Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

Details

Closed to new replies
January 26, 2013
Link

Statistics

Replies: 59

Is the DSLR a dying breed?

:iconlive-inthemoment:
Live-InTheMoment Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Student Photographer
Now I'm sure some of you by now have heard of these new mirror-less cameras with interchangeable lenses. In the past year or two they have started becoming more and more popular, as more people learn of them. Well some say that the DSLR is going to be a "dead race", if you will, with these new cameras out now. There have pretty much the same features your would have with a DSLR, but whats making them so popular is they have the body style of a point and shoot, there for getting rid of the weight your would have with a DSLR, but having those key features of a DSLR. Though this little wonder can't really be classified in either category. It doesn't really have a set name for it yet. Some call it a compact style camera or a MCIL (Mirror-less Camera with Interchangeable Lenses). What ever you call it, its here to stay.
But what I want to know is your thoughts on this. Do you see the DSLR being as a soon to be forgotten technology? Have you already switched over to a MCIL as your main tool or have you made it has another tool you use in your photography? Whats the camera make and model, be it DSLR or MCIL?
I myself have one of these MCILs. I have the Samsung NX1000 and its the only camera I use so far. I have used different DSLRs in the past, but I feel that this new camera is better for because it is so light weight and has all the bells and whistles I need to progress in the future.
Reply

You can no longer comment on this thread as it was closed due to no activity for a month.

Devious Comments

:iconmarx-man:
MARX-MAN Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Professional Artist
Mirror-less tech does not have to worry about a look up mirror failing after 50k shots.

That if anything is a reason people will buy that form of camera, it will be the lack of failing moving parts.

However, I recently purchased a 60D and I can tell you, I save a truck load of battery by using the optical viewfinder, that is why the DSLR market is still going to exist if anything. Also people know an SLR when they see it and they know the results they get, there is no light bleeding in from a lit LCD if you don't want it and what you see though the viewfinder is what the lens sees.

It is just a matter of battery conversational techniques that will eventually kill the DLSR.
Reply
:iconmylifeinfocus:
MyLifeInFocus Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I like the idea of a mirrorless. I've used my brother's Nex 5N, but something that kills me is the lack of an optical viewfinder. I mean, on a sunny day or late at night it is extremely difficult to see your image (sunny) and it's extremely difficult to focus at night. The electronic viewfinders and LCD screens are good, unless you're trying to track something. Under low light or just tracking in general I've found both to be extremely laggy and low quality, very difficult to get something decent. Whereas the optical viewfinder has no limitations in that regard. The lighter cameras are also more difficult to handhold. Most mirrorless also have smaller sensors and lack things like CF slots. In addition to a few other fairly minor complaints I still feel that mirrorless systems are very lacking in professional appearance. I can't imagine a wedding photographer making a living off of a mirrorless system simply because it's not particularly 'professional' equipment. People like the big, black, cameras with the sleak looking lenses mounted on them, they look good, even the entry level ones look 'better' than the silver Nex that I used. Now I know appearance is a minor thing to complain about but my point is that DSLRs are not going to die soon. Mirrorless has a ways to come to overcome the benefits of a DSLR.
Reply
:iconfalklumo:
FalkLumo Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Well, the market does change indeed. But it isn't simply MILCs (yes, MILC, not MCIL) replacing DSLRs.

As summarized by [link] , I think that MILCs are replacing the lower end of DSLRs while higher end DSLRs all become full frame models. At CP+, Canon confirmed this opinion.

So, for the bulk of amateur use cases, MILCs are indeed replacing DSLRs. This transition is now 50% complete in Japan and starting in the US, with Europe somewhere in between.

But IMHO, for more serious use cases, DSLRs are to stay. They will evolve to deliver a higher image quality than is possible otherwise (starting with a superior viewfinder and sensor size). With full frame sensors and larger. To some extent, they will become the medium format cameras of the digital age.
Reply
:iconsiranger:
sirAnGer Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Artist
I don't think the MCILs (I like that name) will be completely replacing the DSLR. However, they'll most likely cater to people who want to use the advantages of a DSLR but are reluctant to carry the large devices with them. But I think beyond a certain price, you won't see them because these people will not be likely to spend 1500+ on just a body.
Reply
:iconartclouds:
Artclouds Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Professional Photographer
honestly i like my camera the way it is
NIKON D3200
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Imagine a digital camera now with the same quality and features as your favorite DSLR but with no reflex mirror.

