Maybe I'm not such a typical consumer and my standards are low, but for years the pictures I've seen coming out of point-and-shoots have been excellent. Anything that narrows the gap further makes point and shoots more acceptable to a broader audience

Larry, your imaging standards may be low, but may be adequate for your purposes.

I see a lot of pros that don't have a clue what quality digital images are all about in any stage of production: acquisition, processing, or archiving. They seem to discern sharpness reasonably well, but generally fail miserably on color control or saving images. Quality digital imaging is time intensive, a commodity that few can afford in today's business world of mass hysteria. Processing is more time intensive and requires a higher skill level than the chemical film era. Many of the business structures of the chemical film and early computer eras have carried-over into the digital era, with negative consequences. Necessary cross pollination and cross-disciplines haven't developed. Adobe and Apple really need to get into the hardware business to develop integrated archiving systems, which only niche markets can afford. A lot of photos are lost from non-existent archiving, more than in the film era.

Nice read with the small history there you had with the SLR cameras including the Canon AE1, Konica, and Minolta Maximm 7000.

Great article Ben. Very informative.

Sam

Great story. I recently was in the market for a new camera. I chose a Cannon PowerShot because I didn't want to lug a bunch of lenses on vacations. I assumed the cameras now days are like PCs a few years ago. The technolgy changes so fast you have to upgrade every few years anyway. I'm glad I didn't go for all the lenses.

There are some good points in your article, but there is a lot missed too.

First many people do not have just ONE camera. I have a DSLR and a waterproof pocket camera. The pocket does not come close to the DSLR in ultimate image quality but it's with me, everywhere every day. That's a big plus.

Secondly the very convenient high range zoom (18-1 +)cameras for advanced users (they can work pretty well) will not move into the large format chip DSLR world because the size of the glass and the weight of lens increases with the image size. Hence the very convenient all-in one-lens working on a small chip simply will not scale to a 4 thirds, or much less to a full frame chip.

Thirdly a digital viewfinder is no match for an optical SLR finder (and the viewfinder is a critically difference between ho-hum and good pictures). Period. It does not have the resolution, it does not show the shadings, it does not manage composition in exreme lighting situation. It simply does not work well, after using a true ground glass viewing screen, no LCD viewfinder looks good.

I can't imagine professional photographers lining up near the end zone using pocket cameras to shoot their money pictures. If your predictions were true, they would have switched decades ago from film SLRs to film point-and-shoot cameras. They didn't. What makes us believe that they will switch from digital SLRs to digital point-and-shoot now? Death of digital SLR is an exaggeration.

I was a dedicated film SLR user for many years, and although fascinated by DSLRs, never made the jump. Instead I used high end digital P&S cameras along with film for serious projects. I recently purchased a Cannon SX10 IS "superzoom" camera which gives me most of the capabilities of a DSLR along with a bag full of lenses for about 10% of the price. Although compact digitals may appeal to the mas market, I believe the superzoom type camera will appeal to the prosumer level and eventually gain popularity with people who want to do more than point and shoot without having to pay the price of a small car to get there.

Ben, the oldest film SLR's used by news photographers didn't have any kind of exposure indicator. You either had to lug around an exposure meter (difficult to use with the winning touchdown headed towards you) or know that 1/1000 @f/11 was the correct exposure on a bright day and to open up a couple f/stops real quick when the sun went behind a cloud. In an office, 1/30 @ f2/8 worked most times. All this with Kodak's 400-ASA Tri-X.

-- old wire service photog

Actually it was Miranda has the first consumer priced autoexposure SLR around 1972-73.

Interesting history, and very good points. Without quite realizing it, I have been searching for a "point and shoot"-sized camera that would take the same kind of high-quality pictures I can take with my DSLR. RAW would be nice too. And you are right that mostly I don't use the fancier aspects of my camera -- I carry a single lens (Tamron zoom) and mostly leave the heavy flash behind. Other than being able to bracket exposures for HDR, I don't use most of what my camera can do. I've been eyeing the new Olympus and Panasonic Micro 4/3 series, but would really rather have a nice compact camera with a big sensor. Hope you're right that those are coming.

also related to sensor size, i believe, it the much better (less) shutter lagtime with the DSLR over P&S.

