DSLRs will be made obsolete by fixed lens cameras

[Shooter]

My hope is that this thread will not descend into personal attacks and actually be a constructive discussion.

For the past while I've been thinking about this and now I have come to believe that dSLRs will be replaced by fixed lens systems, at least for most people including the majority of SLR owners and the 'never will leave' types on this site. And I also believe that this will happen sooner than we might otherwise think...

I know, some people have been saying this for a long time, and I never believed it or put more than a passing thought into it. When I did start to think about it seriously, a few months ago, I was quickly reverted by the new D70s reviews and then the D50 was on the horizon. And I'll be the first to admit that another consumer SLR will be announced, probably within a couple months, that will have me questioning this thread all over again.

The Sensor!

Where to start? Well digital cameras all boil down to the sensor/ccd/cmos, so probably there. Megapixels are going up, we all know this, but SLR owners make the first mistake here 1): "by cramming more pixels in to the new digicams, they are going to introduce more noise / artefacts". The second part is a little tougher: 2) "the smaller sensor size means better pictures will be taken on SLRS."

Well, first lets visit how incredibly camera technology is progressing (I know, boring lesson number 7 :)).

South Korea has 43 models of Cameraphone with at least 1 MP (and many 3 MP models):
http://www.wirelessmoment.com/2004/11/south_korea_has.html

Upcoming 3.2 megapixel cameraphone with 3x optical zoom:
http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000650026508/

We only need to look at the noise performance of current point and shoot vs those of two years ago (!) to see that more pixels causes more noise = false stament. Not only that but the dSLRs from entry to professional level already disprove this thought. They are progressing in all areas of sensors... when you add 1 +2 you get 3, that is that sensors are getting smaller, more megapixels, with lower noise and better performance. Yes, we already know this... the point is where this is leading (or where it is already).

Aside: I first read about Fuji's superCCD a long time ago and dismissed it as marketing hype, but later I read a site that compared two cameras (E500 and E510, maybe even this site! (great site Jeff :))) and found that it made a significant difference. Now they are on generation 5 of this technology. Believe me, I'm an engineer, and there's nothing we like better than when our bosses say "ok good job on the last one we made money with it, but back to the drawing boards, we want you to make it better!" and this has already happened 5 times!

OK obviously no one is going to dispute the remarkable progress of the past five years, but dSLR owners seem to put it aside slightly. Please no comments about "wow technology is getting better! You're a genius!!" Cause I know :) Anyways...

The key part about this whole sensor section is the difference factor, that is the difference between dSLRs and fixed lens, with dSLRs having bigger sensors. This way for a given technology the SLR will have more pixels, making it better. Or from another perspective, with a given pixel count the SLR will be able to use bigger and better pixel picker-uppers, making quality better.

But here's the thing... pixel picker-uppers are getting smaller AND better, a trend that is completely obvious (see rambling above). Soon the advantage with SLRs will only be more megapixels because they have a bigger sensor. Ie think backwards: the same sensor in a professional level SLR will have just have lower MP in a top tier consumer camera.

And it is obvious to everyone today that for most applications megapixel count is not going to be a factor in the near future. Over time, there will be 6,9,11 MP sensors at the same quality as a 8, 12, or 15 MP dSLR respectively. Remember we are talking about sensors only, not the whole camera. Well you see instantly that dSLRS are getting a smaller and smaller benefit: 50% less than 20MP is still 10MP, 50% less than 1GP is still 500MP... somewhere along the line most people (and most of us!) will not need the larger sensor, and it's a lot closer to the first example than it is to the second.

Time for a break... ok I have another coffee (yes I am a bit excited :)). What about lenses?

The Lenses!

Well here's another thing... small sensors are better than big sensors when it comes to lenses (at least in most ways). Smaller sensors reduce the focal length. This is why you have bigger zoom ranges for fixed lens digicams compared to dSLRs. Show me an F2.8 super zoom on an APS or full frame sensor. They are big, they are expensive, if they even exist. I needed to add the big writing so that this long thread wasn't so boring :)

Now, depth of field is definately the critical short coming of smaller sensors and smaller focal lengths. I believe two things: depth of field is a huge trend right now that will die down and sharp pictures will pick back up. This however, is no excuse because we do still want that control. I think the control is provided sufficienlty by Sony R1 sized cameras and that this is the reason these cameras will not shrink TOO far down. By using wide apertures this control will still be kept to sufficient levels. Those few that want to use medium format film cameras or 35 mm digital so that they can put a nice building in focus but the skyline behind it out of focus will still be able to do that, but it's not really for the rest of us. Depth of field control at macro level, at portrait level, and at shorter distances on sports fields is good enough for me. And in photoshop you can select the central element, inverse select, and add blur... not too tough to simulate depth of field in those other cases.

The rest!

Part three is the whole shebang... the package. I think in this area the fixed lens cameras will also excel. 1) No mirror lets you preview on LCD. I personally do this whenever I can, I wear glasses, and my framing has simply gotten much better from my film SLR to my p/s digital. 2) smaller camera due to lens being close to sensor, also resulting in other benefits such as focal lenth. 3) no dust on sensor to send for cleaning.

4) price.... this is a big one. One lens, one camera, is obviously going to be cheaper on average for a zoom range that you want. Furthermore, I believe that in order to stay ahead, dSLRs and in particular lenses will get more expensive. See the cost of Image stabilized zoom lenses? While I admit that there has been downward pressure on SLR prices due to competition, I believe this can only get so far. I don't think it will ever be possible for an SLR system to match the price and zoom range of a superzoom, simply because of the added complexity. And I think that the dSLRs are a bit deceptive in the quality of pictures you get with the kit lens, Canon wants you to know that you can always get better pictures when you up the budget and buy more lenses.

Related to the concept of price is the 'investment in a lens system will cost less over the long run' idea. I dislike when SLR enthusiasts talk about kit lenses or 'you only need one or two lenses' or 3rd party flashes when it comes to all price discussions, but then turn around and talk about Canon IS zooms and SB800 flash and having ten lenses in your bag when the topic is quality. These are not apples to apples... we need to be more consistent when talking about money. A two lens, flash, D70s camera for me here in Canada will cost something like 2500-3000 dollars. A new superzoom will cost me 900 dollars. Three years down the road I buy a new superzoom for another 900 or a new Camera body for 600... what savings! Even if you could squeeze 300 savings out this way it would take 7 time periods, or 21 years, to recoup the investment.

So, while the investment aspect is and will be true for the super telephoto lenses that run $5000+, I can't help but think that lens technology is changing too and that the number of generations people get out of their lenses today might be lower than they expect.

5) lighter... more likely to be brought along rather than left behind.

6) no lens swapping while that bear is running away across the field towards the tree line.

Now the issue becomes... we aren't there yet. In this area I agree! That was more pointless enlargement to help break up this post. :)

But I think we can all mark our calendars this fall because this is when the line is crossed. The new Sony, the new Fuji, these are actually better than the entry SLR with kit lens. The dSLRs CAN be made better than these cameras but you need to spend more money, above already spending more money. This fall the dSLRs go from being increasing return on investment to decreasing.

Last but not least... the naysayers. Today there are people who shoot on 4*5 film or 11*17 film or whatever. This is fine. Other people want 180 degree wide angle and 800mm telephoto. This is also fine... there are different levels of enthusiast and those that have this equipment will certainly take better pictures than I will!

And don't worry, if you invest or have invested in a lens and camera system now you will get years out of it and by the end I'm sure you'll think it's worth it. I'm not picking on anyone and saying you made a wrong choice. In fact I think it's still a good choice today for those that are willing to budget more money towards their hobby.

To wrap things up let me ask the SLR owners out there... why APS sized sensors? They have lower quality, less MP, more noise compared to 35mm sensors. TRUE enthusiasts might argue that we need bigger sensors... I want a 4*5" digital sensor! Well the reason for APS sized is that it allows better cheaper lenses and lower cost, smaller camera bodies and more portability... please go back to line 1 of this ridiculous post :D

Now, I have kept the discussion mostly free of specific technologies and specific cameras. In fact, I haven't said anything new! I now admit to myself that I could have come to this conclusion 3-4 years ago simply by observing the trends and extrapolating the technology curve.

I believe that dSLRs will still gain in popularity and sell well. Probably increasing sales into next year when other manufacturers response to s9000 and Sony R1 come online. At that time the combination of the new cameras and word of mouth will result in DSLRs starting the decline.

Convergence... it's the wave of the future!

Looking forward to replies! If you read my whole post, thanks cause it was a bit of work!

[ReF]

To wrap things up let me ask the SLR owners out there... why APS sized sensors? They have lower quality, less MP, more noise compared to 35mm sensors. TRUE enthusiasts might argue that we need bigger sensors... I want a 4*5" digital sensor! Well the reason for APS sized is that it allows better cheaper lenses and lower cost, smaller camera bodies and more portability... please go back to line 1 of this ridiculous post

I have to respond to this part first:

Why aps size? Because from my understanding large sensors are still considered advanced technology and are therefore difficult and expensive to manufacture. that’s why canon and sony are the only ones making these sensors (medium format digital backs are also available from other companies but you need mad dollars to buy one and the medium format equipment/system is also expensive). Full frame sensors are even more expensive and difficult to make than aps sensors, so right now only the aps sensors are available on reasonably affordable cameras. There ARE full frame sensors available if you want them, and have the $$$. I don’t think the camera companies deliberately went with the aps size over 35mm if there wasn’t a technology barrier. i also don't agree that the aps/digital only lenses are any better. as an example i think people would agree that they would be happier with a 16-35 lens on 35mm than 10-22 on aps. the 10-22 is only cheaper than the 16-35 cuz it's not good enough to be called an L. it seems fairly difficult to make wide angle slr lenses for the aps sensor while good wide angle lenses for full frame have been around for a while.

