In all the excitement about smaller batteries and carbon-fibre effect hand grips, you may have missed the key message of the recent batch of camera announcements – that DSLR technology has reached a significant stage of maturity. The recently launched Olympus E-450 was without question the most subtle modification of an existing model we’ve ever seen and the new Sonys, with their revised styling and reworked user interfaces unquestionably have an awful lot in common with the preceding models.
The ‘Welcome to your first DSLR, don’t worry, it’s not so unlike your old compact camera’ message that all entry level DSLRs are designed to give off is being made even more explicit but, in technology terms, they don't represent a big change. And this is not something we’ve seen quite so starkly before – in the past existing technologies have worked their way down to cheaper models but rarely have they survived, essentially intact, from one generation of camera to the next.
Sony has a reputation for being as astute at marketing as it is at product design (and there are few companies that do both well). At launch, it seemed strange that Sony would offer the A200, 300 and 350 in a market segment that most manufacturers were addressing with a single model. However, since then, most manufacturers have reacted and introduced smaller, cheaper, easier-to-use models and the cameras that would have once been considered entry-level no longer sit at the bottom of the product range. This and Sony’s impressive market penetration suggest that it got something right.
So, let’s assume that Sony’s latest move is similarly shrewd and look back at the latest generation of DSLRs in this light - you’ll notice that the big changes in most manufacturer’s ranges are being made on the marketing side, rather than engineering. Which isn’t a criticism – a good product is a careful balance of clever technology and intelligent marketing so that the customer gets all the technology they want in a form they can use and at a price they’re willing to pay. The result of this mature market is that there is a greater choice of good DSLRs than there has ever been – no matter what your needs or your budget, it’s never been easier to find a camera that does what you want. But it may be worth getting used to the idea that it’s likely to be increasingly uncommon for a new model to offer more than a new screen, a different sensor and a tweaking of the user-interface.
Not that there aren’t still areas of technology that could (and almost certainly will) be improved. Live view, for instance, is still very much in its infancy and, on DSLRs, still looks a solution that needs to decide what problem it’s trying to solve. There are essentially two camps at present: the manufacturers whose live view systems allow fine focussing (for studio and macro work, for instance), and the manufacturers whose systems concentrate on offering a fast, compact-camera-like experience.
The fine-focus systems may now offer contrast-detection AF (and even Face Detection), but they’re all still far too slow to use in the way you’d use a compact camera. Sony’s fast-focus system offers exactly this sort of seamless use but is less than ideal for fine focus work and in its current form has knock-on effects on the rest of the camera’s operation. It’s interesting to note that Olympus, the first manufacturer to include live view on a DSLR, had to use two different solutions to try to provide both capabilities.
The one camera we’ve seen so far that manages to simultaneously offer compact-like performance and fine focusing is not, technically a DSLR. The Panasonic G1 may have the interchangeable lenses of a DSLR but its underlying design is essentially that of a compact camera – everything it does is live view. More importantly the entire system, including lenses, has been designed specifically for fast contrast-detection autofocus, rather than having to coax old designs to perform tricks they were never intended to do. With launches expected from both Olympus and Samsung, it’ll be these mirrorless interchangeable lens systems that are likely to be breaking new ground.
Mirrorless cameras aren't going to consign DSLRs to the scrapheap just yet |
I'm not saying that technology isn't going to continue to move on (even if you don't say it, it's a famously easy way to make yourself look ridiculous) - a new sensor technology may emerge tomorrow that will revolutionise digital photography. Instead I'm saying that, in the short term, the great leaps forwards (and, I suspect, the entertaining pratfalls), seem more likely to occur in the sandpit of the mirrorless camera rather than the comfy armchair of the conventional DSLR.
I'm not sure that
"[Y]ou’ll notice that the big changes in every manufacturer’s ranges are being made on the marketing side, rather than engineering."
applies to the new Pentax K-7 very well. Sure, not everything is groundbreaking for the industry in general, but there's a new 100%-field viewfinder, a fast shutter which some of the earlier reviews are saying is one of the quietest ever, the ability to actually shift the sensor position for final framing, etc., etc. Plus, there's a whole host of software changes, which are engineering too — CA and distortion correction in-camera, and the Adorama blog is very excited about the in-camera HDR.
Posted by: Matthew Miller | 21 May 2009 17:40:54
Fair point - I've corrected it to 'most manufacturers.' And I'm not saying that the engineers have packed up and gone home, just that they're fine-tuning existing technologies, rather than making just leaps forward (at the moment).