If it works then it would be far far better.
Reply
:iconolda-g:
Olda-G Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Right now such a camera is still in the imagination. In the current state, shutter shock in some mirrorless cameras is worse than mirror shock in a dSLR. More megapixels crammed onto a smaller sensor means an increased sensitivity to vibration-induced motion blur and smaller cameras are more susceptible to the effects of vibration. Electronic viewfinders still need to get better as well. Better designed shutters are possible, though, and it is going to be interesting to see how rapidly this technology advances over the next few years, though.

In the end all cameras are a compromise and for those who are willing to compromise a little on image quality for a smaller size, these cameras are already a good choice.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Yes the technology around mirror less systems still has a bit to go and I am not disputing that however it would be interesting to review this thread in 2 years and see what is available then.

For good or bad I see it as a natural progression to get rid of the reflex mirror.

My opinion on this is totally based on what I feel as technical progression and progress made in camera technology. While I have played around with a few of these cameras I certainly dont think a great deal of them.

I only plan on going digital at all when I can get a digital back for my 4x5 for less than 10K
Reply
:iconolda-g:
Olda-G Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Actually the development of mirrorless cameras that surpass dSLR's has been held back by the insistence of the consumer market that cameras be small and crammed with as many megapixels as possible. The sort of camera that you have described is something that is doable in the next couple of years if the camera companies perceive a market. Mirrorless users don't seem willing to accept something large enough to overcome some of the problems and the dSLR shooters will be reluctant to change systems that would require a new set of lenses to really take advantage of a shorter registration distance.

With your equipment, skills, and experience to produce large, high quality wet darkroom prints, you are an increasingly rare and valued species, so there is definitely no reason for you to change your approach.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
No matter what there will never be a camera that pleases every one no matter how good that camera may be and consumer trends dont have a great deal to do with photographic quality.

The dSLR users who dont wish to go to a mirror-less system will just end up complaining that there cameras are to light and feel to plastic and at the same time the mirror-less users will complain there cameras are to bulky and heavy.

Lens issues when switching to a new system could be over come with the use of an adapter so the new mirror-less cameras could make use of the older lenses.

As I have said digital technology does not be come classic it just becomes obsolete as newer technology improves and them dont dont keep up will get left behind.

It was and still is very different for film users as a camera made in the 40s can be loaded up with the latest in film technology witch effectively upgrades the sensor ( in this case film ) with whatever you need at the time and yes there is still plenty of R&D happening with film. When you buy a digital you are stuck with the same sensor for as long as you have that camera while the technology improves around you.

I love my dark room and spend many hours a week in there , one day when I am not to busy I may even develop some of my own film however for some reason for the last 12 months I have become more of a photographic printer developing and printing other photographers works :)

I am also hopping to be getting an Epson V700 scanner soon so I can scan 4 x 5 and 8 x 10 film sheets for use on the net , I really dont like scanning prints.
Reply
:iconkarinta:
Karinta Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Student General Artist
Nah. I think DSLRs are excellent tools.
Reply
:icongeorgewjohnson:
georgewjohnson Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
All I can say is that if I get the quality I want for my shots, I retain the access to the creative controls I need and I am able to use it comfortably, then I don't give a monkey's what it looks and what technology powers it.

I am interested in the results a camera provides, anyone who simply wants a a camera for what it looks like rather than what images it can provide would seem to be a bit of a poser to me and not really interested in the craft of photography.
Reply
:icongeorgewjohnson:
georgewjohnson Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Note that I gave no timescales, I merely said that I would be willing to consider such an option if the results and experience were comparable with my current DSLR. Right now they're not and I don't have the money to upgrade even if they were. Completely different story in 5 years time though because technology improves at a frantic pace.
Reply
:iconkippa2001:
kippa2001 Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
Nothing beats looking thought the viewfinder and actually seeing the light. I don't think the quality of the back screens are of a good enough quality to replace the quality of an optical view finder.
Reply
:iconrockthesky:
rockTheSky Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
So the only thing its got going for it is that it's lighter in weight? Think I'll stick to my DSLR tbh. I'm not one to complain about the weight of something, and I've never found my camera to be too heavy for me to hold.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Actually, popular opinion to the contrary, being lighter in weight is not an advantage (well, it might be if you are backpacking, but not ordinarily). It is basic physics: lighter and smaller cameras are harder to hold steady.
Reply
:icondelahkel:
Delahkel Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Professional Photographer
Doubt it, just like rangefinders didn't disappear when SLRs hit the market, and rangefinder is a much better technology than most other mirrorless cameras out there.

