DSLR's may be dead in 5 years

[TreeTopsRanch]

http://www.eoshd.com/content/11409/consumer-dslrs-dead-5-years

An interesting take on how the smart phones are killing the DSLR's cameras for consumers.

[Steve Grisetti]

I'll believe it when packages from Amazon start delivering themselves to my doorstep.

[Peru]

I'll believe it when packages from Amazon start delivering themselves to my doorstep.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013 ... y/3799021/

[Steve Grisetti]

Well, yeah. There's that.

[John 'twosheds' McDonald]

As an extension to the 'phone doing everything' line of thought, my view is that the way smartphones are progressing the tablet market may also prove to be transient.

As smartphones get ever more powerful the rise of the smartphone docking station will begin. Smartphones will be the portable element but when one wants to carry out something that needs PC style power, the docking station, with full size keyboard and screen, will facilitate it. The present analogy is the iPhone docking facility for playing music. Extend that idea to a docking station where the smartphone can simply be "dropped in", that will have its own powerful CPU and storage so that all music/photos/data held on the smartphone can be backed up to the docking station and manipulated there. Photoshop, Premiere Pro and MS Office etc. on a smartphone docking station anyone?

Well that's my twopennyworth anyway.

[Chuck Engels]

5 years ago people were saying the same thing about tape based camcorders, they are still around.

[TreeTopsRanch]

Yes, they are still around but not mainstream. I think that is what the article is all about. Some will use DSLR's for professional use like wedding events, etc. but the mainstream (general population) will be satisfied with their cell phone videos and photos. Just like the 3D TV hype. Some bought them but the mainstream public did not. I predict the same for 4k TV.

[momoffduty]

5 years ago people were saying the same thing about tape based camcorders, they are still around.

I'm dusting off my HV30 to shoot the grand daughter's preK program next week. If I wanted only a 3 minute clip then the Dslr, but with 35 to 45 minutes to record I'll stick with the tape based. Still use it for the Uni's Commencements.

[Peru]

I still like my Sony HDV camera, but the video quality difference between that and my wife's DSLR is significant.

[momoffduty]

I still like my Sony HDV camera, but the video quality difference between that and my wife's DSLR is significant.

That is why I usually punch up the color on the HV30 in post. Just enough to give some depth and contrast.

[Dave McElderry]

Yes, they are still around but not mainstream. I think that is what the article is all about. Some will use DSLR's for professional use like wedding events, etc. but the mainstream (general population) will be satisfied with their cell phone videos and photos. Just like the 3D TV hype. Some bought them but the mainstream public did not. I predict the same for 4k TV.

I think 4K TV will be where HD was a few years ago. It won't be long before 4K is all that's being offered, and the prices will be competitive. People will buy them because that's what's on the shelf, not necessarily because they feel the need for 4K.

[Ron Hunter]

Peru, you mentioned a significant quality difference between your HDV camcorder and your wife's DSLR. I am aware that DSLR's have the capability for great depth of field and they allow interchangeable lenses, but I wasn't aware of a noticeable video quality difference between them.

Cheryl, have you seen a quality improvement with DSLR vs camcorder?

Anyone else have an opinion on that?

[Peru]

Peru, you mentioned a significant quality difference between your HDV camcorder and your wife's DSLR. I am aware that DSLR's have the capability for great depth of field and they allow interchangeable lenses, but I wasn't aware of a noticeable video quality difference between them.

My camcorder is HDV: 1440 X 1080.
My wife's DSLR is HD: 1920 X 1080.

That's the difference.

[_Paz_]

Years ago I heard that Canon cameras were a small part of the Canon business and that their Canon copiers were their big money maker. Considering that I've seen Polaroid and Kodak bite the dust, it doesn't seem impossible to me that DSLR ssles might also decline to the point of not matching cost of R&D. I'd hate to see it happen, but it doesn't seem impossible.

I can remember when photography forums were full of posts speculating whether the DSLR would ever be able to compete with a film SLR. Now I have film SLRs that haven't come out of the cupboard for years. When I designed our house I planned on having a darkroom in the attic. No need. No stink, no chemicals.

I have a 4x5 view camera. Haven't used it in a couple of decades. Each shot was expensive. Film took up room in the refrigerator. The 4x5 Polaroids I used to be sure my focus and lighting were right are probably no longer available for purchase.

A friend recently gave me a film SLR she didn't want because it had belonged to her ex-husband. I've tried to give it to a local private school and they don't want it because of the cost of film and developing. Their students already have plenty of camera phones and computers. (Anybody want it?)

My Canon 7D, 24 frames per second and my 1080p HD, 60 frames per second camcorders both make good images but the DSLR only films for 12 minutes at the time. I don't bother using it. OTOH, Mom's DSLR footage is fabulously sharp. Might be the particular lens she uses. I've considered trying a lens like hers but...

[sidd finch]

My camcorder is HDV: 1440 X 1080.
My wife's DSLR is HD: 1920 X 1080.

That's the difference.

That is true but they still cover the same area. The 1440 pixel is rectangular while the 1920 is square. I think the main difference is the quality of lens that the DSLR has. It would be interesting to see what the difference between HDV and 1920 is with each camera using the same lens.

Sidd