they all tend to look pretty much the same.


----------



## runnah

The end is neigh!


----------



## amolitor

The four horses of the apocalypse are approaching!


----------



## terri

This thread is full of off topic blather, which is okay as long as no one stoops to insults and the OP doesn't mind.    Keep things friendly, or it'll be closed.   

Thanks!


----------



## terri

amolitor said:


> The four horses of the apocalypse are approaching!



I like horses, but not to that extreme!   :razz:


----------



## amolitor

Everyone knows the four horsemen, but nobody seems to know that Death rides a horse named Nikon, Famine is on Canon, Pestilence is on Pentax, and and War is, for reasons nobody really knows, on Bob.

neigh!


----------



## peter27

Bringing things back on topic, I wouldn't consider buying a DSLR because there are other, more convenient options with near or equal IQ these days. Recently I've been trying out a camera my brother-in-law gave me when we visited my sister and her family back in June. It's very small, extremely well built, and, most important of all, the quality of the images is very good indeed. I've mainly been shooting in jpeg with the in-camera B&W and am very happy with it. The only snag is that it has one fixed lens and it would be nice to be able to change the focal length from time to time; but the more I use it the less of an issue this becomes: as I discover what it can do for my photography, I forget about the things it can't.

The newer version has a much larger resolution available to the user, which they can use to crop very effectively, almost rendering the need for zoom or focal length change redundant - almost! I think it was Andrew who brought this point up in another discussion (possibly about phone cameras?).

There are Advantages and disadvantages whichever side of the DSLR arguement you find youself on, but for my part I'm pretty sure that the next camera I invest in will be a newer version of the camera mentioned or something like a Fuji X-100, or even the Sony RX1 if funds allow


----------



## manaheim

peter27 said:


> Bringing things back on topic, I wouldn't consider buying a DSLR because there are other, more convenient options with near or equal IQ these days. Recently I've been trying out a camera my brother-in-law gave me when we visited my sister and her family back in June. It's very small, extremely well built, and, most important of all, the quality of the images is very good indeed. I've mainly been shooting in jpeg with the in-camera B&W and am very happy with it. The only snag is that it has one fixed lens and it would be nice to be able to change the focal length from time to time; but the more I use it the less of an issue this becomes: as I discover what it can do for my photography, I forget about the things it can't.
> 
> The newer version has a much larger resolution available to the user, which they can use to crop very effectively, almost rendering the need for zoom or focal length change redundant - almost! I think it was Andrew who brought this point up in another discussion (possibly about phone cameras?).
> 
> There are Advantages and disadvantages whichever side of the DSLR arguement you find youself on, but for my part I'm pretty sure that the next camera I invest in will be a newer version of the camera mentioned or something like a Fuji X-100, or even the Sony RX1 if funds allow



This sounds very much like a "I don't personally NEED a DSLR... or at least I don't need one enough that I'm willing to put up with the size/bulk/whatever."

That's TOTALLY fine, but that basically just means you don't need a DSLR.  It doesn't mean that DSLRs are dead or dying.  Now if 50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs today started saying things like what you said... then yes... DSLRs would be in trouble.


----------



## pgriz

Given that maybe 90% of the people buying DSLR's are using them in auto mode, and are buying them because they "think" they will get better pictures (not to mention impressing the relatives with their "pro" camera), I don't think the DSLR category will disappear quickly.  It's like the "PRO" power tools - most of the people buying them turn them on perhaps once or twice a year, and rarely use the full feature set.  What supports the category is the marketing and the perception.  The category will die when the marketing illusion is no longer bought by the masses.


----------



## sashbar

manaheim said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing things back on topic, I wouldn't consider buying a DSLR because there are other, more convenient options with near or equal IQ these days. Recently I've been trying out a camera my brother-in-law gave me when we visited my sister and her family back in June. It's very small, extremely well built, and, most important of all, the quality of the images is very good indeed. I've mainly been shooting in jpeg with the in-camera B&W and am very happy with it. The only snag is that it has one fixed lens and it would be nice to be able to change the focal length from time to time; but the more I use it the less of an issue this becomes: as I discover what it can do for my photography, I forget about the things it can't.
> 
> The newer version has a much larger resolution available to the user, which they can use to crop very effectively, almost rendering the need for zoom or focal length change redundant - almost! I think it was Andrew who brought this point up in another discussion (possibly about phone cameras?).
> 
> There are Advantages and disadvantages whichever side of the DSLR arguement you find youself on, but for my part I'm pretty sure that the next camera I invest in will be a newer version of the camera mentioned or something like a Fuji X-100, or even the Sony RX1 if funds allow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds very much like a "I don't personally NEED a DSLR... or at least I don't need one enough that I'm willing to put up with the size/bulk/whatever."
> 
> That's TOTALLY fine, but that basically just means you don't need a DSLR.  It doesn't mean that DSLRs are dead or dying.  Now if 50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs today started saying things like what you said... then yes... DSLRs would be in trouble.
Click to expand...



50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs these days do not NEED it.


----------



## usayit

manaheim said:


> Now if 50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs today started saying things like what you said... then yes... DSLRs would be in trouble.



If clump in sales of camera equipped phones, I'd say less than 50% of the photo taking population use DSLRs.. way less.    Every event, every family friendly destination (zoos), every concert/show, you see several times the number of people snapping away with cell phones than DSLRs.  We know from stats that cell phones are cannibalizing the consumer P&S market.... its not like those former P&S owners stopped taking photos.... they are using their cell phones.   I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of former DSLR owners (those that really didn't need one anyways) have gone to cell phones for photos.


----------



## manaheim

I said 50% of the people _who buy DSLRs today_.  I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd bet the percentage of people with "cameras" (including phones) who buy DSLRs is extreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemely low.


----------



## usayit

Yup.. I know.. may be I should have been more clear....   sorry



> I wouldn't be surprised if a big chunk of former DSLR owners (those that really didn't need one anyways) have gone to cell phones for photos.




One could see DSLR ownership as a fad among parental units.... a fad that is fading....


----------



## Devinhullphoto

usayit said:


> Yup.. I know.. may be I should have been more clear....   sorry  One could see DSLR ownership as a fad among parental units.... a fad that is fading....


I know loads of people (family) that have entry level dslr cameras because they think they simply produce better images. Then they see what I do with mine which is the same level or in one case the same model and thy are blown away. I'm not a pro or really that good. The difference is that I know how to use it on full manual and use that to get the shot how I desire. While they just use auto.


----------



## Steve5D

sashbar said:


> 50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs these days do not NEED it.



For that statement to be remotely meaningful, you need to be able to provide some sort of reference for your claim.

You also need to define "need"...


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> I know loads of people (family) that have entry level dslr cameras because they think they simply produce better images.



Better images than what?

Put an iPhone, a point & shoot and an entry level DSLR side by side on tripods, and put the cameras on "Auto", and take the same photo with all three.

Are you saying the DSLR won't produce a better image?


----------



## Devinhullphoto

Steve5D said:


> Better images than what?  Put an iPhone, a point & shoot and an entry level DSLR side by side on tripods, and put the cameras on "Auto", and take the same photo with all three.  Are you saying the DSLR won't produce a better image?


Better than the typical point and shoot. No I'm just saying that loads of people have dslrs with no intention of learning how to use it.


----------



## PhotoWrangler

As soon as Life Touch can do volume school pictures with an iPhone, or wedding photographers can capture your wedding ceremony with an Android, or they an create billboard advertising with a Nokia,  I don't think there's any need to worry.


----------



## pixmedic

Steve5D said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs these days do not NEED it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For that statement to be remotely meaningful, you need to be able to provide some sort of reference for your claim.
> 
> You also need to define "need"...
Click to expand...


i would say, by pretty much any definition, 50% or more of the population buys plenty of stuff they done "need". (I know WE sure do)
I don't think "need" really enters into the equation of 90% of camera sales, and honestly, does it even matter? 
even if you could/did pin down a definition for "need" and apply it to DSLR's, 
I dont imagine Nikon would base its sales figures on how many cameras were sold that were "needed", and exclude sales to people that didn't "need" the camera.


----------



## pixmedic

Devinhullphoto said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> Better images than what?  Put an iPhone, a point & shoot and an entry level DSLR side by side on tripods, and put the cameras on "Auto", and take the same photo with all three.  Are you saying the DSLR won't produce a better image?
> 
> 
> 
> Better than the typical point and shoot. No I'm just saying that loads of people have dslrs with no intention of learning how to use it.
Click to expand...


loads of people have computers with no intention of learning how to use them. 
Guess computers are nearing their end as well. 
and golf clubs.


----------



## molested_cow

If  you can't beat your enemies, join them! Nikon and Canons really should become proactive in becoming imaging partner with these smartphone/whatever hip devices brands. So perhaps a HTC with Nikon lens and technology or Motorola w Canon etc. That way we will start to see a whole new level of tech competition.