Also, try covering a wedding with a mirrorless camera...the weight might not be a problem, but the cramps it will give your hands after 10 hours of shooting...unlike a DSLR, which is sculpted to fit in your hands for comfortable long shooting periods.

Long fast telephoto lenses would make the savings in body weight obsolete, and would just make balancing it harder.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
As the technology improves on mirror less systems then yes the DSLR will be gone and it would be silly to think other wise as there would be no need at all the moving parts and the wear and tear and the reliability issues associated with it . this in turn also simplifies lens design and makes lenses more efficient as they can be placed at the optimum distance from the sensor plane . this does not happen with a DSLR or SLR because you have a great thumping and clunky mirror swinging up and getting in the way , not to mention the vibration and the time lag waiting for it to swing up. This was why so many PRO SLRs had a mirror lock up feature.

If there is no need for a mirror then why would any one make a camera with one :)
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
LOL, really, you think that an optical viewfinder is going anywhere soon? Are you trolling, or have you never actually used an optical viewfinder?

Here's a news flash, dSLRs aren't going anywhere any time soon. I for one wouldn't buy a mirrorless system because it's tiny and wouldn't even fit my hands. Not to mention that mirrorless systems are always worse performers battery wise than optical viewfinder systems and that focusing doesn't generally work very well when being done on an electronic viewfinder. EVIL cameras have been around for at least 10 years, I remember Sony used to make some pretty good ones back in the early noughties, but they aren't in any sort of danger of displacing dSLRs, except perhaps for some hobbyists. Mirrorless cameras just make it possible for you to change the lens, they aren't magical.

People who need a faster camera and accurate manual focus aren't going to be switching any time soon.

So, no, dSLRs or some version of them are going to be here for a very, very long time.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013

Here's a news flash, dSLRs aren't going anywhere any time soon."

Actually, they just might. I think of all the other things that have disappeared in spite of the fact that I (and a hell of a lot of other people) didn't want them to. LP records, very high end component stereos, big block motors, mercury batteries, cameras made of metal and glass instead of plastic ... and don't even try to tell me that the newer stuff is better, because I will just laugh at you. It isn't. Not even close. The thing is, there are not always enough people around who know the difference to influence the manufacturers, and in some instances, change gets rammed down our throats even when the new stuff is very clearly inferior. The government gets involved (like in those mercury batteries I mentioned) or the manufacturers decide there is more profit in making something that people don't like as much (like CDs instead of LPs). When that happens, it doesn't really matter what people want; they can't have it and the advertizing people will tell them some crap about how they are better off and eventually, people will come to believe it, since most don't know any better and won't have anything to compare the new stuff to.  Face it, your average consumer photographer is more than happy with a point and shoot. The ones who are aware of the advantages of a DSLR (and who those differences are important enough to that they will buy one) are a small minority of camera owners. If they ever drop below a significant percentage threshold, or if the manufacturers ever decide that they can manufacture a different kind of camera more cheaply and make up in sales volume what they will lose in DLSR sales, DSLRs will disappear faster than the Plymouth Hemicudas did.

Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
I think it's almost inevitable that it will happen eventually. But, I've been shooting the last year with an EVIL camera, and even if you gave it more processing power and interchangeable lenses, it still wouldn't compete.

I have no problem with someday switching to something that's more equivalent to a mirrorless. I have a huge problem with them doing it before the new technology is ready. And I haven't seen any evidence that it's ready. I remember being a relatively early adopter of the dSLR and taking the criticism about how digital photography wasn't legitimate photography because you could just fix any and all problems in Photoshop. And now I'm taking it for not using a legitimate sensor because the IQ on FF is that much better. Some things probably never will change.

I saw the new mirrorless Canon when I was in Hong Kong, and the device was clearly not something I could use. I'm ignoring the technical details, the size alone was unacceptable. I have large hands and a camera that size would never work for me. Not to mention the fact that I'd have to buy all new lenses in order to have the displeasure of something that's ergonomically inappropriate for me.

But, the biggest issues are battery life and reliability. Film cameras > dSLRs > EVIL and such in terms of battery life. I don't like having a penalty for deciding to frame shots to see if they look like I expect them to. I've sometimes spent a great deal of time just watching and waiting with my camera to my eye and the power drain with my dSLR for that is practically nill. With the kind of mirrorless cameras that are being hoisted on us, I couldn't do it. I'd have to fill my bag with batteries.

