DSLR Popularity

[hakepb]

And 10+ years before Nikon and Ashton, there was Canon and Andre Agassi:
http://www.epinions.com/review/elec.../elec-review-7C78-A43D5AB-392D798E-prod1?sb=1


But yes, in July, I noticed a ton of Canon neck straps with DSLr's hanging from them.

What drives me crazy about the DSLr "craze" is how it filters down to the PnS world ...people that think they need a Bridge style camera to get better pictures, when really an enthusiast camera like the s100 would take better pictures for their needs.

 

[LittleMissMagic]

Okay, I can't be the only one who does this. And though far from an expert photog, I am also not completely clueless. There are many more talented people on this board, but I do know the photographic triangle, how to use the camera on manual, how to use a tripod for long exposures, etc. Still like to check through the pics on the LCD screen often.

I like to check pics on the screen, too. I don't do it after every shot, but usually after I've taken a shot or two in one location just to make sure that everything is working with lighting/composition/etc. This is because I always end up coming home with photos where I'm like, "Dang - if I would've changed X, this photo could be so much better!" And the exceptionally devastating case is when the photo isn't salvagable with post processing. Once, I had been shooting late at night at WDW, and I had bumped up the ISO really high. The next day, we headed to Port Canaveral for our cruise, and it was wonderfully sunny outside... and I had forgotten to turn down the ISO... so all of my photos had ridiculous high ISO noise and many were overexposed. Had I only taken the time to look at a few photos on the LCD screen, I would've realized my mistake sooner!

 

[photo_chick]

And 10+ years before Nikon and Ashton, there was Canon and Andre Agassi:
http://www.epinions.com/review/elec.../elec-review-7C78-A43D5AB-392D798E-prod1?sb=1


But yes, in July, I noticed a ton of Canon neck straps with DSLr's hanging from them.

What drives me crazy about the DSLr "craze" is how it filters down to the PnS world ...people that think they need a Bridge style camera to get better pictures, when really an enthusiast camera like the s100 would take better pictures for their needs.

The Agassi ads started a little longer ago than that. They used Agassi when they launched the Rebel line in 1990. The Rebel G in that link actually came out in '96, which is when I got mine.

I was just looking back at the commercials and the tagline "image is everything" and that really still sums up a mentality that has carried over to DSLR's today. It doesn't matter if you really know how to use the camera, you'll look like you know what you're doing by holding the camera. It worked for Canon because the Rebel was the most popular 35mm SLR for a long time, as well as the most popular DSLR when DSLR's first started to become something non-pros could afford.

And my old Pentax Sv has no scene modes either. It doesn't even have a light meter built in and the only mode is manual.

 

[DSLRuser]

]For me, if video was never on a DSLR, I would never miss it. .

I have never used my video outside of a 30second clip just to make sure it works.

But... if i ever get back into video again, a good DSLR would make a fine camera for it.

 

[havoc315]

Remember, the reason film cameras didn't have scene modes, had nothing to do with the consumers they were trying to attract --- it is more about the technology available. My last film SLR, a Minolta Maxxum, did have some limited scene modes.
A 2012 dSLR has a computer inside it more powerful than the full size home computers that were on the market in the time of most film SLRs, which allows for more powerful scene modes, photo enhancement modes, in-camera post processing, etc. I'm sure a 2012 dSLR has a computer inside it, far more powerful than a Commodore 64.

So it's chicken/egg.. which came first.
Are the camera manufacturers adding easy shooting modes to cameras, in order to attract the broader population.
Or, is the broader population merely being attracted to dSLRs, because the evolution of technology is causing more easy shooting modes to be added.

I'd say it's probably a combination of both.

And I consider myself as having a fair amount of photography knowledge, and I still resort to scene modes sometimes, just for quick ease. (Especially to get a quickie HDR image without the need for post processing, or using the auto-fast-burst rate, which is simpler and faster than changing the drive and doing more manually).

 

[photo_chick]

havoc315 that's a good point. But auto exposure technology has been around since at least the mid 1960's.