I get to you later on the rest. Hey and I’m crossing my fingers and hoping that nobody is going to start throwing feces here on this thread

[Chucko]

No, I didn't read through your whole rant. ;) But I'd like to address a couple of points.

First, the reason for APS-C sized sensors on DSLRs is simply that full size (36 x 24 mm) sensors have been too expensive to make. The fact that telephoto users effectively get extra focal length in the bargain is a side effect. Sure, the bean-counters would love to decrease the size of their lenses, but I think that only cuts material cost and not processing costs.

Pixel size is not a red herring. According to some informed observers, much of the noise at high ISO is already attributable to quantum randomness in the number of photons falling on a pixel! Smaller pixel sizes also mean a lens is diffraction-limited at a larger aperture. Even a modern APS-C sized sensor begins to see diffraction limiting about f/8. You can't cheat quantum physics; bigger pixels translate directly into lower noise and sharper pictures.

Where a P&S has an advantage - assuming identical sensors - is with wide-angle lenses. The mirror box of a DSLR gets in the way of a straightforward wide-angle optical design.

For telephoto geeks like me, the advantage of a DSLR is the ease of changing lenses. Put another way: the primary disadvantage of a P&S is that I'm stuck with the lens the manufacturer installed. I like the ability to swap a monster 300 mm f/2.8 onto my DSLR when the situation requires it. I can buy as much lens as I need now, and buy more when I can afford it. I can use the same camera for wide angle and telephoto shots, and only swap the lens. I'm investing in a lens collection, and the camera body is a small fraction of the total cost of the kit.

In this light, any advice that a DSLR owner 'can get by with just 1 or 2 lenses' is like a drug dealer saying the first dose is half price!

Now I think there may be a place for non-reflex digicams with interchangeable lenses. Such a design could do away with all the mechanics between the back of the lens and the sensor - no mirror box, and an electronic shutter for higher flash sync speeds. This would require either electronic viewfinders or separate optical viewfinders (in which you can't be sure that the lens sees what you do!). These would bring about a whole new set of compromises.

Why isn't this happening now? The major DSLR makers have invested billions of dollars in tooling and design for SLR-format lenses is the big reason. You'd need to come up with a whole new family of lenses that isn't compatible with anything in existence today. Also, let's face it, many serious photographers are conservative, and won't give up their WYSIWYG reflex viewfinders. There's something reassuring about feeling that mirror hit the stops when the shutter is operated.

So there's a non-insulting response for you. :D I hope it gives you food for thought.

[Shooter]

Yeah I didn't really like the way my subject line is truncated... it says DSLRs will be made obsolete... which is a bit of a strong statement when I really mean that my opinion is about fixed lens cameras as much as dSLRs. :)

But ReF, your response is what I agree with... APS digital SLRs are cheaper but require some compromises (picture quality). Fixed lens cameras are much cheaper, and now require fewer and fewer compromises compared to said APS sized dSLRs. My feeling is that the comparison now shows they are equal (ie fixed lens has caught up).

edit: removed yet another summary statement (i'm bad at those)

Chucko you snuck your post in right before me...

[ReF]

Alright, here’s my reply. There are just way too many topics for me to point out what I’m responding to, so things below are a bit jumbled up and out of order. two new replies have also been posted while i was typing this up so pardon me if i repeat any points already mentioned.

While the new cameras of the future may make the current slrs obsolete, I believe that slrs will make the same jumps in technology to keep ahead of the point and shoot pack at least for a good while.

I also think this would be a good time to differentiate the “prosumer” cameras from the “point and shoot” group. Prosumer cameras are big and can accommodate a large sensors, but since compact size is “in” for point and shoots, the large sensors might not come as soon as we hope. Seems more reasonable to introduce slightly bigger (maybe up to double the surface area) sensors on point and shoots than to jump up to aps size. I also don’t think there is much demand from the point and shoot crowd for aps or similar sized sensors.

Most fixed lens prosumer cameras will definitely be having aps sensors soon. But the problem with fixed lens cameras, is the FIXED LENS. Want really wide angle? Can’t do it.
Want to use a prime? Can’t do it.
Use faster than aperture than f2.8? Nope.
Attach a super telephoto? Nope.
Attach extension tubes? Nope.
Macro feature? We’ll see on this one.
Sure there are wide angle and tele converters, but all of these means adding layers of glass which reduce optical quality. The current organization of add-on lenses isn’t all that great either. Many add-ons are obscure, difficult to find, expensive, and may not be usable on your next camera. Let’s not forget that you will be paying for that nice lens that comes on the R1, and that it will stay on the R1 when the R2 or the competition makes the R1 obsolete. And how often will that happen, every 1 or 2 years? How long has it been since any of the good/popular slr lenses have been replaced? And even if they replace lets say the canon 70-200 f2.8 or the Nikon 80-200 f2.8 does that mean that your great lens suddenly sucks? Heck no! the canon 80-200 f2.8 and 28-70 (or is it 75?)f2.8 still kick some serious butt, and are still worth quite a few $$$. How much can you sell a canon G5 for?

Sports and fast action shooters are gonna need those extra frames per second and powerful buffers, which all cost $$$. Putting those features on a 10MP camera with nice fixed lens and selling for under $1000 is out of the question. And you KNOW that resolution will only increase so having enough buffer to handle five to eight 10MP+ shots in RAW every second is going to be cutting edge technology a while. Did y’all notice that the 8mp canon 1DmkII/n costs more than the full frame 12.8mp 5D? Ya know why?

Lets not forget that the prices for dslrs are getting lower all the time. Pretty soon the basic ones are going to be dirt cheap because downsizing technology need not be applied to these types of cameras, AND you can still change the lenses if you want. Lets also not forget that affordable dslrs will eventually have full frame sensors when the technology comes down in price. So lets take it a step further and also say that fixed lens cams follow with full frame sensors. How much then would it cost for a company to make a fixed lens to cover a full frame? Could they keep the package under $1000? Fixed lenses certainly can’t go below 5x zoom if they want to compete with an interchangeable lens system, so it may prove difficult to keep costs down in the lens department.

I don’t quite understand your lens system investment return…thinking. First off, a $600 super zoom does not = a $1000 fixed lens APS sensor camera. If I bought an XT for $800 and lets say tamron 28-75 f2.8, canon 17-40L, and canon 70-200 f4 for a total of $1637 (379+679+579) then I am covering from 27.2mm-320mm with excellent qualityy(sure to be equal to or better than a 5x lens). When I upgrade bodies in a year or two, the cost of the body goes to waste but I’ve saved $1637 on lenses. I don’t see why it would take that long to recoup my costs. It’s also nearly impossible at this point to compare apple to apples.

Optical viewfinder vs. LCD is a matter of personal preference.

“I believe two things: depth of field is a huge trend right now that will die down and sharp pictures will pick back up. This however, is no excuse because we do still want that control”
I really don’t get this statement. Please elaborate or restate.

Maybe a change in the design and position of the mirror in slrs will benefit the system, but I’m not quite sure the existing lenses will still work. And if they don’t I’ll bet the manufacturers aren’t willing to lose all that money on their lenses and spend more $$$ on designing new ones.

In the end, it all comes down to profit. So far dSLRs make more money for the manufacturers than point and shoots, so if anything, they might hold back the better prosumer cams and/or keep the dSLRs a step or two ahead so they can keep raking in the $$$. Lets also not forget that sony will be making dslrs soon so I’m pretty sure they don’t want to cut into their own profits much. With that, we can count on Sony not being the company that pushes prosumer camera technology into dslr killers

i hope nobody took any offense to what i had to say

[jcw122]

Wow what a thread...and no...Sensors arn't everything...in many situations the Lenses are THE most important part of a camera. Reason is they do the work, whereas the body just controls the light.

[Shooter]

Excellent posts ReF and Chucko, thanks for the discussion items.

I agree that SLRs will get better to keep ahead... they have to or else they won't be ahead. And especially in terms of 1000 dollars, as of this fall they aren't ahead.

Interesting that you choose that lens package ReF... you have a camera and lens system for $2437. The camera is a decent quality consumer slr and the lens covers 28-300mm, from f2.8-f4 (and over?) without IS but with good quality.

The fuji S9000... and remember my point in this thread isn't any one camera but about general fixed lenses in the future. The fuji also has 28-300mm and it too is f2.8, with the longer end at a very reasonable f4.9. The camera is 9MP and takes good quality photos. The price... $700. It has a 0.4 inch macro also.

So in my mind and in the mind of many people approaching the industry fresh, ie potential new customers, you are paying $1737 for... better high ISO performance (although 800 is decent for the Fuji) and a bigger, heavier camera that requires cleaning and switching lenses and makes you look a little more professional. :cool:

So in a way you are helping to make my point... to be better than the prosumer cams, like dSLRS are supposed to be, you will need lenses you don't even list in your 2400 dollar package. This disconnect is big, and it's only going to get bigger.