And yes, I totally agree with you about the average consumer. I have an EVIL camera and it's actually pretty nice. I hate that it sucks down batteries 5 or 6x as quickly as with my 7D and I hate the slow focus comparatively speaking. But, it's a good camera and one that is more than enough for most consumers. It just has a nasty tendency to need you to click the shutter before the action.

And if they can deal with that, I think that they could lose the entry level line. It would be a shame as it would require you to then buy a better body as well as the lenses, but I can see that happening in the near future. P&S cameras have gotten rather good as of late.

I just don't think that dSLRs for pros and semi pros are going to go away anytime soon as the alternatives are nowhere near good enough. Not to mention that if I have to give up my L and my other lenses that I might not stay with Canon. Because there's little point in buying into the same manufacturer's hardware unless it's either the best or using the same system.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Oh, I'm not arguing with you that DSLRs are better. I know they are -- for quite a lot of situations (not always, but mostly). I'm just saying that the option of buying one might be taken away from you, whether you like it or not.

I don't suppose you are old enough to remember things like Cibachrome, Kodachrome, Oriental Seagull's old formula paper, Agfa FB paper, and many other things that were quite obviously superior to what we have now and that you can't get anymore, are you? It can and does happen.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Nope, I'm too young for that. But, I can vaguely imagine that. I remember that first role of Fuji Reala I shot years back. I've always been a fan of Fuji film over Kodak film myself, but I never had the chance to see what all the fuss was about Kodachrome, I imagine it must have been wonderful.

It's a bit astonishing to me that people think that dSLRs are going to be going away anytime soon from the professional line of cameras. I can OTOH see them going away from the consumer lines. P&S cameras and EVIL cameras have gotten remarkably good lately and with a larger sensor I could see the noise going down. Unfortunately, that would add to the bulk that people try to avoid when they buy a P&S.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
They were, indeed, wonderful. If they were still making Kodachrome 25, it would still be the standard that everything else would fail to meet. Absolutely nothing in photography has ever been that good, and it's quite likely that nothing ever will be again. It's gone because it was a serious pain to produce and a serious pain to develop and Kodak was no longer garnering enough prestige to offset the costs. Same with Cibachrome prints. Same with old formula Oriental Seagull paper. Those things I mentioned were the high water marks in their various areas -- all gone now. Most of the really slow and ultra-fine grained films are gone, and those, especially in medium and large format, were the only things that were keeping digital cameras from taking over entirely. When the last of those goes, then pretty much all film cameras are going to be vintage. It won't be long after that that they stop making film and that's when film will become obsolete.

Some day someone will invent a molecular chain 3-D camera and then all this fuss will start all over again about whether molecular chain 3-D cameras have rendered digital cameras obsolete, and stupid people will once again declare that a technology that a lot of people are still using is defunct.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Feb 4, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
How I miss Cibachrome , I still have a few boxes of the stuff :)

Don't think it would be any good now :(
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
As soon as there is no need for a mirror , out they go.

Sure there are problems associated with mirror-less cameras right now but dont expect that to be a problem for to long, could be a year , could be two years but I assure you that as soon as the technology is perfected they will be no reason for camera manufacturers to make cameras with optical view finders and considering that most users of digital cameras dont even use the optical view finder regardless it could be sooner than you think.

You are basing your entire argument on the belief that technology will never improve, I guarantee you that makers like Canon and Nikon are doing there best to get rid of the swing up mirror and it makes no sense in anyway to think other wise as getting rid of that mirror would be the single biggest thing any manufacturer could do to improve reliability and reduce a considerable cost not to mention a reduction in carbon footprints and the like and you have no idea just how important this is to company's lie Nikon and Canon.

Sure I agree that the mirror-less cameras that are available now are not that good but in saying that it is only now that digital cameras are any good in general and can compare favorably with film,
As for the early "noorties" I take it you mean the 90s ANY digital camera back then was utter crap.

A range-finder type of camera are the sharpest of all for a good reason " they have no swing up mirror" for this reason they were light weight, cheaper to make, and because there was no mirror the lens could be placed at exactly the right spot for optimum performance.