For me, even though I am a DSLR user, I am not considering buying another DSLR simply because I think there SHOULD be more convenient options. I want the control and quality, but it's simply too bulky and heavy and non-enjoyable experience to have to lug it around. It's like, whenever I travel to nice places, the experience gets degraded by the heavy camera bag I have to carry with me. I just wish there's something much more portable and manageable. But no, smartphone cameras doesn't cut it at all.


----------



## Devinhullphoto

pixmedic said:


> loads of people have computers with no intention of learning how to use them. Guess computers are nearing their end as well. and golf clubs.


That wasn't my point. I made the comment because someone mentioned people who don't need dslrs but buy them anyway.


----------



## pixmedic

Devinhullphoto said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> loads of people have computers with no intention of learning how to use them. Guess computers are nearing their end as well. and golf clubs.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't my point. I made the comment because someone mentioned people who don't need dslrs but buy them anyway.
Click to expand...


oh. my bad. 
guess i should have read farther back in the thread.  :blushing:


----------



## Devinhullphoto

pixmedic said:


> oh. my bad. guess i should have read farther back in the thread.  :blushing:


No problem. It's become quite a long thread.


----------



## peter27

manaheim said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bringing things back on topic, I wouldn't consider buying a DSLR because there are other, more convenient options with near or equal IQ these days. Recently I've been trying out a camera my brother-in-law gave me when we visited my sister and her family back in June. It's very small, extremely well built, and, most important of all, the quality of the images is very good indeed. I've mainly been shooting in jpeg with the in-camera B&W and am very happy with it. The only snag is that it has one fixed lens and it would be nice to be able to change the focal length from time to time; but the more I use it the less of an issue this becomes: as I discover what it can do for my photography, I forget about the things it can't.
> 
> The newer version has a much larger resolution available to the user, which they can use to crop very effectively, almost rendering the need for zoom or focal length change redundant - almost! I think it was Andrew who brought this point up in another discussion (possibly about phone cameras?).
> 
> There are Advantages and disadvantages whichever side of the DSLR arguement you find youself on, but for my part I'm pretty sure that the next camera I invest in will be a newer version of the camera mentioned or something like a Fuji X-100, or even the Sony RX1 if funds allow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds very much like a "I don't personally NEED a DSLR... or at least I don't need one enough that I'm willing to put up with the size/bulk/whatever."
> 
> That's TOTALLY fine, but that basically just means you don't need a DSLR. It doesn't mean that DSLRs are dead or dying. Now if 50% or more of the population who buy DSLRs today started saying things like what you said... then yes... DSLRs would be in trouble.
Click to expand...


Yes, but if you go forward ten or even just five years and consider what is likely to be the buying trends of the market based on the continuing technological advancements which are flooding it, then I think big and bulky will be diminishing and small and sexy will be what most new customers want.

Why lug a beast that needs a bag full of extras around when a sweetl little thing that slips over the shoulder or fits snugly in a pocket does all that you want? 

Of course there will be a continuing demand for DSLRs, just as there is a continuing demand for film. However, the majority won't care and the makers will follow the masses or be hanged: think Kodak.


----------



## usayit

I worked retail... we are trained to convince the customer that DSLR will produce better images like it is some sort of magic coin....

No different than any other consumer buying a product.

Once alternatives produce an image that is good enough with better convenience, parents will follow suite.  If this is in the form of a cell phone it will be a cell phone.   I for one sold off an entire high end Canon system once I became a father of three.  Its just no longer a fit.   On our many trips to local zoos, not one single family was carrying a DSLR.... many taking photos with cell phones... a coupe with P&S.  (this was not the case in past years)


----------



## Devinhullphoto

usayit said:


> I worked retail... we are trained to convince the customer that DSLR will produce better images like it is some sort of magic coin....  No different than any other consumer buying a product.  Once alternatives produce an image that is good enough with better convenience, parents will follow suite.  If this is in the form of a cell phone it will be a cell phone.   I for one sold off an entire high end Canon system once I became a father of three.  Its just no longer a fit.


Excuse my ignorance but what did happen to kodak?


----------



## usayit

Devinhullphoto said:


> Excuse my ignorance but what did happen to kodak?



Inexcusable management... and business decisions.  Failure to react and predict market changes thus unable to plan accordingly.   Its one of those companies that was stuck looking in the glory past and bet too much in name only.   Leica almost made the same mistake beginning with stating that AF wasn't important (sold patents to Minolta) and ending with digital rangefinder was not possible (proven incorrect by Epson).   Its the same company-ego that was stuck looking in glory past.   Private purchase and competent leadership saved them.... not so for Kodak.


----------



## usayit

molested_cow said:


> If  you can't beat your enemies, join them! Nikon and Canons really should become proactive in becoming imaging partner with these smartphone/whatever hip devices brands. .



Absolutely!

Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic are all positioned really well to do so.   Samsung is testing the waters with their android enabled cameras.  Panasonic has the R&D and manufacturing.  Sony is testing the waters too... QX100 (even though I don't really find it attractive).    From where I sit, the major difference is that Sony, Samsung, and Panasonic are consumer electronic giants..... we have seen cameras go from boutique like channels to big box electronic stores.


----------



## amolitor

If you're a Camera Company the margins on your piece of the puzzle on a cell phone is gonna be microscopic. This is really a job for a design house, not a manufacturer. Zeiss and those guys are going to do just fine selling expertise and design to the cell phone guys. Nikon and Canon ain't.


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> 
> loads of people have computers with no intention of learning how to use them. Guess computers are nearing their end as well. and golf clubs.
> 
> 
> 
> That wasn't my point. I made the comment because someone mentioned people who don't need dslrs but buy them anyway.
Click to expand...


And you still haven't been able to define "need". Without that, your point is not only meaningless, it's totally baseless. 

You also stated that people buy them with the belief that the photos "will be better".

Better than what? A 110 Instamatic? A Polaroid?


----------



## Steve5D

usayit said:


> I worked retail... we are trained to convince the customer that DSLR will produce better images like it is some sort of magic coin....
> 
> No different than any other consumer buying a product.



Put an average priced point & shoot against an average priced DSLR in the hands of a talented, knowledgeable photographer. All else being equal, which one is going to produce the superior image?

Now, put them in the hands of a Mom, who's knows little about photography, and wants to take pictures of flowers. All else being equal, which one is going to produce the superior image?

In either case, if you say the point & shoot, you might want to consider another line of work.



> Once alternatives produce an image that is good enough with better convenience, parents will follow suite.  If this is in the form of a cell phone it will be a cell phone.   I for one sold off an entire high end Canon system once I became a father of three.  Its just no longer a fit.



That has absolutely nothing to do which produces a better image, though...



> On our many trips to local zoos, not one single family _*I SAW*_ was carrying a DSLR.... many taking photos with cell phones... a coupe with P&S.  (this was not the case in past years)



I went ahead and fixed that for you, simply because it's impossible to make such a definitive statement as yours. The last time I was at the zoo, I couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting someone holding a DSLR. If what you say is true, how would you possibly explain that?

The reality here is that people will always shoot with cell phones. People will always shoot with point & shoots, and people will always shoot with DSLR's. Suggesting that any one of them is on the way out is kinda' silly. People will always want them.

And, if anything (and as has already been mentioned), cell phones will displace point & shoots, not DSLR's...


----------



## Steve5D

Devinhullphoto said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> I worked retail... we are trained to convince the customer that DSLR will produce better images like it is some sort of magic coin....  No different than any other consumer buying a product.  Once alternatives produce an image that is good enough with better convenience, parents will follow suite.  If this is in the form of a cell phone it will be a cell phone.   I for one sold off an entire high end Canon system once I became a father of three.  Its just no longer a fit.
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse my ignorance but what did happen to kodak?
Click to expand...


That's not really a fair comparison, simply because you're talking about, essentially, two different things.

I didn't make the switch to digital because it produces a better image (I don't believe it does), I made it because of the cost factor.

Let's talk about cameras that take the same format of photo (digital vs. digital, film vs. film). A medium format camera will produce a superior image to a Kodak Instamatic. Yet, somehow, Kodak Instamatics enjoyed a rather impressive run and were unaffected by companies like Hasselblad or Bronica. Sales of film cameras didn't plummet because digital is "better", but because it's cheaper. 

Ironically, I believe an engineer at Kodak actually developed the digital camera back in the mid-70's, but Kodak never pursued it...


----------



## The_Traveler

Steve5D said:


> And you still haven't been able to define "need". Without that, your point is not only meaningless, it's totally baseless.



You know, Steve, so many of your posts are aimed at making the other person 'stupid' or inferior in some way or putting down their opinion as 'baseless' or 'bizarre', that you come across as rather self-important and unpleasant but insecure and really needing to be seen as the expert and the fount from which all knowledge flows.

If that is the impression that you want to give, well it's working.

From my standpoint, I discount virtually everything you say, just because of your manner.


