The future of photography...

[paolo-]

I don't see high end cameras taking a significant hit any time soon. If we look back to the film days, the system cameras have been around for a long time and were typically only used by the enthusiasts and pros. But on the consumer side, there first was the rangefinder and eventually the zoom point and shoot. In the digital world, we still have the system cameras and we have the point and shoot... and we have the smartphones.

The smartphone will largely take over the low end point and shoot market. Lots of the low end cameras have tiny sensors and not so good lens... The smartphones take similar image and are much more practical. I think there is still room for higher end point and shoots like the Sony rx100 series - people who aren't photography nerds but like to take good pictures and always carry a camera with them. You can print those images quite large, they have a decent zoom range and are much easier to handle.

I think the system camera market will change as well. Looking back a few years everything was striving to be a flagship DSLR, the less money you spent, the more features would be removed. What we're seeing now is much more specialization. We're at a point where the crop sensors are actually good enough for many people and FF isn't the be all/end all it once was. Lots of enthusiasts are interested in the smaller mirrorless cameras, which coupled with decent lens are really quite good. In the higher end, we're also seeing a clear division between sports/action/journalism cameras and studio/landscape cameras. Medium format is also dropping in price where I think more pros might go for it instead of only the elite. Video also throws a wrench in there. I'm hopeful we can see several companies strive in their own niche.

I also think the demand for high quality pictures is going up if anything. Social media has created a need for lots of high quality images that wasn't there just a few years ago. I also see lots of young people really interested in photography. Looking at the numbers for cameras sales from 2009 to 2013. The number of interchangeable cameras sold per year doubled from 2009 to 2012 year per year before taking a dive in 2013 (not too sure what has happened since then). Looking back, 2009 to 2012 saw lots of innovation in the camera market. DSLR video and mirrorless being big trends. Since then, we haven't seen much other than small incremental upgrades. The market is starting to look like smartphones, tablets and computers in general. Innovation is slowing down so demand slows down as well.

 

[robgendreau]

I don't think the Brownie or the Instamatic killed off 35mm, or that killed view cameras, and I don't think smartphones will kill off DSLRs, M43s, etc.

But I do agree that it's absurd that since ALL newer digitals contain pretty powerful computers, it's really lame that the interfaces still lag, and that you can't do more with both a camera and a smartphone. If I duct tape an iPhone to the back of a M43 it's still pretty small and I should be able to upload, shoot tethered, etc etc. With wifi cameras you can, but it's still rather clunky. Jeez, at least bluetooth shutter controls, flash, etc?

Consider video. Yeah, you can do all kinds of cool stuff with a smartphone. But Go Pro is making bank and they got started about the same time. Assuming all their users don't die in epic fails, it looks bright for them. Still cameras need to take note, and fill niches: water resistance, optical zoom, and macro use still drive folks to regular cameras since smartphones can do much of that.

But I love that so many people not only take some amazing photos with smartphones, but do some impressive post work with them too.

 

[VirtualRain]

Camera phones may improve in quality as compared to current P&S systems, but given the pure physical space dedicated to image processing hardware in the latter I don't see camera phones ever replacing P&S in terms of quality of results. What I do see is a dumbing down of the end user to the point where they actually believe a device that is an Internet and game platform first, phone second and camera third is a replacement for a dedicated camera of any type.

As someone who cut his teeth on film and view cameras, camera phones stop at the user experience. I just can't grasp holding a small device in front of my face as using a camera. For a lot of us with experience its all about the feel of the process. My off-hand wants to be out in front with some weight on it and my elbow wants to be jammed into my chest.

Besides, it won't fit my tripod and just rattles around in my camera bag. I mean, why???

Dale

Sorry to say this Dale, but I fear guys like you are in charge at Canon and Nikon.

They either don't see what's coming, are dismissive of it, or just don't know what to do.

