dSLR obsolete?

[PoohJen]

should I throw away my XT?

pass the popcorn...

I came across this statement in a consumer's reveiw for the S3 (which, by the way, I have been seriously considering as a back up/alternative use to my rebel):

OPINION: EVFs are better than SLRs because SLRs don't do video, and I've grown very attached to that - it really adds pizzazz to a slideshow (now on DVD). SLRs are obsolete. The clunky mirror mechanism was needed in a film world, but not in digital - LCDs (even on the cheapest cameras) do exactly what SLRs do - view through the recording lens. However, EFV LCDs still need improvement (real time is still better), but that will come in time.

he must know better than me, since I can't even figure out what EVF stands for. rats, and I was becoming so attached to my XT and all my expensive little lenses and stuff...did I just get sucked in by the hype?!!!

 

[DisneyGirl4188]

He's kidding, right? Statements like that make me want to smile, pat them on the head, and walk away.

I think the S3 is a great camera, but I would much rather keep my K100d.

 

[deletedpenguin]

Can you link the article? I find this very hard to believe.

 

[YEKCIM]

When someone figures out how to put a full frame sensor inside a camera the size of an S3IS, with a *quality* 24-450mm equivalent image stabilized macro zoom, ISO from 100 to decent quality 3200, live preview, hot shoe, and built in wireless text messaging, then the days of the DSLR are numbered. In other words, don't hold your breath.

~YEKCIM

 

[alan]

Well, what he says me be controversial but not entirely incorrect.

EVF means "electronic viewfinder".

In a dSLR, what you see through the viewfinder is what the sensor "sees". This is achieved by having a mirror in one position when the picture is not being taken (thus sending the image to the viewfinder) and in a different position when the picture is actually being taken (allowing the image to pass through to the sensor).

Frankly, that seems really clumsy. Modern technology is all about solid-state operation, where things do not move. Operations can be faster when nothing has to move. Devices can be more reliable when nothing has to move.

So in one sense, the poster is right that dSLRs should be obsolete. The only probelm is that nothing has yet proven to be better. Electronic viewfinders offer one possible approach, but many serious photographers feel that they do not offer a sharp enough image for them to be sure that a photograph is correctly focused.

The dSLR is not yet obsolete, but it does have distinct limitations. Many people are encouraged by advertising to buy it when they would be much better off with something like the S3IS. But there are still many photographs that can today only be captured with a dSLR.

regards,
/alan

 

[PoohJen]

not an article (didn't mean to mislead you!), a customer reveiw on Amazon; posted just today: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000EMWBV0/ref=ord_cart_shr/104-0303616-9061535?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

I understood that he was talking about the viewfinder, but found it to be a bit of an overstatement by not taking in other benefits/features/quality that draw photographers to dSLRs. I think having a quick video option is cool - and useful - but can't fully replace a true video cam.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

That sounds really silly.

I love my S3 ... it's a *great* camera; especially when you consider that you can get it for less than $350! But, you really can't compare the quality of its pictures to those of a DSLR -- at least not at High ISO in low-light conditions!

Being able to take high-quality stereo video *is* nice, but it doesn't compare to taking high-quality images (especially at night). I will probably end up taking more video clips than I expected when I bought it, but the main focus will still be on still images.

The huge sensor in a DSLR, alone, tops pretty much any features that the S3 (or any P&S) has!

Now ... if only Canon made an S3 with a DSLR's sensor....

 

[YEKCIM]

not an article (didn't mean to mislead you!), a customer reveiw on Amazon; posted just today: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000EMWBV0/ref=ord_cart_shr/104-0303616-9061535?%5Fencoding=UTF8&m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&v=glance

Well, that certainly puts it in perspective...

~YEKCIM

 

[JR6ooo4]

Plus to get a EVF as clear as the mirror/lens combo of a DSLR I would imagine the display would be a considerable percentage cost of the entire camera when they should be focusing the production costs on the sensor and software/hardware for best results.

I love getting "Slapped" each shot. I feel like such a pro.
But then again my wife has her S3 set to "bark" for the shutter sound, and that is kind of cool as well. Hehehheee

MIkeeee

 

[ktulu]

It sounds like someone who doesn't want to drop the $$$$ on a dslr and is justifying his purchase to himself

 

[deletedpenguin]

It sounds like someone who doesn't want to drop the $$$$ on a dslr and is justifying his purchase to himself

Agreed.

 

[handicap18]

That is a laughable review.

 

[Furgus]

How about this article?

"First, most of the major camera manufacturers that are now associated with still photography will probably be out of business by 2016. Of the majors now selling cameras, I would put my money on only Canon to survive."

 

[Anewman]

Features over image quality, if that is what you want this review is right on.

I put more value on image quality, but that is just me.