 

[Gianna'sPapa]

Remember, the reason film cameras didn't have scene modes, had nothing to do with the consumers they were trying to attract --- it is more about the technology available. My last film SLR, a Minolta Maxxum, did have some limited scene modes.
A 2012 dSLR has a computer inside it more powerful than the full size home computers that were on the market in the time of most film SLRs, which allows for more powerful scene modes, photo enhancement modes, in-camera post processing, etc. I'm sure a 2012 dSLR has a computer inside it, far more powerful than a Commodore 64.

So it's chicken/egg.. which came first.
Are the camera manufacturers adding easy shooting modes to cameras, in order to attract the broader population.
Or, is the broader population merely being attracted to dSLRs, because the evolution of technology is causing more easy shooting modes to be added.

I'd say it's probably a combination of both.

And I consider myself as having a fair amount of photography knowledge, and I still resort to scene modes sometimes, just for quick ease. (Especially to get a quickie HDR image without the need for post processing, or using the auto-fast-burst rate, which is simpler and faster than changing the drive and doing more manually).

The difference is, because of your knowledge, you know when to choose a scene mode to get the desired effect your looking for. I have no problems whatsoever with folks using any scene modes, DSLR's or any camera. The proliferation of DSLR's is a double edged sword. When Feld Entertainment (owner of Disney on Ice and the Circus) was restricting cameras at their venues, I contacted them to get a clarification. Based on the number of people using DSLR's today, they changed their policy that as long as the images were for personal use you could bring pretty much anything you wanted. On the flipside, I've already seen some examples of camera "rudeness". I'm hoping these were isolated incidents and don't cause issues for the future. The last thing we want is for Disney to start placing restrictions on camera use.

 

[havoc315]

havoc315 that's a good point. But auto exposure technology has been around since at least the mid 1960's.

Yes, and every film SLR I owned, had basic auto exposure technology. (ahh... I remember how fast it felt to shoot with ISO 400 film instead of 100-- never imagined I would own a camera with and effective ISO of 25,600).

A lot has changed.
Thinking to the 70's and 80's.... You had 1 home telephone. Possibly 1 home computer (at least by the late 80's). If you were *into* photography, you might have a SLR. The family might own 1 or 2 cameras at most. Polaroid cameras were for instant fun. Many people relied on regular trips to Sears for good quality family portraits.

By the late 80's, early 90's... Definitely had a camera in the household. Some business people who needed them, started to get cell phones, pagers, etc. You started to get some very early basic digital cameras, but they were far off in quality from SLRs. They were just for some fun snap shots. Most people who really liked photography, were still using film cameras. And every pharmacy had a 1-hour photo for quick development.

Fast forward another 10-20 years -- Instead of a family of 4 having 1 home phone line, that family of 4 may have 4-5 phones. Everyone has their own phone, with a built in digital camera. Every household has multiple computers -- desktops, laptops, tablets. Decent quality digital cameras have become so cheap and easy to use, that they are prolific. People can get decent portraits without having to pay a Sears semi-pro. Photo results are instant. And more people view and share their photos online, instead of actually printing them.

Given this evolution, it's not surprising to see more people gravitate to dSLR.

And I have no problem with someone choosing to use a dSLR with minimal knowledge. Their results will still usually be better than a point and shoot.

I DO have a problem when people allow their ignorance to turn into bad photography manners -- such as not turning off the flash in a Disney dark ride.

 

[havoc315]

The difference is, because of your knowledge, you know when to choose a scene mode to get the desired effect your looking for. I have no problems whatsoever with folks using any scene modes, DSLR's or any camera. The proliferation of DSLR's is a double edged sword.

Agree with that. As more people are drawn to photography, it increased the demand, and more companies will compete and invest in innovative products. Thus improving photography for all of us. The advancements in digital photography over the last 5-10 years, are simply amazing.

And a percentage of the new people drawn into photography, will take the time to really learn the craft. Again, good for all of us.

On the downside, the craft can get watered down. People lose respect for high level professional photography, as they think, "Uncle Joe has a digital SLR, he can shoot the party as well as a professional"...
And as said by others, there are people who are just happy with any reasonably clear image, regardless of mediocre composition, blown highlights, poor bokeh -- so its easy to falsely conclude that the pictures by Uncle Joe are just as good as a pro.
Even my DW-- hates "scenery" pics -- Her primary concern is whether everyone is smiling nicely in the picture.
So it's easy to lose appreciation for the craft. I know professional and semi-professional photographers who are struggling or who have left the industry, as the market for their services has shrunk in the last 10 years.