----------



## TheLost

Steve5D said:


> The last time I was at the zoo, I couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting someone holding a DSLR. If what you say is true, how would you possibly explain that?
> 
> The reality here is that people will always shoot with cell phones. People will always shoot with point & shoots, and people will always shoot with DSLR's. Suggesting that any one of them is on the way out is kinda' silly. People will always want them.
> 
> And, if anything (and as has already been mentioned), cell phones will displace point & shoots, not DSLR's...



Lets break the DSLR owners down to three groups: Pro's, Hobbyists and Normal's...

I live in a very 'photo centric' location. My office is located in a 'ski resort' town and i'm only 3 hours (less depending on speed enforcement  ) from Arches, Zions, Bryce.. etc.  Here is the shift i've seen over the past few years...

Vacationing/Local Skiers:  The pro's still use DSLR's..  I haven't seen DSLR hobbyists on the slopes in years..  I do see quite a few mirrorless ILC cameras on the slopes (we'll call them the new hobbyists)..  GoPro's are EVERYWHERE.  Camera phones are everywhere...  If you stand in a lift line you'll see tons of group camera phone 'selfies'. I don't think i saw a p&s once last year.  My older son isn't allowed to snowboard any more... but he went on-and-on about how the new iPhone 5s and its 10FPS and slow-motion video would be awesome for the slopes.

Vacationing/Local Sightseers: The pro's still use DSLR's.. but hobbyist DSLR use is on the decline.  Over the past few years i've seen more and more Sony NEX and m4/3 cameras on tripods waiting for 'golden hour'...  The older hobbyist crowed have the DSLR's but the younger generation are switching.  

Steve5D... I've got a Southern Utah trip coming up in about 4 weeks.  I will take pictures of the picture takers just for you since i know your all about proof


----------



## limr

I'm curious - is it easy to tell the vacationers from the locals? If not, it might skew your conclusions a bit. There might be more hobbyists using DSLRs but they don't like shlepping it on a plane. And many of them might not think of taking 'serious' photos on vacation. Maybe they just want snapshots with something that's portable, so they leave the DSLR at home, even though they still use it regularly for their hobby.


----------



## bentcountershaft

Regarding vacationers, I've had the opposite experience, both personally and from what I've read in various threads here.  Most pros I know of don't take their dslr on vacation.  They lug it around all day all the time so the last thing they want to do is lug it around some more.  They usually stay small, point and shoot or phone.  Some may have a mirrorless system just for personal stuff.  Hobbyists, like myself, are far more likely to drag the dslr around.  What this says about the future of anything is anyone's guess.  Personally, I see mirrorless systems getting more popular as the tech gets better.  I doubt it will kill the dslr, but it will certainly grow.


----------



## The_Traveler

With the latest Olympus mirror-less out now, it seems that the quality of the images and focus speed possible is edging closer to that possible with dslrs.
Perhaps there will always be an advantage to a dslr in IQ and other factors, as there is an advantage for a medium format sensor over a 35 mm equiv in IQ, but the number of people to whom that difference is important seems to be becoming smaller.

Just a medium format film is a niche market, perhaps FF will follow.


----------



## Steve5D

TheLost said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last time I was at the zoo, I couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting someone holding a DSLR. If what you say is true, how would you possibly explain that?
> 
> The reality here is that people will always shoot with cell phones. People will always shoot with point & shoots, and people will always shoot with DSLR's. Suggesting that any one of them is on the way out is kinda' silly. People will always want them.
> 
> And, if anything (and as has already been mentioned), cell phones will displace point & shoots, not DSLR's...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lets break the DSLR owners down to three groups: Pro's, Hobbyists and Normal's...
> 
> I live in a very 'photo centric' location. My office is located in a 'ski resort' town and i'm only 3 hours (less depending on speed enforcement  ) from Arches, Zions, Bryce.. etc.  Here is the shift i've seen over the past few years...
> 
> Vacationing/Local Skiers:  The pro's still use DSLR's..  I haven't seen DSLR hobbyists on the slopes in years..  I do see quite a few mirrorless ILC cameras on the slopes (we'll call them the new hobbyists)..  GoPro's are EVERYWHERE.  Camera phones are everywhere...  If you stand in a lift line you'll see tons of group camera phone 'selfies'. I don't think i saw a p&s once last year.  My older son isn't allowed to snowboard any more... but he went on-and-on about how the new iPhone 5s and its 10FPS and slow-motion video would be awesome for the slopes.
> 
> Vacationing/Local Sightseers: The pro's still use DSLR's.. but hobbyist DSLR use is on the decline.  Over the past few years i've seen more and more Sony NEX and m4/3 cameras on tripods waiting for 'golden hour'...  The older hobbyist crowed have the DSLR's but the younger generation are switching.
> 
> Steve5D... I've got a Southern Utah trip coming up in about 4 weeks.  I will take pictures of the picture takers just for you since i know your all about proof
Click to expand...


I don't ski much anymore but, when I do, I'm sure as Hell not dragging me DSLR with me.

Do the folks on the slopes wear some identifying credential which says they're "pro" or "vacationer"? I'm just wondering how you're able to tell who is who. Is there some identifying mark on their lift ticket which says they're a professional photographer?

I use my G12 around my town a lot. I also use my 5D. Other times I'll simply use my phone. If you saw me using either the G12 or the phone, you would never classify me as a professional photographer, yet that's exactly what I am. You don't seem to allow for the probability that some of the folks using their phones on the slopes don't want to risk damaging their DSLR when they fall on the slopes. It's pretty shortsighted to conclude that someone using a phone to take pictures at a ski lodge isn't a professional based solely on that fact.

Aaron Chang is a surfer as well as a photographer. I used to see him surfing in northern San Diego County. Now, despite the fact that he's an incredibly gifted and successful photographer, if he puts a Go-Pro on his surfboard, should we conclude that he's _not _a professional photographer? 

The fact is that you're drawing a conclusion based on one piece of information, that being the type of camera someone uses in a particular environment.

As for you taking pictures of other people there, that will prove nothing, as it would be far too simple for you to take only photos of people using phones and point & shoots. Beyond that, though, it still wouldn't prove anything, and it would be similar to the skiing example. I've never been to those parks, but my understanding is that there's a good deal of hiking involved. Well, camera gear is heavy. While a professional may opt to lug his gear out there, those who shoot with a DSLR at other times may simply decide not to bring theirs in lieu of something lighter.

It's all about situational necessity, and that doesn't dictate whether someone is a professional, or even that cell phones are taking over the world...


----------



## TheLost

limr said:


> I'm curious - is it easy to tell the vacationers from the locals? If not, it might skew your conclusions a bit. There might be more hobbyists using DSLRs but they don't like shlepping it on a plane. And many of them might not think of taking 'serious' photos on vacation. Maybe they just want snapshots with something that's portable, so they leave the DSLR at home, even though they still use it regularly for their hobby.



Hahaha.. yes..  it is very easy to tell 'MOST' vacationers from the locals on the slopes.  Vacationers stay on certain slopes, travel in packs, have brand new coats/pants/gear (or hardly used), and are the ones stopped in the middle of a run causing havoc for a family group picture.



bentcountershaft said:


> Regarding vacationers, I've had the opposite experience, both personally and from what I've read in various threads here.  Most pros I know of don't take their dslr on vacation.  They lug it around all day all the time so the last thing they want to do is lug it around some more.  They usually stay small, point and shoot or phone.  Some may have a mirrorless system just for personal stuff.  Hobbyists, like myself, are far more likely to drag the dslr around.  What this says about the future of anything is anyone's guess.  Personally, I see mirrorless systems getting more popular as the tech gets better.  I doubt it will kill the dslr, but it will certainly grow.



I'm not a pro.. and i don't take my DSLR gear with me any more.  In the past i've lugged mine through airports, rain forests, beaches, foreign city's.  I just take a higher end P&S now (Sony RX100).  I'm waiting for Nikon to deep-discount the new AW1 and it will be my new vay-cay system 

Nothings going to kill the DSLR... but the people who buy DSLR's because it makes them look like a photographer (the soccer mom - sub $1k DSLR crowed) is what they need to worry about.


----------



## amolitor

FF already IS a niche by any reasonable definition. It's only considered not a niche because the people who buy those cameras will scream like stuck pigs if you point out what a niche it is.


----------



## TheLost

Steve5D said:


> Do the folks on the slopes wear some identifying credential which says they're "pro" or "vacationer"? I'm just wondering how you're able to tell who is who. Is there some identifying mark on their lift ticket which says they're a professional photographer?



Yes..  Yes they do.  It helps us know who to stay away from.  I cant tell you any more about it or i'll be in breach of my season pass contract.. or worse.




Steve5D said:


> I use my G12 around my town a lot. I also use my 5D. Other times I'll simply use my phone. If you saw me using either the G12 or the phone, you would never classify me as a professional photographer, yet that's exactly what I am. You don't seem to allow for the probability that some of the folks using their phones on the slopes don't want to risk damaging their DSLR when they fall on the slopes. It's pretty shortsighted to conclude that someone using a phone to take pictures at a ski lodge isn't a professional based solely on that fact.