In that sense, the K-7 still fits (roughly), into what has to be a generalisation.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 21 May 2009 18:09:22
So does this mean you have the Olympus m4/3 camera there and you're holding out on us?
Posted by: Scott | 21 May 2009 18:14:14
No, that's a photomontage based on a shot we've already published of the mock-up.
I'd be a little unpopular if I'd just leaked anything that was meant to be under wraps.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 21 May 2009 18:17:08
Image quality, speed and usability have probably reached a point in DSLRs where progress in the near future will be incremental. I do hope that manufacturers will try to innovate by adding features like built-in GPS, articulated LCDs, or built-in WiFi without requiring us to buy a $1000 accessory.
Posted by: Ole Begemann | 22 May 2009 00:14:12
If DSLR manufacturers are looking for desirable improvements, here's a few:
Come up with a Kodachrome-equivalent archival storage method for digital images--hard drives just don't cut it (sorry, Mr. Brady, we couldn't recover your disk).
Automatically align color spaces between cameras, displays and printers.
Make the camera/image smart enough to tell the printer how to get its colors right.
Provide cradle-to-cradle recycling and reuse so we don't have to throw obsolete cameras away.
Posted by: Mike O'Brien | 22 May 2009 02:30:31
I'm afraid I don't agree with the article. It's true the recent batch of cameras from Sony has only had incremental changes, but it had nothing to do with technological maturity. These cameras are -- in many ways -- well behind the competition (EOS 500D & Nikon D5000). The viewfinders are still tiny. The screens are low-res. They lack movie mode. The sensors are using old CCD designs, not CMOS. These new Alphas are not a good example of technological maturity. They are well behind against other cameras in their own price range.
The most likely reason we're seeing these small incremental upgrades is simple: The sagging economy. Remember a few months ago when there were news of huge layoffs and budget cuts at Sony's camera division? We're seeing the results of that today. The cutbacks in R&D has likely resulted in these slightly warmed over Alphas that Sony is serving us.
Posted by: hipster.doofus7 | 22 May 2009 09:44:14
I´d certainly agree with most of the above & large-sensor, mirrorless cameras (we really need to find an easier name for this class of camera) are going to be where photography is moving forward in the near future. One benefit of the above to DSLRs, but not mentioned here, is that consumers can buy a DSLR & be confident that the next model, when released in 6 months, will not massively upgrade the present one. The current camera, though not rendered obsolete, is less likely to be a victim of the constant upgrades that plague not just cameras but the whole electronics industry. That way consumers save money & will hopefully learn to make best use of the camera that they have, rather than replacing it with a new model.
Posted by: Jonathan MacDonald | 22 May 2009 09:54:01
Hipster - You're more than welcome to disagree with the article; it's more of a discussion point than a 'This is Fact' statement.
I'd suggest that small viewfinders and low-res screens are mainly about keeping costs down and differentiating the entry-level models from the more expensive ones, rather than being technological hurdles. (High-res screens are filtering down, too)
Posted by: Richard Butler | 22 May 2009 10:24:28
It's the way of industry that silicon replaces moving mechanisms.
Automobiles went that way so will cameras.
Posted by: nugat | 22 May 2009 22:58:02
Jonathan: Tell that to everyone who has a Pentax K20D :p
Hipster: Note that the D5000 also has a "low res" screen, and that CCD and CMOS are merely different technologies, neither is truly "superior". Current high-end DSLRs tend towards the latter, but there are much higher-end cameras which use CCDs to great effect (See Phase One P65).
Richard: Interesting article. I should say that what I like best about the new Sonys are that they bring teh pretteh. ;D
Posted by: Alex | 23 May 2009 14:33:36
I think using a 6 Mpxl APS-C sized CMOS sensor for both still and full-array readout (not subsampled readout) video camera will be a winner. Lower pixel count gives camera CPU a chance to readout all and process info in video rate. This gives the new sector an opportunity to match a basic camcorder capability.
Posted by: ccs | 24 May 2009 05:04:16
...I don't think that it matters much. The issue is market-segmentation more than anything else. No one camera is going to fit the needs of all shooters, so there will always be niche markets, and all one really needs to do is to identify ones own particular niche and follow the trends.
In any case unless you plan to upgrade with each new model, the year to year changes are just very significant. I personally do not plan to spend $1k on a camera and lens every year, and hope to make up the difference on eBay. And pro shooters and amateurs will always have conflicting interests.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 24 May 2009 18:53:37
"In any case unless you plan to upgrade with each new model, the year to year changes are just very significant."