But, I think the pros outweigh the cons. 30 years ago, you had to be a computer "geek" to really own and use a computer. Technology advanced, computers became prolific... to the point where everyone is using them for all sorts of things. And while the computer "geek" may claim he/she misses DOS, I think they have benefited from the advancement in the technology.

 

[photo_chick]

I have fond memories of spending hours typing code into my Atari computer in Basic back in the early 80's just to play a simple game. Only to loose it all when I turned it off because I had no method to save it.

But more to my point.. the technology has been there. It wasn't until camera makers decided to market it to casual photographers (like with the 35mm Rebel) that it started to change who was using SLR cameras. The instant gratification of digital did increase the use of cameras in general exponentially. But you can look back at many of the innovations in photography and see this kind of thing over and over. Go way back to the first Kodak cameras that took photography out of the hands of the "professionals" and put it in the hands of consumers. "You push the button we do the rest". DSLR's are just the current thing. And soon enough the next big thing will come along.

 

[manning]

I think it's the idea that a DSLR=good photos. Manufacturers did a good job convincing the public that they are necessary.

LittleMissMagic-- that used to bother me as well. But I came to the realization that what someone else does has no impact on my work, or what people think of what I do. So who cares if someone is gullible enough to pay for their crap. I'll keep doing my thing and they can do theirs.

Agree. I sometime think some of my best pictures were taken with y first camera, a Brownie.

 

[hakepb]

I have fond memories of spending hours typing code into my Atari computer in Basic back in the early 80's just to play a simple game. Only to loose it all when I turned it off because I had no method to save it.

But more to my point.. the technology has been there. It wasn't until camera makers decided to market it to casual photographers (like with the 35mm Rebel) that it started to change who was using SLR cameras. The instant gratification of digital did increase the use of cameras in general exponentially. But you can look back at many of the innovations in photography and see this kind of thing over and over. Go way back to the first Kodak cameras that took photography out of the hands of the "professionals" and put it in the hands of consumers. "You push the button we do the rest". DSLR's are just the current thing. And soon enough the next big thing will come along.

That was awesome when I finally got a casette recorder for my TI 99/4a and could finally save my programs!

I think the other factor is price. For why my dad paid for his first 2mp Nikon PnS and tele adaptor, I think he could now nearly get a d7000 kit...and entry level DSLr's are now below $500 (which is flat screen or iPad money) so DSLr's are in an affordable range.

 

[photo_chick]

That was awesome when I finally got a casette recorder for my TI 99/4a and could finally save my programs!

I think the other factor is price. For why my dad paid for his first 2mp Nikon PnS and tele adaptor, I think he could now nearly get a d7000 kit...and entry level DSLr's are now below $500 (which is flat screen or iPad money) so DSLr's are in an affordable range.

I remember when we got a cassette recorder for the Atari. Then I'd play back the tapes on a "regular" cassette player to hear the data as sounds.

On the price... look at the prices that appear to have come down as far as DSLR's go. The big 2 manufacturers released a "sub class" of DSLR's that were under the $1000 mark to start with. Nikon did it with the D40 and Canon did it with the Rebel XS. Those lines are stripped down from what the $1000 range entry level lines were. And if you look, a new current model Canon that runs $1000 is the T4i and that follows the line from the original digital Rebel, the Rebel XT, XTi, T1i, T2i... etc. They are all around $1000 when first released. You'll find the same type of thing in the Nikon line with the cameras that are descended from their pre-D40 entry level DSLR's still starting near $1000 when they first come out. So the price hasn't really come down on the line in general they've just stripped down a camera and are selling it for less to get more casual photographers using it. If you look back, this is exactly what Canon did when it released the 35mm Rebel. It was the affordable sub-$1000 SLR that anyone could use.

Other makers do have cheaper prices. But a lot of what they offer follows in line with what Canon and Nikon are doing.