I think however great the image quality of phones becomes (assuming they can get past the physical issues of tiny lenses and sensors) enthusiasts and professionals will always want something made for the purpose of photography with manual controls, comfortable grips

This reminds me of the Blackberry fans that dismissed the iPhone because it didn't have a physical keyboard.

As an aside, they are filming entire TV episodes and commercials now on iPads and iPhones.

This 1min video is well worth a watch...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyorley/...-an-episode-with-iphones-and-ipads#.qldRKGvL0

I don't see high end cameras taking a significant hit any time soon.

<snip>...

The number of interchangeable cameras sold per year doubled from 2009 to 2012 year per year before taking a dive in 2013 (not too sure what has happened since then).

Have they taken a hit or not? According to the figures, DSLR cameras took a 24% hit in 2014 compared to 2013 and that trend is expected to continue.

I have two anecdotal observations to share as well...

My step-daughter bought a 60D a couple of years ago when she was using a cheap Android phone. Shortly after that, she switched to an iPhone 5S... and hasn't touched her DSLR since.

On my last two touristy trips (Tahiti at Christmas and a weekend in Paris lately), I noticed a lot more selfie-sticks with phones on the end... and GoPro cameras. There were even more people shooting with iPads than I've ever seen (which look ridiculous). Very very few tourists have a DSLR anymore.

----------------------------

All, I wish I could comment more, but I need to get some work done!

Great discussion and thoughts being shared here!

 

[ApfelKuchen]

It took me a while to read through nearly all the comments here. I'll just throw a peanut or two into the gallery -

In the 60's, Kodak had the brilliant idea of the "Instamatic" line of cameras that used cartridge cased film. They made the price of the camera low, the body was very light, and even offered the flash cube to go along with it. This pretty much made photography available to everyone. Polaroid also followed suit and came out with few models of lightweight "instant photo" cameras with fixed lenses. In my estimate, these are akin to the smart phone photo phenom.

Hobbyists went for lower line 35mm cameras such as the Nikkormat from Nikon and Canon, Konica, Olympus and others had their versions as well. These might be akin to the simpler mirrorless cameras we see today. Of course the line between mirrorless and DSLR cameras is beginning to blur.

Advanced hobbyists found themselves along with professionals getting the higher end 35mm cameras which is akin to the upper line DSLR.

The point is that there was a ratio of type of 35mm (and smaller) film cameras and we see a similar ratio today with digital cameras. Since smart phones are fairly commonplace so will be the ability to grab a photo shot which the public in general seems satisfied. Those wishing to take a step up will go to DSLR or mirrorless. The real catch is the market model that camera makers are faced with and again, the "grab a shot" camera will have the largest market share (smart phones).

Agreed!

Just for a point of historical perspective, the first time Kodak did this was in 1888, with the introduction of the first Kodak camera ($25 sealed box - 100 exposures, send the camera to Kodak, Kodak sends you the prints). In short order, the price dropped to $5, and then $1. From 1900 until the introduction of the Instamatic (I had an Instamatic 100), the Kodak Brownie played the same role. Prior to introducing his consumer models, George Eastman produced the first roll film and a roll film adapter for view cameras, taking photography out of the glass plate era. It's been 135 years since that roll film adapter was introduced, but companies are still making large format view cameras.

So, have we been here before? Yes. As always, most people have a problem separating the technology of photography from the art, and separating the needs and activities of the casual consumer from those of the hobbyist and professional.

The camera is a tool, a photo is the finished product. As with any tool, there's a market for simple tools and a separate market for advanced tools. Beyond that... I don't care if Nikon or Canon sink beneath the waves. It's not that I have any animosity towards those companies - I loved my Nikons - I have a 1967 F body that could probably still be serviceable, if I wanted to replace the shutter and one or two other corroded parts (a whitewater trip, ammo can hadn't been closed properly - talk about sinking beneath the waves)... But I have no motive at all to shoot film. I far prefer the digital darkroom to the chemical version I had in my basement as a kid. I far prefer large screen computers to slide projectors. And I could go on.