...sorry, "just not very significant". A bit hasty with the post.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 24 May 2009 18:55:12
"These cameras are -- in many ways -- well behind the competition (EOS 500D & Nikon D5000). The viewfinders are still tiny. The screens are low-res. They lack movie mode. The sensors are using old CCD designs, not CMOS. These new Alphas are not a good example of technological maturity. They are well behind against other cameras in their own price range."
...I agree with the general thrust of this but not with the specifics here. The A100-300 series are great cameras for what they are, and what they are, are $500 CCD DSLRs with body-IS. Virtually unbeatable deals. You say the viewfinders are "tiny", I say they are adequate. These are details...the main issue with this camera is the price, far and above anything else. Show me anything else in the market with this combination of price, performance and features. And i don't see how Sony can keep the price low by constantly tweaking the cameras. Where's the reward for the end-user that is commensurate with the required price-hike?
Comparing a $500 10MP CCD DSLR with body-IS to a $1300 15MP CMOS DSLR *without* body-IS simply doesn't make sense. And they *still* compare very favorably to the entry-level Canons and Nikons. No slight intended to the other mfgs.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 24 May 2009 19:03:32
anyway at the risk of exceeding my daily allotment of posts, what I see, that is sad, is the willingness of the DSLR market to be content with relying on zooms that need to be stopped down to F8 (or worse even primes) to compete with point & shoots that are adequate at F4, in terms of sharpness across the frame. And thinking that doodads like movie-mode, Face Detect and Live-View will make up for that loss of speed combined with the far-larger size, weight and cost of DSLRs or even G1-clones, compared to a good P&S like the G10 or LX3 shot raw. This is going to be a non-issue for the amateur market when they can get the same shot or even better with a lightweight small p&s. Removing the mirror isn't going to save that market. Making them faster, lighter and cleaner is the only way to save them from the anchors of their price, size & weight.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 24 May 2009 19:16:59
...if the goal of a camera & lens combination is to take photographs, even to take movies, then given that basic functionality, increasing the size, cost and weight of the camera and lens requires a greater than proportional improvement in the ability of the camera and lens to take pictures and movies, in order for the wise consumer to consider the purchase of that gear. Otherwise only good marketing and dumb consumers can save that product. Given enough consumers, enough of them will be either dumb enough or willing to take a risk on an unknown product, to keep it afloat. Let the market contract or even remain static over time and suddenly marketing becomes critical as the forces of technological progress and free-market competition will push the better products to the top of the heap. That's still fine as long as the r&d cost of the lesser products drops to zero, and the manufacturing cost is reduced to the minimum. Those products will still be profitable to make and sell.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 24 May 2009 19:57:19
All this technology is all very well, but how many DSLR users actually use it all (or even know what it does)?
How many stick the camera on auto and never use anything else?
Like mobile phones, camera manufacturers seem to add technology for the sake of technology and not to make the camera easier or better to use.
My ideal camera would utilise the pentaprism rather than mirrors. It would be entirely manual with iso and shutter speed adjustments on the body. aperture ring on the lense along with manual focus and incorporating split screen focussing as used on the Canon F1 in the old film days - in fact what I'm describing is a digital F1 and I would be at the front of the queue for a Digital F1 from Canon if they ever made one.
I'm not a Luddite, I just like to have control over my pictures and I dont see why I have to buy a camera with loads of features which, although I do know how to use them, I rarely do.
Posted by: John Tompkins | 25 May 2009 01:23:56
Lots of good points to think about, Richard. Perhaps and hopefully newer cams will get back to quality and make photography a human thing again requiring some effort and creativity again?
I don't need live view on a DSLR. I want a bigger viewfinder to look through!
Posted by: Wayne Birch | 25 May 2009 03:06:18
I do not agree with the main thesis of this article. The whole industry is very much in the state of flux thanks to the newly introduced ideas and improvements; it has nothing to do with “maturity”. Indeed one could argue that the maturity stage was reached quite a few months ago when Canon has introduced its EOS 450D and Nikon put on the market its D80 (or whatever is/was the Nikon equivalent of the Canon camera – please excuse my ignorance on that subject). Back than we had a very stable and mature market, one could intentionally misquote the above mentioned Charles Duell by saying that everything that could be invented in a DSLR has been invented. The grand design was there, it was proven, solid and workable, it was very stable and seemingly nothing more could be added to it, whatever changes were being made or introduced at the time were minor, incremental tweaks.
