Ed Greene's epiphany: death of the DSLR

Ed Greeneﾒs Epiphany: death of the DSLR.

 

Severely scaled down versions of studio cameras will spell the death of the

DSLR/SLR. <br>The first inkling? Panasonic's FZ line, where the lens itself

does not lengthen as it zooms (<i>just like studio cameras</i>), nearly the

entirety of the lens contained within the body.<p>Next inkling? Sensors will

grow to nearly 6 X 5 (film size) but yet take up not much more space than

present day camera (Panasonic FZ30) enclosures.<br> Huge by non-SLR digital

camera standards, the FZ30 (<i>or even the larger Pansonic L1 DSLR</i>) could

easily hold a 6 X 5 sized sensor.<p>Of course we could see bumps and bulges

here and there, but yet, most of the camera's nearly 1 1/2 kilo weight will be

in the battery and equally huge lens systems.<br>The new camera will make

serious movies, make stills and stop action, recording to small, better

quality-higher density DVD-R discs.<br> Upper end models will be capable of

wireless broadcast (<i>you're in your backyard, broadcasting directly to your

2 terabyte hard drive recorder in the living room</I>) and simultaneously make

internal recordings.<p>Today's limited sensors will not be the flagship

sensors. Even better, we will be able to <i><b>insert</b></i> sensor upgrades

directly into the camera instead of having to buy new bodies! <p>``Trickle-

down`` (cheap) models will be somewhat limited as to their ability to store,

broadcast-etc. but all will (would) be at least 6 X 5

(replaceable/upgradeable) medium format sized sensors.<p>No provision would be

made for the new units to use interchangeable lenses (<I>why</I>?), though the

brilliant 4/3rds system may still be lurking at the lower end of the imaging

spectrum. Completely modular, the new system will sound the death knell of

proprietary (Nikon-Canon-Pentax-etc.) systems.<p>When will we see these

``Wundercameras``? Certainly on or before 2010, no later than 2012.<p>How much

will they cost? 3,000 Euros and up, according to the bells and whistles we

order. <p>What will the ``trickle-down`` models cost? Starting @ 1,200 euros

and up.<p>Canon will have moved on to further dominate in the office machine

field, while Nikon-et. al. will see their imaging demise by 2020.<p>Who will

be the ``victors``? Donﾒt have the slightest idea, though they will be the

forward looking.<br>The losers? ``Joe Sixpack`` and his tiny pocket sized

cams.

"...most of the camera's nearly 1 1/2 kilo weight will be in the battery and equally huge lens systems."

 

 

 

So if one wants to take a six-pack along on a hike, the future means you have to lug a 24-bottle case to shoot your images? I can't wait!<div></div>

Piffle.

"Piffle", as in "Don't step in the piffle"?

<i>Panasonic's FZ line, where the lens itself does not lengthen as it zooms...nearly the entirety of the lens contained within the body.</i><br>And why is this an advancement? </p>

 

<i>Sensors will grow to nearly 6 X 5 (film size) but yet take up not much more space than present day camera (Panasonic FZ30) enclosures.</i><br>

Not much of prediction given Moore's law. I'm looking forward to those interchangeable sensors, though.</p>

 

<i>Upper end models will be capable of wireless broadcast... and simultaneously make internal recordings.</i><br>

Um, Nikon and Canon has offered this for about two years on their "upper end models".</p>

 

<i>No provision would be made for the new units to use interchangeable lenses.... Completely modular, the new system will sound the death knell of proprietary (Nikon-Canon-Pentax-etc.) systems.</i><br>

Again, DSLRs are gone, right? So this means birders won't have those 600mm f4's any more, and I won't be able to shoot a soccer game with a 300mm? We'll be able to do all of this with a Panasonic FZ-like plasic box in which most of the lens is contained within the camera body. And cameras become commoditized like PCs? Bwahaahaahaa!</p>

 

<i>How much will they cost? 3,000 Euros and up, according to the bells and whistles we order. The losers? ``Joe Sixpack`` and his tiny pocket sized cams. </i><br>

So let me get this straight. We'll be buying small, plastic-bodied, universally modular full-frame sensor cameras with a single fixed super-zoom lens that won't change length when zoomed because most of the lens lives in the small body. We'll pay a minimum of $3,750 for this wonder... but we'll be able to take movies with it! </p>

 

Oh, and the mass-market users who have switched to digital photography en masse in the greatest, fastest change in the ever in the industry will be abandoned.</p>

 

Don't know what fugue state has led to this epiphany, but unless you want to be known as the Paul Ehrlich of the photography business, you may want to re-epiphanize a little. Sure, the FZ's aren't bad cameras, but I don't think they're good enough to become the basis for everything that will follow.