First.. i don't think i'd ever mistake you for a professional photographer..  I don't think you have the people skills.

Second..  Five years ago you would see TONS of DSLRs on the slopes.  One of my friends owned a company that made chest harness camera bags specifically to hold DSLR's while skiing.  He made tons of money until people stopped taking DSLR's to the slopes.  



Steve5D said:


> Aaron Chang is a surfer as well as a photographer. I used to see him surfing in northern San Diego County. Now, despite the fact that he's an incredibly gifted and successful photographer, if he puts a Go-Pro on his surfboard, should we conclude that he's _not _a professional photographer?



No.. my point is that there are newer devices on the market that are being used.  And no.. im not saying he used to strap a DSLR to his surboard. 




Steve5D said:


> The fact is that you're drawing a conclusion based on one piece of information, that being the type of camera someone uses in a particular environment.
> 
> As for you taking pictures of other people there, that will prove nothing, as it would be far too simple for you to take only photos of people using phones and point & shoots. Beyond that, though, it still wouldn't prove anything, and it would be similar to the skiing example. I've never been to those parks, but my understanding is that there's a good deal of hiking involved. Well, camera gear is heavy. While a professional may opt to lug his gear out there, those who shoot with a DSLR at other times may simply decide not to bring theirs in lieu of something lighter.
> 
> It's all about situational necessity, and that doesn't dictate whether someone is a professional, or even that cell phones are taking over the world...



No.. again..  This thread is about a financial magazine reporting on the decline of DSLR camera sales.   It's about some guy named Christopher Chute (Analyst Profile: Chris Chute - PRF000064) who is quoted saying:



> _&#8220;Nikon recently said they have a five year plan to address this. And my view is, that five year plan should have come out five years ago,&#8221; Mr. Chute said._
> _&#8220;They&#8217;re not going to be around in five years.&#8221;_



You can argue if my observations are correct all you want... But you cant argue about the numbers and the decline in sales.  And even if DSLR sales start growing next year...  How many articles like that are needed before Nikon's stock drops even more (they are already down 33% this year.. according to the article)?


----------



## bentcountershaft

From a business standpoint I can't see why Sony, one of the world's bigger companies, is spending money hand over fist to break into a declining segment.  I'm sure they have analysts too.


----------



## TheLost

bentcountershaft said:


> From a business standpoint I can't see why Sony, one of the world's bigger companies, is spending money hand over fist to break into a declining segment.  I'm sure they have analysts too.



They have the name (who doesn't know Sony) .. they have the money (lots of divisions to pull from).. they have the technology (they make the sensors in 10+ Nikon DSLR's)... They probably think they can outlast Nikon.


----------



## amolitor

Sony makes the sensors, so they have an interest in maintaining the market and expanding it. They probably feel that they can fill in some gaps in the available lineups at some interesting price points, and extract a bit more cash from the market while it lasts. It'll likely last a good long time, it'll just decline. Even a small market produces revenue, and good management can sometimes turn revenue into profit.

IBM is still making money selling mainframe computers, after all. That market's been "dead" for 20 years, and as far as I know it's still making a few billion a year.

Some niches are pretty big.


----------



## Derrel

I go to the Oregon Coast a lot. It's one of the USA's top tourist destinations. It's very popular for photography. Here, on a December 30, 2012 trip, there were a TON of people during the daylight hours, which were especially sunny and bright; on this trip I saw loads of younger people in their 20's, mostly in groups, and the vast majority were shooting with the Apple iPhone..much more so than with any other phone. I saw one young woman with a higher-end Nikon P&S, one woman with a very small red-colored ultra compact Canon P&S, and I saw a middle-aged woman with a brand-spanking-new SONY d-slr, and basically the rest of the people were shooting Canon and Nikon d-slr's of various model levels. I saw no mirrorless compacts. It was basically about 85% smartphones, the vast majority being iPhones, and then d-slrs. 

As sunset drew near, the majority of the day-trippers had gone home two hours earlier. It was sunny, but it was also late December, and it got cold FAST at the end of the day.




A flock of d-slr photographers swooped in, shortly before sunset. The bright bokeh dot in the background at the top right was a fellow who had a video light on his camera. I shot this hand-held with a VR lens.



Sunset Wave, Pacific City, Oregon. My iPhone does not have the high ISO capabilities to make a shot like this.

Later, after the sun had set, there was a Jeep driving along the beach. MOST of Oregon's almost 400 beach miles are open for vehicle travel, unless expressly prohibited.



I shot this at ISO 800, at f/3.5 at 1/15 second, to be able to get a feeling of movement from both the panning, but also by zooming the lens during the exposure to give a motion-blur impact right out of the camera, which would be impossible to do with many cameras that do not have a manual "by hand", rotating zoom ring, or a push-pull zoom collar.


----------



## TheLost

amolitor said:


> IBM is still making money selling mainframe computers, after all. That market's been "dead" for 20 years, and as far as I know it's still making a few billion a year.
> 
> Some niches are pretty big.


IBM doesn't make its money selling mainframes any more..  They'll still sell you one, but IBM is a software and services company now.  They survived by adapting and (this one is key...) listening to their customers.  They re-invented the IBM brand.


----------



## amolitor

The point is not that IBM makes "its money" on z-series, the point is that it makes SOME money on z-series. I'm baffled by how could have so radically mis-interpreted what I wrote. But then, I am routinely baffled by how people on the internet cannot be buggered to read what they're replying to. It seems basic to the very concept of "reply" but everyone seems to skip that step.


----------



## Derrel

TheLost said:
			
		

> No.. again..  This thread is about a financial magazine reporting on the decline of DSLR camera sales.   It's about some guy named Christopher Chute (Analyst Profile: Chris Chute - PRF000064) who is quoted saying:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _&#8220;Nikon recently said they have a five year plan to address this. And my view is, that five year plan should have come out five years ago,&#8221; Mr. Chute said._
> _&#8220;They&#8217;re not going to be around in five years.&#8221;_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can argue if my observations are correct all you want... But you cant argue about the numbers and the decline in sales.  And even if DSLR sales start growing next year...  How many articles like that are needed before Nikon's stock drops even more (they are already down 33% this year.. according to the article)?
Click to expand...


Well, a good portion of the numbers, and the conclusions, in that one single article, written by that one,single analyst are apparently, *inaccurate, dubious, or suspect.* So, yes, the numbers can be argued, because according to official CIPA industry numbers, the analyst's stated data is, apparently, incorrect. And misleading.

In other words, Chris Chute seems to be a lot like just another sloppy analyst who churns out something for web hits on a weekly basis...yet another sloppily fact-checked "piece"...based on "truthiness", not the truth. *Sloppy web journalism? Impossible, I say!*

"They're Not Going to Be Around in Five Years" | byThom | Thom Hogan

"The Financial Post has gotten around to writing about the state of DSLR sales, and some of the facts, quotes, and claims in the article need some clarification, as they're viral-prone if left unchallenged or unexplained:"

2nd point "_Claim: _the rate of market decline is accelerating each quarter. _Actual: _no, it isn't for DSLRs or mirrorless. The first quarter decline was 23.2%, the second quarter decline was 14.97%. That's _de-acceleration_. What seems to be happening throughout the article is that they are mixing DSLR numbers with all camera sales numbers, which seems to make the stated problem&#8212;which is a real problem, mind you&#8212;seem worse than it might be. "

And so on,and so on, and so on...Read the reply to the article...seems like Chris Chute's analysis is RIDDLED with dubious B.S.-level stuff...


----------



## amolitor

Markets follow, pretty much univesally, a bell-curve shaped thing. After the peak, the decline does in fact accelerate for a while, but then there is what is called in calculus an "inflection point" and the rate of decline slows (the second derivative goes positive, to be exact). So if we get a couple quarters of decreasing acceleration in the decline, we know pretty much where we are on the curve, we're somewhere right of that inflection point. Which is nice for the manufacturers, since the market's still pretty beefy and these data suggest that the tail's going to be nice and fat. That certainly fits with other observations, which are that camera enthsiasts and professionals have an emotional attachment to black cameras with interchangeable lenses and a blob on top  roughly the shape of a mentaprism.

There's always a possibility for a game changer causing another sharp descent, but given how irrational the market is already, I am personally doubtful.

So there ya go, that's why Sony's going all-in.


----------



## sashbar

In the meantime Panasonic is rumored to launch a new mirrorless and shutterless ( i.e. electronic shutter) enthusiasts camera this month.


----------



## TheLost

amolitor said:


> The point is not that IBM makes "its money" on z-series, the point is that it makes SOME money on z-series. I'm baffled by how could have so radically mis-interpreted what I wrote. But then, I am routinely baffled by how people on the internet cannot be buggered to read what they're replying to. It seems basic to the very concept of "reply" but everyone seems to skip that step.