The market has changed since, we have the micro 4/3 system, we have HD video, we have new paradigms in user interface – those are not the signs of a mature market. This segment of the industry will now evolve even quicker than previously (global market conditions allowing) and I think it will take some time before it becomes “mature” (i.e. stagnant) again.
Posted by: Michal | 25 May 2009 05:00:42
I think the main maturity is in the megapixel race. Innovation is coming from elsewhere now. Unfortunately, I fear the main measure of improvement is in megapixels - so it may look like the market is slowing down simply because the newly introduced cameras have the same resolution numbers on the front. Not so. Innovation is coming in all over the place, from HD video, to new camera formats like µ4/3, to new features like Pentax's in-camera HDR which looks spectacularly useful. The market isn't mature at all - if anything, they're just more mature about megapixels, and I couldn't be happier about that.
Posted by: Tristan | 25 May 2009 05:57:38
The key trend I see is in bringing in intelligence into cameras.
Nikon and Canon (maybe others) have introduced scene detectors - they analyze the scene in the viewfinder against a database of scenes to find which are the preferable settings. Face and smile detectors are just other examples of how manufacturers are trying to make it easy for everybody to take perfect photos. Having a night shot, portrait, party and sports mode is not good enough - the camera has to automatically detect what's going on to make the right decision.
Pro photographers on the other hand are happy with a P, A, S, M mode and a good multi-point selectable auto focus. The difference in my opinion between consumer and pro cameras will therefore be in the lack of intelligent features in the pro models! Or at least features that make decisions for the photographer.
Strangely even as a pro I do sometimes use features I thought were reserved for amateurs - during the weddings I shoot I now and then use live view when I want to make over head shots and remove some of the guess work of aiming. I miss the extreme flash-sync speeds I can get using remote strobes on a electronic viewfinder camera.
What I'm looking for now is more dynamic range, a faster flash-sync speed and a better remote control of my external lights (Canon).
Blaise
Posted by: Wedding Photographer French Riviera | 25 May 2009 09:36:44
I'm not so sure that this is a new concept.
The 20D to the 30D was infact one of the most gentle updates in the history of the DSLR, and that was almost 4 years ago.
Posted by: Jamieson | 26 May 2009 00:47:29
"Instead I'm saying that, in the short term, the great leaps forwards (and, I suspect, the entertaining pratfalls), seem more likely to occur in the sandpit of the mirrorless camera rather than the comfy armchair of the conventional DSLR."
The great advantage of the mirrorless interchangeable lens camera is in being able to tailor the viewfinder display in ways not possible with optics alone, and in the short lensmount register which allow much more design freedom for faster, smaller, higher quality lenses.
Yes, this is where the future will play out. SLRs are already very mature.
Posted by: Godfrey DiGiorgi | 27 May 2009 20:23:32
"Yes, this is where the future will play out. SLRs are already very mature."
Um, I think that if one were to look back at the very first SLR, and compare it to the technology that was on the market when the first *DSLR* came out, one might be able to say that with some credibility, but to look at the *DSLR* and say that it is "very mature" is nonsense. Did we have DSLRs with movie-mode a year ago? I don't think so. Do you really think that there won't be much further and much more significant development past the current crop of DSLRs?
I think that that all depends on the power of imagination brought to the question.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 28 May 2009 01:50:36
I mean for one, every DSLR fan has their own personal wish-list, and I'm sure that every DSLR engineer has theirs too...and there are engineers and scientists who would happily weigh in with their imaginations. Given the pace of microelectronics development I think that we'll see a lot of these ideas come out in the near future. The big question is what can be done in terms of the optics and the sensor itself, not just in in-camera image-processing. For one I would like to see the 1/1.6" sensor format become the "G2", with a detachable lens and an EVF. I mean if you're going to shrink the box, "shrink the box!" :)
Second I don't see the Foveon sensor as the answer to the question of image-sharpness. I would like to see someone simply get rid of the BFA, but I suspect that there is more to be done in terms of improving the quality of interpolation. More processing power will be brought to bear here. 3rd why not vary the exposure-time across the sensor, instead of fixing the entire sensor to make an exposure at one setting? You've got the CMOS sensor with individual amplifiers on-chip, you've got 70-segment metering...why fix the entire array to the same exposure setting? I think that it will be trivial to put some intelligent multi-segment timing in the camera electronics and get true HDR out of these cameras. But the main thing is that I would love to see the mirrorless concept taken into the small-sensor arena and come out with some really nice, fast, high-quality yet *light* optics. And then see what can be done about improving SNR at the higher ISOs. Also why not allow the photographer to use the entire LCD as a viewfinder.
anyway I'm sure that a lot of good ideas are still floating around out there just waiting for some camera mfg to take the initiative. I mean, the 2012 Canons are on the drawing board right now.
