Is the DSLR dying?

laksht wrote in post #18888004
But sadly the generation which embraced perfect photo quality is slowly shrinking in favor of convenience ..after i got my first 1100D /T3 in 2011, there was no match to any point or shoot or phone camera and the DSLR's have stuck with me since...

Yeah, the generation that gave up CD audio quality, and gave up using speakers bigger than 3" diameter...
now they have MP3 quality played thru tiny speakers that cannot hope to duplicate the bass from 12" woofers, all for convenience.

Absolutely agree with you on the compact disc part... quality degraded for convenience...

I think the higher quality DSLRs and mirrorless gear will stick around for a while, but their market share will continue to decrease until they occupy a very small, very expensive niche rather like large format cameras do today.

In the meantime, software will continue to reduce the gap in photo quality between large sensor cameras and smartphones/compacts, until the difference in quality doesn't justify the expense of a 'real' camera for more and more people. The drift away from prints and toward small screens (i.e. phones and tablets) to view photos will also contribute, making IQ less important.

Even photo enthusiasts will be hard pressed to justify spending thousands of dollars when their buddies can get 90% of the way there with a camera costing a few hundred dollars (or essentially free, if it came with your phone), and without any training or effort to learn. Software will replicate the shallow DOF and bokeh effects, reduce noise in high ISO shots, remove camera shake in post, apply superb processing, offer amazing special effects that Photoshop would struggle to achieve - even tell the 'photographer' how to compose the shot.

I love photography now because I get a real feeling of accomplishment when I look at my photos in comparison with those made by non-photogs. When my shots made with a $5000 combo are largely indistinguishable from Joe Blow's, made with his smartphone, I will lose interest.

At 62yo however, with increasingly debilitating arthritis, I may have to give up DSLRs well before then anyhow.

please take of your health....


But will it replicate the experience of taking a photo..and the feeling you get after you got that moment in perfect quality...

can any software ever duplicate the action of taking a high quality photograph with good gear..it can only enhance but never duplicate...

I really wish photography does not go down to the level where we just use plugins to simulate the end result, it will remove the emotion of taking a picture using y good gear which you can afford at your own level and this as important as taking the picture itself...IMHO

Is the DSLR dying? Yes: https://www.statista.c​om …reflex-cameras-worldwide/

laksht wrote in post #18888030
... can any software ever duplicate the action of taking a high quality photograph with good gear..it can only enhance but never duplicate...

Not yet ...

I hope there will remain some form of DSLR. I find EVFs and looking at preview screens very unsatisfying. Part of the joy of photography for me has always been looking through the lens, and then using my skills to convert what I see into an image. I don't want to look at a screen and have half that equation be completed for me. So perhaps I'll be the old guy who holds into the last incarnation of the 1DX line until they put me in the ground

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18888008
I don't care what others think about the phones and their ability to take pics.

I agree with Teamspeed....I was told recently when I was out and about with my 600mm "Why Do you need that big heavy camera and lens when my phone can take as good a picture, it's all show",......I replied with "So your phone can take a photo of a 4 inch bird 100+ft away in poor light and show all the feather details can it".

TeamSpeed wrote in post #18887997
I personally don't care if there is a mirror or not as long as the cameras have lightning fast AF, accurate AF, and can accept any number of lenses. A mirror doesn't make or break an image.

Again I agree. I do believe that the big players have become very greedy and bring out such a vast huge range of un-necessary bodies that have so few differences between them, they hold back on releasing the advances in the technologies they have made (the ones we need) and only give you snip its of it. Look at the cameras that are used by Nasa to take photo's of Earth and other planets from Space just breath taking photo's. The Technology is there but these companies want to milk it as much as possible.

laksht wrote in post #18888007
so the understanding of true photography and the effort behind it is also fading with every passing generation... that is quite evident...

LOL, film users look at you in exactly the same way.

I have also shot on kodak and fuji ASA 100 and 200 film for almost 5 years before going digital. I used a fixed focus camera with a 35mm lens. i know how tough it is to shoot on film and get great results, modern digital cameras are somewhat like slide film...

laksht wrote in post #18888000
There are so many of us who are used to the convenience and speed and feel of a DSLR which a phone can never give , i just hope DSLR's don't go the way of the dinosaur and remain available and affordable for many years to come...

DSLRS are a lot of things but I would not put convenience and speed in that list. That is why the phones are taking off. Nothing more convenient than what you already carry around everywhere.

laksht wrote in post #18888007
so the understanding of true photography and the effort behind it is also fading with every passing generation... that is quite evident...

True photography will always exist because the love of photographs will always exist.

It's just the tools that will change.

laksht wrote in post #18888030
...can any software ever duplicate the action of taking a high quality photograph with good gear..it can only enhance but never duplicate...

I think a good part of the movie industry would disagree. Software is already capable of creating an image from scratch so realistic that you would have difficulty telling the difference. Maybe that's where we are headed, software augmented imagery.

PCousins wrote in post #18888038
I agree with Teamspeed....I was told recently when I was out and about with my 600mm "Why Do you need that big heavy camera and lens when my phone can take as good a picture, it's all show",......I replied with "So your phone can take a photo of a 4 inch bird 100+ft away in poor light and show all the feather details can it".

Again I agree. I do believe that the big players have become very greedy and bring out such a vast huge range of un-necessary bodies that have so few differences between them, they hold back on releasing the advances in the technologies they have made (the ones we need) and only give you snip its of it. Look at the cameras that are used by Nasa to take photo's of Earth and other planets from Space just breath taking photo's. The Technology is there but these companies want to milk it as much as possible.

Which cameras are those?

ISS cameras are listed to be mainly Nikons-
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/List_of_camera​s_on_ISS

PCousins wrote in post #18888038
... Look at the cameras that are used by Nasa to take photo's of Earth and other planets from Space just breath taking photo's. The Technology is there but these companies want to milk it as much as possible.

Capn Jack wrote in post #18888207
Which cameras are those?

ISS cameras are listed to be mainly Nikons-
https://en.wikipedia.o​rg/wiki/List_of_camera​s_on_ISS

I would assume that the Nikon cameras on the ISS are used mainly to document things happening inside the station and a few outside images for publicity and such. The cameras used by NASA for astronomy and research are very specialized for a certain function and certainly not a Nikon strapped onto a Mars rover.