I apologize..  I understood exactly what you where saying... i should have worded my "reply" better... how is this:

Your IBM example is a poor one.  IBM does not make "a few billion a year" selling mainframes (or any hardware).  It makes "a few billion a year" by selling enterprise solutions and software services.  IBM would not be around today if it didn't adapt to the changing market and reinvent itself.... and *STOP *focusing on hardware.  

As IBM stands now... they could stop selling hardware and shareholders wouldn't even notice.  Nikon can not say the same about DSLR's.

I'm baffled how people use examples that don't relate to the current topic.  IBM is the exact opposite of whats going on with he camera industry.


----------



## The_Traveler

amolitor said:


> But then, I am routinely baffled by how people on the internet cannot be buggered to read what they're replying to. It seems basic to the very concept of "reply" but everyone seems to skip that step.


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> 
> But then, I am routinely baffled by how people on the internet cannot be buggered to read what they're replying to. It seems basic to the very concept of "reply" but everyone seems to skip that step.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 57640
Click to expand...


I wondered about that too... Spell check error, maybe? lol!


----------



## cgipson1

bentcountershaft said:


> From a business standpoint I can't see why Sony, one of the world's bigger companies, is spending money hand over fist to break into a declining segment.  I'm sure they have analysts too.



Isn't Sony famous for bad decisions? Like putting rootkits on their CD's? Removing functionality from their products (playstation)? Pushing Betamax over VHS? Blu-ray over HD (and they won that one!) etc...etc...etc...


----------



## bentcountershaft

cgipson1 said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a business standpoint I can't see why Sony, one of the world's bigger companies, is spending money hand over fist to break into a declining segment.  I'm sure they have analysts too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Sony famous for bad decisions? Like putting rootkits on their CD's? Removing functionality from their products (playstation)? etc...etc...etc...
Click to expand...


Are you new here?  This is no place for logic.


----------



## Derrel

cgipson1 said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a business standpoint I can't see why Sony, one of the world's bigger companies, is spending money hand over fist to break into a declining segment.  I'm sure they have analysts too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Sony famous for bad decisions? Like putting rootkits on their CD's? Removing functionality from their products (playstation)? Pushing Betamax over VHS? Blu-ray over HD (and they won that one!) etc...etc...etc...
Click to expand...


And people wonder why SONY CORP. lost money every quarter for like, seven years in a row!

And, uh, Charlie, you forgot Sony's totally not-awesome proprietary memory format, the SONY *MemoryStick!*!!!


----------



## Derrel

amolitor said:


> SNIP>> other observations, which are that camera enthsiasts and professionals have an emotional attachment to black cameras with interchangeable lenses and a blob on top  roughly the shape of a mentaprism.
> 
> There's always a possibility for a game changer causing another sharp descent, but given how irrational the market is already, I am personally doubtful.
> 
> So there ya go, that's why Sony's going all-in.



In the camera enthusiast and professional sphere, Nikon in November of 2012 announced that it had made its 75 millionth F-mount lens.
75 million Nikkor lenses produced | Nikon Rumors

Canon announced the production of its 80 millionth EF-mount lens back in August of 2012. There Are Now 80 Million Canon EF-Series Lenses Running Around in the Wild

The sheer number of F-mount and EF-mount lenses in circulation is one factor in the stability of the d-slr form factor. Besides the emotional attachment, there is a very real PHYSICAL, and a real FINANCIAL attachment/investment in lenses among users of the Big Two's cameras. I believe the sheer number and distribution of lenses worldwide is one of the main factors inhibiting the development and growth of a new type of "Serious User" camera.


----------



## cgipson1

bentcountershaft said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> From a business standpoint I can't see why Sony, one of the world's bigger companies, is spending money hand over fist to break into a declining segment.  I'm sure they have analysts too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't Sony famous for bad decisions? Like putting rootkits on their CD's? Removing functionality from their products (playstation)? etc...etc...etc...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you new here?  This is no place for logic.
Click to expand...


Sorry about that... I will try to be more illogical in the future!


----------



## bentcountershaft

See!  You opened the door to logic and Derrel let some through as well.  We could end up with a virtual cavalcade of logic in here which would effectively kill the entire system here.  We may as well have opened Pandora's box.


----------



## cgipson1

bentcountershaft said:


> See!  You opened the door to logic and Derrel let some through as well.  We could end up with a virtual cavalcade of logic in here which would effectively kill the entire system here.  We may as well have opened Pandora's box.



Hey.. Pandora had a great box!  She was a fun girl... just a bit naive!


----------



## bentcountershaft

It's ok.  I don't get to use the word cavalcade very often, so at least there's that.


----------



## cgipson1

bentcountershaft said:


> It's ok.  I don't get to use the word cavalcade very often, so at least there's that.



One of my favorite words is "*palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylethanolamine*"... which is usually abbreviated as *"POPE"*!    (No offense meant to any Catholics out there!)

Fun to try and say after a few drinks.. especially in a group setting!


----------



## amolitor

My use of the word 'buggered' in that way is british slang, meaning essentially 'cannot be bothered to...' or more literally 'cannot be damned to..' UK usage is somewhat similar to american use of 'f*ck' which is to say it can be used practically anywhere for anything.

It's probably somewhat dated at this point, I dunno.


----------



## limr

amolitor said:


> My use of the word 'buggered' in that way is british slang, meaning essentially 'cannot be bothered to...' or more literally 'cannot be damned to..' UK usage is somewhat similar to american use of 'f*ck' which is to say it can be used practically anywhere for anything.
> 
> It's probably somewhat dated at this point, I dunno.



(Fwiw, I've heard my British colleagues still saying it in the 2000s (which, speaking of dated, I insist on calling the 'two thousand aughts'  ) Might be regional, though. More common was the 'can't be arsed' expression.)


----------



## sashbar

The_Traveler said:


> With the latest Olympus mirror-less out now, it seems that the quality of the images and focus speed possible is edging closer to that possible with dslrs.
> Perhaps there will always be an advantage to a dslr in IQ and other factors, as there is an advantage for a medium format sensor over a 35 mm equiv in IQ, but the number of people to whom that difference is important seems to be becoming smaller.
> 
> Just a medium format film is a niche market, perhaps FF will follow.



Mirrorless does not nesessary mean smaller sensor and less IQ. Fuji X-E1 with its 16 MP X Trans APS-C sensor is already considered by many to have the best APS-C format IQ already, including DSLRs. And this includes high ISO performance as well. And Fuji is rumored to announce X-E2 with a better processor and a new X Trans II sensor this month. If this sensor is capable of better IQ than its predesessor, then X-E2 will simply trounce the current cropped DSLRs in this respect.
There are no advantages to DSLRs regarding image quality when a mirrorless camera like Fuji uses the same size sensor. Quite opposite, DSLRs are at a theoretical disadvantage re IQ because of the longer distanse between a lense and a sensor, and as well the unwanted mirror shake.


----------



## Gavjenks

> Perhaps there will always be an advantage to a dslr in IQ and other  factors, as there is an advantage for a medium format sensor over a 35  mm equiv in IQ


Mirrorless is not a sensor size.  Mirrorless is a camera without a mirror... Therefore, it is not at any sort of inherent disadvantage to 35mm or any other camera due to size.

You can have 35mm mirrorless or SLR.
You can have medium format mirrorless or SLR.
You can have LARGE format mirrorless or SLR.

All of the above combinations already exist in both digital and in film (large format mirrorless film cameras were the first cameras used in the industry in the 19th century!!), with the possible exception of SLR LF digital backs, which I don't think I've heard of before. But they probably do.



> there is an advantage for a medium format sensor over a 35 mm equiv in  IQ, but the number of people to whom that difference is important seems  to be becoming smaller.


Also... ^whaaaa?

A large format sensor would give *multiple stops *better high ISO performance over current FF DSLRs, dynamic range, DOF, resolution, etc. too. The differences will be painfully obvious to anybody who still possesses their sense of sight forever.

The reason we aren't all buying 4x5 digital sensors is because they would probably cost as much as a house. And film although nice is impractical for many modern photography needs and businesses. Not because the differences would be too visually subtle.


----------



## The_Traveler

Of course, I knew that but in the current wave of development, mirrorless cameras are providing the desirable form factor. The large size that was always a necessity for adequate sensor size/IQ/features is no more.
For me, the small camera IQ and features approach that of the FF camera closely enough for me to flee to the smaller body and sensor.


----------



## Steve5D

TheLost said:


> Yes..  Yes they do.  It helps us know who to stay away from.  I cant tell you any more about it or i'll be in breach of my season pass contract.. or worse.



No, no they don't. Which means you don't know, and that you're afraid to admit you don't know. We get it...



> First.. i don't think i'd ever mistake you for a professional photographer..  I don't think you have the people skills.



Well, if the time comes when I start to care what you "think", I'll let you know.