The downward pressure on dSLR pricing is starting to take its toll. I haven't heard too much positive about the kit lenses for either the D50 or the Rebel Xt. If you suggest they will get cheaper then that's a bad thing, not a good thing.

So if 1) SLRs can't get cheaper, but 2) need to be better than the top fixed lens, but 3) can't get more expensive (face it, a lens over 2400 is a lot) then where do they go? Well it's my realization that they go down in market share.

Aside: I think a lot of people buy dSLRs and never buy another lens. I mean, look at Bestbuy, they sell the cameras but no lenses (and believe me they sell a lot of them too). There is the market of gadget guys that want 'the best' without really doing the research.

My point about the investment aspect is that it is on shaky grounds logically and numerically with these new cameras out. It is a valid concept when you are talking about ultra expensive, but most on this board do not have $5000 lenses.

I guess a fundamental part of my argument is price. People are willing to devote their disposable income to whatever they want, be it golf clubs, cars, or lenses. Believe me I do not begrudge photographers who spend theirs on lenses that cost more than I am willing to pay. I'm actually a bit jealous. But I think the incremental cost and benefit gained from dSLRs is taking a big hit this year.

[erichlund]

We only need to look at the noise performance of current point and shoot vs those of two years ago (!) to see that more pixels causes more noise = false stament.
Actually, this is a false statement. For a given technology, more pixels per unit area = more noise. Improve the technology, and you get less noise for a given density, but increase the density with the same technology and you will exceed the capability of the technology to prevent crossover noise.




And it is obvious to everyone today that for most applications megapixel count is not going to be a factor in the near future. Over time, there will be 6,9,11 MP sensors at the same quality as a 8, 12, or 15 MP dSLR respectively. Remember we are talking about sensors only, not the whole camera. Well you see instantly that dSLRS are getting a smaller and smaller benefit: 50% less than 20MP is still 10MP, 50% less than 1GP is still 500MP... somewhere along the line most people (and most of us!) will not need the larger sensor, and it's a lot closer to the first example than it is to the second.

But, you and I won't decide what is enough. The market will decide that. If you have the perfect answer now, then you are going to be a rich man, because you know exactly where to put your money.


Well here's another thing... small sensors are better than big sensors when it comes to lenses (at least in most ways). Smaller sensors reduce the focal length. This is why you have bigger zoom ranges for fixed lens digicams compared to dSLRs. Show me an F2.8 super zoom on an APS or full frame sensor. They are big, they are expensive, if they even exist.
Have you noticed how even the fixed lens cameras with the best glass are the one's with the biggest glass? If you have used any professional grade glass, you know it's about more than the speed. The complexity of the lens allows the designer to correct many defects in simpler lens designs, resulting in better color accuracy and contrast, while reducing distortions. This is much easier to do well on big glass. Because small lenses don't have a lot to work with, the engineering tolerances need to be much tighter to get the same result as with a large lens.



Now, depth of field is definately the critical short coming of smaller sensors and smaller focal lengths. I believe two things: depth of field is a huge trend right now that will die down and sharp pictures will pick back up.
Now, them's fightin' words. Never. Depth of field always has been and always will be a critical aspect of photography. If now, why not make lenses with a single large focal length and concentrate on faster and faster shutters to compensate for too much light? Really, this will never go away. It is a major aspect of photographic creativity, as it is the ability to exclude unwanted clutter from a photo and concentrate on the subject (or, in the case of landscape photography, to bring everything into focus).


This however, is no excuse because we do still want that control. I think the control is provided sufficienlty by Sony R1 sized cameras and that this is the reason these cameras will not shrink TOO far down. By using wide apertures this control will still be kept to sufficient levels. Those few that want to use medium format film cameras or 35 mm digital so that they can put a nice building in focus but the skyline behind it out of focus will still be able to do that, but it's not really for the rest of us. Depth of field control at macro level, at portrait level, and at shorter distances on sports fields is good enough for me. And in photoshop you can select the central element, inverse select, and add blur... not too tough to simulate depth of field in those other cases.
Since the R1 has an APS size sensor, the glass to accomplish a given result is the same as required on an SLR. Same sensor, same glass. However, because the camera has a fixed lens, there's no way to change it to a really wide angle or a very long telephoto without serious consequences to photo quality. Adaptors just won't provide the performance that a properly designed lens will, plus they eat light. And, I don't think I'd want to carry the 400-600mm version around as my everyday shooter. So, you say get closer? Changes perspective AND if the subject is across the bay, it's a long wet walk. As for photoshop, that's a lot of work when all I need to do is put on a faster lens and open it up.


Part three is the whole shebang... the package. I think in this area the fixed lens cameras will also excel. 1) No mirror lets you preview on LCD. I personally do this whenever I can, I wear glasses, and my framing has simply gotten much better from my film SLR to my p/s digital. 2) smaller camera due to lens being close to sensor, also resulting in other benefits such as focal lenth. 3) no dust on sensor to send for cleaning.
All good reasons for smaller cameras to exist. None are SLR killers. Lot's of people manage to take good photos by looking through the little lens at the back of the camera. I don't frame with the LCD even when using my wife's p/s. SLR is the most live preview, especially if your camera has depth of field preview.


4) price.... this is a big one. One lens, one camera, is obviously going to be cheaper on average for a zoom range that you want. Furthermore, I believe that in order to stay ahead, dSLRs and in particular lenses will get more expensive. See the cost of Image stabilized zoom lenses? While I admit that there has been downward pressure on SLR prices due to competition, I believe this can only get so far. I don't think it will ever be possible for an SLR system to match the price and zoom range of a superzoom, simply because of the added complexity. And I think that the dSLRs are a bit deceptive in the quality of pictures you get with the kit lens, Canon wants you to know that you can always get better pictures when you up the budget and buy more lenses.
You keep talking about super zooms, but your prime camera size was the R1. A super zoom R1.x would be a very heavy camera, especially if you are going to keep the lens fast. Oh, and I suspect it would be pretty expensive. Think of putting the quality of a Nikkor 70-200VR f/2.8 on a super zoom, only now you want to extend the range out around 400mm and have the wide end down around 24mm so with the APS-C size, you would need a 16-270VR f/2.8. I'm not even sure you could carry it.


Related to the concept of price is the 'investment in a lens system will cost less over the long run' idea. I dislike when SLR enthusiasts talk about kit lenses or 'you only need one or two lenses' or 3rd party flashes when it comes to all price discussions, but then turn around and talk about Canon IS zooms and SB800 flash and having ten lenses in your bag when the topic is quality. These are not apples to apples... we need to be more consistent when talking about money. A two lens, flash, D70s camera for me here in Canada will cost something like 2500-3000 dollars. A new superzoom will cost me 900 dollars. Three years down the road I buy a new superzoom for another 900 or a new Camera body for 600... what savings! Even if you could squeeze 300 savings out this way it would take 7 time periods, or 21 years, to recoup the investment.
Whatever you say about the lenses, you will at least notice that the R1 has a pitiful flash mounted nearly along the lens barrel (Red Eye Express). However, it does have a hot shoe for an external flash. They got that part right. You want good flash, you have to pay extra.


5) lighter... more likely to be brought along rather than left behind.

6) no lens swapping while that bear is running away across the field towards the tree line.
5) Reason why small p/s exist and are even better as some peoples prime.
6) If I'm surprised by a bear, I'm not changing lenses, I'm becoming invisible. At the very least, I'm shooting with what I got. If I'm not surprised, then I have the right lens on the camera. It's a Boy Scout thing.


But I think we can all mark our calendars this fall because this is when the line is crossed. The new Sony, the new Fuji, these are actually better than the entry SLR with kit lens.
First of all, are we talking about that little pop gun Fuji. It's great for the advanced technology for noise supression, but lets be real. Better than an SLR? I don't think so. Not in absolute terms. Even with the kit lens. Even with the Canon kit lens (Sorry, to Canon kit lens owners :) ). For someone that wants a pocketable, simple camera, it's the bees knees (Gosh, Wally, did I just say that). But, there's just so much it cannot do, period.


To wrap things up let me ask the SLR owners out there... why APS sized sensors? They have lower quality, less MP, more noise compared to 35mm sensors. TRUE enthusiasts might argue that we need bigger sensors... I want a 4*5" digital sensor! Well the reason for APS sized is that it allows better cheaper lenses and lower cost, smaller camera bodies and more portability... please go back to line 1 of this ridiculous post :D

Actually, there are lots more reasons for APS sensors. When you make a silicon wafer, you have a certain amount of throw aways. The larger the individual piece, the smaller percentage of items get through, so it gets real expensive. Smaller sensors are therefore more cost effective. As the technology gets better, bigger sensors can be produced more cost effectively. I believe one of the selling points of CMOS sensors is much cheaper production cost, but don't quote me on that one. One reason to not buy APS glass rather than 35mm glass, is that APS glass uses the full lens, so you get all the edge artifacts of 35mm glass used with 35mm frame. 35mm glass with APS frame only uses the middle of the lens, so you actually get a much better lense, though you lose some wide angle capability. Your fixed lens system will have the same edge artifact issues, and you can't do anything to fix it.

Cheers,
Eric

[Shooter]

Actually, this is a false statement. For a given technology, more pixels per unit area = more noise. Improve the technology, and you get less noise for a given density, but increase the density with the same technology and you will exceed the capability of the technology to prevent crossover noise.