People have been rendering their impressions of the physical world since the days when images were scratched into pieces of wood and bone, and drawn on stone (and a few still work in those media). What tools we have going forward matters less than our inbred need to communicate and create objects of beauty.

Meantime, the population of the world grows, the ease with which we can do nearly anything improves, and our ability to communicate on a worldwide basis means we can no longer be ignorant of artistic genius that resides on the other end of the globe. It's harder to feel unique and special when we know so many others are equally or better skilled, or can easily do things that, in the past, separated the wheat from the chaff. So standards of quality (artistic and technical) rise, because we are competitive beasts.

I believe insecurity, not technology, is the crux of every discussion of this sort, and it will always be that way.

 

[VirtualRain]

It took me a while to read through nearly all the comments here. I'll just throw a peanut or two into the gallery -

In the 60's, Kodak had the brilliant idea of the "Instamatic" line of cameras that used cartridge cased film. They made the price of the camera low, the body was very light, and even offered the flash cube to go along with it. This pretty much made photography available to everyone. Polaroid also followed suit and came out with few models of lightweight "instant photo" cameras with fixed lenses. In my estimate, these are akin to the smart phone photo phenom.

Hobbyists went for lower line 35mm cameras such as the Nikkormat from Nikon and Canon, Konica, Olympus and others had their versions as well. These might be akin to the simpler mirrorless cameras we see today. Of course the line between mirrorless and DSLR cameras is beginning to blur.

Advanced hobbyists found themselves along with professionals getting the higher end 35mm cameras which is akin to the upper line DSLR.

The point is that there was a ratio of type of 35mm (and smaller) film cameras and we see a similar ratio today with digital cameras. Since smart phones are fairly commonplace so will be the ability to grab a photo shot which the public in general seems satisfied. Those wishing to take a step up will go to DSLR or mirrorless. The real catch is the market model that camera makers are faced with and again, the "grab a shot" camera will have the largest market share (smart phones).

Agreed!

Just for a point of historical perspective, the first time Kodak did this was in 1888, with the introduction of the first Kodak camera ($25 sealed box - 100 exposures, send the camera to Kodak, Kodak sends you the prints). In short order, the price dropped to $5, and then $1. From 1900 until the introduction of the Instamatic (I had an Instamatic 100), the Kodak Brownie played the same role. Prior to introducing his consumer models, George Eastman produced the first roll film and a roll film adapter for view cameras, taking photography out of the glass plate era. It's been 135 years since that roll film adapter was introduced, but companies are still making large format view cameras.

So, have we been here before? Yes. As always, most people have a problem separating the technology of photography from the art, and separating the needs and activities of the casual consumer from those of the hobbyist and professional.

The camera is a tool, a photo is the finished product. As with any tool, there's a market for simple tools and a separate market for advanced tools. Beyond that... I don't care if Nikon or Canon sink beneath the waves. It's not that I have any animosity towards those companies - I loved my Nikons - I have a 1967 F body that could probably still be serviceable, if I wanted to replace the shutter and one or two other corroded parts (a whitewater trip, ammo can hadn't been closed properly - talk about sinking beneath the waves)... But I have no motive at all to shoot film. I far prefer the digital darkroom to the chemical version I had in my basement as a kid. I far prefer large screen computers to slide projectors. And I could go on.

People have been rendering their impressions of the physical world since the days when images were scratched into pieces of wood and bone, and drawn on stone (and a few still work in those media). What tools we have going forward matters less than our inbred need to communicate and create objects of beauty.

Meantime, the population of the world grows, the ease with which we can do nearly anything improves, and our ability to communicate on a worldwide basis means we can no longer be ignorant of artistic genius that resides on the other end of the globe. It's harder to feel unique and special when we know so many others are equally or better skilled, or can easily do things that, in the past, separated the wheat from the chaff. So standards of quality (artistic and technical) rise, because we are competitive beasts.

I believe insecurity, not technology, is the crux of every discussion of this sort, and it will always be that way.