 

[MolonLabe]

I like to check pics on the screen, too. I don't do it after every shot, but usually after I've taken a shot or two in one location just to make sure that everything is working with lighting/composition/etc. This is because I always end up coming home with photos where I'm like, "Dang - if I would've changed X, this photo could be so much better!" And the exceptionally devastating case is when the photo isn't salvagable with post processing. Once, I had been shooting late at night at WDW, and I had bumped up the ISO really high. The next day, we headed to Port Canaveral for our cruise, and it was wonderfully sunny outside... and I had forgotten to turn down the ISO... so all of my photos had ridiculous high ISO noise and many were overexposed. Had I only taken the time to look at a few photos on the LCD screen, I would've realized my mistake sooner!

I spent most of my time in WDW shooting in M after day one.

I think the difference between 'bird dogging' just to see, vs then adjusting the settings are two different things.

As an example, I walked out of enchanted tales with Belles and saw a few really cool shots with that roving couple act they have and after a few shots 'bird dogged' my LCD. It was white, white, white. I forgot to reset my ISO as I walked out of Belle's.

I missed the best shots, some hilarious candids but at least I was able to recover.

Personally, I am no where near enough experienced to shoot in M without checking myself after a shot or two, it isn't ingrained yet. Like the ISO issues I had a few times. I simply forgot about it when in good lighting.

It's a learning process. I feel good for a person when I see them take a few pics, 'bird dog' and then alter their settings.

I do shake my head when they keep trying the same thing expecting different results, but I do that with everything from politics to work, so that's more par for the course

 

[havoc315]

I remember when we got a cassette recorder for the Atari. Then I'd play back the tapes on a "regular" cassette player to hear the data as sounds.

On the price... look at the prices that appear to have come down as far as DSLR's go. The big 2 manufacturers released a "sub class" of DSLR's that were under the $1000 mark to start with. Nikon did it with the D40 and Canon did it with the Rebel XS. Those lines are stripped down from what the $1000 range entry level lines were. And if you look, a new current model Canon that runs $1000 is the T4i and that follows the line from the original digital Rebel, the Rebel XT, XTi, T1i, T2i... etc. They are all around $1000 when first released. You'll find the same type of thing in the Nikon line with the cameras that are descended from their pre-D40 entry level DSLR's still starting near $1000 when they first come out. So the price hasn't really come down on the line in general they've just stripped down a camera and are selling it for less to get more casual photographers using it. If you look back, this is exactly what Canon did when it released the 35mm Rebel. It was the affordable sub-$1000 SLR that anyone could use.

Other makers do have cheaper prices. But a lot of what they offer follows in line with what Canon and Nikon are doing.

Stripped down only when compared to the most current top of the line. A 2012 $500 dSLR will generally exceed the performance and features of a 2005 $1,000 camera. The price point for current top of the line has stayed the same. But that has still allowed the technology to get cheaper overall, to broaden the market. Other than weather sealing, I don't really find $500 cameras lacking.

 

[havoc315]

I "bird dog" fairly often too. I do turn off the auto review. But then I go and review after a series of shots. Largely, so I can delete shots as I go, so I don't have 20 nearly identical shots filling up my memory card, and 1000 shots to go through at the end of the day.

 

[WDWFigment]

With some exceptions. You can tell the folks who don't know what they are doing when they "bird dog" the LCD review after every shot they take.

I will use the LCD to check exposure on 1 or 2 shots for an environment. But I have review turned off and can o hours without looking at the pix in my camera

You're a much better photographer than me, then. I review photos on the LCD screen much more frequently than that.

Now that I know reviewing the LCD screen is the sign of a bad photographer, I'm really going to work on this. Thanks for the help!!!!!!!!!1!!!

 

[BirdsOfPreyDave]

I "bird dog" fairly often too. I do turn off the auto review. But then I go and review after a series of shots. Largely, so I can delete shots as I go, so I don't have 20 nearly identical shots filling up my memory card, and 1000 shots to go through at the end of the day.