I just have a low tolerance for bull****...



> Second..  Five years ago you would see TONS of DSLRs on the slopes.  One of my friends owned a company that made chest harness camera bags specifically to hold DSLR's while skiing.  He made tons of money until people stopped taking DSLR's to the slopes.



Derrel posted some shots he took at the Oregon coast on December 30, 2012. I was at the Oregon coast (Cannon Beach) on Christmas Eve. I don't normally take photos of other photographers but, if I had, I'd be showing you photos of a lot of people using DSLR's.

Since moving to St. Augustine, Florida, I've been getting out and doing a lot of shooting. I go out early in the morning, during the day, and also in the evening. Regardless of when I'm out shooting, there's no shortage of people shooting with DSLR's.

You want to concentrate on one comment made by one guy. Hey, if you need to think the sky is falling, have at it. But, remember, someone once muttered that "No one will ever need more than 64K".

Years later, he's one of the richest men on the planet because he was wrong...


----------



## peter27

In one of the largest and most poular outlets that sell cameras locally, they have their display set out so that the first thing you see is a row of four cameras. These were always DSLR cameras until about eighteen months to a year ago; now only two of them are of this camera type whilst the other two are mirrorless: one with interchangeable lenses, one without. Also, this outlet has a locked display cabinet near to where the sales assistants stand and formally this was the exclusive domain of high-end DSLR cameras, plus the lenses and expensive flash units to go with them. Not any more. Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Pentax and even Samsung have made it into this cabinet with their smaller alternatives: taking centre stage and pushing the old timers to the sides. 


This is not conjecture, this is concrete. It is happening - now. The market for photographic equipment is changing.


----------



## The_Traveler

Steve5D said:


> First.. i don't think i'd ever mistake you for a professional photographer..  I don't think you have the people skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if the time comes when I start to care what you "think", I'll let you know.
> 
> I just have a low tolerance for bull****...
Click to expand...


people skills, remember people skills


----------



## kathyt

I forgot what this thread was about.


----------



## The_Traveler

Well, it started out as a friendly pleasant discussion but it turned into one of those teachable moments, that we can look back upon and say 'Golly, I was so ignorant and confused before until he came along and, taking no BS, enlightened us.'


----------



## manaheim

Keep it clean, kids.

I'd "hate" to lock a 13 page rotating mess such as this just because some of the kids got a little rowdy.


----------



## manaheim

BTW, I daresay Bill's success didn't come from his poor assumptions on how much RAM people would need.

And BTW, it was *640K*.

And BTW, he didn't actually say that:
Did Gates Really Say 640K is Enough For Anyone?


----------



## kathyt

I would hate for you to lock 13 pages of pure, heavenly bliss too manaheim. That would be a shame.


----------



## usayit

Steve5D said:


> Put an average priced point & shoot against an average priced DSLR in the hands of a talented, knowledgeable photographer. All else being equal, which one is going to produce the superior image?
> 
> Now, put them in the hands of a Mom, who's knows little about photography, and wants to take pictures of flowers. All else being equal, which one is going to produce the superior image?
> 
> In either case, if you say the point & shoot, you might want to consider another line of work.




Steve.   I am not arguing that point.  My point you missed perhaps it was taken out of context.  

In retail, we are trained to sell DSLRs not because we believe that they automatically mean better quality images.... it simply means a better profit margin for the store we work.  My statement was to back up the notion that DSLRs in the hands of the typical consumer is a fad aimed at the uninformed consumer.  Once compact and more convenient options reach a point in which "image quality" is good enough, more and more consumers will flock to them.

Furthermore, I would say P&S which is were we disagree.  It all depends on expectations and requirements.  A high quality badly composed photo from a high quality DSLR that fails to achieves its intended goals will simply still be a bad photo.   A lower quality powerful image taken with a P&S is still a successful photo.

There are many successful professionals and journalists that have delivered award winning photographs on lesser equipment.  Alex Majoli comes to mind.


Another point... which someone pointed out is your attitude in the posts and responses.   As a professional, your points don't automatically mean they are more valid.   My observations as a family man among the average American non-photo specific family.  You can rant all you want, but the statistics published show that the cell phone camera is the most popular camera in use today.  Not a DSLR, not a P&S, and not mirrorless.   The consumer isn't driven by pure Image quality or features like you (and many of us here).   They are driven by connectivity, convenience, and enjoyment.  

So while you couldn't swing a dead cat at the zoo without hitting a DSLR, I highly suspect that  is more of the phenomonon that people gravitate towards like crowds.. you a photographer notice and see DSLRs everywhere but fail to see that everyone around you has a cell phone enabled with a camera with every day photos documenting their life.  I suspect that those cameras far outnumbers your ability to swing a dead cat at those immediately around you.

This is the same phenomena that makes high end DSLR owners feel that Nikon and Canon (and the like) are deriving their highest profit magins from equipment at the high end.  Wrong.  Most DSLRs sold are low end consumers and make up the larger share of revenue.  Up until cell phone camera quality increased recently, P&S and those "low-quality" super zoom lenses are the most commonly purchased photographic items for families with high priorities elsewhere.  


The fastest up coming photographic companies are no longer photographic companies... they are consumer electronic giants that can quickly form the R&D and marketing required to convince the parents that you can get the quality you want out of something you already carry each and every day....     

We should be happy with this... this is technology progress.   

As photographers we should not feel threaten by this... this is technology progress and there will always be a need for higher end equipment.  Just a shrinking of marketshare in regard to commodity hardware.   Talent is still valuable and necessary.


----------



## The_Traveler

There is nothing quite so enlarging to a photographer's needy ego as one or two large dslr bodies with very long or large lenses, all slung with BlackRapid straps plus an assortment of belts, bags and extras buckled on. 
In their mind, they get younger, taller, better-looking, more virile and certainly more professional.

I know when I used to go out with that kind of array, it was embarrassing to pass through a loitering crowd of young women what with the looks and the insinuating comments and the not-so-occasional attempt to fondle me.

Now that I use a smaller form factor camera, I am thankfully ignored and I no longer have to avoid large concentrations of females. Just the other day, I took the shuttle bus from downtown DC to the Mt Vernon campus of George Washington University and I was the sole photographer and male alone with the entire women's soccer and tennis teams. 

Previously I would have dreaded the entire trip and counted myself lucky to have escaped with only minor fondling. Carrying the tiny Olympus OMD kit, I was essentially invisible, although the estrogen level in the air during the trip leaching from the seeming acres of exposed skin seems to have made my nipples sore.


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> There is nothing quite so enlarging to a photographer's needy ego as one or two large dslr bodies with very long or large lenses, all slung with BlackRapid straps plus an assortment of belts, bags and extras buckled on.
> In their mind, they get younger, taller, better-looking, more virile and certainly more professional.
> 
> I know when I used to go out with that kind of array, it was embarrassing to pass through a loitering crowd of young women what with the looks and the insinuating comments and the not-so-occasional attempt to fondle me.
> 
> Now that I use a smaller form factor camera, I am thankfully ignored and I no longer have to avoid large concentrations of females. Just the other day, I took the shuttle bus from downtown DC to the Mt Vernon campus of George Washington University and I was the sole photographer and male alone with the entire women's soccer and tennis teams.
> 
> Previously I would have dreaded the entire trip and counted myself lucky to have escaped with only minor fondling. Carrying the tiny Olympus OMD kit, I was essentially invisible, although the estrogen level in the air during the trip leaching from the seeming acres of exposed skin seems to have made my nipples sore.



Dang.. I want some of that same Kool-Aid you are drinking!  lol!  

I love it when pretty girls want to touch my "lens"! I love "flashing" them too


----------



## limr

Yeah, see I am more impressed with the nondescript cameras. I'm fully convinced that the DSLR has replaced the Porche as a man's classic form of...compensating. The bigger the lens he carries, the more suspect I am.


----------



## The_Traveler

cgipson1 said:


> Dang.. I want some of that same Kool-Aid you are drinking!  lol!
> 
> I love it when pretty girls want to touch my "lens"! I love "flashing" them too



Oh, you laugh, do you.

It's easy to make fun when you have never experienced being roughed up by scantily glad young females who see you, not as a person (or a professional) but just meat.


----------



## ffarl

This Lew guy.  He's going places.


----------



## Gavjenks

limr said:


> Yeah, see I am more impressed with the nondescript cameras. I'm fully convinced that the DSLR has replaced the Porche as a man's classic form of...compensating. The bigger the lens he carries, the more suspect I am.


So then to most impress strangers, it follows, one should carry around something like an olympus E420 with a pancake lens? By compensation logic, this one just screams "I can't shop in normal stores. I need to _special order_ my pants"

Or even better, this camera with a pinhole body cap lens.


----------



## terri

ffarl said:


> This Lew guy.  He's going places.



That's why he calls himself "The Traveler".


----------



## Derrel

So, time for an impromptu poll...one that will hopefully, generate a* cavalcade* of replies!!