Personal I dont care as I dont use them and I am in fact a film user but I do however work in the design industry specializing in sustainable design ( I am a mechatronic engineer ), it is because I do have an intimate knowledge of the design and manufacturing processes that I find it hard to believe that makers would wish to keep mirrors at all.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
I'm basing my belief on a decade's worth of experience with a dSLR and a year's experience with an EVIL camera. They may well eventually solve the problems associated with the LCD, but that's not going to be solved for at least a decade. And even then you're not going to deal with the battery and heat problems that come from the extra power that's required for using a mirrorless camera.

As far as range finders go, you're sacrificing the ability to frame your subject accurately for a slightly sharper image. Which you're then much more likely to need to crop. And where you're at the mercy of luck to precisely frame things with it. It may be acceptable for some types of photography, but for some, like sports or macro work, you'll never get an acceptable result with a range finder.

The reason the mirrors will stay for at least a decade is simply because we're nowhere near the point where mirrorless is an acceptable replacement for a proper dSLR. It's crap for wildlife, it's crap for sports, it might be acceptable for tightly controlled studio settings, but I'm not so sure of that. The battery life of an EVIL or mirrorless camera will never equal that of a mirrored camera. It just can't, you'd have to get the LCD running on literally no electricity. Which if you're an engineer of any sort ought to realize isn't going to happen.

But, anyways, I have better things to do with my time than to argue with somebody that hasn't bothered to do their homework. This isn't a matter of us being curmudgeons that don't want to buy new lenses,the mirrorless cameras are still a joke compared with a proper camera.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Oh my you have been using a dSLR for a whole 10 years and just because of that you think that mirrors will stay for another ten years.

THAT IS BS

I have been an industrial designer for over 30 years and can tell you know that it will be amazing if there are any Mirrors in cameras in 5 years.

Yes I do agree that they are EVIL at the moment but so are most dSLRs full stop
personally I think digital is nothing short of crap all over and it will be another 10 years until it gives me an acceptably quality but that is just my opinion and I still think film is nicer to look at.

Do you have any idea of just how fast the technology revolving around power supply's and battery's is moving? there are many company's investing millions of $ into R&D to improve battery performance as well as reducing power consumption from other components. This is another aspect of SUSTAINABLE DESIGN that you ( very obviously ) have no clue about , withing 5 years the average digital will be using considerably less power.
You only have to see how long the battery life on mobile phones and laptops has improved over the last 5 years to get some insight as to where things are going.

BTW you do realize that it takes a considerable amount of power to swing that mirror up dont you ?

You obviously dont use technology to make a living at all . if you did you would no that 5 year old technology no matter what it is just does not cut it if you want to stay competitive in what ever industry you happen to be involved in. The design life of most consumer electronics is a lot less than 5 years mainly because it does not make sense for manufacturers to make something that will last for longer when it will be outdated an obsolete in a few years anyway

I also know of plenty of professional photographers that DO upgrade there gear every 12 months , This is for many reason and most certainly NOT because they are doing anything wrong , for most it is simply a matter of reliability as they just cant afford to have the camera go down for any reason. Many professionals would take more shots in one year than you would take in ten years.

There is no LUCK involved in using a rangefinder ( that comment got a room full of people laughing here BTW ) only skill.

You just refuse to accept that the technology will improve to point that the reflex mirror will not be needed.
As for me not doing my home work (LOLs)HOW DARE YOU SAY THAT WHEN MY WHOLE LIFE HAS BEEN DEDICATED TO THE IMPROVEMENT OF CONSUMER TECHNOLOGY, well I am sorry to say but it is YOU that has no idea and it is YOU that has not done there homework and it is YOU that has no knowledge of manufacturing and design processes.

To be totally honest with you I DON'T CARE if they do or don't get rid of the reflex mirror , I just see it as a natural progression in technology where as you don't even see tech progressing past whatever year your dSLR was made.

Yes the current crop of mirror-less digital's are a joke and nothing compared to a REAL camera ,even your dSLR is a joke compared to a REAL camera.

Yes I am a film user and have been for 40 years and no I do not make a living from it.
Reply
:icongeorgewjohnson:
georgewjohnson Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Exactly!

They may not be so great now but they will improve. Laptops and mobiles phones used to have awful reputations for battery life, consumers made a top complaint and now it's one of the most critical things in these devices. Technology improves all the time, usually driven by some finanical incentive. If Canon, Sony, Nikon, etc see these new mirrorless doodads taking off they know there's money in it and they will plow more into R&D.