I'd actually like to be able to use the LCD screen more than I do, but I haven't figured out the best way to deal with the fact that I can't see the darn thing without fishing a pair of reading glasses out of my pocket. Even when I do, I still can't see the small screen well enough to discern the details of how well I did with the focus or other small nuances in the shot. In Florida, I'll glance at the LCD often to see how bad the "blinkies" are in a particular shot to determine if I need to use some additional compensation. Other than that, though, I really only use it when changing something in the menus. I bought a magnified hood for it, but that's especially awkward to use, and while it does cut down on sun glare on the LCD, still doesn’t give me an excellent view. (The one I bought isn’t strong enough, so I still need to use the reading glasses with it.)

I like to shoot with a somewhat narrow depth of field. I wouldn't be brave enough to delete images from the camera in the field, because with my luck I'd get rid of the one shot where I'd caught the focus perfectly as intended. I really can't see my photos properly until I get them up in Lightroom on a large screen.

I'm surprised no one has commented yet in this thread about how many of the people who buy expensive DSLRs (and even P&S) never realize the actual benefits of the money they spent because they never take time to actually read the manual. I'm amazed, sometimes, when friends who I know have nice cameras will show me a photo album where they've posted really, really awful pictures -- even those that are terribly out of focus. From an artistic and technical perspective, their use of the camera was a failure. But, it served their purpose to capture the moment. (In those cases, they probably would have been just as happy with the results of using their phone or tablet to take the photos.)

Even though the tools are becoming more common between the two groups, I think there will always be a distinction between those who are trying to create art through photography and those who just want to take snapshots. Unfortunately for those of you who make a living with photography, many people don't have discerning taste as to where in the spectrum of art-versus-snapshot their results fall. So yeah, Uncle Joe with his Rebel will start taking away some paying jobs. Don't fret about it too much, though, some of them are probably the same people who would have been satisfied to just swipe the grainy watermarked proofs off your web site instead of purchasing anything.

 

[havoc315]

I'd actually like to be able to use the LCD screen more than I do, but I haven't figured out the best way to deal with the fact that I can't see the darn thing without fishing a pair of reading glasses out of my pocket. Even when I do, I still can't see the small screen well enough to discern the details of how well I did with the focus or other small nuances in the shot. In Florida, I'll glance at the LCD often to see how bad the "blinkies" are in a particular shot to determine if I need to use some additional compensation. Other than that, though, I really only use it when changing something in the menus. I bought a magnified hood for it, but that's especially awkward to use, and while it does cut down on sun glare on the LCD, still doesn’t give me an excellent view. (The one I bought isn’t strong enough, so I still need to use the reading glasses with it.)

I like to shoot with a somewhat narrow depth of field. I wouldn't be brave enough to delete images from the camera in the field, because with my luck I'd get rid of the one shot where I'd caught the focus perfectly as intended. I really can't see my photos properly until I get them up in Lightroom on a large screen.
.

The benefit of a high resolution LCD and/or EVF.

Yes, there is the danger of deleting good shots. And I only use the LCD for an initial weeding out of shots. For example, I shoot my kids doing Tae Kwon Do at a burst rate of 10 fps. It's not unusually for me to get 100 shots in just 2 or 3 minutes. So I tried to weed those 100 down to 25. Then once in Lightroom, from 25 down to the top 5 or 6. I've tried to get better about not having too many of the same shot.

 

[photo_chick]

Stripped down only when compared to the most current top of the line. A 2012 $500 dSLR will generally exceed the performance and features of a 2005 $1,000 camera. The price point for current top of the line has stayed the same. But that has still allowed the technology to get cheaper overall, to broaden the market. Other than weather sealing, I don't really find $500 cameras lacking.

I'm going to disagree slightly here. If you're comparing ISO to ISO, yes. But it's about more than just ISO. Having used a Rebel XT and a Rebel XS side by side, the XT is still more capable camera as far as features and the build quality is noticeably better than the XS. Whether or not someone finds a stripped down camera lacking is really a matter of what an individual photographer needs from a camera. But no, I don't think most casual photographers will find the bare bones entry level cameras lacking at all. They have all that you need to take control of the shot.

Technology has gotten cheaper. And yet the prices for the line are still in the same ballpark. My point was that when the makers decided to court the casual photographers they released a cheaper camera rather than lower prices on what they already had. It was a calculated move to broaden their consumer base.