For quite some time now we are still sitting here with our chunky DSLR's. So, what does the future hold for some of us? Where do you think DSLR's will be in the next 2-5yrs? We've already hit +30mp on the D800, Nikon's flagship D4 is still a hugh camera. Will Nikon, Canon, etc, ever release a small form factor camera with big boy performance? Maybe the mirror less camera will evolve with better performance. Do we really still need this flappy mirror thing? I'm sure the pros would like a little less weight to carry around.
As we / I get older, I just simple do not want to keep on lugging around my camera (D300), my bulky lenses (24-70 / 70-200). Not sure how much longer my shoulder / neck can take the strain!
I would love a camera size either like a Lecia M9 / Sony NEX-7 or some where in between. With full frame sensor, lens VR.. D800 performance, but with a little extra fps (7-9) just in case you need it, pro optics in a smaller lens. (I'm not taking the HUGH 400mm+ lenses.) For me I like to shoot the streets, landscapes, and the occasional sporting / car racing event.
So what you guys / gals think? You think we can retire our chunky magnesium bodies in the near future? I'm thinking I might have one more camera purchase (D800) and then I'll see what'll be out in the next 2-5yrs.
I like the DSLR's chunkier actually. I added the grips on my 7D and 5D2 because I like the balance better and makes it easier to handle and use. I would not want to see them go into a smaller form factor. If you want smaller form factor camera's fine. The sensors are getting larger in them and I don't see why they couldn't do a full frame small form factor camera but I don't want these to replace DSLR's.
I agree with Gyroscope, and I think that the future of DSLR's will all come down to consumer preference. I have a 5D, and I have tried out the NEX 5N, and a few other Mirrorless cameras, and I undoubtedly like the feeling of my 5D. I don't think cameras will get smaller either, due to flange distances. The chance of Canon successfully launching a new mount and converting the majority of their customers to it is very low. I wouldn't.
In two to five years, I expect for there to be a few full frame mirrorless cameras, along with just as many DSLR's. I don't think that mirrorless cameras will really eat away at the sales of DSLR's, but more so the high end consumer P&S cameras, and superzooms.
This is an old debate/question... Not the first time this has been discussed. I recall an article on cell phone and device camera's getting better and eventually replacing current camera technology. Hasn't happened yet, because consumers like the folks here want dslr's.
I've been thinking about this a lot, well, because it's my job.
I do think cell phones are going to eat away at the point and shoot market and this will probably be the most dramatic change. Low end point and shoot gone. Ended. The end of low-end point and shoots will be the end of some camera manufacturers.
High end point and shoots will live on because of decent zoom lenses more than anything else. Superzoom, larger sensor, but still small body will be the area point and shoots continue to be needed instead of cell phones. It will be the camera most people take on vacation or to Johnnie's soccer game.
I think the lower SLR market, the person who buys an intro level camera and kit lens with a consumer grade telephoto and that's it (I think I read somewhere that this is the description of 1/2 of all SLR buyers) will end up being mirrorless customers in the future. The simplicity of a mirrorless system compared to an SLR means that they're much less expensive to make and assemble. I'm assuming here that they'll improve contrast based autofocus (or add an in-sensor phase contrast AF)enough to make kid's sports shots possible.
When I compared the parts inside an NEX with the parts inside a D7000, it seemed obvious that either 1) Sony makes a fortune off each NEX or 2) Nikon is doing well to break even on the D7000 - it's so much more complex with so many more parts. So I think mirrorless will just dominate the intro market on price point with similar image quality compared to SLRs.
Given that, I think the enthusiast market will start at what we now consider mid-range SLRs. There will be little need for anything less capable than a D7000 / 7D level camera. And mirrorless (assuming the get some good lenses) will possibly compete here too. Even with full-frames.
The Pro level camera, D4 type, would always remain. Big lenses and big bodies with big batteries meant to take a beating and always AF instantly. My fear is that no camera manufacturer could make it today selling just pro level equipment. THe market is too small. So I hope Nikon and Canon get some major mirrorless systems coming on board soon.
Why don't you get a different hobby? If you take time to listen to yourself, you'll see I'm right. You should get yourself a little point and shoot and then take up fishing.
One thing you could improve on.....is to realize the strap that comes with your camera is to keep it from hitting the ground if you lose your grip, not to carry it with. I always carry the camera with my hands, not dangling from my neck or shoulder.....
Removing the "Flappy mirror thing" will not reduce the overall size of a camera system but a few ounces and an inch or so in depth of the camera body. Lenses can only get so small physically and still project the image onto crop, or full frame size sensors. If you really want a smaller camera that has big boy features ( but not big boy autofocus ).. there is already a camera system out there. Pentax with DA limited primes ( prime lenses designed specifically for cropped sensor DSLR ). These lenses are optically excellent ( for the most part ) and are very small.