Re <I>Today's limited sensors will not be the flagship sensors. Even better, we will be able to insert sensor upgrades directly into the camera instead of having to buy new bodies!</I><BR><BR>And Silicon Film stock will be the next Walmart, Microsoft, Ebay! :)

I guess when there's a 6x5 digi, my 4x5 film will finally be obsolete. That "6x5" thing is in inches, right?

why are these cameras so SMALL? because the sensors are TINY.<br>

one can dream a bit, but not change the laws of physics. A LARGE<br>

sensor needs A LARGE image circle and with that a HUGE box...<p>

anything else stated is just the normal evolutionary bs.

Well, I'm predicting that all auto-focus (AF) lenses will be developed as internal-focus (IF). In other words the build-quality or loose-barrel-problem of expensive AF lenses must be solved...

 

That's not the death of the DSLR and not the death of the SLR. For instance lenses can be found something like 2.8 AF 28mm to 70mm zoom with IF but the weight could be two pounds. Then someone else would just want an 1.4 AF 85mm prime with IF at half the weight, faster aperture, and higher optical quality...

 

So choice of lens is professional in nature and fundamental...

You're essentially describing a MF system with a digital back. It's not necessary to wait another half decade, they've been available for a long time. And yes, there are "3,000 Euros and up, according to the bells and whistles we order."

 

"No provision would be made for the new units to use interchangeable lenses (why?), though the brilliant 4/3rds system..."

 

So this is a fixed lens (fast hyperzoom too I suppose) camera with a 6cm x 5cm sensor? Doesn't sound like a probable product.

Most digital capture devices have fixed lenses, like cellphones and the zillion P&S digitals. <BR><BR>There are millions of folks who have hung up their old film 35mm slrs, and gone straight to high end P&S digitals. <BR><BR>Removeable lens digitals are abit of a niche market, are a shrinking proportion of the entire digital camera sales pie. The average pnet person thinks most digital users are dslr users, and that camera makers will be bringing out low cost backs, camera bodies to fit their old lenses from 50 years ago. :) Pnet folks seem to be a warped bunch, and dont equate that alot of folks are happy with a P&S digital for alot of their images.<BR><BR>Proprietary lens mounts have always been a way to make money. A Kodak Ektra, Nikon F, Leica M, Exakta VX, Minolta SRT101, Canon EOS, and Miranda have different mounts for a reason. In a perfect world, goverment controlled :) there would be only one shoe for women, one song for teenagers, one camera lens mount. :)

While we are fixated on the form of image acquisition,noone says much about how the images are viewed. To me, that is the more intriguing future prospect. Already I see what is happening. At the park yesterday, John and his mate showed me photos of the new baby. No sheaf of 4 by 6's. Handed me the camera to look at the LCD.

 

My prediction is that the traditional wall paper print will be gone by 2010. In its place will be a wall hung high definition screen (also usable for TV and DVD) which will take a small chip and display a full album. And the many portable handheld devices,backlit,will make the prints so old fashioned. Right now we can see the beginnings,with the smart phone. I enjoy the prospect. My idea of beauty was the giant Kodak Panorama (what WAS the name it actually was called...rama something?) transparencies at the NYC Grand Central Station. That is the ticket. Oh, and next,we might have lenticular stereograms in a digital format. Stereoscopy will finally be the new frontier,as color was in 1936...there,some real brain teasers,-what do you think? Will it be Sony or Panasonic that rules by then?

Yet one more waste of bandwidth and of people's time. I can't manage a more dignified or a more comprehensive reply.