I'll second the comments about an optical viewfinder. There have been numerous occasions when the lcd viewer on my pocket digital has completely washed out in bright daylight. Maybe if digitals start using oleds, that will be a different story, but at present, give me a BIG, bright, glass lens to look through. (Of course, that's a function of camera design, not type.)

Also, I have yet to see a pocket camera that can truly perform equal to a full featured DSLR. They just don't handle the range of exposures, aperatures, focal lengths and image motion as well, no matter what their advertising claims are. That may eventually change with technology, but there will always be those who prefer manual control of their photography.

What about shutter lag and autofocus speeds? While P&S digital cameras do well enough when you've got reasonably still objects, they do not do so well when trying to catch action. They also suffer from very slow shooting speeds vs. DSLR's.

I'm no pro, but I find my D90 extremely useful when I'm at one of my kids games trying to catch them hitting the ball, scoring a goal, or landing a kick. With P&S cameras, those moments a difficult to capture.

I think P&S cameras have their place and I carry one often. But, I think there is more than sensor size that needs to improve to make them replace SLRs.

DSLR cameras , such as Canon and Nikon also have vastly better lenses than point and shoots, virtually no shutter lag, are able to take many consecutive shots per second without recovery time and handle a wide variety of lighting situations with ease.

One size does not fit all.

For most people, a point and shoot (non-DSLR) does the job. However, if you are an avid photographer who wants to step out from the run-of-the-mill picture taking, then you begin to realize the limitations of P&S cameras.

1. Noise problems at ISO's above 200, resulting in unacceptable photos.
2. Less maximum frames per second for continuous shooting.
3. Limited ability to take good pictures in Sports mode which ramps up the ISO in order to stop the action. In low light, including indoor, settings this can will mean that the ISO is ramped up such the picture will be unacceptable due to excessive noise.

I use a DSLR and am contemplating buying a P&S camera for the convenience; however, because of the P&S's limitations, it will never completely replace my DSLR.

As far as many people who buy a DSLR, but never go beyond snap shooting, the question is, "Why did they buy a DSLR?" I'm referring to not only the lack of buying more lenses, as mentioned in the article. I'm also referring to taking the DSLR out of the default settings. For example, do they ever take the white balance out of the default setting (AWB: automatic white balance) and use a more appropriate setting, such as a shade setting when the subject is in the shade?

DSLRs will not die. The “supposed” advantages that the author glossed over are the advantages that pros and advanced amateurs rely on to take photos that are qualitatively superior to what you can reliably get with a point-n-shoot camera.

Better lenses allow more light into the camera, which allows for potentially better quality images. Larger diameter lenses allow for larger potential “sweet spots” in the middle of the glass that allow for sharper results. These are real and measurable advantages.

Another DSLR advantage that the author did not address is the speed. Specifically the time lag that most digital point-n-shoot cameras have between the time that the photographer presses the shutter release button and when the photo is recorded. That’s not an issue if you are shooting a scenic, still life, or posed shots. But even a fraction of a second delay is a fatal flaw for shooting candids, sports, or in any other changing situation. I have a good mid-grade digital point-n-shoot camera but it blew so many photo opportunities that it drove me to buy a DSLR.

The author also failed to mention that the new DSLRs are capable of shooting high definition video. This added functionality, which will surely improve with time, makes DSLRs more attractive to pros and advanced amateurs. Digital medium format cameras are on track to die (despite Hasselblad’s recent efforts). DSLRs are alive and well.

Interesting thoughts but not likely to happen, as long as the industry can keep selling the high end stuff there will be a limits to what P&S cameras can do. The biggest problem in maintaining things is how fast really expensive cameras become relatively worthless with no path for upgrading them. Sure, you can still use most your lenses within brand but I would expect a consumer revolt at some point (ie, screw the upgrade).

A very timely article for me. I have been considering the purchase of a DSLR while trying to justify that in the knowledge that my beautiful Pentax 75th anniversary edition Z-1 has not been actually used for several years. My Sony Cybershot with its Carl Zeiss lens takes very acceptable quality pictures. Now I willl wait for further developments in compact digital with full frame sensors and LCD viewfinders. I am certain that "ground glass" quality LCD viewfinders are not far away. At this time I am not interested in a camera with a mobile phone in it either!

Interesting article; but I agree with the comments of those who note the features of DSLRs. I have a Nikon D300 - almost a professional camera. There is NO perceptible shutter lag; it shoots clear pics at up to ISO 3200 (!); it is on instantly when one turns the switch on; and, of course, it can do things I don't even know about.