For a given technology? There is no given technology. Pixels are getting smaller, we are getting more of them, and noise is going down.



But, you and I won't decide what is enough. The market will decide that. If you have the perfect answer now, then you are going to be a rich man, because you know exactly where to put your money.

You've already decided what is enough for you. Why don't you own a 22MP camera? Because it's too expensive? You could afford it if you really wanted to. You've already decided that the entry dslr is enough for the money. You see where this is going?



Have you noticed how even the fixed lens cameras with the best glass are the one's with the biggest glass? If you have used any professional grade glass, you know it's about more than the speed. The complexity of the lens allows the designer to correct many defects in simpler lens designs, resulting in better color accuracy and contrast, while reducing distortions. This is much easier to do well on big glass. Because small lenses don't have a lot to work with, the engineering tolerances need to be much tighter to get the same result as with a large lens.


I agree, that's why I'm not talking about really small cameras. I'm talking about S9000 and Sony R1 sized, which are big enough to have quality glass.


Now, them's fightin' words. Never. Depth of field always has been and always will be a critical aspect of photography. If now, why not make lenses with a single large focal length and concentrate on faster and faster shutters to compensate for too much light? Really, this will never go away. It is a major aspect of photographic creativity, as it is the ability to exclude unwanted clutter from a photo and concentrate on the subject (or, in the case of landscape photography, to bring everything into focus).

I agree. Depth of field is still provided by these new cameras.


Since the R1 has an APS size sensor, the glass to accomplish a given result is the same as required on an SLR. Same sensor, same glass. However, because the camera has a fixed lens, there's no way to change it to a really wide angle or a very long telephoto without serious consequences to photo quality. Adaptors just won't provide the performance that a properly designed lens will, plus they eat light. And, I don't think I'd want to carry the 400-600mm version around as my everyday shooter. So, you say get closer? Changes perspective AND if the subject is across the bay, it's a long wet walk. As for photoshop, that's a lot of work when all I need to do is put on a faster lens and open it up.

I like this paragraph, because you answered part of it for me. It is no longer sufficient to say 'if you want wide angle or if you want telephoto.' Because now you have to say 'if you want really wide angle or really long telephoto'. This is what you say above! So you see what I mean that you need to spend even more money, above already spending much more, just to match the performance.



All good reasons for smaller cameras to exist. None are SLR killers. Lot's of people manage to take good photos by looking through the little lens at the back of the camera. I don't frame with the LCD even when using my wife's p/s. SLR is the most live preview, especially if your camera has depth of field preview.
Yeah, it turns out that LCD framing is a preference thing. But I agree about small cameras too, even though the cameras I am talking about are smaller and lighter, I don't thing they are going to get too small (see above).


You keep talking about super zooms, but your prime camera size was the R1. A super zoom R1.x would be a very heavy camera, especially if you are going to keep the lens fast. Oh, and I suspect it would be pretty expensive. Think of putting the quality of a Nikkor 70-200VR f/2.8 on a super zoom, only now you want to extend the range out around 400mm and have the wide end down around 24mm so with the APS-C size, you would need a 16-270VR f/2.8. I'm not even sure you could carry it.

I agree, SLRs will still be for people that want both 20mm and 800mm equivalents. But the gap in the middle which these other cameras fill is getting big.


Whatever you say about the lenses, you will at least notice that the R1 has a pitiful flash mounted nearly along the lens barrel (Red Eye Express). However, it does have a hot shoe for an external flash. They got that part right. You want good flash, you have to pay extra.

5) Reason why small p/s exist and are even better as some peoples prime.
6) If I'm surprised by a bear, I'm not changing lenses, I'm becoming invisible. At the very least, I'm shooting with what I got. If I'm not surprised, then I have the right lens on the camera. It's a Boy Scout thing.

First of all, are we talking about that little pop gun Fuji. It's great for the advanced technology for noise supression, but lets be real. Better than an SLR? I don't think so. Not in absolute terms. Even with the kit lens. Even with the Canon kit lens (Sorry, to Canon kit lens owners :) ). For someone that wants a pocketable, simple camera, it's the bees knees (Gosh, Wally, did I just say that). But, there's just so much it cannot do, period.

No, check out the brochure for the S9000, definately not pocketable. And I'm not talking about this one camera in particular although I use it as a good example of where the industry is going. And there is not much it cannot do.


Actually, there are lots more reasons for APS sensors. When you make a silicon wafer, you have a certain amount of throw aways. The larger the individual piece, the smaller percentage of items get through, so it gets real expensive. Smaller sensors are therefore more cost effective. As the technology gets better, bigger sensors can be produced more cost effectively. I believe one of the selling points of CMOS sensors is much cheaper production cost, but don't quote me on that one. One reason to not buy APS glass rather than 35mm glass, is that APS glass uses the full lens, so you get all the edge artifacts of 35mm glass used with 35mm frame. 35mm glass with APS frame only uses the middle of the lens, so you actually get a much better lense, though you lose some wide angle capability. Your fixed lens system will have the same edge artifact issues, and you can't do anything to fix it.

Cheers,
Eric

Right! It all comes down to compromises. With an APS sized sensor there have already been a few. I'm trying to show that the arguments that can be made from APS owners to the 35mm owners are probably even more appropriate for the S9000/R1 owners to the APS owners.

Thanks for taking the time to post, it is a good discussion so far.

[Shooter]

I'll do a sketch. Say the full length is the overall market, with the left end at cheap cost and low quality and the right end at high cost and high quality. This will illustrate how as quality goes up the dSLRs are starting to get squeezed.

|-low quality------------------------------------------------------------------- high quality --|


This line is from 2 years ago until say 2005:

|------Cheap cams---|-----high end fixed------|----APS dSLRs-----|----35mm dSLRs and above---|


This is from next year or 2 years away:

|---------Cheap cams----------|--------high end fixed------|--APSd-|--35mm dSLRs and above--|

Just my opinion :)

[TheObiJuan]

For a given technology? There is no given technology. Pixels are getting smaller, we are getting more of them, and noise is going down.


You've already decided what is enough for you. Why don't you own a 22MP camera? Because it's too expensive? You could afford it if you really wanted to. You've already decided that the entry dslr is enough for the money. You see where this is going?


I agree, that's why I'm not talking about really small cameras. I'm talking about S9000 and Sony R1 sized, which are big enough to have quality glass.

I agree. Depth of field is still provided by these new cameras.

I like this paragraph, because you answered part of it for me. It is no longer sufficient to say 'if you want wide angle or if you want telephoto.' Because now you have to say 'if you want really wide angle or really long telephoto'. This is what you say above! So you see what I mean that you need to spend even more money, above already spending much more, just to match the performance.

Yeah, it turns out that LCD framing is a preference thing. But I agree about small cameras too, even though the cameras I am talking about are smaller and lighter, I don't thing they are going to get too small (see above).

I agree, SLRs will still be for people that want both 20mm and 800mm equivalents. But the gap in the middle which these other cameras fill is getting big.

No, check out the brochure for the S9000, definately not pocketable. And I'm not talking about this one camera in particular although I use it as a good example of where the industry is going. And there is not much it cannot do.


Right! It all comes down to compromises. With an APS sized sensor there have already been a few. I'm trying to show that the arguments that can be made from APS owners to the 35mm owners are probably even more appropriate for the S9000/R1 owners to the APS owners.

Thanks for taking the time to post, it is a good discussion so far.


Shooter, the canon 1D will run circles around the new R1, with it's 'big sensor' and it's only a 4MP camera.
Other than having a large sensor, it has nothing on in common with a new dslr. The image quality is yet to be determined. The lens is limited and slow. The AF is pathetic, not enough manual controls, noise from sample images is not representative of what dslr's can do with the same sized chip.

The whole framing with the EVF/LCD screen is a joke. It may be convenient at some instances, but viewing background blur, accurate focus, and etc is more important. A true optical viewfinder will relay this info.

You can't get the long zoom, true wide angle, fisheye, true macro, IR, and etc from a fixed lens digicam.
These add-on 'lenses' are pathetic and reduce image quality by a lot.

[cdifoto]

...versus a dSLR...I guarantee you'll get more sharp and stopped action shots with a dSLR than you will with a P&S. The EVF creates a tedious delay between shutter press and image capture that you miss everything. Unless you learn to predict soccer, football, or car wrecks...you're not going to get any of it with a P&S.

That and the ability to swap out Bigma (4.5lbs) for the little prime (couple ounces) when my arms get tired and/or the sun goes down. I don't have the reach but at least I can still shoot.

Oh...and my nephew always tries to grab the end of Bigma...he doesn't even notice the little nifty fifty...even if he managed to snag it, at least it's a $75 lens he mucks up and not a $1,000 one.

If my camera goes bad I send it in for repairs and toss my lenses on a rental or already owned backup. I don't have to send my whole setup in for servicing.

Maybe I go from being a bird shooter to a wedding photog. Outdoors I'd use the 15 inch (fully extended to 500mm) Bigma. Think I'ma show up at a wedding with a piece of artillery? At least I can put on a short tele like a 17-40L or 24-85L or some such thing and get pretty much the whole day covered with more stealth and class.

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

There are a LOT of reasons SLRs are in existence and those same reasons are why they're not going anywhere. I would think that if SLRs were falling into a pit, they wouldn't have been around as long as they have (digital and film both).

