Superzoom, slayer of the SLR?

[table1349]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Battou]

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

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

From the original post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Obviously you did...

And here is the confirmation

Really, which one?

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

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

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




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

 

[Flur]

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

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

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

 

[table1349]

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

From the original post


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




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

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




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




And here is the confirmation



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

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




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

I refer you to your initial statement:

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

Definition of Demise:

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

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

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

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

 

[mr2medic]

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

 

[Bifurcator]

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

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

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

:lmao: Hehehehe... Awesome post!

 

[Joe S]

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

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

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

 

[skieur]

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

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

Therefore, compact cameras could slay the DSLR.

skieur

 

[table1349]

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

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

Therefore, compact cameras could slay the DSLR.

skieur

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

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

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

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

 

[Bifurcator]

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

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

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

 

[Patm1313]

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

How the hell do I know?

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

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

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

 

[McQueen278]

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

Specs

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

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


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

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

 

[skieur]

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

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

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

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

skieur

 

[manaheim]

You so rarely see one thing utterly replace another.

Think of...

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

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

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

 

[mrodgers]

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

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

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

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