The begining of the end of DSLR's, Trey Ratcliff.

[Throckmorton]

Perhaps minus the speed of light.... I'm not really getting how light bouncing off mirrors isn't real time.

JR

I mean that what you see isn't what the camera sees when you take the picture.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

Soon an iPhone will be capable of F1.0 shots at 100iso in pure darkness

I'm going to strongly disagree with the author of this article, as a scientist and engineer, and point out the flaws in this line of reasoning in the quote above.

I have no doubt that moving mirrors will go away, but it seems to me that the thrust of his argument is that "smaller=better". He seems to think that the "micro format" systems will dominate the professional market in the near future, but I have to strongly disagree from a scientific perspective.

Right now, at maximum sensitivity, a camera like the D4 is registering discreet pixels at a level of less than 15 photons per sensor pixel, according to the math I've seen. Modern camera phones are already above diffraction limited resolutions, based on the size of the lens aperture. Modern point-and-shoot cameras are usually also at that range.

There is NO PHYSICAL WAY for an iphone-sized sensor to achieve higher resolution without increasing the size of the lens. It is physically impossible with all known materials.

In addition, modern sensors are already approaching the physical limits of sensor resolution and sensitivity, given the current lens aperture diameter.

There is no way that a "compact camera" could out-resolve modern DSLR cameras. A "small" system like a micro-4/3 format is PHYSICALLY LIMITED to a lower resolution than current DSLR systems and prime lenses by the physics of diffractive optics given the diameter of the lens, the size of photos and the size of the sensor.

So....

No, I don't believe that larger-format cameras will leave the professional scene anytime soon, because making larger prints will never (as in, physically limited by the laws of diffraction) be as clear, sharp or sensitive as SLR sensors, simply due to the benefits of larger glass.

I'm pretty sure that he doesn't know that, nor understand the physics.

Arguing that "lenses today will shrink" is simply misunderstanding lens optics and trying to equate it to the size progression in microchips, which is not analogous.

/rant

 

[alkemyst]

The cameras today have already surpassed 'ideas'.

People thought digital would never replace film.

 

[speedy2]

That's no rant. That's the cold hard truth. Good post.

 

[Railgun]

People thought digital would never replace film.

It hasn't.

 

[alkemyst]

It hasn't.

lolwut? In almost every demographic of media it has.

You have only art students, hobbists and a few niche artists using it.

 

[sswingle]

It hasn't.

You know cars replaced horses, but that doesn't mean no one ever rides a horse...

 

[JohnnyRebel]

lolwut? In almost every demographic of media it has.

You have only art students, hobbists and a few niche artists using it.

hobbist?

20 Million rolls of film sold in the US in 2011. Digital is replacing film, and will replace film to the level you claimed....but not yet...

My Mom uses film, and she is none of the above. She is still mad that she had to switch from 110 to 35mm, but she does love the Trip 35 I had refurbished for her.

JR

 

[CptObvious]

For me, CSCs have hit the tipping point with the new APS-C Sonys (NEX-5N and NEX-7) and Fujis (X100 and X-Pro 1). I never considered the Micro 4/3rds cameras to be an adequate substitute for DSLRs, more like a stopgap improvement over P&S's. However, the Sonys/Fujis have sensors rivaling the best crop DSLRs, and the lens choices are improving. Samsung is rumored to be prepping a high-end CSC which should add a much-needed competitor. For specialized and pro uses, DSLR is still king, but I'm not planning to go back to SLR as a camera enthusiast. It's not worth carrying my bulky Domke satchel whenever I want to go out with the wife.

 

[Railgun]

You know cars replaced horses, but that doesn't mean no one ever rides a horse...

I can`t tell if you`re agreeing with me or not.

hobbist?

20 Million rolls of film sold in the US in 2011. Digital is replacing film, and will replace film to the level you claimed....but not yet...

My point exactly. But to what level? I don`t know in our lifetime we`ll see film disappear altogether.

 

[randomrogue]

Film has it's own feel to it. I simply switched because the cost of buying film and processing it was starting to get to be a bit too much. I had a long vacation where the cost actually exceeded the price of simply buying a digital camera for the trip.

The problem is that now you have put an effort into making a photo album. I definitely don't just print out all the pictures I take on my digital camera.

 

[Binky]

hobbist?

20 Million rolls of film sold in the US in 2011. Digital is replacing film, and will replace film to the level you claimed....but not yet...

My Mom uses film, and she is none of the above. She is still mad that she had to switch from 110 to 35mm, but she does love the Trip 35 I had refurbished for her.

JR

You may be quoting this article, in which they give the 20 million rolls sold figure. The problem is, that's a decline from the 800 million peak set just 13 years ago in 1999 - a 97.5% decline in 13 years. I'd say that a 97.5% decline qualifies as done, gone, and replaced.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-06-03-photo-film_n.htm

 

[JohnnyRebel]

You may be quoting this article, in which they give the 20 million rolls sold figure. The problem is, that's a decline from the 800 million peak set just 13 years ago in 1999 - a 97.5% decline in 13 years. I'd say that a 97.5% decline qualifies as done, gone, and replaced.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-06-03-photo-film_n.htm

That figure is all over the net for 2011. I don't think anyone is saying that film use has not decined. 20 million is 20,000,000 units. Name another product that sold 20 million units last year and is considered done and gone.

I had thought the peak was 1 Billion rolls sold in 2000. An additional sign of the decline is the number of new cameras sold, down from 19.7 million in 2000 to around 100,000 in 2011. Still, that's 100,000 NEW film cameras sold in the US in 2011. Far from done and gone.