I bought it with the plan to use my other Nikon lenses. I haven't, much, because the 28 (? I think) - 200mm zoom lens that it came with is more than adequate for almost any situation. The Nikon Image Stabilization (which they choose to call "Vibration Reduction") is very good.

Yes, it's heavy...but very ergonomically designed; shooting with one hand is no problem for me, though it could be, for someone with smaller hands. It takes great photos - I'm more of a limitation than the camera is. And yes, I have another camera, a Canon pocketable one that goes more places than the DSLR does. I'm very glad I have both.

You made a comment about Nikon not being likely to develop lenses for a new format. You're wrong there. A lot of reports out of Nikon patents for these very lenses.

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/16/its-a-nikon-patents-friday-nikon-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera.aspx

Sir, your premise is a fallacy. To consumers, the SLR will always be a niche product. That niche is not likely to give up their preference until you pry it from their cold, dead hands. Convenience does not trump image quality for many more than you would lead us to believe.

Lots of great comments here. Thanks for all the feedback.

First off, I tried to clearly focus the article on consumer/amateur DSLRs, not the pro-level cameras, so let's keep the discussion focused in that area as well.

Second, perhaps a more accurate title for the article would have been "The Demise of Consumer DSLRs" rather than "Death" since I make the point that I don't think consumer-level DSLRs are going to go away completely but their market share is going to drop substantially. There will always be enthusiasts, myself included, who want (or need) all the benefits of an SLR system. The point is, though, that there are many consumers who are buying the DSLRs not for those benefits but because they want better image quality. I think they make up a large percentage of consumer DSLR purchasers and many of them will defect to a point-and-shoot when the right one becomes available.

What I haven't seen in the comments yet is an alternative explanation to the one I give for why film SLR's market share dropped so significantly relative to film point-and-shoot cameras in the 90's. And if my explanation is correct for film, why shouldn't we expect the same thing to happen in the digital world? Have people's photography habits really changed that substantially?

Jay, I agree that many digital SLR owners also own a point-and-shoot. I do. In the film days, I owned and used both types as well. As I noted, I found myself using the more portable small cameras most of the time and leaving the SLR behind. But I would also argue that a large segment of people just have one family camera.

I agree that the high-range zooms won't work in large-sensor point-and-shoots. You might see some odd hybrids like the Olympus IS series of cameras in the 90's (http://www.d2gallery.com/cameras/images/is3dlx/olympus-is3dlx.jpg) but that will just be a niche product. If you need long range zooms, you'll have to go with either a small sensor or a DSLR. In the film days, there were a couple of "pocket" cameras that had long zooms like the Pentax IQ Zoom 200 (http://www.amazon.com/Pentax-Zoom-200-Date-Camera/dp/B00004SCX0) but I thought this camera was an atrocity with its 48-200mm lens (48mm for the widest angle is ridiculous) and f5 maximum aperture. Let's hope we don't see a digital camera like this. But I digress.

A few people commented that composing with LCDs and digital viewfinders can't be as good as composing through an optical viewfinder. I agree that the optical is typically an advantage, but to many people it won't be so much of an advantage that they won't be willing to give it up, especially with improvements in LCDs and digital viewfinders. (Note that digital viewfinders may actually have some advantages in low light over optical because they can enhance the image and make it easier to view.) A few years back, I asked a DSLR product manager when they would add what is now called Live View to their cameras and was told that it would never happen because DSLR owners had to use an optical viewfinder. Clearly they've changed their position.

There have also been some comments about shutter lag and auto-focus speed. I agree that it's unlikely that the point-and-shoots will be on par with DSLRs in this area and for some applications such as sports, that will make them unacceptable. But we've already seen tremendous improvements in these areas and again, for most users, the point-and-shoots will be good enough.

Again, thanks. Great discussion.

F/8, thanks for the link. I still contend that these cameras are just an intermediate step and that ultimately people want something smaller and more convenient, but this would be a very interesting development. What a mess, though, to have to maintain 3 lines of lenses.

Neil, thanks. Again, if my premise is a fallacy, explain what happened in the 90's with film SLRs. -- Ben

Your analogy is fallacious.

Sensors are to digital cameras what film was to film cameras.

