Comments on: Wired Still Predicting the Demise of DSLRs

By: Doug Wittrock

Doug Wittrock — Wed, 30 Mar 2011 18:57:00 +0000

They once predicted the demise of film SLR’s when cheap film cameras became available. The bottom line is that cheap cameras take cheap pictures. Even relatively expensive point and shoot’s take decent photos because the quality of lens just isn’t there. You want sharp images? Then get a DSLR and even a middle of the road quality lens. There will always be a market for ‘snapshot’ type cameras, as well as DSLR’s.

By: Whenvel33

Whenvel33 — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 21:12:00 +0000

In many contexts, DSLR says “I want you to think I am a serious photographer.”

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 25 May 2010 00:49:14 +0000

I've been shooting photos for almost 50 years now. I started with a Canon Pellix, got a Leica IIIc to learn about light, speed and apertures. Then for 20+ years I used a Canon F-1 before getting a Leica M6. I added a Canon 30D and last week got a 5D MkII. Ok. So what does that mean? I've never worked as a paid photographer but I've had dozens of photos published in various media. What I believe is that the camera won't give you a good “eye”, but if you have one, good equipment will give you superior results. Everybody today considers themselves some kind of photographer even if they are just using their crappy little cell phone camera. The truth is, immediacy counts in the digital world. Events occur and appear on line in minutes today. Quality is not an issue for those folks, news is news and photos help send the message. That said, there will be a market for the digital DSLR for a few years yet as they add more features (DSLR video for example). Bluetooth functions will be next and so on.

By: Todd Eddy

Todd Eddy — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 01:23:30 +0000

I've been taking pictures for years with various P&S cameras. When I got a 40D last year I don't ever want to go back to a P&S. The benefits far outweigh any inconveniences of being “too big / heavy” I actually enjoy having something with some heft to it that I'm not afraid would crack into a million pieces if dropped a foot. Although I'm still saving up for a lens to replace the kit lens…

that said, I'm pretty excited about these EVIL (awesome acronym btw) cameras. They would make a good backup camera or to use in places I don't need a larger camera or if I'm saving space. If I go overseas for a vacation I'd seriously consider an EVIL camera. Although if I'm traveling for the main purpose of taking pictures I'd probably stick with the 40D

By: rangefindergordon

rangefindergordon — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 00:42:44 +0000

I think that dslr sales have been driven by people wanting to buy cameras that look professional regardless of the image quality. I think there will be a return of rangefinder-esque cameras that out shoot low end dslrs for most tasks. I'd kill to have my m-mount lenses on a digital body.

By: drgroove

drgroove — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 04:41:18 +0000

Bear in mind the retailers have become accustomed to selling DSLR body + lens sets, and may struggle to feel comfy flogging the same customer a lower priced item (which is probably why the camera companies will need to rationalise their range for them)

By: D.H.

D.H. — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 01:48:48 +0000

To be honest, it's only serious photographers that think about things like this. The proverbial man-on-the-street will fall for marketing and general perception.

I think that smaller cameras *should* be the name of the game for 98% of consumers out there. But as long as the camera companies market DSLRs as something that will magically ramp up your image quality, people will still buy them and wonder why their kit lens results suck.

I shoot a DSLR, and love it. But, I often just carry around a really cheap Nikon P&S. And, frankly, many of my P&S shots rival stuff from my DSLR. And, beyond that, the simple fact that the P&S is small means that I have it with me all of the time, whereas I generally plan ahead if I am carrying my DSLR around.

Now, I'm no Ansel Adams, but I do have half a clue about photography. And, thus, I can force some reasonably OK stuff out of a crappy P&S. The average Joe out there who just takes snapshots (but wants to be Adams) can't get anything that he likes (other than snapshots) out of a P&S, and is easily bamboozled into thinking that a DSLR (rather than practice) will solve his problems.

That marketing ploy is $$$ in Canon/Nikon/Sony's pocket. So, unless someone comes along and convinces consumers that a smaller camera is at least as good – if not better in some cases – than a DSLR, people will continue to buy DSLRs.

By: Bergur

Bergur — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:52:03 +0000

I'm probably just saying what all the others are saying:

These might replace the lower-end DSLRs, but not the serious amateurs, the hobbyists, semi-pros and ofc pros won't change anything.

I knew a few people, who have bought DSLRs because the want a little more control than a P&S can provide. Also I know people who have bought the most expensive P&S they can find, because they wanted quality, but not the size of a DSLR…

By: teitr

teitr — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 13:08:23 +0000

Never buy or use a camera for what other people might think. These days most of the time I walk around with a 45 year old rangefinder, I also take it too shoots and hook it up to my flashes.
I see what they're trying to get at with the article, it might still take some time but I do think the entry level dslr market is going to get smaller due to those new style rf like digital compacts. I'm also in the market for one so I can leave my heavy dslr stuff at home and go with two light bodies, one film and one digital

By: Kevin Pack

Kevin Pack — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 12:45:53 +0000

Given the problem facing street photographers getting hassle in the UK because they have a DSLR and therefore must be a terrorist or pedo, street photography may be easier with using an EVIL camera like the E-P1.