mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

Will consumer DSLRs be 'dead in 5 years?'

134
What's behind the decline of the DSLR?

Is the DSLR on its way out? A recent article from Andrew Reid on EOSHD.com sums up the reports from the last year and offers some reasoning behind the DSLR sales slump.

DSLRs may still be standard for professional photographers, but consumer-level photography has shifted. Whether it is the emergence of mirrorless compact cameras or the increasing quality of smartphone cameras, consumers are not buying DSLRs the way they used to. 

Reid points to the importance of sharing over image quality. Sure, that DSLR may take better photos than your iPhone, but can your Canon EOS 100D post to Facebook? Meanwhile, the economic downturn has made the less-expensive mirrorless cameras a more appealing purchase for those who think that a cell phone is insufficient. 

Here's a clip from Reid's article:

Canon especially has sold 23% fewer cameras so far in 2013 than at the same point last year.

Nikon have sold 18% fewer.

Investors are taking fright. Shares in Nikon who are the most camera orientated of the big manufacturers are down the most; a 33% fall.

Sony and Fuji’s sales are down a huge 35%. Although Fuji’s X line has revitalised interest in the brand from enthusiasts and pros, both company’s have suffered at the low and mid sections of the market.

Christopher Chute from market intelligence firm IDC predicts Nikon may be out of business in 5 years if the trend continues.

“You’re talking about a 10-15% decline in DSLR shipments all over the world. Which is kind of shocking because that market’s been growing double digits for almost ten years. 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. They’re not going to be around in five years.”

That may seem alarmist, but clearly the kind of customer a low end DSLR is aimed at now uses their smartphone far more than they use a DSLR. Even speaking as a massive camera enthusiast, for a quick snap I have to literally force myself to use a DSLR for it. Almost everything I share on Facebook and Twitter is shot with my iPhone.

Let's hear from you: What will become of the consumer-level DLSR?

Comments

Total comments: 134
12
THKPIC

It's cost as well. A 2300.00 dollar D750 is rediculous. The features on a Panasonic GH4 destroy it and for literally almost 800 dollars less. The Olympus EM10- not even the flagship- offers tremendous AF speed and much better coverage in the frame...deadly silent as well and fast FPS.

A lot of consumers are trying to migrate up while pro's are actually migrating down. Mirror less offers more features, minus the weight and at a much better price point. I'd argue that Sony's A6000 in almost every category outclasses Nikon's overpriced D750 besides low light performance.

There really is very little full frame advantage these days over smaller systems. They just work better, more advanced and no mirror to have to contend with. Nikon and Canon need to stop overcharging because those days are long gone. I give DSLR's another 5 years before mass migration. It's already happening and 2015 is shaping up to be a massive hit for mirrorless.

0 upvotes
Bobadillo

Think back 10 years (or thereabouts)--no mirrorless, no iPhone, etc. Think ahead 10 years. We can't. The future will bring more surprises in technology. DSLR's will go the way of the Brownie. It's inevitable. Probably much sooner than most of us think.

0 upvotes
Kibogami

I think part of the issue of the declining DSLR market is the same issue facing the declining smartphone market. Before my Samsung Galaxy S3 was lost, I felt almost no need to upgrade it because it does everything any other phone would lick-e-ty split. Especially as the latest camera technology pushes the limits of what even the human eye can decode, most people are happy with their current DSLR and are not looking to make an expensive upgrade. Their will always be pros and enthusiastic enthusiasts lol, but they are a small piece of the overall market.

Perhaps lensless technology could revitalize the camera market, and it would be especially suited to the physically thin smartphone market. Perhaps Canon, Nikon, or Sony could create some patents early enough.

0 upvotes
Michael Piziak

A smartphone's camera will never produce the rich images that a dslr will, because it's the lens that really makes a camera (not megapixels). Those tiny lenses on the smartphones will never deliver what the larger lenses on a dslr delivers. That being said, I'm sure the dslr market will continue to shrink but I don't forsee dslr's being completely obsolete.

0 upvotes
Geodesiq

The problem with DSLRs is the R. It's a relic from the stone age and newer EVFs will certainly make them obsolete sooner rather than later. Live View is a huge benefit of MILCs that DSLRs just don't do well.