 

[jann1033]

funny this should come up now...i was just on another site where if you download so many photos you get a free photobook and since i'm all about free you can guess what i was doing there...anyway you can vote and a photo of the day wins...hard to believe the carp that has won which leads me to believe there will always be people who buy a lousy p&s, don't care what the color, sharpness, composition etc etc is as long as there is a green tinged grandma flattened up against the nearest wall smack dab in the center of the photo with a lamp growing out of her head... and then there will always be us neurotic perfectionist types who want a dslr

(not saying all p&s are lousy, just some people don't care)

 

[MarkBarbieri]

should I throw away my XT?

pass the popcorn...

I came across this statement in a consumer's reveiw for the S3 (which, by the way, I have been seriously considering as a back up/alternative use to my rebel):

OPINION: EVFs are better than SLRs because SLRs don't do video, and I've grown very attached to that - it really adds pizzazz to a slideshow (now on DVD). SLRs are obsolete. The clunky mirror mechanism was needed in a film world, but not in digital - LCDs (even on the cheapest cameras) do exactly what SLRs do - view through the recording lens. However, EFV LCDs still need improvement (real time is still better), but that will come in time.

he must know better than me, since I can't even figure out what EVF stands for. rats, and I was becoming so attached to my XT and all my expensive little lenses and stuff...did I just get sucked in by the hype?!!!

I don't entirely disagree with him. I suspect that mirrors and viewfinders will go away someday. That day just isn't here yet.

One of the big advantages of a DSLR over a P&S is the shutter. It allows the camera to keep the sensor completely uncharged and ready to shoot. With a P&S that uses the same sensor or the EVF (Electronic ViewFinder), it must drop the charge on the sensor to prepare it for grabbing the picture. That's what causes the "shutter lag". I assume that problem will eventually be solved.

Another advantage of DSLRs is that the viewfinder provides a much higher resolution and color accurate rendering of the scene than any EVF on the market today. Again, I suspect that EVF's will eventually take the lead in that area as well.

Another advantage of a real-time EVF is that, for flashless photos, it could give you a real-time histogram super-imposed on your view. That would make setting exposure a lot easier and more accurate.

I really do think that the future belongs to EVFs rather than pentaprisms, pellical mirrors, and other rube goldberg schemes. They're not nearly there yet, but keep your eyes open - they will be someday.

Of course, the viewfinder/EVF is just one small piece of the pie. Optics and sensor sizes will always favor larger cameras over smaller cameras. Still, someday you'll see a 1D Mark X that sports a full-time EVF as the primary means for composing a shot.

 

[ktulu]

I think the biggest will be how we stand and hold the camera when we take the photos. I can't imagine going to a sporting event in the future and watch the photogs there holding their cameras out looking at the LCD, just like the soccer mom in the stands taking a picture of little Johnny at his first game

 

[Groucho]

How about this article?

"First, most of the major camera manufacturers that are now associated with still photography will probably be out of business by 2016. Of the majors now selling cameras, I would put my money on only Canon to survive."

Is it impolite of me to say that this guy's a freakin' moron? (And that has nothing to do with his claim that only Canon will survive or that Sony will be the top still camera company.) I can only hope that he's just trying to generate controversy to get his name known and get a raise, because surely, no one could be that silly. "Boosting" a 2mp photo to 16mp? Give me a break! Magazines bound at the top instead of the side? Not in my lifetime! News websites featuring video exclusively? Bleah! Tiny video with an unskippable ad beforehand - no thanks; if I want video, I'll watch CNN.

The original quoted "review" at Amazon is pretty dumb, too. Good luck trying to get a good photo at night or a moving object with no flash, or a flash picture of humans/animals with no red-eye, or a fisheye photo, or a small DoF photo, or a real wide-angle, or any number of other things that can't be done.

If someone really wanted to make such an argument (that DSLRs are doomed), they should probably be pushing something more like a digital rangefinder than a PnS.

I did like the EVFs on my two PnS cameras, though, much better than the little featureless "window" found on 3-4x zoom PnS cameras. And I do like how a couple cameras can zoom into the center of the picture (when looking at the LCD) to help you adjust manual focus before taking a photo.

Perhaps the future will be a twin-lens reflex - using what is basically a cut-down PnS lens to simulate what the full-size lens will take. You'd use the output from that to compose the photo. Or perhaps still a mirror arrangement, but with a PnS-size sensor instead of the eyepiece. Such a setup would also allow the taking of video using this smaller sensor. This would probably be a better solution than the way Olympus has been going, while apparently leads to a very small and dim "true" viewfinder in order to feed the "live LCD" view.

Of course, there are still plenty of photographers out there who like using film, and/or rangefinders, and/or medium/large-format... the photography world is a lot bigger than just news photographers who require speed over almost everything else.