Which end of the d-slr do you find happens to turn you on the most?

A) The top end

B) The bottom-end

C) I'm kinky...I like both ends equally


----------



## Gavjenks

Heh. "Front end" and "Back end" seems the more relevant comparison to me, both to DSLRs and to kinkiness.

Maybe for lots of people, it's not so much about the lens as it is about the shape and ergonomics of the rest of the body.


----------



## Gavjenks

For example, a lot of photographers seem to prefer a nice fuller frame body these days.  A lot more than the magazine industry would like you to think.

*Thinks about nice, wide apertures being a desirable quality in lenses... Shudders*


----------



## ffarl

It's been long enough, I'm not going to be choosey.


----------



## pixmedic

Gavjenks said:


> Heh. "Front end" and "Back end" seems the more relevant comparison to me, both to DSLRs and to kinkiness.
> 
> Maybe for lots of people, it's not so much about the lens as it is about the shape and ergonomics of the rest of the body.



As much as I enjoy the curves of the body, I can also appreciate a big lens. 
the most enjoyment comes from using them both at the same time.


----------



## The_Traveler

I always use a lens hood.
Always.


Scuse me, I have to go away for a while.


----------



## Gavjenks

Real experts also know how to take full advantage of all the right angles and movements of their lenses, too.  There's a right and a wrong time to shift a little bit to the left.  And don't even get me started on swinging.


----------



## limr

Or THIS! Micro DSLR Cameras - The CHOBi Cam One Boasts Interchangeable Lenses






Meow!


----------



## sashbar

limr said:


> Yeah, see I am more impressed with the nondescript cameras. I'm fully convinced that the DSLR has replaced the Porche as a man's classic form of...compensating. The bigger the lens he carries, the more suspect I am.



 limr, it seems, you look at the lense and you see right through it.


----------



## Steve5D

The_Traveler said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First.. i don't think i'd ever mistake you for a professional photographer..  I don't think you have the people skills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, if the time comes when I start to care what you "think", I'll let you know.
> 
> I just have a low tolerance for bull****...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> people skills, remember people skills
Click to expand...


I've spent a good portion of my adult life in retail sales, inside sales, customer service and artist relations. My people skills serve me well when I need them to. I've also learned that, sometimes people skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing with...


----------



## bentcountershaft

Steve5D said:


> I've also learned that, sometimes people skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing with...



Not in the context of this thread, but just for life in general, yes, this.  One thousand times this.  Always.  Sometimes the customer is not only not right, he's the problem to begin with.


----------



## usayit

Steve5D said:


> I've also learned that, sometimes people skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing with...



This is incorrect!!!!   Way incorrect!!!    People skills are most important with "those type of people".   In retail and business, those that have the strong people and communication skills to deal with those type of situations while others fail are the ones that move up.   You don't get promoted by only dealing with easy customers.   You get promoted by dealing with the hard ones.


What I think you mean...

In this form of communication, its easy to put those people/communication skills aside because of the anonymous and distance nature of this type of communication.   You don't need to put effort because frankly none of us are invested in the relationships we build here.


----------



## usayit

bentcountershaft said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also learned that, sometimes people skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the context of this thread, but just for life in general, yes, this.  One thousand times this.  Always.  Sometimes the customer is not only not right, he's the problem to begin with.
Click to expand...


Not backing down from a customer's unreasonable requests is completely different from using proper people and communication skills to achieve the same goal... which is to convey that you (customer) is wrong.


----------



## usayit

Imagine a system administrator that just lost data and each minute that ticks by equates to millions of lost revenue.   You are on the phone with that system administrator who is yelling at you in a panic and being completely unreasonable.   Often they are combative.   You still have just a few hours to solve the problem and get the data restored.  All of this has to be done over a phone.

That's what I had to deal with on a daily basis for a few years.  Its hard and draining.   You don't pass this type of a call to a person who simply tosses people/communication skills out the window the moment the customer becomes heated.


----------



## bentcountershaft

I would never do that job.  Not that I could, but if I could I still wouldn't.


----------



## usayit

bentcountershaft said:


> I would never do that job.  Not that I could, but if I could I still wouldn't.



I wouldn't want to go back to it either (given a choice) even though I am still in the same industry (I am on the software development side now).   I will have to say, I did learn A LOT from both a technology and (more importantly) personal standpoint.  

Take the same scenario but this time you are in the same room as the customer in said situation..... I did that too.   Oddly enough, it doesn't get as nearly combative in a one on one personal situation....  The dynamics of human interaction change drastically.


----------



## cgipson1

The_Traveler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dang.. I want some of that same Kool-Aid you are drinking!  lol!
> 
> I love it when pretty girls want to touch my "lens"! I love "flashing" them too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you laugh, do you.
> 
> It's easy to make fun when you have never experienced being roughed up by scantily glad young females who see you, not as a person (or a professional) but just meat.
Click to expand...


I have had a few compare me to Roadkill.. does that count?


----------



## The_Traveler

Steve5D said:


> sometimes people skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing with...



From this I get that you mean that, if you are arrogant and unpleasant, it's because we deserve it.


----------



## mishele

The_Traveler said:


> Oh, you laugh, do you.
> 
> It's easy to make fun when you have never experienced being roughed up by scantily glad young females who see you, not as a person (or a professional) but just meat.



Are you talking about me again? I promised it was only that one time.


----------



## Derrel

I always heard the old expression, "There's not much meat on a Traveling photographer...mostly just skin and bones."


----------



## The_Traveler

mishele said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, you laugh, do you.
> 
> It's easy to make fun when you have never experienced being roughed up by scantily glad young females who see you, not as a person (or a professional) but just meat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you talking about me again? I promised it was only that one time.
Click to expand...


No, I liked that time - and healed really quickly.


----------



## Derrel

The sores don't last all "that" long...  at least mine did not.


----------



## Steve5D

The_Traveler said:


> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> sometimes people  skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing  with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this I get that you mean that, if you are arrogant and unpleasant, it's because we deserve it.
Click to expand...


Often, yeah, that's exactly what I mean.

I  can be downright pleasant when I want to be, and I often am; even here  on TPF. But there are times when it's simply not worth the effort to be  kind and polite. And, for what it's worth, a lot of you have been here  much longer than I. You might want to consider the possibility that I'm  simply following your lead...


----------



## Steve5D

usayit said:


> bentcountershaft said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've also learned that, sometimes people skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not in the context of this thread, but just for life in general, yes, this.  One thousand times this.  Always.  Sometimes the customer is not only not right, he's the problem to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not backing down from a customer's unreasonable requests is completely different from using proper people and communication skills to achieve the same goal... which is to convey that you (customer) is wrong.
Click to expand...


On the flip side, though, my experience has proven to me that far too many people lack the ability to dig their heels in and say "Nope, you're just wrong" when it's warranted. That's every bit as important as being able to deal with someone delicately, but it's a skill that not enough people possess. There comes a time when you have to stop worrying about hurting someone's feelings, because it's a losing battle. 

In a venue like the internet, someone who gets their panties bunched because someone was mean to them on the internet is someone who probably shouldn't be on the internet...


----------



## Derrel

Steve5D said:


> The_Traveler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve5D said:
> 
> 
> 
> sometimes people  skills are a waste of time, simply because of the person I'm dealing  with...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From this I get that you mean that, if you are arrogant and unpleasant, it's because we deserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Often, yeah, that's exactly what I mean.
> 
> I  can be downright pleasant when I want to be, and I often am; even here  on TPF. But there are times when it's simply not worth the effort to be  kind and polite. And, for what it's worth, a lot of you have been here  much longer than I. You might want to consider the possibility that I'm  simply following your lead...
Click to expand...


No, we're following YOUR lead. You lead the way at the rally with your awesome sign...

morans.jpg

Now you're leading the way here.


----------



## usayit

Steve5D said:


> On the flip side, though, my experience has proven to me that far too many people lack the ability to dig their heels in and say "Nope, you're just wrong" when it's warranted




Steve, 

Absolutely.    A skillful person in communications could inform the customer that they are wrong without placing them into a defensive position.   I agree... the customer is not always right.








As I write this response, I could have easily responded with


Steve,

You are WRONG.  You should never tell the customer is wrong.  You should lead them to a conclusion that compliments your position.  Its elementary customer relationship skills that a person of your experience should already know.





Take either as my real response... I'll let you decide.


----------



## Steve5D

I'm rather adept at handling people effectively. I've done it for years.

Sugar-coating things accomplishes nothing beyond prolonging a discussion in lieu of the inevitable. If someone is wrong, I can certainly tell them in a way which will leave them feeling good about themselves. If they just stand there and insist on saying the same thing over and over, despite being wrong, I have no problem with finally just telling them they're wrong. 

There comes a time when tact loses its effect...