[ReF]

i think any camera without at least an aps or similar sized senor should be kept out of this discussion. the output doesn't compare, and the design and costs of making a lens for that size sensor would be very different.

it's true that as of right now the dslrs are not as ahead of the fixed lens catagory with the intro of the R1. they've landed the first surprise hit (10mp should be a noticable difference from the 6mp that many of us are using) but we haven't seen what the next move will be from dslrs yet. and we won't until Feb/march next year. while it's true that a fixed lens system will satisfy a huge amount of people and probably fit their needs better than a dslr (especially one with an aps sensor and high MPs), they will not replace dslrs for all those reasons/applications previously mentioned. at least not for a long time.

btw 120mm is a bit limiting. its only 75mm on a 1.6 crop, the short end of the teles that most of you have! build a sharp lens that goes from at least 28mm to at least 200mm, keep the package under $1000, and we'll really have something to talk about!

i'd also be more excited if someone figured out a new camera/lens system that could combine my total range of 17-448mm in 35mm equivalent (i believe my 15mm fisheye has a FOV of about a 16 or 17mm non fisheye lens after 1.6 crop. 200mm x 1.4x coverter x 1.6 crop = 448) into two sharp f4 lenses (to minimize switching) while keeping the performance and optical viewfinder of a dslr. but we know that ain't gonna happen so i'm happy with my dslr.

it would also be great if they made a medium sized fixed lens cam (28-80mm :D ) with a larger chip and lower MP count of about 4 (to increase individual senor size even more) to use as a carry anywhere alternative when carrying a large camera is bothersome or inappropriate.

[Balrog]

:) interesting debate ... approaching things from a systematic perspective, there's really three things that are being debated here (could be more, but these three seemed most important):
#1 is sensor size - i.e. PS have small sensors, DSLR have large sensors
#2 is the lens system - PS it's fixed, DSLR they're interchangeable
#3 is the viewfinder - PS it's evf/lcd, DSLR it's live TTL view

As you can see, all three characteristics have so far been going hand-in-hand. That, however, doesn't necessarily have to be the case, which is what makes this whole discussion so heated :). There are a total of 8 combinations of those three factors possible ... we're starting to see some of them even now.

Sensor size is linked to two things: the noise/dynamic range/"quality" characteristic (which can be changed/improved for smaller sensors), and the available depth of field (inexorably due to lens focal length issues for equivalent fields of view).

Shooter's argument seems to be (correct me if i'm wrong) that the "quality" aspect of factor #1 (sensor size) will eventually be eliminated by technology - a point I am willing to concede - and as a result, smaller sensors will allow for smaller lenses covering larger focal lengths, eliminating the need for item #2, which is interchangeable lenses. Conversely, he's saying the only reason DSLRs have interchangeable lenses now is because making an all-in-one for a sensor that size is not feasible (or practical). He agrees that item #3 is up to personal preference anyway.

Problem - even though the quality aspect of sensor size might well be reduced to insignificance through the wonders of semiconductor manufacturing and Moore's Law, the DOF remains .. and I'm willing to bet that many many people just won't settle for the limited control that tiny sensors provide .. and as a result they'll use bigger sensors .. which will necessarily have bigger lenses .. which will need to be interchangeable, because one lens just can't "do it all".

As for interchangeable lenses themselves - I don't see what's not to like: if you know you'll never use more than the focal length provided to you, fine - however, you never know when you might need something different .. and then you're stuck. As a computer programmer I always appreciate modularity - why not have it if you can? If you say it's inconvenient to carry around / have to change lenses, well, nobody's forcing you to change lenses! I'd love it if, say, the Canon S2 IS had a detachable lens and another one that went from 2-6mm (for 12-36mm equivalent FOV)!

And as for the viewfinder style - I don't think anyone would disagree that it's purely personal preference; I'm sure there are people who would appreciate a small-sensor, fixed-lens digital camera with a live TTL pentaprism viewfinder... frankly, I don't actually know why there isn't one yet, besides, well, tradition...

EDIT: oh yeah, and just to throw fuel on the "superzoom vs dslr" debate - how about a $560 pentax *istDS with a $399 Sigma 18-200? :) that's 11x zoom for under $1000 dollars, on a single lens, and quality at least on par with any ultrazoom you'd care to name. Not stabilized, but then what's ISO3200 for? ;)

[Shooter]

Balrog, ReF, thanks for the posts with a positive viewpoint! Obijon... uh sure pal, whatever you tell yourself.

ReF, it seems you agree with me that these cameras can and will take market share from entry level dSLRs, targeting the many people who don't buy lenses. On the other hand, I am totally on your side that there will be people who really need wider than 28mm and longer than 175mm optical.

Interesting that you chose to allow the digital crop factor in your lens range though. You quote 17mm-438mm. Because assuming that you're allowing a 3MP image, the Fuji S9000 lens range is now from 28 to 600mm!

I also agree with everyone that low light performance should be improved alongside the MP race but that's exactly what they are doing. The Fuji does not have an APS sized sensor, but reasonable ISO 800. Judging by dpreview, the Sony has 1600 ISO comarable to the EOS Canon 20D, which they chose specifically for its high ISO performance!

You also let slip a comment about minimizing switching! Caught you :D. You're admitting you don't want the flexibility of ten lenses are you? :)

Balrog


Shooter's argument seems to be (correct me if i'm wrong) that the "quality" aspect of factor #1 (sensor size) will eventually be eliminated by technology - a point I am willing to concede - and as a result, smaller sensors will allow for smaller lenses covering larger focal lengths, eliminating the need for item #2, which is interchangeable lenses. Conversely, he's saying the only reason DSLRs have interchangeable lenses now is because making an all-in-one for a sensor that size is not feasible (or practical). He agrees that item #3 is up to personal preference anyway.

You are sort of right. 1) Quality factor of sensor size will still be a factor, I'm just saying that it will be a factor of 20MP vs 30 or 200MP vs 300MP. At some point it is a smaller factor. 2) Interchangeable lenses will still be useful to people whose livelihoods is taking photos. That said, a range of 28-300 is pretty good for most current entry level dSLR owners. Looking further down the road, a 27MP picture on a 300mm produces a 1200mm, 3MP picture. Doesn't sound so bad to me.

Check the excellent Sony R1 preview at dpreview... http://www.dpreview.com/articles/sonydscr1/

Dpreview says that depth of field is very easy to preview and control on the pre production Sony R1.

A key thing here that people are overlooking is that I'm not arguing for tiny cameras. I think that cameras can be a bit smaller than APS dSLRs but quality optics and zoom power and light gathering power lead to mid sized lenses. The Sony R1 is very similar in size to a Digital Rebel with lens, actually it's bigger in all dimensions.

I think the Sony R1 will serve as an excellent all purpose camera for a lot of people that might buy an entry SLR. There are even some who say that telephoto lenses don't work for candid shots or portriats.
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html

And Balrog, that is actually some excellent fuel there... that sounds like a nice combo. Do you have a trusted review of that lens?

[TheObiJuan]

Hmm, I am far from a pro or one who really cares about ultimate image quality, but I do feel that having multiple lenses is necessary. There will never be, atleast in my lifetime, a single lens that has a fisheye, true macro (not close focusing, as it scares away critters and insects), fast lenses, long lenses, excellent background blur, great build quality, and etc.
All of these prosumer point and shoots are made of plastic, as are their lenses. They don't take a beating, even a light one.

I love the weight savings and compact and okay range the lens provides, as stated, it provides a 70mm lens or so view on a 20D, that ain't too long.

This camera may be good for people who love MP, and don't care for the feel of a real camera or real high ISO ability.

I looked at Dpreview's website and was not thrilled by anything over ISO 400.
ISO 800 shows
All of the images show the overprocessing that the consumer cameras utilize. The contrast is increased aswell as saturation. I don't care for this look.

ISO800 looks way too smooth. It appears the camera takes it upon itself to apply noise software internally. The linear graphs support this. At ISO1600 the image is not too bad, it looks like a sample from a pentax or olympus, not quite good as nikon and no where near as good as canon. ISO 3200 should not even be there, it's horrible. The chroma noise is off the charts and image detail is just ruined. Noise software wont fix it much since all the details are ruined.

This camera is the first in a good trend, as a first step it will be far from perfect. If they were to have optional lenses for it, perhaps a KM mount, since they use a 1.7x and are now working with sony, and if they were to work on the high ISO noise, the main reason people want these type of cameras, then I would be more than willing to buy one as a 'convenience' camera.

Shooter, it was not my intention to offend you, at first it appeared to me and others that alerted me of this thread that you came to this board to cause problems as many people do on other forums, (sadly here to), but it is not the case. This is a touchy subject, almost as bad as the 350DvsD70 debate.

Another thing, if the EVF were bigger, actually ergonomic, and brighter, with a realtime display, not a close enough display, I would be for them. DPReview with their great tests prove that noise is hardly an issue with the live preview option, and this excites me. I will hardly use this live preview, but it's nice to have as an option, not the sole method of framing.

[Rex914]

While the new cameras of the future may make the current slrs obsolete, I believe that slrs will make the same jumps in technology to keep ahead of the point and shoot pack at least for a good while.


That essentially sums up what my take on this whole issue is. And the same goes for digicams and camera phones. Digicams will continue to advance in ways that will keep them ahead of camera phones. There may be a converging point far, far, far down the line, but the forseeable future, everybody's going to stay happy.