Both thoughtful and thought provoking responses but a bit philosophical and historical for my taste... what are you saying about the future? Can you be more specific?

 

[Designer Dale]

Sorry to say this Dale, but I fear guys like you are in charge at Canon and Nikon.

They either don't see what's coming, are dismissive of it, or just don't know what to do.

Maybe, but being delusional has it's fun times... I also drive a '68 Mustang.

This reminds me of the Blackberry fans that dismissed the iPhone because it didn't have a physical keyboard.

As an aside, they are filming entire TV episodes and commercials now on iPads and iPhones.

This 1min video is well worth a watch...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyorley/...-an-episode-with-iphones-and-ipads#.qldRKGvL0

I heard about that but didn't see the episode. For the record, I don't have any children, so I'm way behind all this "selfie" and FaceTime chat stuff.

Do you think they walked around with iPhones and iPads in hand or used steady cam rigs, full sets and studio lighting?

Have they taken a hit or not? According to the figures, DSLR cameras took a 24% hit in 2014 compared to 2013 and that trend is expected to continue.

I have two anecdotal observations to share as well...

My step-daughter bought a 60D a couple of years ago when she was using a cheap Android phone. Shortly after that, she switched to an iPhone 5S... and hasn't touched her DSLR since.

On my last two touristy trips (Tahiti at Christmas and a weekend in Paris lately), I noticed a lot more selfie-sticks with phones on the end... and GoPro cameras. There were even more people shooting with iPads than I've ever seen (which look ridiculous). Very very few tourists have a DSLR anymore.

----------------------------

All, I wish I could comment more, but I need to get some work done!

Great discussion and thoughts being shared here!

I have nothing against GoPro. Great action and outdoors camera with a lot of versatility.

BTW the speedometer in my Mustang is a GPS app on my iPhone 6 stuck to the windshield.

See ya, Young'n...

Dale

 

[paolo-]

Have they taken a hit or not? According to the figures, DSLR cameras took a 24% hit in 2014 compared to 2013 and that trend is expected to continue.

I have two anecdotal observations to share as well...

My step-daughter bought a 60D a couple of years ago when she was using a cheap Android phone. Shortly after that, she switched to an iPhone 5S... and hasn't touched her DSLR since.

On my last two touristy trips (Tahiti at Christmas and a weekend in Paris lately), I noticed a lot more selfie-sticks with phones on the end... and GoPro cameras. There were even more people shooting with iPads than I've ever seen (which look ridiculous). Very very few tourists have a DSLR anymore.

This kind of ties in with what I was saying. CaNikon aren't innovating and aren't giving their customers reasons to keep buying. Since I bought my t2i in 2010, Canon has rehashed the same sensor in no less than 10 cameras. They've finally updated the APS-C sensor but it's a measly upgrade and they've actually reduced the video quality (lower bitrate)... The big players also don't seem to get or offer what the customers want. They've finally just started including WiFi. Both have horrible video capabilities. And the lens offerings for crop sensor is not very good, especially on the Canon side - it's been 12 years, where's the standard prime for APS-C?

On the flip side, mirrorless is doing better with 22% growth year on year in 2014. It's also finally getting traction in America. I think the mirrorless is getting mature enough and is ready to offer what the costumers actually want. Though they could have even better smartphone integration.

As for anecdotal evidence, I know I'm shooting my DSLR less now that my phone takes better pictures. My DSLR isn't something I carry with me other than if I'm purposely going out to take pictures. But as someone who lives in a touristy town, I'm not sure how big the dip is in DSLR use. They've always been all that popular and I still see quite a few around. Though I'm seeing very few point and shoots. Mostly older people who I suspect don't own smartphones.


But I'll agree with you, DSLRs are being used less than they were. I think lots of people who were using DSLR in auto mode just to get "better quality" realized that they'd just let thousands of image sleep on their drives and not do anything with it. With a smartphone they can easily share it with their loved ones on the spot.