There's that tech that displays digital image direct off the sensor and up a traditional shaped viewfinder, as a way of trying to appease the DSLR crowd into parting with their old cameras and go mirrorless?
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 29, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
In all honesty just how many people do you see with a dSLR up to there eye ?

Its just not something you see anymore.
Reply
:iconolda-g:
Olda-G Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Actually you do. The heat build up in digital cameras that you film guys go on about is not caused by turning the sensor on, it is caused by having other electronics on, especially the LCD. Heat generated from the LCD increases noise levels. There are many times when live view is useful for framing or critical focus, but the lowest noise is achieved by turning it off for a few seconds before taking the shot to allow heat to dissipate. Using the optical viewfinder avoids these temperature issues.

This is also another important point in camera engineering. Plastic is a thermal insulator so plastic cameras are much more prone to overheating. Magnesium steel is better, but the heat build up is still noticeable with continuous use of the LCD. Mirrorless cameras that depend on electronic viewing do have to deal with the heat problem or suffer from noise issues (and they do compared to dSLR's used with optical viewfinders). Aluminum frames seems to be the best material for heat dissipation in mirrorless digital cameras.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
I dont

I was at a wedding a few months back and they had two pro photographers and I never once seen either of them use the optical viewfinder. I have not had very much involvement in pro digital cameras or users so I am guess it is something I personally just dont see.
While there are some technical issues involved in using the LCD screen I can also see why it is used, one reason is when using a DSLR with a crop sensor I feel like I am literally looking at a postage stamp in the view finder , this is very daunting when you are used to 6x6 medium format SLR, another point is that I even occasionally will remove my view finder from my 6x6 SLR and compose directly from the focusing screen and this will give a very different point of view of a scene and as you are using both of your eyes you get a different feel for depth and framing. This is why I love my 4 x 5 so much .

I just wish my eye sight was a bit better as you can turn up the brightness levels LOL.

Having a chassis made from magnesium or aluminum does help a lot with heat dissipation but only if the heat still has some place to escape and dissipate to.
I think there is way to much plastic in cameras but considering the limited design life cycle of consumer electronics it would make no sense to use anything else, there is just no point in making anything electronic that can last for over 5 years
Reply
:iconpandagirl1029:
Pandagirl1029 Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I seriously doubt that DLSRs are going to be going anywhere anytime soon. The only way I would see that happening is if they made miniature cameras that could fit under your skin and can take extremely hi-res pictures and upload them to your computer via wi-fi.
Reply
:iconsisterhipster:
SisterHipster Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Um...what's a MCIL?
Reply
:iconlive-inthemoment:
Live-InTheMoment Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Student Photographer
A MCIL is a camera that doesn't have a mirror in it, like the DSLR. Example would be a regular point and shoot but what makes it different from a point ans shoot is that it is an interchangeable lens system, like the DSLR. Here are some example of MCIL [link]
[link]
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Oh, you mean like an Argus C3?
Reply
:iconsillyconguru:
sillyconguru Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013
Do you see the DSLR being as a soon to be forgotten technology?

Nopes.

Have you already switched over to a MCIL as your main tool or have you made it has another tool you use in your photography?

Another tool.

Whats the camera make and model, be it DSLR or MCIL?

DSLR = Nikon D40, D70, D200 & D700
MILC = Olympus Pen EP-1 & Pentax Q
Reply
:iconnokari:
nokari Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Professional Interface Designer
People still use film cameras. People still use traditional paints on canvas. People still sculpt with marble and bronze.

DSLR is not going to die. Not something that has been so prevalent around the world for so long. Yes the new stuff will likely become more popular and standard DSLRs will lose popularity, but they won't disappear by a longshot. They will simply become cheaper and easier to obtain, like point-and-shoots, or will become collector items.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 26, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Modern technology like digital cameras dont become classics or collectors ,, they just become obsolete , they are designed with a very short life cycle and after that disposed of to upgrade to newer technology.

You just dont see many people using a 10 year old DSLR and by comparison it would not be very good would it , the chances of it even working at all would be very slim.

There is no reason at all for DSLRs to stay once the technology on mirror-less systems if perfected and they would certainly NEVER become cheaper as they would cost so much more to produce.
Reply
:iconrockthesky:
rockTheSky Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
"You just dont see many people using a 10 year old DSLR and by comparison it would not be very good would it , the chances of it even working at all would be very slim."