One could put the same type of film in both Point and Shoot film cameras and SLR film cameras. However, digital P&S cameras don't have the same type of sensors as any of the types of DSLRs. The sensors in the digital point and shoot cameras are smaller and, therefore, inferior to both the crop sensors of the consumer/prosumer DSLRs and the full-frame sensors of the professional level DSLRs. Because they are inferior to the crop sensors of the consumer-level DSLRs, the digital P&S cameras will be have limitations for situations in which consumer-level DSLRs will provide very good to excellent results.

Charlene

I disagree with your bold statement that image capture and post-processing is necessarily time-intensive. Chemical photography was, yes, because chemical reactions take a fixed amount of time, but digital varies a lot.

It is possible to capture and post-process high quality images from a DSLR quite quickly, if one exercises a modicum of care in doing so, and has established processes. Archiving those images can be quick and easy, too. It takes some effort to set up, but once set up it needn't consume vast amounts of time.

Cornell, please take another look at the article. You're making the exact same points that I made. The current point-and-shoots cameras uses sensors that are too small to provide adequate quality for some users.

"The primary reason that DSLRs provide better image quality is that they use much larger sensors than the pinky-toenail-size sensors used in compact digital cameras and cell-phone cameras."

But I'm stating that point-and-shoot cameras with DSLR-sized sensors are coming and when they do, they'll take a significant chunk of consumers away from the DSLR market. We're not there today. We'll get there.

Thanks,

--Ben

Ben - You say "But I'm stating that point-and-shoot cameras with DSLR-sized sensors are coming and when they do, they'll take a significant chunk of consumers away from the DSLR market. We're not there today. We'll get there."

I doubt it, for the very reasons you state re. lens size vs. sensor size. It's all about Physics.
1) In order to get adequate resolution and coverage of any sensor larger than what is found on a P&S camera, the lens HAS to grow in size, just like the Micro 4/3 system was able to shrink the lens sizes from that of full-frame lenses. The Micro 4/3 system lenses are barely big enough to give full sensor coverage of the 4/3 sensor - that's why Panasonic and Olympus apply post-processing to each image, correcting for the known field curvature, chromatic aberration, etc., of the specific lens used to take the photo. If the user of an E-P1 or GF-1 were to look at a RAW file image with no processing, the result would look a LOT like the bad old days of Instamatic cameras.
2) THAT'S why the Sigma and Leica cameras you mention are only offered with fixed-focal length lenses - a tiny zoom would give poor images, and a good zoom would be "too big".

Another point that was made in one of the e-mails was that the newest D-SLRs have HD video capability. Do not underestimate this function! The Canon 5D MkII is wildly successful because the Hollywood Film Industry (not Indie filmmakers!) are buying 5D MkIIs and Canon "L" lenses and shooting them in place of their +$300K video cameras! Who would have EVER predicted that?

You are certainly correct in that the percentage of D-SLRs (or whatever they morph into) will likely drop in relation to the overall number of cameras sold (that is, unless and until camera phones get good lenses and sensors...), but there will be no funerals for interchangeable-lens digital cameras anytime soon. The image quality will carry the format, even as sensor technology improves.

What is more likely to happen is that the cameras morph into something REALLY different. How about a slim camera with four folded-optic zoom lenses, each covering a small sensor, which the camera's processor then assembles into one larger image? Each sensor could be 1/4 of the overall image. OR, even cooler, the processor could use the slightly different perspective of each lens to make 3-D images! Now THAT would be something!

Very well written, insightful article. I think you are definitely onto something. Even I, the owner of 2 DSLRs, have been thinking lately I need a micro 4/3's camera in my kit to free me up on those occasions when I don't want to lug around 10-20 lbs of cameras and lenses. I think it's too bad in some respects, though, because as much P&S and film "sureshot" photos as I had taken before jumping on the DSLR bandwagon, I have learned more about photography in the last 2 years of DSLR shooting than in the previous 20. I'm not sure that's so much of a priority for most shutterbugs, though.

Nice article but really does not seem to understand the advanced, semi and pro photographer who often have many cameras. I am one of those, I have $89.00 P&S cameras to as others pointed out DSLRs and Medium Format Digital cameras that cost as much as a good used car or more. But for those who make a living with camera gear we have to carefully consider the ROI on the tools we invest in. Can that lens, light, flash or printer make me money? If not I won't buy it most of the time. Sure most consumers just want snapshots of the vacation and cute things the kids do. For many others they don't cut it in quality or creative control.