0 upvotes
dual12

"clearly the kind of customer a low end DSLR is aimed at now uses their smartphone far more than they use a DSLR."

Rubbish! If they'd rather use a smartphone, they're NOT the target market for a dslr.

0 upvotes
Gordon Monthomery

Not really, I have a DSLR with many many lenses but I find myself reaching for my iPhone more often. In fact, I no longer carry my DSLR around and take that out only when I'm being paid for the pictures.

0 upvotes
Serge Yavorski

You are just lazy. Admit it :)

1 upvote
furiousbanana

Smartphones have in-built wifi, can post directly to facebook (and other social media), have dedicated in-built apps both for photography (eg Focal) and in general.
There's absolutely no reason why a DSLR can't have all those same features. They could easily (and probably will eventually?) run a modified version of Android and get all those features 'for free'.
There is already custom firmware that can be run on certain cameras.. blending the entire OS with the emerging favourite is just the logical extension of that.
And then.. in time.. everything will change again. Such is the way of things.

1 upvote
wizbird

Things evolve. There are numerous directions Photography can go. Doesn't have to be smartphones. True camera nuts are not going to settle on being Phoneographers. But what about micro 4/3s? As prices come down on them sales will go up. They take photos as good as DSLRs and are a lot easier to lug around. That's just one avenue. If you don't think things can change; ask Kodak.

0 upvotes
wansai

what this means is in the near future, cameras will get more expensive as they no longer can scale to market. as a result, pro photography will become more expensive to offset.

we will soon lose the ability for general ppl to get access to relatibvely affordable pro photog service. $2500 per wedding now will push those prices up since access to equipment will cost a lot more and maintenance of those overheads become more difficult.

there's opportunity there for anyone who survived or plans to survive.

1 upvote
wansai

cameras are changing as are the people who use them.

in many instances, dslr owners were always the wrong fit. they bought the things in droves to set on auto thinking since it looks pro they will get pro quality.

i'd argue the enthusiast segment is growing but not enough to offset the much larger loss of the bottom segment who never really needed a dslr but used to buy one.

in the near future, it will be broken down into 3 segments which ypu see happening already: consumer smartphone, ILC (enthusiast), DSLR (pro).

camera makers will, in the future have to cater for their markets, they already lost the consumer part, the part that was the wrong fit for the form anyway.

note how cameras are getting more enthusiast friendly even pushing right into pro category (em1). they, for a short time got simpler but are now quickly targetting a more advanced market. the consumer space is dead; was only a matter of time.

0 upvotes
sendero

Theres a lot of online hype that large DSLR's are on their way out - I don't think so somehow, theres definitely a niche market for small mirrorless cameras and smart phones, but they can only go so far with electronic technology before the law of physics is reached. I can't see myself shooting wildlife 500 meters away and retain a cropped close up image of something thats sharp with an iPhone or a mirrorless point & shoot unless in a zoo. I do carry an x100 around and it takes great images, but useless for long distance capture. Also the extremities of over-landing through Africa, the Middle East or South America with local transport is brutal to equipment. Tough robust bodies survive almost anything (i've proven that many times), but mirrorless on the other hand, if dropped, abused or walked on are instant history.

1 upvote
Alec

DSLRs obviously still have a comfortable quality edge over smartphones, but the overall makeup of what represents a practical and desirable camera to a consumer has changed.

Full-time Internet connectivity and a large marketplace of 3rd party apps are new items on the wishlist, fueling immediacy of the post-processing and sharing. More on this at my O2 blog http://karasevstudio.com/o2/2013/32

0 upvotes
LensBeginner

1. We've seen a new model every year in some cases, even with only minor changes (D5200, D5300, D610)

2. DSLR are built to last: you don't need to upgrade very often unless you do that for a living.

3. Technology has reached a point that's "more than enough" for many people.
Hell, if you're only posting to a blog/website even 6Mpx is absolute overkill!

0 upvotes
Ferling

It's not rocket science. Today's generation, raised in times of quick, instant and easy, want to shoot with tools that fit their lifestyle, (I've raised five teens, and I've seen it first hand).