[Shooter]

You know I always wondered how people get so close to the critters with a macro feature, maybe that shows how much I know, eh Obijuan?

I guess the details are always worth picking on, but I think it is clear that new fixed lens cameras are very much encroaching into the abilities of dSLRs. Downwards price pressure on dSLRs, on the other hand, is starting to impact their quality of image: kit lenses on D50 and Rebel are decent but there have been complaints.

I actually believe that the high end of the market will stay that way... for example people like you that love photographic versatility and are willing to pay for it. The high end SLR kits will continue to be appropriate for many enthusiasts. On my market diagram I left the high end untouched. Maybe I should acknowledge that the high end is not 35mm digital only, certainly a big lens collection and multiple flashes with a D70 is convincing...

However there is a big market of SLR buyers that don't purchase several additional lenses. The film SLR I inherited from my dad came with only a single 50mm lens, for example (a Canon T70 by the way, I bought a zoom lens on eBay a few years ago).

At best buy in Canada, they sell many D50s D70s', Digital Rebel. But few lenses: 2 in fact. There must not be money in lenses at best buy, although maybe they will start to stock a few more, after all, the entire digital photography hobby is growing quickly. And even for SLR buyers that do purchase additional lenses, another point I made is that with the Sony R1 and others coming out lens buyers now need to go even further in additional lenses to 'be better'. For example I believe the Sony covers a range of 2 lenses.

About the details though, the points we like to debate. The Sony has a transflective LCD that is excellent in direct sunlight.

We have to use it to see the delay in live preview for ourselves, but they are certainly getting better. Cordless optical mice used to have a noticeable delay and resolution issues that had some people swear they would never work.

Anyway, the Sony R1. It has ISO 800 comparable or better than 80% of the dSLRs out there. For my film SLR, ISO 800 was my preferred rating for low light by the way. I tried 1000+ a few times but found the images very slightly grainy, even thought I never enlarged beyond 8*10 with those images. I remember the last roll of Kodak Royal Gold 1600 I bought (if I remember the name and ISO correctly) did produce excellent images.

The reviewers say that it feels extremely high quality, with a larger, more meaty grip than the Rebel or D50.

I agree that if manufacturers ever conspired together to have inter-compatible kit lenses and accessories they would be much more relevant instead of the side item they are today.

Thanks for the posts.

[TheObiJuan]

One more thing. This trend is great because it will ultimately reduce the price of consumer level dslrs. I could in the future give a dslr as a christmas gift. I paid 499 for my Kodak DX6490 two or three years ago. I certainly would pay 500 for a dslr as a gift now.
Once this camera comes out and christmas season hits we'll hopefully see some cheaper 350Ds, like around 650? :)

[jamison55]

Been watching this post for a few days to see where it would go, and have a couple of thoughts:

First of all, I wonder how often a similar discussion has been made throughout the hundred years of photography: 35mm will make 8x10/5x7/120mm obsolete...110mm film will make 35mm obsolete...the Kodak Disc camera will make 35mm obsolete...APS film/cameras will make 35mm obsolete...digital will make film obsolete... the fact is that none of that has happened yet. There are millions of photographers out there and hundreds of ways to take photos. I don't see any of them going away soon.

Now, speaking of 35mm, Olympus and Canon make very highly regarded PnS. Canon makes a Sure Shot that has a 38-180mm lens built in that takes killer pics, but you don't see pros rushing to buy one. Not enough control...too much of a compromise. How about Leica rangefinders. A great combinations of relatively compact size, interchangable lenses (that are the sharpest in the industry), whisper quiet...still not obsolete (and not made obsolete by slr's)

And here's the real kicker...for those to whom image quality is their primary concern, zoom lenses are still too much of a compromise. A bag full of primes still delivers the ultimate in image quality because of the laws of physics. If Canon L zooms could deliver the quality of primes, there would no longer be prime lenses for sale!

I think Canon proved that there are limitations with how far you can go with the Pro 1. A pns with pro "L" glass, images from it still lack the dynamism of an SLR.

There's not such thing as a photographic product that works for everyone, and in this debate, the reason why DSLR's will not be made obsolete is because they remain the most flexible option for the widest range of photographers. A 20D will work for macro photographers, it will work for sports photographers, it will work for fashion photographers, and wedding photographers, and photojournalists, and landscape photographers, and food photographers (;) Rex)... In all they years of lens science, it has been impossible to even create an SLR lens that is all things to all photographers...it is therefore a mathmatical impossiblility to create a fixed lens digital camera that is all things to all photographers, and such an attempt is destined to fail.

[Rhys]

I agree, Jamie, zooms are a compromise.

It's why (in 35mm) you don't get zooms above about 400mm. To get a zoom of longer (I know about the Sigma 50-500) length then weight becomes quite a penalty or they become very dark.

For general use, two zooms of 28-80 and 70-200 seem ideal. Other than that I'd say definitely fixed lenses.

Personally, I use the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 and the Canon 50 F1.8. I do intend to get something wider and something longer but I'm biding my time for when money will be less tight and for when I can get out and about sufficiently to justify posessing more lenses.

[erichlund]

Been watching this post for a few days to see where it would go, and have a couple of thoughts:

...digital will make film obsolete...

the fact is that none of that has happened yet. I think Canon proved that there are limitations with how far you can go with the Pro 1. A pns with pro "L" glass, images from it still lack the dynamism of an SLR.

I generally agree, but let me make a case for two things. Digital is making film obsolete. When I first got involved with cameras, there were three film companies I knew of. Kodak, Fuji, and Agfa. Agfa was the European company that I really didn't hear much about, and Fuji was the upstart making oversaturated color print film. If you wanted to talk film, you talked Kodak. (OK, this is a U.S. biased view, but you get the idea). Well, Kodak doesn't even make B&W film, and they are distancing themselves from color. Films days are numbered. It may be a large number, but it is, for the most part, finite.

Secondly, when I talk technology, I try not to talk about limitations in an absolute sense. "At this point in time, the technology doesn't exist to significantly improve on the <fill in here>, but ..."

You may not be able to break the rules of physics, but you can bend them a bit. That's where changes come from. Figuring out how to do what you thought couldn't be done.

Cheers,
Eric

[D70FAN]

To wrap things up let me ask the SLR owners out there... why APS sized sensors? They have lower quality, less MP, more noise compared to 35mm sensors. TRUE enthusiasts might argue that we need bigger sensors... I want a 4*5" digital sensor! Well the reason for APS sized is that it allows better cheaper lenses and lower cost, smaller camera bodies and more portability... please go back to line 1 of this ridiculous post :D

The answer is sensor cost. APS-C sized sensors will always be cheaper than Full-Frame 35mm sensors. This is pretty obvious when comparing the 12.4 MP (full-frame) Canon 5D ($3300) and the supposed 12.4MP (APS-C) Nikon D200 ($2000?). Better and cheaper lenses are just a byproduct, as are some pretty interesting in-camera crop and speed advantages ala D2X.

It's actually pretty simple:

Sensor sizes and (Crops):

- 35mm full frame - 36mm x 24mm = 864 sq. mm. (1.0X)
- Canon 1D APS-C - 28.7 X 19.1 = 548.17 sq. mm (1.3X)
- DX APS-C - 23.7mm x 15.6mm = 369.72 sq. mm (1.5X)
- EOS size APS-C - 22.2mm x 14.8mm = 328.56 sq. mm (1.6X)
- Sony R1 APS-C - 21.5mm x 14.4mm = 309 sq. mm (1.7X)
- Olympus (E-300) four-thirds - 17mm x 13mm 221 sq. mm (2X)

Semiconductors:

Semiconductor silicon base-wafer prices do not fluctuate more than about 15% and can go up or down in price depending on demand. So on the average prices fall very gradually over time, maybe 3% net per year.

Most, if not all, semiconductor manufacturers buy wafers from an outside source as growing and slicing pure silicon ingots is pretty specialized. An 8" (203mm) processed/finished wafer costs around $1000. A 300mm (12") wafer runs considerably more, but will yield more good parts (called die) per wafer.

Semiconductors are made by masking, etching, implanting, and diffusing up to 20 layers and then connecting all of the components with up to 5 layers of micro insulated metal. Transistor feature sizes are getting down to 60 nano-meters, (10 to the minus 9th) so precision needs to be unbeliveable

If you would like to read how this is done:

http://www.infras.com/Tutorial/sld008.htm

The bottom line is that just in terms of square area you can fit 2.6 times more (DX) APS-C sensors on a given wafer size as for full-frame 35mm sensors. But, add into the equation, higher defect densities due to mask misalignment, and particulate contamination (one microscopic contaminant can destroy a die), and the cost for a full-frame sensor might be 10 times that for the much smaller APS-C sensor.


Now, I have kept the discussion mostly free of specific technologies and specific cameras. In fact, I haven't said anything new! I now admit to myself that I could have come to this conclusion 3-4 years ago simply by observing the trends and extrapolating the technology curve.

Due to the nature of photo sensitive imaging semiconductors, which are dependent on light to operate (both CCD and CMOS), the technology curve may not be able to keep up with expectations. Unlike conventional digital integrated circuit semiconductors (using transistor switches to generate a 1 or zero) imagers depend on photons to generate a tiny "analog" current, which is filtered, amplified, and converted to a digital signal and sent to the "conventional" digital integrated circuits (reads main processor). There are also Bayer Filters in front of each photsite to further restrict photon flow, so you can stuff more photo-sites into a given area, but sooner or later you will not have enough photons to generate a usable signal of any kind.