The biggest gains to be made at reducing the size of a camera come by reducing the size of the sensor. Once you make the sensor smaller you can make smaller lenses. This is a double edged sword. Smaller sensors mean increased depth of field for a given field of view. Many people on this forum, including myself, do not want smaller sensors. So when you look at a D800 and think of it as being a mirrorless camera with the same sized sensor.. the size reduction will be minimal. Nikon would have to re-design lenses for this "mirrorless" body because of the reduction in the flange focal distance. All current lenses would need an adapter to PUSH them Further from the mount to match the current Flange to focal distance.
If you look at the Sony Nex-5n, you can get a pretty small prime setup using rangefinder lenses, but this is only a size savings up to about 80mm.. once you get into telephoto lenses, the size reduction is irrelevant. So in closing, if you want 35mm Full frame coverage camera and depth of field control.. you're going to be dealing with the same size system for years to come.
Page996 wrote:
For quite some time now we are still sitting here with our chunky DSLR's. So, what does the future hold for some of us? Where do you think DSLR's will be in the next 2-5yrs? We've already hit +30mp on the D800, Nikon's flagship D4 is still a hugh camera. Will Nikon, Canon, etc, ever release a small form factor camera with big boy performance? Maybe the mirror less camera will evolve with better performance. Do we really still need this flappy mirror thing? I'm sure the pros would like a little less weight to carry around.
As we / I get older, I just simple do not want to keep on lugging around my camera (D300), my bulky lenses (24-70 / 70-200). Not sure how much longer my shoulder / neck can take the strain!
I would love a camera size either like a Lecia M9 / Sony NEX-7 or some where in between. With full frame sensor, lens VR.. D800 performance, but with a little extra fps (7-9) just in case you need it, pro optics in a smaller lens. (I'm not taking the HUGH 400mm+ lenses.) For me I like to shoot the streets, landscapes, and the occasional sporting / car racing event.
So what you guys / gals think? You think we can retire our chunky magnesium bodies in the near future? I'm thinking I might have one more camera purchase (D800) and then I'll see what'll be out in the next 2-5yrs. ...Show more →
I have D2 bodies (D2H and D2X) and a D700. I much prefer the handling / ergonomics of the larger bodies. The weight difference is not significant at all - less than a pound. The difference between an M9 and a D4 is less than two pounds.
I will turn 50 this year. At airports and hotels I take the stairs instead of escalators and elevators. I also refuse to use luggage with wheels. It's more important than ever as we age to burn more calories and do weight-bearing exercise. A larger camera kit will only improve your health!
Yes, DSLRs require a larger bag. If you want a svelte street-shooter, they are plenty of camera options available today. You might consider something like the new Fuji X-Pro1. The images are great and the lenses are compact.
Yeah, the X-Pro1 has taken a big step towards the type of camera that the OP refers. IQ wise the X-Pro seriously delivers and some have said it compares to full frame performance. It handles very well, is much smaller than big DSLR's and the lenses are too.
At this stage the only thing really where it is not delivering slr performance is in AF performance. I'm guessing that within 3 years this will change and there will be some good options for those who want to go the CSC route instead of DSLR.
For now though, if you want small form you'll have to accept small sensor. The NEX-7 and X-Pro1 are probably the best choices.
I guess I really don't understand the complaints I see about the size and weight of pro dslrs; The weight and form make the controls easier to access, easier to hold steady with the mirror/shutter thwak, more balanced with big lenses and flashes, if you put a 70-200 on a D3100 or something it feels horrible. I have an X100 and while it's great it is fiddly to use, I'd rather carry more heft than compromise usability. Wedding photographers can be shooting for 8 to 14hrs, many are women and some of them even add grips to 5Ds and D700s for better balance.
This is NOT a knock at anyone but I a lot of people that buy 'pro' cameras are not working professionals and it is difficult for them to take it to the park with their kids or lug around on holiday and that is where the complaints come from. This is why the m4/3rds and APS-C X100/NEX type cameras are taking chunks out of the dslr market and will continue to do so as the EVFs, IQ and AF improve.
I think that you'll start seeing innovations in the area of computational imaging taking a much larger role. We're already starting to see the emergence of the technology in its infant stages with Lytro and there's a slew of other imaging methods out there.
As someone that enjoys the outdoors and landscape photography, I'd love to see something that can give comparable performance to a DSLR. m4/3 is getting close in terms of size and portability, but I personally can't get used to an EVF, especially in low light situations where it gets really noisy.
Or something in the other extreme like a miniaturized technical camera using a full frame sensor as opposed to traditional 4x5. I think that could be pretty exciting as well.
rhyder wrote:
Why don't you get a different hobby? If you take time to listen to yourself, you'll see I'm right. You should get yourself a little point and shoot and then take up fishing.
One thing you could improve on.....is to realize the strap that comes with your camera is to keep it from hitting the ground if you lose your grip, not to carry it with. I always carry the camera with my hands, not dangling from my neck or shoulder.....
Have you priced boats lately?