They have little patience in lugging gear, and having to go home to load and process. That's boring. They want to live in the moment, while it's "fresh". Shoot, tag and share. Then bask in the glory for 10 minutes with likes, comments and tweets. Done. On to the next.

Then the likes of DPR post articles about pros shooting with phones. Many are decent and framed well. Then someone complains about the obvious noise at the pixel level, everything's in focus and other small sensor issues. Well, too bad. These kids don't care. They are the drivers of the trend, and vendors are listening. As future clients, I also need to listen and consider their wants if I wish to get paid. I won't fully surrender my DSLRs, but I will adopt tools and methods that respect these new trends.

2 upvotes
Alec

Well informed and well put

0 upvotes
cedarsphoto

The sky is falling in.

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson

Simplified DSLRs is the way to go, I think, with better, 'noiseless', sensors, if they are to survive in the bottom segment. Anti-shake in the bodies, not in the lenses. WiFi, of course. Remote control, of course!

If the average user wants video, give him video!

16MP seems ample, and APS-C seems to be the format. 16MP full format would be even better, if the lenses can be kept small!

If not, the budget DSLR is dead!

0 upvotes
vv50

a 1 pixel sensor would be noiseless.

0 upvotes
Tim UK

I think one element in this might be the fact that for some buyers of dSLR cameras, it was very much a status thing in the early days, partly because they were so expensive, partly because they were the only way to get good image quality (notice how many bridge/compact camera reviews on Amazon and elsewhere start with "I use a dSLR but I wanted something to do blah blah blah", often I think to establish the credentials of the poster).
Now that dSLRs are more commonplace and, in many cases, much cheaper, that status appeal diminishes. I don't think that will kill off dSLRs, but it will dent the demand.
That ,of course, is only one aspect among the many other excellent points made here.

0 upvotes
halc

They could solve this by offering GREAT video.

But all of them, including Canon and Sony, have been trying to micro-segment and also protect their precious pro-video segment.

They don't understand it's all commodiziting.

4K 120fps video will be commonplace in 5 years.

The longer they fight it, the faster they will lose out to "1080p phone cameras" (none of which resolve beyond 650 lines, btw).

Of course, there are other things they could have done better:

- ergonomics (UX) - look most of them SUCK and are based on a 50-100 year old design.
- form factors (it took them how many years to get back to decent sizes with DSLRs?)
- better optics selection : lens design has become so much more cheaper, faster and still high quality, that they could be cranking out lenses much faster , even for their small DSLR bodies.
- etc

I think consumer DSLR market will be smaller niche in 5 years, but not dead. Nor do I believe Nikon will go bankrupt so fast. Keiretsu support is there.

0 upvotes
Paul Ennis

I don't think it's dSLR's which are the issue, I think it the Japanese have basically not understood the idea that creative, innovative, software is of fundamental importance. IMHO their problems extend way beyond cameras. Look at companies like Canon, Nikon, Panansonic. The functionality of the software on their cameras is basically unchanged from 15 years ago, is it really surprising that they have been left behind? They are being dragged into innovating, but they have no idea how to lead.

The market for compact cameras from these companies has already been destroyed, as they have been content to sell dull cameras which don't offer much of an improvement on smart phones. Look at cameras like the S95, which retailed for £300+...get real Canon, it's just not good enough.

3 upvotes
munchmeister

I think you are right on target with your point about them not understanding the software side (both inside and outside of the camera). While the numbers on the phone side equate to huge numbers of horrible photos, there is no question about the creativity of app designers and the tools they are giving to phone users. Even Adobe is missing this. People want to CREATE not just shoot. It is almost impossible, really, to shoot something "new" in photography WITHOUT intensive software editing. Not that we need that in our cameras but I think Nikon's abandonment of CNX2 is a horrible admission that they, the Japanese/ Nikon, simply cannot innovate beyond what's available now. Imagine CNX2 with the filters that app designers have put into the hands of iPhone users. Nikon could have created a niche there and tied, somehow, their cameras to a creative software suite. Wow, that woulda been a contender !