Excellent article, and the marketing buzz has been "more resolution", and Canon/Nikon have been winning, but the $200 Lumix (28mm F2.8 Aspherical Lecia, 10x optical zoom, 30fps HD video w/ sound..10MP) has been used to shoot a great deal of commercial work, and videos, and you may want to see the "RED"/Canon 5D/Panasonic GH1 "test" (posted on Vimeo...) can you
see the future? I'm a 30 yr pro still photographer and
director that has used Holgas, Super 8mm, Olympus XA,
and a Rebel xti, until I get a GH1, that I can again
use my Canon FD lenses for stills and Cinematography.
Smaller/Lighter/Cheaper....until the next thing comes
along.

I agree with the basic argument in the article: That the market share of DSLRs will decrease once P&S cameras with large sensors (and equivalent image quality) become available.

This doesn't mean that:
1. DSLRs will disappear: There will always be people who value the higher quality and expanded control.
2. DSLR sales will drop in absolute numbers: The total market will likely to continue to increase, so the camera makers will stay in it for a long time.

I have both a DSLR and a compact. For a compact, I selected a Panasonic LX-3 - because it has one of the largest sensors available in a compact camera, a wide angle out to 24 mm equivalent, and HD movie capability. It has full manual to full automatic control. It also takes raw photos. IMHO - it was one of the first compact cameras that tried to meld high quality into a compact format.

I tried to buy one last May (May 09) - and found that it was completely sold out in Australia for several months. Stocks would arrive and sell out in days. B&H Photo in the US was constantly sold out. There was a world wide shortage.

Obviously, the market for a high quality compact is one that has been unexplored to date.

Now - I don't think that this Lumix is quite there yet. I still carry my DSLR when I really want to get good photos. But I find myself leaving the DSLR at home much more often than I used to and simply carrying the Lumix.

No Ben, I don't think you understand. The P&S sensors are by nature of their small size inferior to those of the DSLRs. It is their smallnes that makes them inferior because they have less light gathering capacity.

Whatever advances are made in P&S sensors could also be incorporated into DSLRs sensors. Therefore, whatever advantage P&S cameras might have over DSLRs because of these advances would be very temporary -- about the time it takes for these same advances to be incorporated into the DSLRs that follow.

This will be my last posting. I doubt you want to understand because I believe you're on a mission. Will the DSLR sales of the market decrease? Yes. But, they will not die as you article's title indicates.

I have had 15-20 cameras over the last 40 years. I have had a Kodak 35mm, Yashica 2 X 2 , two Nikon 35mm wonderful cameras. I even had a "Left Handed" camera made in Russia: Exakta. I have now owned several of the Digital P&S cameras: two Fuji, four Kodak, a Pentax, two Olympus, and a few cheap others. Right now I am using a Kodak C190 digital and it takes great pictures in most types of situations. These P&S cameras take very good pictures under MOST of the simple conditions; but they DO NOT take good shots under any difficult distance or lighting situations. These cameras are acceptable to most people that have never taken a "really great" picture with a "really great" camera. Most of today's cameras can't take quality pictures at either end of the "difficult spectrum." By far the Nikon F1 35mm film camera took the best pictures that I have taken in all 40 years. It had an easy to read internal meter to use. The use of the early 35mm cameras required me to use an external exposure meter (making the shot very complicated, but also very satisfying) or for me to rely on my memory to recall the proper exposure settings. The quality of the lens systems on the large 35mm cameras made for wonderful, vibrant color shots at 2 ft or 2,000 ft. We don't have the good lens or the high quality exposure systems in today's line-up of cameras at Best Buy, Wal*Mart, etc. I am sure that we will soon have a "consumer priced" digital P&S camera with high quality exposure system and high quality lens systems. It will cost more but it will be fantastic and I WILL HAVE ONE as soon as possible!

I own film SLR and 4 other DC.

A large sensor mini DC with some good lens is all my waiting for many years.

I need good quality of pictures and not the weight of DSLR.

I can't say that I particularly agree with all that you said, however, I am in the market for a new digital camera. So, your article was of considerable interest to me.
I have been weighing the pros and cons of DSLR's and P&S cameras for some time now and have not come up with anything to swing me one way or the other. Therefore, it seems that I will be buying both. Your article is not convincing.
Years past, I was a professional, now, however, I mostly shoot for joy. I cannot see foregoing the pleasure of a long or wide lens for an all in one zoom. I've tried that; I didn't like it. Ergo, not doing it again.
The point of a P&S, for me, is as a stop-gap. I can pocket it and have it where a larger camera would be awkward.