Posted by: touristguy87 | 28 May 2009 02:02:38
according to this:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/
the GH1 has a 5MP/cm^2 pixel density, the LX3 has 24MP/cm^2 pixel density, and I hear that the low-light performance of the LX3 is pretty good (at least, for a p&s) especially with an 24-60mm effective F2.0-F2.8 lens...
and most people are happy shooting their cameras in decent light, where a small-sensor camera has adequate SNR...and where it doesn't, a faster lens would definitely help...
So why not just come out with a line of replaceable lenses for it, with a F2.0 or even F1.4 wide-end and either body or lens-IS?
Of course some will say that that wouldn't be an "SLR" but does it matter if the shutter is electronic vs mechanical? It's still a shutter. If that wouldn't count as a DSLR then the G1 wouldn't count as a DSLR either. I don't know if that's really the issue.
But they could just go back to say a 2" or even 1.5" LCD and use that as the viewfinder. Does it need an eyecup to be used as a viewfinder? :)
Or would this essentially be the same as giving Shakespeare a PC to write on? I don't know :)
Posted by: touristguy87 | 28 May 2009 02:21:19
...like this.
http://store.zacuto.com/DSLR-Gunstock-Shooter-Starter.html
Posted by: touristguy87 | 28 May 2009 03:25:24
I'm not ruling out the (very plausible) possibility of this being a temporary lull, though I'm not sure I'd put it down to the economic downturn, given how how far-sighted product planning can be.
I'd have though it's more likely that companies want to expand the market to people who previously wouldn't have bought a DSLR - concentrating on price and simplifying the user experience would certainly seem like a way of doing this.
Posted by: Richard Butler | 28 May 2009 09:34:00
Over the last few months I have bought and used several vintage digital SLRs, all of them significant in some way, because I want to fill in the historical context of digital SLR development. The models I have used include the Kodak DCS 520 (the very first digital SLR reviewed on this site), the DCS 460 (a six megapixel SLR from 1995), the Olympus E-20 (a kind of mutant ancestor of the Panasonic G1), the Canon D30 and 300D, which were important milestones in the development of consumer-level digital SLRs, and also the Nikon D1x. This is in addition to the modern, mainstream models I use when I am in a serious mood. I've written blog posts about them and pontificated on the development of the digital SLR, and my conclusion is that there was a fertile period from 1998-2002, but that the development of the digital SLR essentially matured by 2003, 2004. By that point all of the major manufacturers sold at least one six megapixel consumer digital SLR with an 1.5/1.6x crop factor, generally accurate colours, a usable ISO 800, CompactFlash memory, built-in infrared and antialiasing filters, LCD screens, all of the things we take for granted nowadays, no obvious quirks. There were minor differences between the glut of cameras at the time, but the differences were slight. I am sure there are lots of bitter arguments on this website that model X was vastly superior to model Y, but it was just a lot of waffle that is meaningless now.
There was a time when people assumed that digital SLRs would all have full-frame sensors by 2005, and that they would not look like tradition cameras, they would instead resemble the old Sony F swivel body cameras or the Coolpix 900 series. There have also been a number of clever technologies that seemed promising but did not pan out, such as Fuji's enhanced dynamic range sensor, or Foveon's per-pixel colour technology. Nonetheless, since 2005 the digital SLR has developed incrementally, with two-megapixel jumps in resolution every year, and small but useful improvements such as ultrasonic sensor cleaning. larger LCD monitors, picture styles, highlight priority exposure, in-camera effects and so forth. In some respects there has been a retreat into conservatism; Olympus in particular dropped the unusual design of the E-330 in favour of the conventional-looking E-550.
The biggest recent developments have been live view, and movie mode. Some people pooh-pooh both of those things, but I believe that the world divides into pooh-poohers, and people who go out and make their dream real. I belong to the latter category, which is why I only have only had something like five posts here in the last four years. "The street finds its own use for things", and both live view and movie recording are very useful. It will not be long before someone makes a Blair Witch Project-style blockbuster with a digital SLR using movie mode and a range of lenses, and at that point digital SLR makers will scramble at all speed to embrace movie recording. In that respect I believe we are on the cusp of a new revolution; we are just waiting for a creative messiah with the right combination of money and gumption and attractive friends to lead us into the promised land. You will not see him until the revolution has already begun.
"Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"
Posted by: Ashley Pomeroy | 1 Jun 2009 18:11:39