0 upvotes
windmillgolfer

Given the bewildering choice of ILCs now available, the dSLR market must shrink. In 5 years time, I'd expect entry level ILCs all to be mirrorless, with dSLRs limited to Enthusiast and Pro. A large percentage of current dSLR owners never progress beyond Auto and the original kit lens. If they don't buy a mirrorless ILC, such users may well migrate to the likes of the Sony RX10 or Olympus Stylus.

1 upvote
KariIceland

Dslrs gona be dead? No, why? They still are and will continue deliver the best image quality.

This is just paranoia or wishful thinking or perhaps lack of knowledge on photography by the writer, which is not that uncommon on the connect page

1 upvote
Tord S Eriksson

The question was what will happen to the basic consumer DSLR, not the enthusiast/pro versions!

Unless they deliver good photos in all circumstances (especially low light) I think the consumer DSLRs are dead!

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson

So you are saying that a D800 produces better images than the A7r?!

Pardon, but even the Leica enthusiast Steve Huff recently wrote that to his surprise the A7r get better images, with better IQ, out of his Leica lenses than his M 240, or Monochrome does.

So while they DON'T deliver the best image quality, for many professionals the DSLRs are more practical tools!

I used to be a APS-C shooter, but no more — I see no advantage with the APS-C any longer, as FX, and CX, does the job so much better!

0 upvotes
Dccps

I agree that the DSLR's days are numbered. I don't know if it will be five years or ten or more, but we are surely seeing signs of their ultimate demise. Sony's new A7s are demonstrating mirrorless technology moving into larger sensor territory. Olympus' new E-M1 is redefining the limits of EVF technology as well as the potential of smaller sensors with respect to image quality. And Apple and other smart phone manufacturers are putting imaging technology into the hands of countless users out there, so pixel peepers beware, the best camera is and has always been the one you have when the image is there. There certainly are reasons for larger sensors and big heavy gear, but mirrorless is here, and here to stay because gear is so much less of a burden that more photographers will use it and the technology is getting scary good. Remember that high gloss high-res magazine spreads have already been created from small sensor cameras - not all but some, so technology marches on.

1 upvote
peterwr

Agreed. We're hearing the same arguments today that were aired in the 1940s by the users of 5"x4" press cameras when 35mm and 6x6 came out.

Photography isn't just about ultimate image quality, it's about the usability of the kit and the ability to get the shot on the day. If a camera is small, light and fast, and gets the shot at an adequate image quality for the eventual output format, it will end up being used to the detriment of the older, heavier, more expensive, less agile technology, unless - and only unless - a particular characteristic of DSLRs such as image quality, speed and/or lens selection is the primary consideration.

So MILCs will become the format of choice for enthusiasts and photojournalists, and full-frame/medium format DSLRs will be the preserve of fashion photographers, landscapers and well-heeled willy-wavers (and videographers who can't bring themselves to use proper video cameras).

2 upvotes
Shadow2

Here one stuff to think about...

If you are getting married and you check some photographers to record the day of your life will you Hire the photographer that use is brand new iPhone 5s or the one how has a DSLR...

And remember also that quotes: It's not because that you own a Nikon that you are a photographer...

Ask for their portfolio or reference for their work because if the product is bad you will not be able to share these precious moments...

GO Pro or GO Low

2 upvotes
peterwr

I'd take a decent photographer with an iPhone over an incompetent Saturday boy with a DSLR any day. In the end, it's about getting the pictures the bride wants, not complying with some kind of imaginary union regulations re megapixels, dpi, dynamic range etc.

4 upvotes
halc

Shadow2,

Consumer. Which part of that word did you not understand.

Consumer <> Pro.

Pro market will be alive and fragrant in 10, 100 years.

Consumer market changes much faster.

1 upvote
David Kinston

I think that for most people a DSLR is just too awkward to use. As a keen photographer, my view is that my D7000 and D300 with my 6 quality lenses are plenty good enough. What may tempt me is high-quality 4K video with accurate quiet focusing. I do use my phone a lot - it is always with me. But for serious photography - the DSLR every time.