As a photojournalist I have only ever used a Leica rangefinder camera. the M series with a 21mm leans is amazing. Why? When you are hanging over the back of a sound stage or indeed trying to get that desecrate shot, the whisper quite shutter captures the moment without attracting attention. But then the only real camera is a 10x8 plate camera but the cost of the sheets of film are out of this world these days. Anyone know how to coat glass plates with film emulation?

DSLR is required for action shots (kids, sports and any other thing that moves), low light situations (less noise at higher ISO/lenses with low f-stops)and for nice flash shots. Point and shoot cameras are great for anything else. For example, try and compare flash shots: direct flash from a point-and-shoot with a nice bounced flash shot from a DSLR. The results are worlds apart. The last big issue is that small cameras can't blur the background.

having used everything from 8x10 view on down, i looked at the dslr's & decided to purchase a panasonic fz250. this camera is my all in one answer at present. i can twist the viewer to almost any angle & zoom to design a photo . i agree that the viewer may not be as revealing as an slr but in regards to composition i think the electronic viewer its actually better because of the zoom capabilities. clearly the future lies in these types of cameras & further improvements no doubt are coming.

Nice historical background. I used a Nikon F3 until about 1999. Then it was a Nikon 6006 for the APS film format and the ability to still use my Nikon lenses. Now I use a Nikon D90 and an LG Env Touch cell phone. That's it The Cell phone shots are really good these days, and the D90 works better for me than any camera I've ever had. It took a little time to grow accustom to the wide range of creative choices (like the ability to change ISO's on the fly), but now even the integrated video option seems normal. I've had a bunch of cameras, including the FS1 mentioned above, and two Hassies (C500 & CF500). And I used to shoot 4x5 and 8x10 daily.

At the end of the day, the pros alway wind up shooting manually (or close to manual with aperture priority). That's what the DSLRs provide. Complete control. The DSLR isn't going anywhere. I see more amateurs use these types of cameras everyday as the prices continue to drop.

I'm one of those who will have to have his DSLR pried from my cold, dead hands.

The central issue in digital imaging is calibrating colors between camera and output. The trifecta of hardware (video card, monitor and printer) all can affect digital image quality. As they age, any one of the three pieces of hardware (and/or the associated software and drivers) can make or break your image.

You can have the fastest computer processor with umpteen gigs of RAM, but if you have a lousy video card and/or low quality monitor and/or printer, your results will reflect that.

Your article fails to correlate what happened in 1997 to today. Why did sales drop in 1997? How is that related to consumer demands today?

You are trying to create a coincidence of numbers. Using unrelated numbers from the past you are trying to project tomorrow. There are too many factors that are unaccounted for in your article. Consumer demand is a fickle thing. It is like trying to predict the weather.

As to your contention that the new Panny and Oly are small without diminishing quality: you are just plain nuts. Your contention does not stand up to testing.

Will dSLRs change? Yes, they will evolve. Will they go away? Not because of anything you've pointed out.

Ben, I like your thoughts but you don't seem to talk about one of the most important factors when you're considering a products success in the market. Price. I think one of the reasons that compact film cameras became so popular was not just their size to quality ratio but also their price. Currently, the E-P1 and GF1 are priced well above the entry level DSLR's. I'm sure the price will drop in the future but I think they would have to get into the $500 range before they become a mainstream market player. Do you have any thoughts on how price will factor into the changing market.

Michael Cramer, the point I was making is that SLR sales fell off in the film days when point-and-shoot cameras were able to deliver very good quality and reasonable flexibility in a more convenient and less expensive package. Right now, the digital point-and-shoots provide the flexibility and price, but not the quality. When camera manufacturers start offering p&s cameras with large sensors and modest zooms at an attractive price, many of the people who today are purchasing consumer DSLRs will opt for these new p&s cameras instead.

As to Panasonic and Olympus, the quality of their Micro 4/3 camera is vastly better than that of a point and shoot and good enough for many of today's DSLR owners.