Since it's my epiphany, I'd better speak to it:<p>Dan Zimmerman: <br>...<b>where the lens itself does not lengthen as it zooms...nearly the entirety of the lens contained within the body</b>.<p><i>And why is this an advancement?</i><p>Never even hinted it was. Factually that ``feature`` is simply IF.<p><b>Sensors will grow to nearly 6 X 5 (film size) but yet take up not much more space than present day camera (Panasonic FZ30) enclosures</b>.<p><i>Not much of prediction given Moore's law. I'm looking forward to those interchangeable sensors, though.</i><p><b>Upper end models will be capable of wireless broadcast... and simultaneously make internal recordings.</b></p><i>Um, Nikon and Canon has offered this for about two years on their "upper end models".</i><p>Wireless broadcasts to 2 terabyte (home) recorders? And record on high(er) density DVDs? I don't think so!<p><b>No provision would be made for the new units to use interchangeable lenses.... Completely modular, the new system will sound the death knell of proprietary (Nikon-Canon-Pentax-etc.) systems</b>.<p><i>Again, DSLRs are gone, right? So this means birders won't have those 600mm f4's any more,</i><p>Yep, but you've jumped the gun. And what "birders"? SLR birders? Nah, see answer immediately below.<p><i>and I won't be able to shoot a soccer game with a 300mm?</i><p>You will be able to do anything then what you do now, but with old, outdated-truly antiquated usually small sensored DSLR cameras. But why would you shoot a 300mm when the new ``Wundercamera`` will do it all at f/2.0?<p><i>We'll be able to do all of this with a Panasonic FZ-like plasic box</i><p>FYI: Most FZ "boxes" are metal bodied, not plastic.<p><i> in which most of the lens is contained within the camera body.</i><p>Don't know about or haven't seen/handled the Panasonic FZ line hummm? The FZ lens <i><b>is</b></i> self-contained within the lens adapter, nothing ``extending`` out. But if you haven't seen or handled one of them, you wouldn't know that: hmmm?<p><i>And cameras become commoditized like PCs?</i><p>What in hell does "Commoditized" mean? Perhaps you meant "Compartmentalized"? Or maybe even ``Modular``?<br> Modular yes: ``Comoditized``? Hell no! Bwahaahaahaa!~<p><b>How much will they cost? 3,000 Euros and up, according to the bells and whistles we order. The losers? ``Joe Sixpack`` and his tiny pocket sized cams.</b><p><i>So let me get this straight. We'll be buying small, plastic-bodied, universally modular full-frame sensor</I><p>Not ``full frame`` but 6 X 5 medium format sized.<p><I>cameras with a single fixed super-zoom lens that won't change length when zoomed because most of the lens lives in the small body.</i><p>Your wonderment tells me you <i>really</i> don't know how IF (internal focus) lenses work-huh? Damn shame since IF has been part of photography lenses since about 1960. And part of every FZ made. Bwahaahaahaa!<p><i> We'll pay a minimum of $3,750 for this wonder... but we'll be able to take movies with it!</i><p>Yessir, just like modern digital cameras already do: make movies that is. Bwahaahaahaa!<p><i>Oh, and the mass-market users who have switched to digital photography en masse in the greatest, fastest change in the ever in the industry will be abandoned.</i><p>Damn skippy! Just like 110 and APS film camera owners were abandoned; left in the film photography lurch-so to speak. And what's so sacred about any one format or type that manufacturers would keep them around out of pity. You don't see Canon or Nikon giving one damn about film; now do you? <p><i>Don't know what fugue state has led to this epiphany, but unless you want to be known as the Paul Ehrlich of the photography business, you may want to re-epiphanize a little.</i><p>It's my damn epiphany and I'm sticking to it-Bwahaahaahaa!<p><i>Sure, the FZ's aren't bad cameras, but I don't think they're good enough to become the basis for everything that will follow.</i><p>Segue: there are now .454 Casulls(?) and .50 caliber(!) handguns and .50 caliber <i>sniper</i> rifles.<br> Who knew that would grow out of the Chinese and their little invention called gunpowder? Who knew?! Bwahaahaahaa!<p>And yes, the camera I speak of or something like it will spring forth out of some factory sooner, rather than later. <div></div>

What Ellis said.

People have been spouting this kind of nonsense for years now, and the DSLRs still keep

on coming. You will never cram every option that an SLR camera **SYSTEM** gives you

into a digicam. Yes, wheee, digicams have image stabilization with a 400mm+ equivalent

focal length, but they are still in reality very short lenses with proportionately large depth

of field. What about tilt / shift, ultra low light purposes, etc? You'll never cram that all

into one camera. If anything, the kind of camera you are prophesying will never happen or

fail horribly, as the average joe already has a phone-cam, and the photographer has a

'real' camera. They might sell, but just as the Sony 828 and N1 have failed to overtake SLR

cameras your (essentially the same idea) camera will fail too.

 

"though the brilliant 4/3rds system may still be lurking at the lower end of the imaging

spectrum"

 

Kind of like it is now? (ducks)

<i>It's my damn epiphany and I'm sticking to it-Bwahaahaahaa!</i><p>

No, Ed. It's your guess, your prediction, your desire or hope. An epiphany is the comprehension or sudden understanding of <b>reality</b>; it's not "the ability to forecast a future", however accurate or senseless that forecast may be.