10 years ago from now, probably not. However, lets say 10 years on from when the D3 was released and it's still going to be an incredible camera. Just because there will be better digital SLRS about in 10 years from 2007 doesn't take anything away from the D3s superb performance. Now think of the D4 and other cameras....
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 27, 2013
What's with the folks claiming that dSLRs can become obsolete lately? The amount of time it takes for that is long enough that it's not even worth considering. It takes about 10 years, for that to happen, and that's for cameras made before about 2005 or thereabouts. Cameras being made after that point are good enough. And will likely last until their parts physically break.

And yes, I've been using my dSLR for almost 10 years. The funny thing that you haven't bothered to note is that it's only been 9.5 years, roughly, since the first sub $2k dSLR was released, of course you're not going to find many people using the same body for 10 years, the 10D was roughly the first affordable dSLR. It still takes photos as well as it did when I bought it. It's still a good piece of hardware and the only reason I'm updating now after a decade, is that the noise performance, metering and autofocus have improved that much. Had I bought my camera 5 years ago, I'm unlikely to be updating for at least 5 more years and probably longer than that.

At year 6 or so, when I looked, the price of a used 10D was at about $1200 which for a body that was $1600 to begin with is a pretty good value retention.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
You've gotten off the point. The people using old digital cameras are almost always going to be the original owners, not collectors. Those cameras have almost zero collector value. An old 2mp Nikon just isn't worth much and it never will be, and ten years is yesterday to a collector. On the other hand, an 80-year old Voigtlander Bessa R, a Leica M3, or a Zeiss Super Ikonta, releathered, polished up and restored to working condition, is worth a hell of a lot. There is really no comparison.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
That's true, but by the same token, there's the cameras that are busted or broken. And as we move forward there's increasingly less difference between camera bodies. The differences between say the Canon D30, D60 and 10D were pretty significant, and at that point pixel count made a pretty substantial difference.

Apparently we're using different definitions of obsolescence. Because it's a completely different matter to be buying older gear where you don't already have a working relationship with the gear and know how to work around the quirks and uniqueness of the particular copy. But, if you've got a model for say $500 and the next model is $600, then it's not really much of a debate to have. It doesn't say that the older model is really obsolete, bust that the newer camera is worth an additional $100. Which if you think of it isn't that much. This would be a very different topic if one could turn in their camera and buy a new one for an additional $100,

Collectability is really a different issue. That's generally true of most things these days, there's just too many of a given thing made these days for them to be collectable. What's more, when you look at collectables, they don't generally become collectable until they're already rare. I used to hold onto things thinking that they might be collectable, but the reality is that pretty much nothing today is going to be collectable. And looking at gear that's already 80 years old is kind of cheating. If people had expected it to be collectable 80 years ago, it wouldn't now be valuable.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
Well, my definition of obsolescence is that something becomes obsolete when you can't use it anymore or when the supporting technology goes away. For example, floppy discs are becoming obsolete, because the new computers won't accept them, the old ones are breaking down, and nobody collects old computers. When the last of the 90s Compaqs crashes, that will be the end of them. 122 film cameras are obsolete because they don't make film for them anymore, they don't make developing reeels for the film if you could get it, and so on. Kodachrome is obsolete because the last place on earth that you could send it to be developed just announced that it won't do it anymore. On the other hand, a lot of things people think of as being obsolete are not, really. Buggy whips, for example, are not going to be obsolete while the Amish are still around.

As far as collectability goes, do you expect that ANY digital camera that is currently in production will be worth much of anything 80 years from now? Personally, I've never had a digital camera last more than 10 years. ON the other hand, the film cameras that I restore will probably be worth quite a lot more than they are even now, and the good ones are not cheap now.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Feb 2, 2013
I don't expect anything that's mass produced to ever be collectable. There have been exceptions, but I think they're few and far between. Which is why I may very well be wrong about it, but I don't think I am.

My personal feeling is that you can't really declare something to be obsolete that are still functional. In this case, it's still possible to make and sell images using older cameras. Sure, things like integrated dust cleaning are making things easier, I just think that when most consumers are not willing to pay for a 8"x10" image, having only a 6MP sensor isn't really much of a detriment to keeping up.

It does concern me that there's this view going around that just because a camera is only a couple generations old that there's some sort of mandate that one buy a new one to remain competitive. I don't personally buy into that, now there are niches where that's probably true, but the characterization that it's inevitable over a short period of time just doesn't do it for me.
Reply
:iconfallisphoto:
FallisPhoto Featured By Owner Feb 3, 2013
Actually, most of the things that are collectable were mass produced -- coins, tin toys, lunch boxes, vintage cars, vintage rifles, and so on.