----------



## Derrel

So, back to "the end of d-slr"... you know, I would not mind eliminating the mirror, as long as the camera could use my current Nikon F-mount lenses. With the same diaphragm stop-down system, and instant return capabilities, and full infinity focus. To me, the LENSES are where the money's at, and where the long-term plans really are backed by dinero. I'm more interested in LENS-compatibility of a camera than I am the camera's specific construction and design.

The "box" is what holds the lenses. And, in digital cameras for the most part, excepting medium format and LF scanning backs, the "box" also holds the imaging sensor and its associated electronics. And the metering and exposure control systems. And the focusing sensors. Right now, the current 35mm-style systems from Sony,Nikon,and Canon have the largest sensors, and the best electronics, and the best pure, technical image quality, with the 24x36 sensor models leading, and the APS-C, then the 4/3 models coming in at #2 and #3 "levels".

I dunno...the mirrorless brigade a couple years ago loved to talk about how great mirrorless cameras from Panny, Oly, etc., were. And yes, they are nice machines. And getting better all the time, with lenses now being better too. Sony's first mirroless lenses SUCKED, and sucked SO BADLY they had to pull and re-design their wide-angles...Oopsie!!! From what I read now, the Fuji and Oly lenses are almost all excellent, and most of Panny's lenses are too, and Sony has made huge progress.

What I see though is the mini-disc recorder thing going on...yes, great quality...small...all the rage, but now, basically dead. It's like trying to get people to move from Audio CD to some all-new format....uhhhh....why,exactly? People get to where good enough is good enough, and buying into something all-brand-new, all the time, cycle after cycle, seems unappealing. It seems NOT needed. Convincing a world-wide market to STOP buying and using Canon and Nikon d-slr cameras just doesn't seem all that likely. I would not mind a new CD DISC "system" like one that had higher-capacity or more-durable disc media...as long as the new discs would PLAY in all of my various CD-playing devices, at home, portable, in my computers, in my car...but if I were to be forced into replacing eight players and 800 CD's...uh..it would be a classic NO SALE scenario....


----------



## amolitor

The lens thing certainly matters to me, and there's a very strong argument to be made that the DSLR will survive forever in some form as the go-to choice for people with lens collections that they care about. I think that part of that argument is that the DSLR+Kitlens buying population will, somewhat earlier, move on to something else.


----------



## Dao

MiniDisc ..  oh wow ...  Sadly I still have few MiniDisc portable players ...  MiniDisc deck .....  and of course the minidiscs ..  Some of the blank minidiscs still strink wrapped ...  Sad ...   so sad ...


----------



## myvinyl333

The same was said in the 80's about vinyl and now look at the many sonic advantages and options... I am not worried!


----------



## RickD

Those iPhone wedding photos from the article in the first page of the thread look absolutely horrible (link again - An Entire Wedding Shot On An iPhone And Processed Using Instagram | Fstoppers). How anyone could want to make a big deal out of what is supposed to be such a special day and photograph it with an iPhone is beyond me, it just doesn't make sense. Anyone with an even reasonable eye for detail would agree I'm sure.


----------



## dubiousone

I remember when...
Real photographers used speed graphics and the like.
Mom used a Kodak Brownie, and then the oooh--ahhh Instamatic. No stupid film to load, no fussy flashbulbs, film cartridges and flash cubes for the masses...goodbye Speed Graphic! Funny, I never saw a 'real' photographer with a Brownie or Instamatic but I did see lots back in the day with a Nikon F, Pentax or Canon SLR and a big huge (At that time) strobe.

Fast forward thirty-something years. Every electronic gadget they come out with seems like, its got a camera. Lots of people prefer the cell because they always have it AND...its easy to share selfies. But it takes crappy pictures. Crap lenses, crap focusing, crap...everything compared to a real camera but most people don't care. It's possible to take really nice photos with one and I suppose the current crop of mirrorless cameras are technically better in some ways but the ones I've looked at with their crummy LCD viewfinders, I can't see how anyone could take good photos looking through such a grainy, murky tunnel.

I think there will come a day when our favorite SLR's and DSLR's become what the  box camera is today; really old outdated technology but I think that day is way off. Way off.


----------



## Derrel

dubiousone said:
			
		

> Lots of people prefer the cell because they always have it AND...its easy to share selfies. But it takes crappy pictures. *Crap lenses, crap focusing, crap...everything compared to a real camera* but most people don't care. It's possible to take really nice photos with one and I suppose the current crop of mirrorless cameras are technically better in some ways but the ones I've looked at with their crummy LCD viewfinders, I can't see how anyone could take good photos looking through such a grainy, murky tunnel.
> 
> I think there will come a day when our favorite SLR's and DSLR's become what the  box camera is today; really old outdated technology but I think that day is way off. Way off.



I've seen some pretty good images coming out of the newer smart phones. In fact, the 4k NATIVE video out of the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 is higher-resolution than the video from the Canon 5D Mark III. See the comparison professional cinematographer Alec Weinstein did in May of 2014.Video Test: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Versus the Canon 5D Mark III

Keep in mind--this is a cellphone with a $749 retail price point.


----------



## Victo

dubiousone said:


> It's possible to take really nice photos with one and I suppose the current crop of mirrorless cameras are technically better in some ways but the ones I've looked at with their crummy LCD viewfinders, I can't see how anyone could take good photos looking through such a grainy, murky tunnel.
> 
> I think there will come a day when our favorite SLR's and DSLR's become what the  box camera is today; really old outdated technology but I think that day is way off. Way off.



Have you looked through the FUJI XT-1 viewfinder? It is bigger than about any full frame DSLR OVF.  Expect the same HUGE, NO LAG EVF in most top mirrorless bodies in a couple of years. The fact is - it is almost impossible to improve a current OVF, but EVF is improving fast. 
The FUJI XT-1 EVF has just overlapped most DSLRs. The writing is on the wall. 
A mirrorless system has one huge advantage - it is cheaper to manufacture. No one will be able to argue with that in a long term.


----------



## greybeard

Nobody ever thought MP3 downloads would replace CD's as the preferred medium for music.


----------



## myvinyl333

greybeard said:


> Nobody ever thought MP3 downloads would replace CD's as the preferred medium for music.


I knew MP3 format would be the musical mode of choice for the masses. Masses care little about an "album" or "album" notes let alone audio quality.


----------



## Civchic

Derrel said:


> dubiousone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of people prefer the cell because they always have it AND...its easy to share selfies. But it takes crappy pictures. *Crap lenses, crap focusing, crap...everything compared to a real camera* but most people don't care. It's possible to take really nice photos with one and I suppose the current crop of mirrorless cameras are technically better in some ways but the ones I've looked at with their crummy LCD viewfinders, I can't see how anyone could take good photos looking through such a grainy, murky tunnel.
> 
> I think there will come a day when our favorite SLR's and DSLR's become what the box camera is today; really old outdated technology but I think that day is way off. Way off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've seen some pretty good images coming out of the newer smart phones. In fact, the 4k NATIVE video out of the Samsung Galaxy Note 3 is higher-resolution than the video from the Canon 5D Mark III. See the comparison professional cinematographer Alec Weinstein did in May of 2014.Video Test: Samsung Galaxy Note 3 Versus the Canon 5D Mark III
Click to expand...


Before I got my DSLR we went on a trip to Sedona, Arizona and the Grand Canyon.  We had (between three adults), two point and shoot cameras, both of them fairly low-end, a Blackberry Bold, a Blackberry Torch, and my Samsung Galaxy S3.  The Galaxy took absolutely incredible photos.  I printed a photo album of the pictures, some photos were full-page spreads of an 8.5x11 landscape profile book and the quality is fantastic.  In ideal light (can't get much more ideal than Arizona on a sunny day) I'd choose my Galaxy over a pocket camera.  The S4, which I have now, is even better.

It still falls apart when you are trying to achieve something outside the realm of bright sunny landscapes and people within 20 feet away, though.  You need more powerful equipment once you're out of that comfort range.  But for the vast majority of people, sunny days landscapes and snapshots of their family are all they're ever going to care about.


----------



## greybeard

myvinyl333 said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody ever thought MP3 downloads would replace CD's as the preferred medium for music.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew MP3 format would be the musical mode of choice for the masses. Masses care little about an "album" or "album" notes let alone audio quality.
Click to expand...


And the masses are crazy about getting their pictures onto the web as fast as possible.  The masses are not buying prints anymore, they do most of their picture viewing on their phones and tablets.


----------



## myvinyl333

greybeard said:


> myvinyl333 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody ever thought MP3 downloads would replace CD's as the preferred medium for music.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew MP3 format would be the musical mode of choice for the masses. Masses care little about an "album" or "album" notes let alone audio quality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the masses are crazy about getting their pictures onto the web as fast as possible.  The masses are not buying prints anymore, they do most of their picture viewing on their phones and tablets.
Click to expand...

How true, all the venues/promoters want concert photos posted during and/or after the show. They do not care about quality just get them on social media.... hell they do not even buy them unless you hold out


----------