1 upvote
Tord S Eriksson

For serious photography the MF rules to this day, not least for landscape and architecture photography. They are a kind of DSLRs, but not what generally is called an DSLR. Today, here and now, a Nikon V1 can take 4K movies (not very long, but it can do it)! Soundless focusing, no problem!

0 upvotes
Michael Ma

This article in itself is a little misleading. The title is making it sound like the consumer market will not be buying big cameras at all because people are shooting with smartphones. And people are responding with that assumption with that in mind without reading the article.

Let's entertain a hypothetical notion that for something to be called a "automobile", it has to run on gasoline. And someone writes an article "Will automobiles be dead in 20 years?" and gives statistics how all the car makers less automobiles.

The percentage isn't down because everyone decided to ride a bicycle. It is because they are choosing a very similar product that doesn't fit under the definition of a automobile like an electric car. Nevermind the fact that consumers are essentially doing the same thing, maybe even more so. For example, some mirrorless cameras have FF and APC sensors. But they aren't technically a DSLR. Neither are some MFT (micro 4/3) cameras that are as big as DSLRs.

0 upvotes
marike6

Just got back from B&H in NYC, where everybody was walking around with their cameras. The overwhelming majority of people, lots and lots of people, were carrying FF and APS-C DSLRs, quite a few with high grade pro zooms.

Lots of armchair predictions about the direction the camera market is taking. But if DSLRs are dying, the huge number of people I saw walking around one of the world's largest camera shops apparently didn't get the memo.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 14 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
GaryW

You're looking at a very small niche of camera users. That's great that NYC can support a camera store, but around the rest of the country, camera stores have been closing. I don't think that's a sign of a healthy DSLR market.

3 upvotes
sportyaccordy

Oh marike marike marike. If these folks have cameras already, who is going to buy them in the future?

0 upvotes
JohnHoppy

I suspect many respondents here have not actually read Andrew Reid's full article. It repays reading. It may well be true that traditional photographic devices are in terminal decline, but unless innovation is allowed to flourish, that decline is most certain. The advent of new technology such as mirrorless is only part of a process that seeks to perpetuate a specific device for the enjoyment of photography as we know it. Market leader Canon's EOS-M was a poor effort that really said, "Our SLR is the thing to buy" and Nikon's 1 series was weakly conceived too. By steadfastly opposing mirrorless and throwing its weight against what it represented rather than embracing and adapting it, Canon in effect has projected its own possible fate. Things will have to change or Reid's scenario may be a reality in a few years.

3 upvotes
sandy b

Baloney. Mirrorless is not as good in IQ and AF. Their is no indication it is getting traction, if anything it is doing poorer than traditional sales.
Mirrorless is an invented market because the other companies repeatedly tried and failed at dslrs. Only Nikon and canon even make a profit selling cameras. Sonys mirrorless are much cheaper to build than conventional, where they were getting there clock cleaned anyway. Mirrorless will finally take over in the future, when Nikon and Canon decide its time to get in the market seriously.

3 upvotes
neo_nights

"Mirrorless is not as good in IQ"..... WHAT?????

Yes, AF speed isn't "there" yet. Although, for consumers, the AF speed from most mirrorless are good enough.

2 upvotes
wansai

@Sandyb

mirrorless IQ do absolutely compete with APSC. The best APSC sensors are only roughly 1/3 stop better. The difference is insignifigant. You'd be right to say FF is better but not APSC.

In terms of AF speed; check out the EM1. Just lift and shoot.

1 upvote
marike6

Mirrorless cameras have been available for years. The simple fact is they are not selling as well as DSLRs in most regions. Photography enthusiasts and professionals know all about the huge selection of MILCs available. It seems like people are buying according to their preferences.

Just got back from B&H in NYC. The overwhelming majority of people where carrying DSLRs. My conclusion is that camera forum fan talk and predictions from Reid at EOSHD do not give a clear idea of just how dominant DSLRs are in the marketplace.

Comment edited 9 minutes after posting
4 upvotes
GaryW

IQ in mirrorless is the same as DSLR, if the sensor size is the same. AF lags for the most part, but isn't bad. It's catching up and good enough for most use.