Fuji's new Super CCD 5 seems to fly in the face of physics, but I think there is more to this than meets the eye, and it would be real interesting to see an 11 x 17 print from that camera. I'm thinking that this is a typical Fuji 3MP/3MP with agressive noise processing, smoothing, and interpolation at work, on a 2/3 " die size. That's not a bad thing, but probably not close to the large print quality of a 6MP dSLR at ISO 400 or 800.

Just my 8.5 cents worth. ;)

[ReF]

ReF, it seems you agree with me that these cameras can and will take market share from entry level dSLRs, targeting the many people who don't buy lenses. On the other hand, I am totally on your side that there will be people who really need wider than 28mm and longer than 175mm optical.

Interesting that you chose to allow the digital crop factor in your lens range though. You quote 17mm-438mm. Because assuming that you're allowing a 3MP image, the Fuji S9000 lens range is now from 28 to 600mm!

I also agree with everyone that low light performance should be improved alongside the MP race but that's exactly what they are doing. The Fuji does not have an APS sized sensor, but reasonable ISO 800. Judging by dpreview, the Sony has 1600 ISO comarable to the EOS Canon 20D, which they chose specifically for its high ISO performance!

You also let slip a comment about minimizing switching! Caught you :D. You're admitting you don't want the flexibility of ten lenses are you? :)



well, i didn't let anything "slip" as a few who frequent this site will recall that i am quite open about my annoyance with constantly switching lenses. sure it's inconvenient but as a photographer i go out to take quality pictures and that for many means switching between many focal lengths and short range zooms. primes are an option too but how many primes would it take to cover my range, and how much would it cost? some will say the same about short range zooms vs the lens found on the R1, but we already know that the fixed lens range is limited and can't be swapped out for different/specific purposes when the fixed lens can't deliver.

Admitting i don't want the flexibility of ten lenses? now you're just putting words in my mouth. of course i want the flexibility; that's why i have 5 lenses! and i want more! the problem is being able to afford all of them, and that still doesn't mean i need to carry all of them at once. for example i've no need to carry my low light lenses if i'm going out to photograph landscapes with tripod in hand. would i like to see the flexibility (and quality) of my lenses condensed into a few less lenses? heck yeah! who wouldn't?

i'm not sure i completely get your statement about the crop factor/the fuji/3mp, why it was thrown in, and what point it proves. 17mm on 1.6x is not 17mm nor is 280mm x 1.6 equal to 280mm. so of course i have to "allow the crop factor" in my lens range. the focal length of the fuji's 28-300 is already the 35mm equivalent of whatever the fuji lens' true focal length x what the chip's crop factor is. i'm not sure where the 3mp comment came from but i don't think it's fair to factor in megapixels here. if we were doing that, we could go wild here and say that the 20d has "more zoom" than the D70 or that the panasonic z30 has more zoom than the z20 etc. again, i thought we were gonna leave the non-aps sized sensors out of the thread for fair comparisons sake.

sorry shooter, but it seems that you made your strongest arguments on your first post. the nitpicking of odd details and inclusion of strange examples don't seem to help your case much. you've already given your argument that the R1 and the similar fixed lens cameras will replace the need for dslrs for many people, and we gave reasons why dslr will not be replaceable by fixed lens systems. others have chimed in with other reasons supporting dslrs but we're just hearing the same things from you that you've already mentioned plus a few random things. seriously, i mean no offensive to you, but it's like having a debate but one guy just keeps saying the same stuff.

[Shooter]

Well actually ReF I haven't posted since several others have but you're right, I am repeating myself. Because people keep raising the same points: "you can't get wide angle and telephoto in one lense"... well actually you can, you just can't get ultra wide and super long... most people don't buy these anyways. See? Repeating!

Ok I didn't understand what you were describing re: 1.6 crop factor on your previous posts. I now realize you're talking lens crop; good, using those old lenses... I would want new ones.

George, I apreciate the post and I learned a bit, but this is excactly what I'm talking about. APS sized sensors are not as good, but they're cheaper so people are buying them in droves. High end fixed lens are not as good, but they're cheaper so people---

Erichlund, Rhys, and Jamison, thanks for the posts and I appreciate the shift to a more philosphical angle, so we are not repeating the same things. On that note...

I guess digital is obviously different than APS film or polaroid or medium format or others that are now only niche markets. But remember that many people still don't believe this, and five years ago no one believed it. Digital has brought convenience and utility, these features alone, and not quality, have made digital cameras a multi billion dollar industry in only a few years. Film sales are drying up and disappearing... this is a fundamental shift, and the quality aspects of digital still haven't even been worked out! It's a bit ironic that digital camera people here (myself included) get so worked up over image quality, when a Digital Rebel and D70 pale in comparison to a 20 year old 35mm film SLR, which a few very high end digital cameras are just barely meeting now.

Now before people start complaining that comparison to film is irrelevant in a digital camera discussion, I agree. But the point up there is that APS sized DSLR owners and all digital camera owners for that matter are willing to sacrifice quality for convenience. There's always something better out there, right?

Part of my thought process here centers on the elimination of bottlenecks (in quality) in fixed lens cameras such sas the R1 / S9000 and especially the ones coming out next year and the year after. The bottlenecks eliminated or reduced, these cameras have other advantages that I see leading to their taking a much bigger chunk of the market, parts of the market that in 2003-2005 would have gone to the entry dSLRs.

[ReF]

i think we can agree with most of the comments in that last post...except for this comment:

"It's a bit ironic that digital camera people here (myself included) get so worked up over image quality, when a Digital Rebel and D70 pale in comparison to a 20 year old 35mm film SLR, which a few very high end digital cameras are just barely meeting now."

this could lead up to an ugly discussion, but here is a link to a very old test comparing an old dslr camera to nice film:

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/d30/d30_vs_film.shtml

keep in mind that affordable dslrs have made huge leaps since then and are at much higher resolution as well. seems the only advantages of 35mm film + slr now is it's way of handling highlights differently, affordable full frame system by todays prices, sheer printable size, and better tonality of B&W images. film experts here feel free to make corrections or comments. just keep in mind that i'm not against film, nor do i think one format is definately better than another. heck i wish i could afford an X-Pan!

[Shooter]

'Aight I shouldn't have said 'pale' in comparison. But 3200 dpi isn't a very good scanner... a work we have a professional quality scanner that does 9600dpi. Check out 'skip directly to the painfully obvious example' here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

edit: which I guess is a bit beside the point :)

[ReF]

'Aight I shouldn't have said 'pale' in comparison. But 3200 dpi isn't a very good scanner... a work we have a professional quality scanner that does 9600dpi. Check out 'skip directly to the painfully obvious example' here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm#examples

edit: which I guess is a bit beside the point :)

i always seem to disagree with that rockwell guy in one way or another. the guy is a little confusing. in the same paragraph, he mentions the canon 1DsMkII, then a few sentences down he says "As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds." first of all, from the quote, does he mean the mk I or mk II? because higher up on that page he says: "Digital cameras give me much better and more accurate colors than I've ever gotten with print film. If I can spend all day making a custom print from a large transparency I'll use film, and if all I need is a 12 x 18" print (small for me but big to most people) then a print from my D70 is better and faster."
if he was taking about the MK II with his 13x19 comment, then don't you guys find it funny that 16mp only gets you an extra inch on each side vs. the 12x18 from the 6mp d70? i think kenrockwell is confused himself. i believe that film (according to him that's an amatuer term) has some superior uses but i just don't like reading anything from rockwell. he only makes sense in bits and pieces. put everything he says in an article and you get jumble of random, colliding thoughts. for example in one article titled "just say no" he recomends not carrying a tripod when you don't need to and to, and then goes on to recommend a few expensive tripods. just how the heck would you know before hand when you would need a tripod or not? yeah it's bright and sunny but what if you run into a scene needing massive DOF or stay out till it's dark? what if i need to bracket a high contrast scene to digitally blend exposures to achieve a high dynamic range, thus requiring the camera's position to stay constant through several shots thus requiring a tripod? telling someone to be lazy and not bring a tripod along unless you know you need it is awful advice. he says also not to do something just cuz some stranger is doing it, but isn't he a stranger? he goes on to recommend getting the cheapest tripod you can find for the lighter point and shoots, but the point in getting a tripod is to hold the camera steady for long exposures right? just how is that flimsy tripod (check for yourself, really cheap tripods are really crappy) going to hold even itself steady in a light breeze? he also mentions that the manfrotto 3011 is, from what he can see, the most popular legs for serious photographers. really? then why do i see the 3021 mentioned in so many sources and not the 3011? what a jerk! if he can't even get a simple article about tripods right i wouldn't trust anything else he says. guys, think for yourselves and don't just believe anyone that has their own website.

[cdifoto]

i always seem to disagree with that rockwell guy in one way or another. the guy is a little confusing. in the same paragraph, he mentions the canon 1DsMkII, then a few sentences down he says "As I keep trying to say, if all you want is 13 x 19" inkjet prints made on a $700 Epson by all means get an $8,000 1Ds." first of all, from the quote, does he mean the mk I or mk II? because higher up on that page he says: "Digital cameras give me much better and more accurate colors than I've ever gotten with print film. If I can spend all day making a custom print from a large transparency I'll use film, and if all I need is a 12 x 18" print (small for me but big to most people) then a print from my D70 is better and faster."
if he was taking about the MK II with his 13x19 comment, then don't you guys find it funny that 16mp only gets you an extra inch on each side vs. the 12x18 from the 6mp d70? i think kenrockwell is confused himself. i believe that film (according to him that's an amatuer term) has some superior uses but i just don't like reading anything from rockwell. he only makes sense in bits and pieces. put everything he says in an article and you get jumble of random, colliding thoughts. for example in one article titled "just say no" he recomends not carrying a tripod when you don't need to and to, and then goes on to recommend a few expensive tripods. just how the heck would you know before hand when you would need a tripod or not? yeah it's bright and sunny but what if you run into a scene needing massive DOF or stay out till it's dark? what i need to bracket a high contrast scene to digitally blend exposures achieve a high dynamic range, thus requiring the camera's position to stay constant through several shots thus requiring a tripod? telling someone to be lazy and not bring a tripod along unless you know you need it is awful advice. he says also not to do something just cuz some stranger is doing it, but isn't he a stranger? he goes on to recommend getting the cheapest tripod you can find for the lighter point and shoots, but the point in getting a tripod is to hold the camera steady for long exposures right? just how is that flimsy tripod (check for yourself, really cheap tripods are really crappy) going to hold even itself steady in a light breeze? he also mentions that the manfrotto 3011 is, from what he can see, the most popular legs for serious photographers. really? then why do i see the 3021 mentioned in so many sources and not the 3011? what a jerk! if he can't even get a simple article about tripods right i wouldn't trust anything else he says. guys, think for yourselves and don't just believe anyone that has their own website.


Ref you just stated exactly what I lack the eloquence to say. I never did and never will like Ken Rockwell enough to take him seriously for ANY kind of advice, especially photographic. I'm a trial and error person beyond asking for lens samples/recommendations (to avoid the truly horrendous ones) and similiar issues. I'm certainly not going to look to a guy who contradicts himself for any advice on when to carry a tripod. I don't even ask for advice from the primary photog at the track where I shoot. I've been consistently producing better shots than he does (not my own words...the track owners' and race car drivers' words), and I work with no flash, a slow lens, and have only owned a dSLR for a little over 3 months now. He contradicts himself, uses flash in a dusty environment because he can't pan worth a carp, and actually wonders why people won't buy his grainy, dust specked (as in flash highlighted it and lit the stuff up...you've probably seen it before) photos.

People have walked up to me and told me when they look at the track's website, they can instantly tell which photos are his and which are mine. And all the track shows is thumbnails.

I'm not bragging....I'm just saying go out there and keep trying to do what you want to do because trial and error works best - beyond a basic knowledge of photography (apertures, shutter speeds, ISO and their relationships).

[Shooter]

I enjoy Ken Rockwells site a lot, he has an excellent how-to section and he usually is bang on in his advice about equipment.

That said, I think critically and for myself about everything I hear, whether its in photography or a speech by the president.

Check out his preview of the Nikon D200:



The D200 seems like the perfect camera for the serious amateur and most professionals other than full-time professionals.

Hopefully this will make the totally obsolete D100 go away. Obsolete means "there is something better available." Obsolete doesn't mean that there's anything wrong with it or that you can't buy it anymore. It just means there have been better choices available for the past year at lower prices. So what; I make my best images with a 50 year old 4 x 5 camera!

Image quality, from past experience, ought to be the same or better than the D2X. Personally I see little difference between the D70 and the D2X, since as you read on my myth page the difference is minor: the D200 and D2X have 4,288 pixels horizontally and the D70s/D70/D50 have 3,008. It's really too close to call! You need usually at least a doubling of linear resolution to see a serious difference; this is only a 40% difference which is tough to see, especially if you're printing smaller than a foot or two wide.

Actually trying to cram this many pixels into that small a sensor usually winds up with lower ISOs and noisier images than lower pixel count sensors. The D2X I tried seemed noisier at ISO 100 than my D70 at ISO 200 and I suspect the same noise from a D200. The Canon 5D has a big edge here from a bigger sensor.

See it previewed from China here. Did you believe that? Note the misspelling of "legend," ha ha. They are just kidding, too. That's just someone twiddling in Photoshop.

If you need a camera today just buy a D70s and don't worry. Whenever Nikon announces a new camera it is months before you can buy it, and you'll make thousands of great photos every month with a camera you own and no photos with one for which you're still waiting. I have a whole page about managing obsolescence here.


Do you have a problem with what he says here? It's fine if you do but I don't find it bad, and a photography site with a touch of humor is a GREAT thing.

And here's what he says about Canon's upcoming EOS 5D, whcih is a $3299 camera body.



I got to try one in September 2005. I like it! What doesn't come across in spec sheets is that it's a sturdy, solid hunk of professional iron, as it better be for over three grand. I tried it with the upcoming 24 - 105 mm f/4 IS lens ($1,200, available later September 2005) which is also a beauty. Oddly as far as image quality goes I also tried Sony's DSC-R1, which seemed to give better images that were sharper and less noisy. I'll have to confirm that with production versions. I suspect I may have been using an abused demo lens with the Canon; it definitely should have been better than what I saw with a few quick shots.


I had to sneak that in. So check out his opinion of the new Sonry R1. He likes it, big surprise.

Like I said, I find nothing wrong with his opinions. A lot of people would be better off if they realized that EVERY word they read is someones take on a subject... Al Jazeera is a news agency that approaches subjects from an unbiased perspective the same as CNN is.

[cdifoto]

Do you have a problem with what he says here?

Yeah is friggin opening line. What exactly is a non-full time professional photographer? I would say advanced amateur. The guy didn't even make his opening line make sense so I didn't bother to read on.

[cdifoto]

By the way...the 5D isn't even IRON like he says. It's a magnesium alloy. Trying to be humorous or not, you don't go around calling it iron because some folks will believe it truly IS iron.

[Shooter]

"Yeah is friggin opening line". That's clever... I know who's opinion I'm going to trust from now on! The man with the english degree! Who's name advertises a website that sells 'tribal half moon sun bead ring' and 'other body jewelry' for $7.99. But he sure knows how to stick it to Ken Rockwell. He found the word 'iron' when it was made out of magnesium alloy! But wait a minute "iron" also means "great hardness or strength"... you know, from the dictionary. And another mistake, this one's huge, "serious amateur" when he should have said "advanced amateur". :eek:

Sorry, couldn't resist. Time to relax cdi (me too maybe... no more posts in this thread unless I am asked a pointed question).

[erichlund]

Erichlund, Rhys, and Jamison, thanks for the posts and I appreciate the shift to a more philosphical angle, so we are not repeating the same things. On that note...

I guess digital is obviously different than APS film or polaroid or medium format or others that are now only niche markets. But remember that many people still don't believe this, and five years ago no one believed it. Digital has brought convenience and utility, these features alone, and not quality, have made digital cameras a multi billion dollar industry in only a few years. Film sales are drying up and disappearing... this is a fundamental shift, and the quality aspects of digital still haven't even been worked out! It's a bit ironic that digital camera people here (myself included) get so worked up over image quality, when a Digital Rebel and D70 pale in comparison to a 20 year old 35mm film SLR, which a few very high end digital cameras are just barely meeting now.

Actually, for most users, the difference in quality between film and digital is limited to dynamic range, the ability to capture highlights and see into dark places. Film has more latitude in this area than digital. The actual resolution advantages of film don't make any difference if you never print or display a photo large enough for that difference to have any effect. The difference in dynamic range is not enough to overcome the clear advantages of digital, which is convenience.

The cost thing is a bit of a myth at this point. I can process a lot of film for the price difference between a digital body and a film body, and I'm more likely to keep that film body for a lot longer, whereas, I'm likely to replace the digital with the latest and greatest at some point, just adding to the premium. For pros and serious shutterbugs, the digital cost advantage is more clear, because they take a lot of photos, so they recoup the technology cost fairly quickly.

This all has nothing to do with why I disagree about fixed lens killing SLRs. I just cannot accept the inconvenience of a fixed lens camera when I run up against one of its compromises.

Cheers,
Eric

[cdifoto]

"Yeah is friggin opening line". That's clever... I know who's opinion I'm going to trust from now on! The man with the english degree! Who's name advertises a website that sells 'tribal half moon sun bead ring' and 'other body jewelry' for $7.99. But he sure knows how to stick it to Ken Rockwell. He found the word 'iron' when it was made out of magnesium alloy! But wait a minute "iron" also means "great hardness or strength"... you know, from the dictionary. And another mistake, this one's huge, "serious amateur" when he should have said "advanced amateur". :eek:

Sorry, couldn't resist. Time to relax cdi (me too maybe... no more posts in this thread unless I am asked a pointed question).

What do a typo, what I sell on my website, and the alternate meaning of iron have to do with Ken Rockwell and his constant self-contradiction?

Newbies to photography tend to take things literally...so to say it's a piece of iron would make a new user thing "d@mn...iron? I don't want to carry around something THAT heavy!?!?"

When on the internet, one has to watch what one says when one is considered a source of reliable information. Fortunately, I don't consider him such. Unfortunately, there are others that do and/or will. He has an extensive background in hollywood and electronics...so there is a great tendency to think he knows a thing or two about photography as well. While unrelated, there is a sort of "Well he's really smart and successful so he has to be right!" thinking going on for some.