Markus Hartel:<br><i>why are these cameras so SMALL? because the sensors are TINY.</i><p>By "these cameras" you were referring to other than the big FZs, in particular the FZ20 and larger FZ30, both Pentax ME SLR size.<p><i>one can dream a bit, but not change the laws of physics.</i><p>I see a large sensor and an adequate ``box`` to put it in as I noted in my description.<p><i>A LARGE

sensor needs A LARGE image circle and with that a HUGE box...</i><p>And that may depend on what your version of ``huge`` is. For some people, <i>any</i>SLR is ``huge``, in particular when they are compared to the dainty-shiny little digicams out there.<p><i>anything else stated is just the normal evolutionary bs.</i><p>Haven't had <I>your</I> photographic epiphany yet-huh?

Kevin Connery<p><b>:It's my damn epiphany and I'm sticking to it-Bwahaahaahaa!</b><p><i>No, Ed. It's your guess, your prediction, your desire or hope.</i><p>None of the above really. My ``epiphany`` was my old PJ senses taking photography to a likely conclusion based on known facts.<br>Not as you say a ``prediction``, but a newsman following the bread crumbs to see where they lead and that is the demise of the SLR.<p><i>An epiphany is the comprehension or sudden understanding of reality;</i><p>You have no hope in hell of telling what ``reality`` is to me, or will be or is to others.<br> Actually, I was having fun with this until your supercilious attitude intruded. ``Fun`` dammit, not a freakin' parsing match with a wise ass.<p><i>it's not "the ability to forecast a future", however accurate or senseless</i><p>Like I said, I was having fun until your bile surfaced to spoil it.<br>And my ``forecast`` is cast; <I>in stone</I>: where is yours?<br>You had an opportunity to overcome my fun ``forecast`` with one of your own.<br> But instead, you stooped to casting aspersions. Your loss.<br>*How did you miss this:<br> ﾓBwahaahaahaaﾔ!?</i>

110 is still available at alot of Walmarts, an 1 hour processing is available at many local frontiers at Walmart. How is this abandonment?

Today higher end P&S digitals are actually quite decent cameras.<BR><BR> Joe Six pack often brings in images from these for us to make giant posters; sometimes 36x48 inches. I have pro customers who use DSLR's and high end P&S digitals too, that often exploit the P&S digitals advanced settings. Some pros use them as backups, to document lighting settings.<BR><BR> Joe Six pack actually often does well with a P&S digital compared to his old film 35mm slr, it has a greater depth of field, often a better low light response too. There are SOME braver? :) folks who shoot weddings with high end P&S digitals, and they use the tiff and raw settings, and bracket the tougher whiter scenes. <BR><BR>Even my year old 1.3 megapixel Kyocera camera phone has 4 different white balance settings, selftimer with 3 settings, a low light mode, 6 resolution settings, 3 compression settings, an LED flash, a multishot mode, and several video modes. <BR><BR>discussion of film versus digital stuff is decades old. Once a VGA camera was over 2 grand, and had few of the features my cellphone has. After awhile these discussions are actually quite funny, as newbies, new experts predict the future. <BR><BR>Maybe one should look at the situation in 1991 when I was using Photostyler with digital images, and Photoshop wasnt even on a PC yet. There was a 2048 by 2048 pixel Leaf back for the Hassleblad in 1991, that used a scsi interface to the Mac. Folks today still act like shoehorning a digital back on a MF camera is a new thing, this was 2 years after Reagan, during the first Bush president, the dow hit 3000!; Jamie Lynn Marie Spears was born, Britney was 10, and not on the New Mickey mouse club yet. <BR><BR>1991 was 1/2 decade before APS. Kodak brought out the 1.3 megapixel DCS series camera in 1991; a decade after the Sony Mavica electronic still camera. Linux was born in 1991, dos 5.0 too. I had a 486DX-50 that cost 5 grand, it had a weird board. They are still making 486's in batches today for some embedded systems. Like 110 film, 486's live on!

<i>My ``epiphany`` was my old PJ senses taking photography to a likely conclusion based on known facts.</i><P>

That's still not an epiphany. When I first read the original post, I thought the epiphany was "if you post something on photo.net about the future of digital, people will debate it no matter how baseless the predictions are."<P>

<i>Like I said, I was having fun until your bile surfaced to spoil it.</i><P>

The only bile I've seen is this thread is coming from you, Ed. Kevin didn't seem the least bit angry.