1 upvote
joelmusicman

Re neo_nights: Have you ever used an Olympus E-M5? Mine can probably go toe to toe with just about anything from CaNikon (Continuous mode excepted). Blazing fast!!! Also has the advantage of not needing "micro adjustment" since the focus is done on the sensor itself.

1 upvote
PhotoKhan

So, basically, the Instamatic crowd is coming back to where they came from, with the added bonus of accessing the web on their devices and the sad realization that Kodak no longer can provide that "easy photography" approach.

This shouldn't be a problem.

If DSLR manufacturers didn't plan for a most expectable "shrink back" it just shows they have a feeble grasp on the logics of the specific field they chose to deal in.

0 upvotes
itsastickup

The lack of money due to the extended world wide financial crisis is part of this problem. For a consumer the choice can come down to a smartphone vs a nice camera. I know which one I would choose.

2 upvotes
sandy b

All well and good, but mirrorless sales are down too.

3 upvotes
marike6

Something these kinds of doom and gloom articles almost never mention. If smartphones are going to kill the DSLR, they will kill the MILC even faster.

3 upvotes
ConanFuji

I read the title two quickly and saw:
"Will DSLR consumers be dead in 5 years time?"

Well .... some of them will...

2 upvotes
johneds

I think it will be tough. I have a BlackBerry Z30. If ever there was a non-consumer oriented firm it is BlackBerry. I gave up my Pentax K5 for a Leica V-lux 4. Now almost only use the BlackBerry Z30.

DSLRs must connect to Internet and GPS. Taking days to share doesn't cut it anymore. Sad, but the camera companies must find a way to survive or become a niche played, like BlackBerry.

0 upvotes
Peter Kwok

Will DSLRs be killed by mirrorless, or BOTH of them will be killed by smartphones?

Current DSLRs are better than mirrorless in two areas, phase detect AF & real time optical VF. With better electronics & software, mirrorless will catch up on both areas in less than 5 years.

Consumers always favor convenience over picture quality. The current boom of DSLR is not normal. Back in the film day, consumers bought a lot more Kodak Instamatic cameras than SLRs. The SLRs had a short boom in the late 70's starting with the Canon AE-1. When 35mm P&S offered AF, consumers went back to the smaller P&S. Meanwhile, Polaroids sold well because it was fun passing photos around with friends.
Smartphone are today's Polaroids, except their photos are a lot better. They are killing off cameras, starting from the small P&S. The big full frame cameras (DSLR or mirrorless) will survive. However, without the profits from consumer DSLRs, the development of lens & bodies will be reduced.

5 upvotes
sportyaccordy

OSPDAF removes that advantage. A mirrorless EF or F mount APS-C camera will put the nail in the mirror.

0 upvotes
bleeboo

I'm afraid DSLR's, if not extinct, will be far fewer in the future.

Look at what has happened with mp3's as opposed to the full sonic quality of a CD.

People have actually accepted muddy and distorted sounding music as "acceptable" for the sake of transportability.

Just as have many accepted blurred and washed out phone snapshots as passable.

For me, I'll always play the music I love most with as much sonic integrity as I can, meaning top level equipment to do so.

The same goes for photography. I'll always have a DSLR.

I'm afraid, however, I'm going the way of the dinosaur.

4 upvotes
itsastickup

hmmm, that's not quite right. In double blind tests, mp3s are indistinguishable from CD so long as they use a good modern encoder at 192kbps, joint stereo, vbr. FLAC and SACD are a pointless waste of space (and money). CD has been beaten.

2 upvotes
Kirppu

"FLAC and SACD are a pointless waste of space"
:P
Until some better than mp3 encoding invades the market and you have buy your mucis again because you don't have any lossless format in your backup to re-encode them to new format. Money well spent mate.
Storage prices are "so" high now days...

0 upvotes
baloo_buc

There were a lot of people that have no idea of photography that bought dSLRs just to brag about. They are now sucked by the 41 MP in a smartphone. There will be a reduction of dSLRs sales in the following years because less people will need good quality photos when the only use is on facebook or other websites that are very low quality from the photographic viewpoint. I have a camera in a smartphone and I use it only in emergency cases.

0 upvotes
GaryW

I had an old phone camera that was really awful, but my newer ones are pretty decent. They do take the place of a P&S many times. They'd be fine for what most people use a camera for, the web or small prints.

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy

Phones are successful because people HAVE to replace them often, and they can do a hundred different things. If Nikon wants to stay alive, it needs to make smartphones.

0 upvotes
GaryW

In the early days of digital cameras, people "had" to replace them because newer ones were so much better. I think the case will be the same for cellphones -- eventually, both products will mature and you won't feel a need to buy so often.

If Nikon made a smartphone, they'd have to make sure the camera was kinda meh to ensure that it didn't compete with their DSLR line. ;-)

2 upvotes
Elyharbour

I like larger cameras (dimensions that is...) and with at least an EVF. I hate taking shots on a smartphone or some micro-compact that fits into a tight shirt pocket!

0 upvotes
jimdeigert

Who will be buying "NEW" DSLRs 5 years from now?

0 upvotes
Petrogel

With nearly 32 compact cameras for Nikon and about 20 for Canon, it's the compact cameras that are in their way out not the DSLRs.

2 upvotes
vv50

low end DSLRs are already dead for the majority of consumers. P&S will still fit in thrifty buyers' budget.

2 upvotes
Petrogel

Anything low-end is dead (DSLR or P&S). Photo market is in transition, i believe buyers would more easily "invest" on a DSLR or a mirrorless, than spent their money on a P&S or an expensive smartphone

3 upvotes
vv50

but they're "clueless" according to you - you claimed:
"most of them care on how they'll upload them on Instagram, Pinterest, twitter or Facebook or how many likes they gonna get." - which means they will get one of those wifi P&S cameras or a smartphone. good job contradicting yourself again.

1 upvote
Petrogel

And what is exactly your job ? Being my personal critic ?

0 upvotes
vv50

he always thinks everything revolves around him

1 upvote
Petrogel

Instead of re-commenting my comments,
get a life.

From now on consider yourself ignored

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
vv50

before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes, then when you do criticize them, you'll be a mile away and have their shoes.

Comment edited 15 seconds after posting
1 upvote
klausfoto

Right now, Pentax 645D price has come down from $9,995.00 to $6,995.00. A very welcomed $3,000.00 price discount. If the trend continues, I will be able to snatch that camera for five grand next year!

1 upvote
klausfoto

Thank you for your article. I thought sales of DSLR cameras were down because of better quality cameras in the smart phones, but I didn't expect to be so pronounced! I've seen phone commercials announcing a 41MP camera in a smart phone, and for an enthusiast that is what is needed to shoot a HD picture, and have posted it within minutes on the WEB. But on the other hand, if you want great pics... you need a CAMERA and a PHOTOGRAPHER. I hate photoshop! I will continue to use a camera and I will search for a wifi attachment to send it to my laptop or network. or I might buy a DSLR with wifi capability included in it.
I've been a fan of dpreview for a long time. Thank you for the wealth of unbiased information you provide.
PS: I am still waiting for a lower priced Digital V series Hasselblad back.

0 upvotes
leicaman

I Give 'em two years....

1 upvote
Fransv

Why are phones such a succes? Right, because user interface is appealing. Why not make WiFi or bluetooth transfer easier to social media. Room enough in SLR-bodies I would think.

2 upvotes
wansai

New SLR bodies are starting to come with wifi and some with social. The problem is things like Social Sharing is at odds with the purpose of what a DSLR is. You're talking about an always on camera - the biggest problem with that is it will drain battery very quickly.

If you're shooting seriously or professionally or even semi seriously and went a full SLR body, chances are, battery life and endurance will be a pretty big concern and consideration.

My EM1 has wifi. Works great, but it's ALWAYS off. I never use it in the field or even on personal shoots. The hit to battery is too severe for me. I have 8 batteries; good for 4000 shots and I still won't waste it on features like wifi unless I really, really need to or am set up in a controlled shooting situation (studio or mobile studio).

0 upvotes
sportyaccordy

Unless the DSLRs are given full connectivity, it doesn't matter. Most folks aren't connecting to WiFi everywhere they go and a Bluetooth connection will always be a clunky pain. They just need to put better cameras in phones.

0 upvotes
davids8560

I find Eye-Fi cards and cameras with built-in Wi-Fi solve the "instant uploading" problem rather handily, if need be, although I eschew editing on my iPhone unless it's absolutely necessary. I actually don't even upload much to the 'Net anymore, now that so many sites make legal claim to whatever pictures I elect to post. So now, generally speaking, if I want to share a pic with friends and associates, I just attach it to a regular email. And that suits me just fine,

A highly-placed friend of mine in Apple's iPhone camera department told me that keeping the slimness and overall size of a cellphone to a minimum precludes much advancement in smartphone camera features and capabilities.

So I think there always will be at least some demand for fully-featured, stand-alone digital cameras. The market is definitely going to shrink, however, and get quite a bit shook up, too, by and large, I expect. I'd say the days of the simple 3-5X zoom point-and-shoot are really quite numbered now.

Comment edited 3 times, last edit 4 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
GaryW

Yes, the cameraphone will always be limited compared to a real camera, and yet most people are going to find that quite alright.

2 upvotes
srados

I still own 20D (from 2005 that I payed 1800$ now is worth 50$) with 46 000 clicks on it and it can still take decent images in a daylight.I do not need 25 000 ISO to make my pictures better.And no I am not ashamed to pull it out and take photos...When I calculate how much money I spend on the gear it is around 11 000$ (buying selling gear). Well Canon I do not have that much money today.And I will continue to use my 20D until I got dead or hot pixel on my sensor or a shutter problem.
Iphone 4S picture quality is sufficient enough., some apps like Snapseed can edit image while I walk. (no need to sit in front of my home comp for days to edit my Raw files)

Market is over-saturated with cameras and gear and there is not much need for that.

0 upvotes
KariIceland

Actually in iceland the 20d sells used for 200-250$

0 upvotes
OneMoreComment

I don't believe DSLR's will die in the next 5 years, certainly they'll evolve, Full Frame sensors, smaller in size, cheaper prices (for full frame dslr's).
Sony A7 (and maybe Nikon FM) opens the way .

7 upvotes
Greynerd

You have to remember that putting the complex electromechanical device which is the mirror in a camera considerably reduces its cost to the consumer. We are not talking normal electronics here. You can get a mirrorless camera for the cost of an entry level DSLR but it will be stripped bare of controls, buttons, dials, built in flash, viewfinder etc. and involve a lot of wading through convoluted menus. Presumably to offset the cost of not putting the mirror in the camera.
Until camera manufacturers can get over this cost hurdle I would think DSLR's have a good future.

1 upvote
TkV

The enthusiasts will lean towards smaller cameras (retro types) such as a7r or x-e2, while the pro's will still sacrifice the convenience of a small body in exchange for a higher image quality. One thing's for sure, both paths will be seasoned with evfs and operating systems that support various apps...

2 upvotes
Leandros S

You really had to stoop so low as to even re-post that, didn't you. Yes, you did. Urgh.

2 upvotes
Ioannis Doukakis

After using SLR and DSLR (F70, 3OOD, 20D, 5DMkII) for ten years and living with an X100S for a couple of weeks, I do not know if dSLR is dying or not but the mirror and the optical viewfinder are.

I know that today EVF cannot compete with Optical Viewfinder in terms of responsiveness and dynamic range, but I believe that they are already "good enough" for many people. Assuming that they will get faster in next generation, then the low-end "Pentamirrors" will not justify the complexity and cost. Add to this digital "goodies" like "artificial horizon", live histogram, focusing aids etc... and I believe that the Optical Viewfinder will either disappear or stay only in high-end machines with its image blended together with an internal LCD to show info on picture.

Is it possible that Leica and Sony are already going the correct way with their full-frame mirror-less cameras?

3 upvotes
wansai

Cameras are definitely evolving as they always have. It's exciting times but certainly scary as well for those used to the status quo.

3 upvotes
Karroly

OVF will always be there for users who do not want power-hungry cameras...

0 upvotes
Total comments: 134
12
About us
Sitemap
Connect