Please understand, I'm not going to buy stock in a film company...

JR

 

[randomrogue]

They sell those film cameras that are made out of plastic and have lots of light leaks. They're pretty popular. Film will be a niche for years to come.

 

[Munky]

Yawn, another self-proclaimed prophet predicting the demise of well-established technology. Just like tablets are gonna replace the desktop PC, right? Maybe when mirrorless cameras can track AF as well as DSLRs and EVFs look as good and responsive as optical VFs, then I might believe it. I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Maybe when mirrorless cameras can track AF as well as DSLRs and EVFs look as good and responsive as optical VFs, then I might believe it. I don't see that happening any time soon.

I think those issues could be resolved within a couple/few generations. I think it's possible that DSLRs could largely become the realm of full-frame, and EVIL the realm of APS-C.

No doubt there will continue to be some crossover though; EVIL ergonomics being one issue.

 

[Throckmorton]

Why do EVFs turn off while capturing/saving a still photo? It should only go blank while the shutter is closing and reopening.

 

[RobDickinson]

The only reason to shoot film not is because you like to shoot film.

Digital has more resolution, more dynamic range, better colour and can shoot up to stupid ISO. As per lensrental were looking for better and better lenses because film restricted the quality of output & therefore print size, digital isnt.

As for SLR's going away, well I doubt it. But there is a lot more options. Look at the Nikon V1, decent size sensor super fast AF, or Fuji xpro1, mtf cameras, canon g1x etc. All options that are eroding one end of what SLR's used to cover, but theres still a whole lot an SLR can do for you nothing else can.

 

[GoSharks]

As for SLR's going away, well I doubt it. But there is a lot more options. Look at the Nikon V1, decent size sensor super fast AF, or Fuji xpro1, mtf cameras, canon g1x etc. All options that are eroding one end of what SLR's used to cover, but theres still a whole lot an SLR can do for you nothing else can.

So what can an SLR do that solely depends on SLR mechanics? Apart from an "analog" viewfinder, there really isn't much that I can think of off the top of my head.
Maybe phase detect AF, but that can probably be solved.

 

[TanisHalfElven]

The only reason to shoot film not is because you like to shoot film.

Digital has more resolution, more dynamic range, better colour and can shoot up to stupid ISO. As per lensrental were looking for better and better lenses because film restricted the quality of output & therefore print size, digital isnt.

As for SLR's going away, well I doubt it. But there is a lot more options. Look at the Nikon V1, decent size sensor super fast AF, or Fuji xpro1, mtf cameras, canon g1x etc. All options that are eroding one end of what SLR's used to cover, but theres still a whole lot an SLR can do for you nothing else can.

I'd argue the more resolution part
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm
Film res is limited by the lens and the scanner. It can still resolve higher than the most advanced DSLRs

 

[JohnnyRebel]

The only reason to shoot film not is because you like to shoot film.

This goes for almost everything.

Digital has more resolution, more dynamic range, better colour and can shoot up to stupid ISO.

No on resolution, the limiting factor so far is retrieving the data off the film (discussed in previous post).

No on better colour, velvia 50 anyone?

On dynamic range, film has a huge benefit in recording highlights.

ISO, yep. My D7000 shoots great looking stupid high ISOs.

Film does have benefits for archival purposes.

This doesn't really have anything to do with anything, I just have a pet peave about these sorts of absolute statements; as if saying someing strongly (and using the British spelling of color) makes it true.

Just keeping it real...

JR

 

[arrfep]

I think those issues could be resolved within a couple/few generations. I think it's possible that DSLRs could largely become the realm of full-frame, and EVIL the realm of APS-C.

No doubt there will continue to be some crossover though; EVIL ergonomics being one issue.

People seem to keep ignoring that. There's a point where smaller is not better. No one I know that makes money with their camera wants a body where everything is controlled through a 4" touch screen. Pros like knobs and switches.

My favorite SLR ever was the Minolta Maxxum 7. It's often considered one of the most well-designed SLRs ever. Every function possible was controlled by a switch or a knob, and they were laid out very intelligently.

Need to dial up the EV? Turn a knob. FEC? Turn a knob. Even on most DSLRs today, FEC is done through multiple button presses, either in body or on the strobe. I miss that camera dearly.

The point is, you can cram only so many switches onto an altoids tin, and if you can, they're going to be mighty fragile.

 

[alkemyst]

This goes for almost everything.



No on resolution, the limiting factor so far is retrieving the data off the film (discussed in previous post).

No on better colour, velvia 50 anyone?

On dynamic range, film has a huge benefit in recording highlights.

ISO, yep. My D7000 shoots great looking stupid high ISOs.

Film does have benefits for archival purposes.

This doesn't really have anything to do with anything, I just have a pet peave about these sorts of absolute statements; as if saying someing strongly (and using the British spelling of color) makes it true.

Just keeping it real...

JR

Don't know, may be placebo effect of thinking film is better and / or the limitations of your own reproduction gear.

http://www.redbubble.com/people/traviseaston/writing/2531282-digital-versus-velvia

There is a large group of people that insist that anything, but a CRT is pointless as well.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

Don't know, may be placebo effect of thinking film is better and / or the limitations of your own reproduction gear...

Or...I was just pointing out some things that are objectively true, and that really don't matter to almost everybody.

JR

 

[TanisHalfElven]

Or...I was just pointing out some things that are objectively true, and that really don't matter to almost everybody.

JR

don't bother arguing with alky. He'll only see what he wants to see, and ignore the rest of the facts.