<i>An epiphany is the comprehension or sudden understanding of reality;</i> (Me)

<p>

<i>You have no hope in hell of telling what ``reality`` is to me, or will be or is to others.</i> (EG)<p>

Apparently so.<p>

Imaging circle issues intrude on the prediction; the imaging circle of lenses are limited by the physical materials available for lenses. A larger imaging area requires a larger image circle--how "fast" are the lenses designed for LF cameras? How large are they physically?<p>

If you meant tiny sensor units (the <i>6 X 5 sized sensor</i> reference isn't clear as to whether that's very large [inches], very small [mm], or somewhere in the middle), the trade-off would be focus selectivity: "functional" depth of field goes up as media size goes down.<p>

It IS possible that manufacturers will go for a more modular approach--as the MF cameras did for decades (and still do...), and have interchangeable sensor/processors. Cost increase for that modularity hasn't been considered worthwhile by most vendors--eFilm/Silicon Film folded, and Leica's R9 digital back isn't price-competitive for the functionality--but that may change.<p>

Sensors and sensor subsystems will almost certainly improve. No epiphany there, I'd hope; that's the same step-by-step process digital cameras have made since they first appeared.<p>

<i>And my ``forecast`` is cast; in stone: where is yours?</i>(EG)<p>

 

<b>My predictions (stored on electrons)</b>:<p>

Cameras may become more decoupled from their viewfinder systems, perhaps with the camera physically (or wirelessly) tethered to a high-resolution detachable viewfinder (heads-up display). Or with an imaging module (lens+sensor), processing/storage modules, and viewing modules. That's practical from an engineering standpoint today, and offers significant improvements for <b>some</b> photographers--probably not enough to justify the expense, though, today.<p>

Higher-sensitivity sensors will appear, vastly reducing the need for added light. (Control will still be desirable, but a "good exposure" will be less limited by the quantity of light)<p>

Mirrors will probably fade away; they've always been a workaround to the problem of viewing through the taking lens, and as sensor quality increases, devoting some of that real-estate to real-time viewing becomes practical. The box shape, as you guessed, will change as a result.<p>

Improved signal processing will permit increasing or decreasing depth of field and varying focus after the capture. This is currently available in some COTS software, but it's expensive and compute-intensive. If it does become available, the DoF limitations of tiny sensors are removed.<p>

The above combined with the faster sensors may permit shooting at the same aperture for all images, and adjust DoF to taste afterwards.<p>

 

No epiphanies, alas. Merely guesses and extrapolation of current trends, along with some knowledge of chip manufacturing and design, and the rough rate of change in the field.<p>

 

<i>Kevin didn't seem the least bit angry.</i> (MD)<p>

Thanks, Mike. I certainly hadn't meant it to sound angry.

Mike Dixon: <br><i>When I first read the original post, I thought the epiphany was "if you post something on photo.net about the future of digital, people will debate it no matter how baseless the predictions are."</i><p>My post has just as much ``validity`` as mundane posts about ``What Xxx xxxx should I use/buy``?<br>You know, the kind of question no one can answer for the questioner? Yet each in turn gets answered. <br>My OP was a prediction (<i>I chose to call an epiphany and was taken to task for it</i>),and that an opinion OT in itself. My OP was/is as valid as the next and debatable to whatever degree, each person parsing as they go or saw fit. <bR>I thought it would be a thinking exercise, an exercise in predicting the future, not a pissing contest (OT) with Ed.<p><b>The only bile I've seen is this thread is coming from you, Ed. Kevin didn't seem the least bit angry.</b><p>And Kevin can speak for himself. When(ever) discourteous behavior/language/inferences surface, rancor ensues. And that was not my intent.

B Hall:<br><i>Well, I'm predicting that all auto-focus (AF) lenses will be developed as internal-focus (IF). In other words the build-quality or loose-barrel-problem of expensive AF lenses must be solved...</i><p>I agree. And Panasoic et. al. have moved in that direction with a vengance.<p><I>That's not the death of the DSLR and not the death of the SLR.</i><p>It is when the ``Wundercamera`` surfaces.<p><i>For instance lenses can be found something like 2.8 AF 28mm to 70mm zoom with IF but the weight could be two pounds.</i><p>My Canon 28-70 f/2.8 is heavy-yes, but not quite two pounds.<p><i> Then someone else would just want an 1.4 AF 85mm prime with IF at half the weight, faster aperture, and higher optical quality...</i><p>Or my Canon 55mm FD 1:1.2 S.S.C. asph., surely a heavy beast but again, not two pounds.<p><i>So choice of lens is professional in nature and fundamental...</i><p>Not quite ``professional`` in that any SLR owner has that choice today.<p>Buyers of the ``Wundercamera``, like today's buyers of superzooms, won`t have the option to change lenses (<i>like superzoom owners today cannot</i>): they will select one strength or another of camera from an al a carte` list, and their selections will provide many choices among the settings.