 

[phrehdd]

Both thoughtful and thought provoking responses but a bit philosophical and historical for my taste... what are you saying about the future? Can you be more specific?

Fair enough.... I think that smart phone cameras will rule the roost. Mirrorless and DSLRs will be for hobbyists and professionals. Mirrorless will continue to gain momentum by dipping into the other two groups (smartphone and DSLR) until perhaps DSLR (full frame most likely) will be more a "PRO" camera by cost and top resolution/pixel count. So I guess the big hit will be to DSLRs as mirrorless over takes DSLR on sales (could be within the next 3-5 years).

I guess the short answer is - photographers will have both* smartphone and "camera." The masses will just use the smartphone and hobbyists will go for mirrorless or DSLR while also using smartphones.

 

[Scepticalscribe]

Extraordinarily interesting thread with a large number of well argued and thoughtful responses and a discussion conducted in a very welcome tone of mutual respect for a variety of opinions and views.

 

[senseless]

Canon lost a customer.

Cliff Notes:

- I paid $3,699.99 for a 5DIII (w/24-105 f4/L) 3 days ago.
- Canon revised pricing over the past 24 hours to $3,099.99

Conclusion:

- Returned camera and walked out. Kiss my ass Canon, I don't want your DR lacking inferior overpriced POS anyway.

P.S - I feel sorry for all the people who cut off the UPC code and actually mailed in for the 300.00 rebate. They do not have the luxury of walking into the store and returning it.

I had a similar experience with a Canon HD camcorder made worse by a no show confusing rebate. Never again.

 

[VirtualRain]

This says a lot about where we are, and where we're going...

Apple Found Its Newest Billboards On The Internet

From the front page...

If a camera phone is already good enough for bill-board printing...

 

[Meister]

This says a lot about where we are, and where we're going...

Apple Found Its Newest Billboards On The Internet

From the front page...

Image

If a camera phone is already good enough for bill-board printing...

The Billboard is from to show the capabilities of the iPhone camera.
There is no reason why an iPhone image should not be good enougn for a billboard.

The latest feature on s webpage displays images taken with the iPhone camera and some of them are quite stunning. You should consider however:

• apple searched the entire www and those images are the best they could find
• they were all taken in very good light
• no shallow DOF
• one focal length
• low resolution (ok for the internet or a billboard that is on top of a building)

 

[AlaskaMoose]

But didn't you know that (6D vs. 5DIII) before you bought? You'll run into just as many quirks with Nikon is my guess. (I shoot Nikon, if you care). Tech changes. Pricing changes. There will likely always be a next best thing. And if the iPhone is good enough for your photography needs, then just about any current DSLR should do just fine, no?

More than likely Canon will introduce the 5D IV this summer. Anyway, if he really wanted to keep the 5DIII, he could have asked Canon for the discount.

Now about digital SLR cameras: in reality the camera bodies' and lenses' looks and operation is old technology. The only difference is that sophisticated electrical components have been incorporated. There are no reasons for camera manufacturers to continue producing cameras with a same old body style, and a very small lens mount area. Why the same narrow and tubular-shaped lenses with a tiny mount area?

 

[Apple fanboy]

More than likely Canon will introduce the 5D IV this summer. Anyway, if he really wanted to keep the 5DIII, he could have asked Canon for the discount.

Now about digital SLR cameras: in reality the camera bodies' and lenses' looks and operation is old technology. The only difference is that sophisticated electrical components have been incorporated. There are no reasons for camera manufacturers to continue producing cameras with a same old body style, and a very small lens mount area. Why the same narrow and tubular-shaped lenses with a tiny mount area?

Cannon did change their lens mount in recent years. However with Nikon I believe they want to keep their current F-mount so people remain brand loyal. The fact you can still use lenses from the 60's is a good marketing point.
As for form, I have big hands and like the way everything is laid out on a DSLR. I can't stand menus to find the change your aperture setting (by which time your shot has gone).