While it is not true in itself that having an older camera means that you are not being competitive, what does matter is the result and the consequences of using that piece of equipment.

Film cameras, for example, are very easily able to produce images that can compete with digital images in quality, and in fact, some can produce images that are superior in quality. However, there are other considerations to take into account, and image quality is not always the most important consideration. If reporter A and B are in Australia, working for a New York newspaper, and if reporter A can get his image to his publisher in 10 minutes, using digital technology, and reporter B takes four hours, using film technology and a scanner, then the guy with the digital camera is going to scoop reporter B every time. It doesn't much matter that reporter B has the better photo. On the other hand, if those same reporters enter an art show with their photos, then reporter B will probably win.

As for whether a 6mp sensor is going to be enough or not, it depends on the application. If photo quality is of primary importance, or if you are in one of those niche markets (like Olan Mills) where people actually do want 8x10 photos, it probably won't be enough, but if other considerations come into play, it just might be fine. For photos on the internet, for example, it will probably be more than enough.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Jan 28, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Digital technology is advancing faster than typical life cycles of the cameras.

For commercial photographers it is important to stay on top of this or be left behind.

You will not find to many pro using 5 year old tech regardless of how well it still works.

This has also created a niche market in technology rentals as I can now hire almost anything I need including items like 60MP+ backs.

It can be a hard call for a pro to buy a piece of tech at 100k when there will be a better model out in 2 years or so but there are those that do just that.

It has nothing at all to do with value retention but when your very living revolves around technology you have to stay on top of it.

The life you have got out of your camera is very good and great for you of course and for domestic use this is not a problem but I dont think your camera would be in as good shape if it was being handled on a daily basis in a fast pace environment and I can assure you the value would be much much less.
Reply
:iconhedwards:
hedwards Featured By Owner Jan 31, 2013
This is BS. I'm sure that in some niche areas of photography this is true. If I were shooting sports, then the new higher sensitivity cameras might be worth upgrading more regularly.

However, upgrading more than about 1 time every 5 years is a sign that you're doing something really wrong. Either you're trashing your gear or you're trying to compensate for something, with a new camera. Digital cameras are not like film cameras where if you don't like the results you can often times switch films and get better results. Digital takes a while to understand how that particular camera and sensor are meant to be used.

Ultimately that takes time and unless you're working a niche where you're really needing a new body, it's mostly wankering to show that you're a pro because no pro would ever work with old technology. Because obviously a camera that isn't the newest or second newest is no good any more and never mind that you've learned to work with the older on and developed a relationship with it.

Last point, it's pretty clear that you don't know anything about this, seeing as you're talking about $100k in equipment. That's medium and large format equipment which is completely different from the dSLR market. And having to go there tells me that on some level you know I'm right.

Large and medium format won't get to that point for a while, mostly because they're a much smaller market to begin with so there's less money for R&D and less people who really know the formats. Which is understandable, they've been substantially more expensive for quite some time between hardware and film.

And the life I got out of my camera was because I take obsessively good care of my camera. My camera is like a wife to me and I'm obsessive about the way I treat my partner. I don't have to think about what I'm doing because she knows what I want and gives it to me without any fussing. The partnership between me and my camera is what permits me to take the photos that I take. Throwing out the camera because there's a new one available just gets in the way of really knowing and understanding how to work with the camera I've got.
Reply
:iconphotomark:
photomark Featured By Owner Feb 1, 2013  Hobbyist Photographer
Hey I treat my gear with respect yes , I still have a Canon AE1 35mm SLR that a got new in 1982 and it is still in MINT condition but I have NEVER thought of my camera like my wife and I truly think my wife would have some issues with that if I did :)

NO camera ever made could compare with my wife in anyway and I am blown away that you could even put such a comparison in the same paragraph.

You dont have any need to stay on top of the tech so why would you ,you dont make a living from it and you are not going to loose anything if your camera decides to stop working one day, you also do not do anywhere near enough shooting to flog out a body in 12 months where as there are plenty of Pro's that do so tell them they are only upgrading due to there ego.
One of the biggest pitfalls of buying a used dSLR or SLR is that it has been studio flogged and guess what it is that wears out the most and can give the most trouble?

No prize for first guess BTW

All this stupid argument because you just dont see tech advancing more than you can understand or any further than what you currently have.
Reply
Add a Comment: