# Is the DSLR in danger of becomming an endangered species?



## Flake (Jun 1, 2012)

Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it. Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.

Last month Canon held a management briefing here The interesting thing is what they said about comming compact cameras:

_"we will further differentiate and enhance our lineup by launching new cameras offering the image qualities that approaches SLR cameras; furthering the improvement in design and qualities, and by incorporating features such as network, connectivity capabilities."_



Now I'm sure that there will be those who view this as some kind of heresy and won't believe that this is even possible, but have a look at these images taken with the Olympus E-M5 and a Canon FD 50-300mm f/4.5L and then ask yourself seriously if a DSLR would have returned better image quality.

Falling sales of high end product will reduce profits, and put pressure on manufacturers to raise high prices even higher, but what is the real point of paying so much for something which isn't returning images significantly better than those which can be obtained for a tenth of the outlay? Of course we know that clients expect to see a big camera, better than something they might own, and for those users, there's little choice


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 1, 2012)

Flake said:


> Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it. Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.
> 
> Last month Canon held a management briefing here The interesting thing is what they said about comming compact cameras:
> 
> ...



There is more to a pro DSLR than just image quality. Build quality, responsiveness, weather sealing, AF, resolution, high ISO performance, and much more. I don't care how good a point and shoot looks at iso 100. You can't take it to a dark wedding reception and grab some great action shots without overpowering the photo with flash. More important than image quality is _getting the image in the first place._ There is a reason the 1dx/d4 has a lower resolution than the 5d3/d800. It makes the camera faster, more responsive, and more likely to _get the shot_ in low light or fast action. 

For soccer moms taking family snap shots? Yea, I think the DSLR's days are numbered. But for taking artistic or fast paced photos, the DSLR is king.


----------



## pwp (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?*

It's not an endangered species _yet_. Sales worldwide are through the roof as chronic upgraders feel compelled to get the latest, and as enthusiast "point & shoot" photographers look to something they perceive as better. Often they'd be better off with an S100, G12 or G1X. Professionals statistically represent a small percentage of the DSLR market, but are a vitally important "halo" market to stimulate high volume sales further down the food chain. 

But nothing is forever. Where is the once ubiquitous Speed Graphic, the Rolliflex etc? The form factor of today's DSLR cameras has barely evolved from SLR film bodies of 50 years ago. Fitted out with 2012 internals this form factor is surprisingly ergonomically correct for shooting stills. 
_
"Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?_" As sure as the sun will come up again tomorrow morning. But I'd be reluctant to put a date on it. It will likely come in the form of a complete breakthrough design employing technologies not yet invented. We'll have to wait and see. 

PW


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?*



pwp said:


> It's not an endangered species _yet_. Sales worldwide are through the roof as chronic upgraders feel compelled to get the latest, and as enthusiast "point & shoot" photographers look to something they perceive as better. Often they'd be better off with an S100, G12 or G1X. Professionals statistically represent a small percentage of the DSLR market, but are a vitally important "halo" market to stimulate high volume sales further down the food chain.
> 
> But nothing is forever. Where is the once ubiquitous Speed Graphic, the Rolliflex etc? The form factor of today's DSLR cameras has barely evolved from SLR film bodies of 50 years ago. Fitted out with 2012 internals this form factor is surprisingly ergonomically correct for shooting stills.
> _
> ...



Ok, maybe camera's will one day be obsolete. Maybe one day, we will insert a sensor into our brain and capture the signal from our optical nerve. How about that for good image quality! ZERO noise! I wonder what F stop our eyes have? 

I bet this will actually happen one day. They already have implants that interface with human hearing and vision. I saw a show about a guy who had a digital camera implanted as a prosthetic eye. It works! Granted, its got like 12 pixel resolution, but still. Pretty cool stuff!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?*



Tcapp said:


> I wonder what F stop our eyes have?



The range is aproximately f/3.2 - f/8.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 1, 2012)

With 179 million DSLR's shipped from Jan - April 2012, there seems to be no problem selling them. However, there were 33.5 million mirrorless cameras shipped during the same period too. All this is having a toll on point and shoot sales.

Last year, 534.5 million interchangable lens cameras were shipped, but mirrorless were not broken out as a separate category.

http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html


----------



## lonebear (Jun 1, 2012)

I would imagine in 10 years, I might hold a tablet wirelessly connected to a camera sitting on a tripod, setting up everything before the exposure, and reviewing the result on tablet instantly... The camera might evovle more towards mirrorless, (the sensor technology seemed allowing FF IQ in a crop format in the coming years), but I believe the viewfinder will be preserved as it's needed in certain shooting styles.

Pure speculation.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 1, 2012)

Flake said:


> Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it. Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.
> 
> Last month Canon held a management briefing here The interesting thing is what they said about comming compact cameras:
> 
> ...



When you take 50,000 Photos a year for live events, weddings, studio photos, concerts, and many other things, films workflow can be a strain to manage, tag, print, copy, email, scan for clients. Digital is king for speed while I feel film is for medium or large format jobs which require the extra detail and DR. IE: architecture & Landscapes.

The 35mm film format isnt worth the extra processing and cost for me. Its detail isnt worth it compared to just shooting digital.

Also, No one says you have to shoot with the latestest and greatest gear. A Good full-frame 5Dc and an EG-S screen can run you as low as 800$ and has AF if you'd like to use it. Thats a bargian compared to processing and drum scans to get every ounce of IQ from a slide.

Just my 2 Cents.


----------



## Z (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?*



neuroanatomist said:


> Tcapp said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder what F stop our eyes have?
> ...



Yep, I find the bokeh of my eyeballs to be quite displeasing, too.


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Jun 1, 2012)

Looking at the sensor size/IQ ratio on cell phones today, I'd be surprised if those don't progress enough to obviate almost any need for *any* mirrorless camera. That's the cannibalizing I see, especially given the huge value add of the phone's OS. This is particularly true of any tablet, b/c you get a giant LCD, too. 

Instead of selling and supporting SLR accessories that facilitate ftp, wifi, wwan, GPS/geotagging, etc...to the camera, go the opposite direction-move the sensor to the tablet where that functionality AND MUCH MORE *already exists*-basically for free.

Imagine the sensor size you can get on a tablet compared to a FF camera. The current SLR form factor's limitation would be irrelevant. Just add a tripod mount on the side, you could be looking at ridiculous IQ for portraits and landscapes. Not to mention how much easier manual focusing would be at that size. Combine that with the ability to chimp on a tablet instead of a little LCD, then edit and upload immediately... 
It gets better. You now also have a device to instantly share the pics you just took. No more nephews and clients gathering around and squinting at a little LCD. Either look at the tablet or plug in an HDMI cable and show it on your HDTV. 

I realize the lens quality would be an issue, but how hard really would it be for somebody to make an EF adapter if he could get $2k for it?
If I am Canon or Nikon, this future is terrifying. You're looking at a one way ticket to niche-ville, purveyors of old school (again I am talking 5 yrs out) cameras that only sports/wedding photogs use for the FPS and AF speed. 

Of course, I could be completely, wrong, too


----------



## jcns (Jun 1, 2012)

yes, in time everything (almost) gets replaced.
The combustion engine has been around for 100 yrs, but with the advances in other technologies(battery) electric cars are starting to look more and more appealing.
The human drive for improvement is one of the great things in this world. The DSLR will be replaced. Don't ask me when.


----------



## DB (Jun 1, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> With 179 million DSLR's shipped from Jan - April 2012, there seems to be no problem selling them. However, there were 33.5 million mirrorless cameras shipped during the same period too. All this is having a toll on point and shoot sales.
> 
> Last year, 534.5 million interchangable lens cameras were shipped, but mirrorless were not broken out as a separate category.
> 
> http://www.cipa.jp/english/data/dizital.html



That figure you quoted for Jan-Apr 2012 is in currency terms i.e. Y179,154,692,000 or 179 Billion Yen (approximately US$ 2.29 Billion) and is not the number of units. 

Look at the legend at the top right corner of the tables, it states "Unit Upper: PCS, Lower: 1,000 Yen", then here are two tables albeit on top of each other, the first (upper) is indeed in units, the second (lower) is in sales figures denominated in thousands of Japanese Yen. Admittedly, it is very confusing that they split this table in a barely noticeable manner, plus they only provide an aggregate figure for total units shipped in the top table without a breakout by camera type. They do give a camera type breakdown, but only in total revenue terms and not unfortunately in terms of numbers shipped or sold.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?*

Certainly the DSLR is on its way to extinction. But, I don't care, because I'll be extinct first.



pwp said:


> ...Where is the once ubiquitous Speed Graphic, the Rolliflex etc? The form factor of today's DSLR cameras has barely evolved from SLR film bodies of 50 years ago. Fitted out with 2012 internals this form factor is surprisingly ergonomically correct for shooting stills...
> PW



Excellent point. The SLR is well over a half-century old. It rose quickly to become the preferred format for amateurs and professionals alike. It displaced the rangefinder, the Twin Lens Reflex and the Speed Graphic. It has not been seriously challenged by any format since. There are good reasons for that. 

It's certainly possible that a better design will be developed. But, all of the options currently available seem to have some core problems that make them inferior to the classic design of the SLR. I strongly suspect that without some major improvements in design and usability, mirrorless cameras will have gone the way of the Instamatic long before SLRs are extinct.


----------



## Lloyd (Jun 1, 2012)

dawgfanjeff said:


> Looking at the sensor size/IQ ratio on cell phones today, I'd be surprised if those don't progress enough to obviate almost any need for *any* mirrorless camera. That's the cannibalizing I see, especially given the huge value add of the phone's OS. This is particularly true of any tablet, b/c you get a giant LCD, too.



It may already be happening. Apparently, Apple is considering the development of a light field camera. http://www.macrumors.com/2012/05/31/apple-working-on-standalone-point-and-shoot-digital-camera/


----------



## Wilmark (Jun 1, 2012)

I have thought about the same issue. I think over the past 5 years photography has become more and more popular, not because of technology but because of social media and their inclusion in phones. I feel that basic point and shoot will be come extinct and a higher end NON DSLR will take its place. However this has made high end photography more valuable because of the intrinsic increase in photography itself recently and because most of these newer picture takers take really horrible pictures. Like the typical "look a me and my crew at the latest club" etc. It makes no sense to have a point and shoot cam and a phone. Phones will have better cameras because it is now a primary purpose and buying decision of a high end phone because it is more convenient and better to have it there because of social media and comms. There seems to be emerging more and more interest in higher end consumer cams for those consumers who dont want to be bogged down with learning and carrying a DSLR. These newer cams are cooler and smaller than entry level DSLRs. Those who want the use the best lenses /sensors must continue to use DSLRs (Semi Pros and higher). THe link to those golf pics i really dont see these as anything great. These are Ideal conditions (lighting, subjects etc), where DSLR excels are in difficult conditions.


----------



## Flake (Jun 1, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it. Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.
> ...



You do know that the Olympus OM-D E-M5 is a 16 MP digital mirrorless camera ?


----------



## dstppy (Jun 1, 2012)

jcns said:


> The combustion engine has been around for 100 yrs, but with the advances in other technologies(battery) electric cars are starting to look more and more appealing.



IC is going nowhere any time soon. Both Subaru and Mazda are going full-on "KISS" and aiming for better gains from conventional wisdom (optimizing, weight reduction etc.) over more complicated models, and Ford is betting big on twin-turbo.

Before SLR goes anywhere, we're going to need to see a consistent lineup of better products from a variety of sources . . .


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 1, 2012)

*Re: Is the DSLR in danger of becoming an endangered species?*



Z said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tcapp said:
> ...



lol.



Wilmark said:


> I have thought about the same issue. I think over the past 5 years photography has become more and more popular, not because of technology but because of social media and their inclusion in phones. I feel that basic point and shoot will be come extinct and a higher end NON DSLR will take its place. However this has made high end photography more valuable because of the intrinsic increase in photography itself recently and because most of these newer picture takers take really horrible pictures. Like the typical "look a me and my crew at the latest club" etc. It makes no sense to have a point and shoot cam and a phone. Phones will have better cameras because it is now a primary purpose and buying decision of a high end phone because it is more convenient and better to have it there because of social media and comms. There seems to be emerging more and more interest in higher end consumer cams for those consumers who dont want to be bogged down with learning and carrying a DSLR. These newer cams are cooler and smaller than entry level DSLRs. Those who want the use the best lenses /sensors must continue to use DSLRs (Semi Pros and higher). THe link to those golf pics i really dont see these as anything great. These are Ideal conditions (lighting, subjects etc), where DSLR excels are in difficult conditions.



Even if DSLRs become a smaller percentage of the camera market, the absolute number sold will continue to rise with the popularity of photography overall. Photography has become much more accessible and the artform is gaining appreciation as more people participate in non-professional photography. While it's true that DSLRs are "for pros", and pros will always be a small and limited group... the number of aspiring pros and serious hobbyists will continue to rise.

I can attest to the fact that I am one of those people who found older digital and film technology to be an obstacle to enjoying photography. This made me less inclined to do ANY type of photography. But with the new digital technologies at all levels, it encouraged me to climb the ladder up to DSLRs.


----------



## dickgrafixstop (Jun 1, 2012)

Of course it is - as is every other product that is technology based. When I first started shooting, the only way to
get an "acceptable" image was to drag a 4X5 Speed Graphic and film packs to sporting events. When I finally got a Nikon "F" the Speed Graphic went into the closet. A variety of Nikons followed until Canon combined auto-focus with decent lenses and the Nikons went in the closet. My Canon collection lasted through early digital, but eventually the film bodies went in the closet. The Marks are big, heavy, rugged and wonderful - but I would drop them in a heartbeat if I could get the same image quality and/or ease of use with a smaller, lightweight autofocus body and excellent lenses. The most intriguing solution I've seen recently is the Fuji X Pro 1 - and with a little
maturing and a wider selection of lenses, it may well be the system that banishes my Marks to the closet.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2012)

As soon as the first company comes out with a really decent but still affordable (sa 3k USD/Euro) FF (36x24mm) mirrorless with a hi-end hybrid optical+electronic viewfinder, DSLRs will be obsolete. 

I for one am really looking forward to the end of mirror-clatter-noise-vibration and any other mechanical components (shutter!) in my cameras. Sizewise I would like to have it as compact and light as a Minolta CLE. Ideally with an electrified, AF- and IS-capable M-Mount, backwards compatible with all M-mount lenses. 

Hopefully ... soon!


----------



## facedodge (Jun 1, 2012)

Flake said:


> Maybe an odd question at first glance, but there is a lot of substance behind it. Canon in particular has pushed up prices of its higher end DSLR models to such a degree that the really need to produce something pretty special - the trouble is that they don't produce image quality that much better than the previous models.
> 
> Last month Canon held a management briefing here The interesting thing is what they said about comming compact cameras:
> 
> ...



An Olympus E-M5 and Canon 50-300mm f/4.5L essentially looks like this...







That is a huge set up... I don't think he would have noticed a DSLR making it 1/2" longer.


----------



## facedodge (Jun 1, 2012)

^^^ Essentially, it's about the lens and if you want shots like that you need a lens at least 5 inches long.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jun 1, 2012)

Flake said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Flake said:
> ...



My Bad. LOL I Just hear olympus OM and think of my Old OM-1.

Carry On. ;D


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 1, 2012)

facedodge said:


> ^^^ Essentially, it's about the lens and if you want shots like that you need a lens at least 5 inches long.



with that much light the same shots can be made with a Nikon 1 and the tiny 30-110mm lens. 
He did not even get the ball or club-hits-ball once in a picture. ;-)


----------



## facedodge (Jun 1, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> facedodge said:
> 
> 
> > ^^^ Essentially, it's about the lens and if you want shots like that you need a lens at least 5 inches long.
> ...



300 f/4.5 is nearly three times as long and nearly twice as bright than the 110 f/5.6, although, that is a nifty little lens.


----------



## Rocky (Jun 1, 2012)

Camera is a tool . A tool should fit the owner and usage. There is no doubt that the OM D E-M4 is a good camera. Can it replace the existing DSLR??? I have to say NO. Just think of the following items: Price, shutter/Af delay, wide choice of lenses, View finder. DSLR will beat the OM D. As for picture quality, It is hard to say, based on the size we have seen in the web. Remember the oldsaying in the old filem days? " Post card size picture from a box camera under the sun will look as good as a picture from Rollie" Therefore I am not getting into it. Another thing is the percentage of "keeper" from sporting event. I am sure that everybody will agree that the DSLR is definitely higher.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 1, 2012)

facedodge said:


> ^^^ Essentially, it's about the lens and if you want shots like that you need a lens at least 5 inches long.



Thats what she said?


----------



## Jman13 (Jun 1, 2012)

AvTvM said:


> with that much light the same shots can be made with a Nikon 1 and the tiny 30-110mm lens.
> He did not even get the ball or club-hits-ball once in a picture. ;-)



The E-M5 is a lot better than the Nikon 1. If I wanted a slower lens with AF, I also could have used the Panasonic 100-300mm or Olympus 75-300mm, both of which are much smaller than the FD 50-300, but they're a stop or more slower and not as good optically.

Anyway, I'm the photographer linked to in the OP (and the 50-300L picture above is mine on my GX1). 

I think you're being tongue in cheek with the second comment, but just in case...when you photograph golf, you do NOT click the shutter before ball impact. That's a very quick way to have angry golfers and get removed from the premises. I did get a few shots shortly after impact when I was rather far away and using the long end when I photographed the practice rounds, but I didn't do it during the Pro-Am because it's a competition round.

For instance:
















A few other points for anyone who is interested:

1) The 50-300L is a great lens! I was wary when I bought it, as many older manual focus zooms are pretty poor...this lens rocks. Also, it is rather large and heavy. However, since the FOV is the same as a 100-600mm lens on full frame, it's still smaller than a similar length lens on an APS-C or Full Frame DSLR. It is true that I wouldn't have noticed the extra size (especially since I shot the tournament with both the horizontal and vertical grips on my E-M5, which makes it just a little smaller than a DRebel with grips). Yeah, a 7D with a 100-400L would be similar in size and capability, but also a lot more expensive. But yeah, really long stuff isn't where m4/3 shines in the size department. (Aside from using shorter focal lengths for the same FOV).

2) I am a former Canon shooter...I loved the system but eventually got bogged down by all the weight. While the times I use the 50-300L are not exactly huge reduction in size and weight, it's the everyday stuff where it's big. My shoulder bag used to have the 1Ds Mark II, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 17-40L, Sigma 50/1.4 and 100 f/2.8L IS Macro...maybe another lens or two. All told it was close to 18 lbs of gear, and it wasn't that fun. Now I will carry my E-M5 with 7-14mm or 12mm f/2, 25mm f/1.4 and 45mm f/1.8, and either a lightweight 40-150mm zoom or if I want more depth of field control, a 135mm f/2.8 for my long lens. My kit bag now weighs about 4 lbs. It's definitely not the right choice for everyone, but it has been wonderful for me.

3) The Oly E-M5 has image quality roughly on par with my 1Ds II. Similar (or even slightly better) dynamic range, and high ISO noise is within a half stop. It's a more responsive camera, though...9fps and faster single shot AF. Of course, it's not nearly as good in continuous AF, though.

I've found the switch to Micro 4/3 wonderful, and it does some things (aside from weight) better than DSLRs...for instance, the single shot autofocus on both the E-M5 and recent Panasonic bodies (GH2, G3, GX1) is exceptionally fast and dead-on accurate. Puts the AF in almost any DSLR to shame. In low light, my GX1 absolutely smokes the 1Ds II in single shot. And, you never have to worry about front or back focus with a CDAF system. 

However, if you need really shallow DOF (and thus the FF or larger sensor), or you need great continuous autofocus, a DSLR is still by far the best option. I don't see DSLRs going away just yet, but I think a large portion of the market will shift to mirrorless in the next decade, especially as continuous AF improves to match or exceed that in DSLRs. 

While I'm sure there will be full frame mirrorless cameras coming eventually, they won't be quite as good in size reduction just because of the longer focal lengths needed for long lens work and the larger image circle vs APS-C or m4/3, but just like now, photographers will have to see what they're willing to trade for other advantages. 

Thanks for the interest in my photos, though!


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 1, 2012)

I was thinking yesterday about how small APS Elph cameras were back in the 1990's (with APS-H sized 'sensors') and put a table together to see just what kind of cameras they were able to cram into these small packages (most importantly physical dimensions, weight, and lens - FL, zoom, and aperture). Here's what I put together, information obtained from Canon Museum website:


ModelLensSizeWeight ReleasedELPH24-48mm f/4.5-6.290 x 60 x 27 mm190 gMay 1996ELPH 490Z22.5-90mm f/5.6-8.9 120 x 65 x 47 mm 290 gJune 1996ELPH 10 [AF] 25mm f/6.7110 x 63 x 43 mm180 gNovember 1996ELPH 260Z30-60mm f/4-7.8113 x 59 x 38 mm175 gJuly 1997ELPH Jr26mm f/2.890 x 60 x 24 mm125 gSeptember 1997ELPH 370Z23-69mm f/4.5-9.995 x 65 x 32 mm205 gMarch 1998ELPH LT23mm f/4.885 x 55 x 35 mm115 gSeptember 1998ELPH 224-46mm f/4.2-5.687 x 57 x 25 mm181 gMarch 1999ELPH LT26026-52mm f/4.2-6.793 x 63 x 30 mm150 gMarch 2000ELPH LT27024-65mm f/4.5-895 x 64 x 35 mm180 gFebruary 2001ELPH Z323.5-54mm f/4.8-7.698 x 50 x 33 mm150 gMarch 2002

Compare that to a few modern digital cameras:


ModelLensSizeWeight Lens Equ. G1X (3/2"sensor) 15-30mm f/2.8-5.8 117 x 81 x 65 mm 534 g 28-112mm S100 (1/1.7" sensor) 5.2-26mm f/2.0-5.9 99 x 60 x 28 mm 198 g 24-120mm ELPH 320HS (1/2.3" sensor) 4.3-21.5mm f/2.7-5.9 94 x 57 x 21 mm 145 g 24-120mm ELPH 530HS (1/2.3" sensor) 4-48mm f/3.4-5.6 86 x 54 x 20 mm 163 g 28-336mm 

Back in the APS film days that absolute best zoom was a 4x (490Z - 29-117mm equivalent with a very slow f/5.6-8.9 aperture). Nowadays we have smaller, lighter cameras with 12x zooms (see 530HS). In comparison the G1X looks huge, despite having a smaller 'sensor' than all the film cameras. Small, light cameras can be made with larger sensors, but at the cost of zoom range and maximum aperture. I highly doubt most amateurs would want to give up zoom range for a larger sensor (most of whom would not understand what the larger sensor or aperture would mean in terms of DOF, IQ or high ISO noise). I would like to see what Canon could do with a camera somewhere in between a G1X and the S100 in terms of sensor size, overall dimensions, and weight.

Slightly off topic post, but I figured it was kind of related to the subject.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 3, 2012)

In three / four years time, the 5Div won't be a DSLR in the conventional sense but will instead be an EF mount mirrorless camera with a hybrid electronic and optical viewfinder. It will be billed as Canon's flagship advanced technology model. The 1 series will stay as a DSLR for a bit longer for those requiring a more rugged, time tested design.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 3, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> In three / four years time, the 5Div won't be a DSLR in the conventional sense but will instead be an EF mount mirrorless camera with a hybrid electronic and optical viewfinder. It will be billed as Canon's flagship advanced technology model. The 1 series will stay as a DSLR for a bit longer for those requiring a more rugged, time tested design.



Hope not. I don't want to have to switch to the 1 series.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 3, 2012)

Yes - That will be part of the sales strategy - forcing people who "like things the way they are" to shell out for a 1 series.

That being said, the next 5D, being the "Advanced Technology" model will be jammed packed with a lot of cool features - wifi, bluetooth, GPS, DLNA. You'll be able to control all of the camera features (and flash settings) from your mobile phone / tablet. The touchpad LCD will allow unlimited focus points. And the new viewfinder will allow you to overlay a lot of data on top of an optical viewfinder image if you want - there will actually be no real downside. All those people who are buying 5Diii's now, will be kicking themselves that they didn't wait four years for this thing.


----------



## Tcapp (Jun 3, 2012)

Hillsilly said:


> Yes - That will be part of the sales strategy - forcing people who "like things the way they are" to shell out for a 1 series.
> 
> That being said, the next 5D, being the "Advanced Technology" model will be jammed packed with a lot of cool features - wifi, bluetooth, GPS, DLNA. You'll be able to control all of the camera features (and flash settings) from your mobile phone / tablet. The touchpad LCD will allow unlimited focus points. And the new viewfinder will allow you to overlay a lot of data on top of an optical viewfinder image if you want - there will actually be no real downside. All those people who are buying 5Diii's now, will be kicking themselves that they didn't wait four years for this thing.



I know I won't kick myself... I'll love shooting this camera for 4 years!


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 3, 2012)

Jman13 said:


> Anyway, I'm the photographer linked to in the OP (and the 50-300L picture above is mine on my GX1).
> ...
> I think you're being tongue in cheek with the second comment, but just in case...when you photograph golf, you do NOT click the shutter before ball impact. That's a very quick way to have angry golfers and get removed from the premises. I did get a few shots shortly after impact when I was rather far away and using the long end when I photographed the practice rounds, but I didn't do it during the Pro-Am because it's a competition round.
> ...
> Thanks for the interest in my photos, though!



Really appreciate your response and your thoughts and agree with all them. I have no experience whatsoever with golf - neither as player nor as (live) spectator nor as photographer. While I found your first series of pictures of very good technical quality, I could not help nut notice that the ball or ball contact where never captured in them. Until your response it did not occur to me that "untimely" shutter noise was the reason for this. 

With your second series of pictures you certainly have demonstrated your skill as photographer in getting perfectly timed and well-composed shots showing "peak golf action". I especially like the first pic of the second series! 

My full respect, congrats and sincere apologies for my first, somewhat snide remark.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2012)

dawgfanjeff said:


> Imagine the sensor size you can get on a tablet compared to a FF camera. The current SLR form factor's limitation would be irrelevant. Just add a tripod mount on the side, you could be looking at ridiculous IQ for portraits and landscapes. Not to mention how much easier manual focusing would be at that size.
> 
> Of course, I could be completely, wrong, too


 
I'm trying to imagine how thick a tablet would be with a FF sensor. As a sensor gets larger, lenses get longer. Thats why sensors are so tiny in tablets, no one would buy a tablet 5 inches thick, and, if it was a telephoto 9 inches thick.

Now, the large sensor you refer to... 4 X 5 inches? Imagine the lens for that! You would have a 1 ft thick tablet with a $10K lens.

You could use a pinhole lens, of course, but it would be even thicker.


----------



## KyleSTL (Jun 6, 2012)

KyleSTL said:


> I would like to see what Canon could do with a camera somewhere in between a G1X and the S100 in terms of sensor size, overall dimensions, and weight.


Looks like Sony is the first one out the door with a camera like I described (the new RX100). It's pretty amazing to see it along side competitive cameras and how it is just about the size of the Canon S100, despite having a sensor over 4 times larger (Nikon CX format) and having a good range fast lens (28-100mm f/1.8-4.9).

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-dsc-rx100/4


----------



## dawgfanjeff (Jun 11, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> dawgfanjeff said:
> 
> 
> > Imagine the sensor size you can get on a tablet compared to a FF camera. The current SLR form factor's limitation would be irrelevant. Just add a tripod mount on the side, you could be looking at ridiculous IQ for portraits and landscapes. Not to mention how much easier manual focusing would be at that size.
> ...




Ok, I admit it. I don't really know what I'm talking about I was just dreaming and thinking like a marketing director who hadn't talked to the grownups yet about pesky issues like physics. 
But still...if cameras could talk straight to a tablet via NFC or even bluetooth. When do we get tabletized versions of Canon tools?


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 12, 2012)

Personally Flake, while those images are good, I'm certain a Full Frame/DSLR would best them. Take a look at the pictures again, and imagine just for a second the subjects weren't famous... They're still passable, but they aren't works of art. It takes a photographer/editor for sure to make works of art, but the tool, and it's lack of shallow depth of field, is making every image look boring, the bokeh is horrible, and as far as I'm concerned, at least some of the images should have quality bokeh/oof on parts of the subject themselves. The shot second from the top is by far the best ( http://admiringlight.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/rory_drive.jpg ), and still requires a touch of editing in post to improve the background blur. My 10 cents. And my personal feeling is that Crop body imaging from 1.6x-2x-2.7x is for most purposes, specifically a consumer level endeavor.

I've looked seriously at switching to micro 4/3rds, I've studied the system, tested it in person on several occasions and after getting a FF, I wouldn't consider the 4/3rds system further. Before I got the FF, and was on 1.6x 7D crop only, it was much more enticing. I would not go back to crop outside of a really useful, high quality point and shoot/camera phone.


----------