 

[kenoh]

So for years we have been trying to move to a single converged device. For years everything got smaller, now it is getting bigger again. If I look around me, I am the epitome of failed convergence. Sat here with two phones, a tablet and yet I still carry a laptop.

What's my point? There is no one device that can do everything perfectly - yet. So there will always be opportunity for something to specialise in its function. So I think cameras are safe at least for the short to mid term.

I hope so anyway! I am only just getting the hang if this camera lark!!!

 

[steveash]

This reminds me of the Blackberry fans that dismissed the iPhone because it didn't have a physical keyboard.

As an aside, they are filming entire TV episodes and commercials now on iPads and iPhones.

This 1min video is well worth a watch...

http://www.buzzfeed.com/emilyorley/...-an-episode-with-iphones-and-ipads#.qldRKGvL0

To be honest the Blackberry keyboard was always flawed because of its size. It is more like a typist dismissing an iPad in favour of a full size keyboard.

The TV show here is filmed with iphones because they wanted it to look like it was filmed on an iphone which makes a lot of sense. At the moment, if you use something like this for professional work you will need a reason to justify it. Iphone cameras are better quality than point and shoots were a few years back so there is good reason to expect them to catch up with current DSLRs too. My argument is the form factor doesn't suit professional use. Perhaps that just means that we will need to add aftermarket grips with manual controls. For example, trying to capture the action at the other end of a football field with the equivalent of a 500mm lens from a small screen based device for would be quite tricky.

 

[jms969]

The concept of disruptive technologies, it will answer the question for you...

 

[JDDavis]

The concept of disruptive technologies, it will answer the question for you...

Image

In your example I'm guessing the cell phone (camera phone) is the disruptive technology to the DSLR as the sustaining technology.

The tricky part could be that there might be a disruptive technology that comes along and upsets the entire cell phone industry. In 1997 (I think) I bought my first cellular phone (a NEC I think) that fit into my pocket (barely). Nearly 20yrs (or more) now of carrying phones in our pockets and holding them to the sides of our heads. Something could be on the way that upsets that paradigm and then where does the cell phone camera argument go? A camera and a pocket computer have been a welcome addition to the cell phone form factor but what if we no longer need a small box with a speaker and a mic to communicate.

I know....It's early but I'm already half way through an energy drink (not a coffee drinker).

 

[jms969]

In your example I'm guessing the cell phone (camera phone) is the disruptive technology to the DSLR as the sustaining technology.

The tricky part could be that there might be a disruptive technology that comes along and upsets the entire cell phone industry. In 1997 (I think) I bought my first cellular phone (a NEC I think) that fit into my pocket (barely). Nearly 20yrs (or more) now of carrying phones in our pockets and holding them to the sides of our heads. Something could be on the way that upsets that paradigm and then where does the cell phone camera argument go? A camera and a pocket computer have been a welcome addition to the cell phone form factor but what if we no longer need a small box with a speaker and a mic to communicate.

I know....It's early but I'm already half way through an energy drink (not a coffee drinker).

Here is a link to Clayton Christensen's site (the Harvard professor who first articulated the DT concept)

http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

It is very clear that mobile phone cameras have already disrupted the point and shoot market and are disrupting the DSLR market. Will the mobile phone camera be able to duplicate the capabilities of the high end DSLRs? Doubtful, at least in the short term, but it will disrupt the DSLR manufacturer's revenue and profit stream enough that they will have to respond to the threat.

Sony for instance is already responding with a very capable line of mirrorless cameras that are, for the moment, beyond the capabilities of mobile phone cameras.

It should be interesting to see how long Nikon and Canon for instance drag their feet, hopefully not so long that they cannot recover...

 

[MacCruiskeen]

The fact you can still use lenses from the 60's is a good marketing point.
As for form, I have big hands and like the way everything is laid out on a DSLR. I can't stand menus to find the change your aperture setting (by which time your shot has gone).

Oh yeah, I've been feeling actually tempted to splurge on a D810, and being able to share lenses with my F and F2 would be a big cost-savings. (Though the oldest lenses without the AI ring won't work).

I don't quite get the complaint about the shape of the camera--as long as lenses are round and project light in a cone, what better shape would there be? Where are you going to put your hands?

 

[Meister]

Here is a link to Clayton Christensen's site (the Harvard professor who first articulated the DT concept)

http://www.claytonchristensen.com/key-concepts/

It is very clear that mobile phone cameras have already disrupted the point and shoot market and are disrupting the DSLR market. Will the mobile phone camera be able to duplicate the capabilities of the high end DSLRs? Doubtful, at least in the short term, but it will disrupt the DSLR manufacturer's revenue and profit stream enough that they will have to respond to the threat.

Sony for instance is already responding with a very capable line of mirrorless cameras that are, for the moment, beyond the capabilities of mobile phone cameras.

It should be interesting to see how long Nikon and Canon for instance drag their feet, hopefully not so long that they cannot recover...

Phone Cameras have not disrupted the serious camera market and they never will.
DSLR sales have not been droping, but they've been rising over the past decade.

Just like the introduction of small format film never really disrupted the medium format market, so do phone cameras not really disrupt the FF dslr market. DSLR sales merely skyrocketed the past 10 years and the market is now saturated and things return to normal.

 

[v3rlon]

Now about digital SLR cameras: in reality the camera bodies' and lenses' looks and operation is old technology. The only difference is that sophisticated electrical components have been incorporated. There are no reasons for camera manufacturers to continue producing cameras with a same old body style, and a very small lens mount area. Why the same narrow and tubular-shaped lenses with a tiny mount area?

The ergonomics of the form factor is a pretty good reason. They could make spherical keyboards to type on, but they don't.

Lenses pretty much still have to be round keep focus as even as possible. The diameter of the tube is based on the diameter of the glass. The larger the area of the glass, the exponentially more likely it is to have some critical defect and fail, so the more expensive it is to make. Also, the get heavier fast. The opening at the end is controlled by the size of the sensor. You could make the opening smaller by putting the lens further away, but that would impact your maximum f-stop (teleconverters essentially do this). So the Lens is in a pretty tight spot. Yes, you could put round lenses in a troubler tube, but why would you? Even your iPhone lens is a round tube. It is just a very short one.

The camera body itself is designed to be held and manipulated a certain way. Sony has the QX lens/sensor combo you drive with your iPhone if you like.

Overall, I really LIKE the setup of the SLR camera. It doesn't HAVE to be shaped like that, but I haven't seen something I actually like better, including the sony NEX series (though I do have a NEX camcorder I quite like). If someone brings something better to the table, I will switch, but I haven't seen that yet.

----------

Phone Cameras have nit disrupted the serious camera market and they never will.
DSLR are have beennot droping, but they've been rising over the past decade.

Image

You missed the post a few up where DSLRs took a 24% hit in 2014. Did high end photography go out of style? That graph you linked (http://cdn.camyx.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/lens-shipments-2014-cipa.png) shows that 2012 sales were higher than 2013 sales which were higher than 2014 sales (the orange line is the lowest). There are only two points on the graph where a preceding year even matches the current one in the same month.

Remember when the film guys said digital would never displace film?

I am sure the black and white guys thought color would never replace them, and daguerreotype guys thought they were safe from B&W film too. Progress doesn't care, though.

 

[Meister]

You missed the post a few up where DSLRs took a 24% hit in 2014. Did high end photography go out of style? That graph you posted shows that 2012 sales were higher than 2013 sales which were higher than 2014 sales (the orange line is the lowest). There are only two points on the graph where a preceding year even matches the current one in the same month.

Remember when the film guys said digital would never displace film?

I am sure the black and white guys thought color would never replace them, and daguerreotype guys thought they were safe from B&W film too. Progress doesn't care, though.

The market is saturated. We cannot expect dslrs to continue to sell like they did when they were a new invention.
Color vs b/w and digital vs analog is a completely different story altogether. It will take at least another decade for phone cameras to match todays dslrs in low light performance alone.

There is nothing revolutionary about phone cameras. They are just very small, inferior cameras attached to a phone. They cannot produce DOF, change their focal length or produce even barely tolerable images in lower light. I had my first phone with a camera on it 10 years ago and it took almost that long for the image quality to get somewhat tolerable.

 

[JDDavis]

It should be interesting to see how long Nikon and Canon for instance drag their feet, hopefully not so long that they cannot recover...

Perhaps their feet dragging is strategic (milk the current tech for as long as possible) but I doubt it. I'm not very familiar with digital medium format cameras but they seem to be a bit more modular than FF and crop DSLRs. I personally think this would be a interesting path for high end DSLRs to venture down. A DSLR by nature is already modular (lens + body) and this is what lends to a kind of creative advantage over a P&S or phone camera. If a DSLR became a 3 piece modular system (lens + image capture box + computing / communications / UI box) then perhaps there would be a path for the big boys to add more computing capability to their system. Lenses have a very long useful life and really a good sensor does as well (my D90 still takes great pics and so does my brothers D40X). A mobile computer on the back end would allow for capabilities to stay in synch with tech through hardware and firmware upgrades.

 

[VirtualRain]

The market is saturated. We cannot expect dslrs to continue to sell like they did when they were a new invention.
Color vs b/w and digital vs analog is a completely different story altogether. It will take at least another decade for phone cameras to match todays dslrs in low light performance alone.

There is nothing revolutionary about phone cameras. They are just very small, inferior cameras attached to a phone. They cannot produce DOF, change their focal length or produce even barely tolerable images in lower light. I had my first phone with a camera on it 10 years ago and it took almost that long for the image quality to get somewhat tolerable.

The DSLR market is only saturated to the extent that fewer and fewer people want one.

You're overlooking a major part of the iPhone camera... the processor and software. Yes, they have small sensors and lenses, but they are attached to incredibly powerful computers with software capable of doing incredible things. How many DSLR's can shoot a panorama simply by panning across the scene? This is easy for an iPhone.

When it comes to low light, the iPhone 6 already employs photo stacking to reduce noise in low light (a technique used by astrophotographers). As algorithms advance and computing power in the iPhone increases, I believe we'll quickly see iPhone photos in low light start to match what can be done with a DSLR through photo stacking and advanced NR algorithms.

And software algorithms are already on the scene to do shallow DoF, tilt-shift, HDR and nearly every other effect you can imagine.

While I think DSLRs aren't going anywhere in the near-term, I think companies like Canon and Nikon are in for some painful times ahead due to shrinking interest in dedicated cameras. Whether one or both will survive long term remains to be seen. Kodak began to struggle in the late 1990s, was no longer profitable by 2007 and was out of business 5 years later. Is Nikon next? (Canon has other divisions to keep it going).

----------

Perhaps their feet dragging is strategic (milk the current tech for as long as possible) but I doubt it. I'm not very familiar with digital medium format cameras but they seem to be a bit more modular than FF and crop DSLRs. I personally think this would be a interesting path for high end DSLRs to venture down. A DSLR by nature is already modular (lens + body) and this is what lends to a kind of creative advantage over a P&S or phone camera. If a DSLR became a 3 piece modular system (lens + image capture box + computing / communications / UI box) then perhaps there would be a path for the big boys to add more computing capability to their system. Lenses have a very long useful life and really a good sensor does as well (my D90 still takes great pics and so does my brothers D40X). A mobile computer on the back end would allow for capabilities to stay in synch with tech through hardware and firmware upgrades.

You may be onto something. With Canon now offering a 50Mpx DSLR at a $3500 price point, that's likely going to be disruptive to the Medium Format players. Especially in a world where consumption of imaging has dramatically shifted to digital as well. But if the trends we're talking about there with smartphone cameras continue, is moving into that tiny niche really going to save the big players? I'm not sure.