Thanks for the comments. -- Ben

Sam G., good point. I don't discuss the price issue enough. (2000 words and there's still plenty that I would have loved to add. ) I had hoped that it was clear that one of the benefits of a p&s would be cost. If they're priced in the $500 range, they'll poach some consumer DSLR owners but not many. They'll have to come down to the $250 - $350 range before they make a significant dent.

Regarding the E-P1 and GF1, their pricing has to become more sane and I think they will over time. Right now there's so much pent-up demand that they can charge a premium for these cameras. Over time, it doesn't make sense for these cameras to cost any more than equivalent DSLRs. I don't think they need to be priced lower than DSLRs since they're providing similar functionality.

Thanks for the comments. -- Ben

I too, had an AE-1. Then I switched to the A-1. I had several lenses for them - from wide-angle to long zoom. Then there were the filters and the flash. My camera bag was so heavy. I always wished there was an easier way to photograph things. When my father died, I inherited his Realist and my interest in 2D waned. Now I have a pair of SD1000s and my interest in film is waning.

You said: These cameras gave the shooter control over perspective, too, if you were willing to tote around a variety of lenses or one of the early zoom lenses (unquote)

That is not true. Changing the focal length does not change the perspective, it only changes the angle of view recorded.

To change perspective you have to move the camera in relation to the subject.

You said: These cameras gave the shooter control over perspective, too, if you were willing to tote around a variety of lenses or one of the early zoom lenses (unquote)

That is not true. Changing the focal length does not change the perspective, it only changes the angle of view recorded.

To change perspective you have to move the camera in relation to the subject.

I think the DSLR will be around for a while longer. But, eventually, the mirror and viewfinder will be done away with when good quality electronic viewfinders come out. Also important is the ability of the newer DSLR's to shoot HD movies with the mirror locked up.

Imagine if Nikon or Canon came out with their own versions of the Red One using their DSLR lenses. A camera with the ability to shoot 1080p video along with a 12 megapixel still every second or so simultaneously.

Good times ahead.

"(Since I'm a photo enthusiast, my point-and-shoots tended to favor quality over features: I owned the aforementioned Nikon 35ti, the Yashica T4, and the Rollei Prego Micron.)"

I'm not sure if you took this into account but as Point-and-Shoots and smaller compacts increase in photo/image quality so too do the DSLRs.

I do not know of a point-and-shoot or Micro Four Thirds camera that will ever be able to shoot clean images at ISO 102,000 like the Canon 5D Mk II and Nikon D3. Micro Four Thirds sensors simply can't handle quite a bit because they're LiveMOS CCDs. They have the potential to do video very, very well though.

Additionally, Pro cameras are also getting smaller. A Leica M9 delivers beautiful shots but still can't keep up to the high ISO levels of the Canon or Nikon. Micro Four Thirds still can't begin to touch the full frame sensor on that camera. Additionally, Leica's last forever basically. At Photo Plus I overheard a conversation with a Leica rep about a man using a 1943 Leica camera and the rep telling him that the camera still has around 93 years of service left in it.

Either way, I believe that you aren't paying attention to the other end of the spectrum for professionals. However, I do agree that compact cameras are getting better. The reason why most people prefer their phones is because they're easily accessible. I wrote about this when I was still an intern here at Gearlog.

Cornell, you still haven't read the article, have you? It makes the exactly same points that you're defending. It seems you're the one with the agenda here...

I love my DSLR but I end up carrying my Ricoh GX200 a lot more often these days. I agree with Ben that the curent m4/3rds cams are still a bit on the big side. A truly pocketable large-sensor camera with good speed will be a killer device.

Good article Ben, but things aren't quite the same as the film situation yet. At the moment comparing photos taken on a compact P&S digital camera and a DSLR is pretty much like comparing a picture shot on a Minox spy camera with one shot on a Pentax Spotmatic. Sensor sizes in compact cameras are usually very small and just can't compare to a crop DSLR let alone a full frame one. When manufacturers start to put decent sized sensors in P&S digital cameras, that situation will change, but that generally isn't happening, well at least not in affordable cameras. You can buy a Leica M9 rangfinder with a full frame sensor, but you could buy several Sony full frame DSLRs for the same price. I look forward to the day when someone makes the Minox GT of digital cameras. I had one of those Minoxes and it could match my film SLR in many instances.

>>Changing the focal length does not change the perspective, it only changes the angle of view recorded.

Christer, good catch. I was being too loose with my language. Thanks. -- Ben

>>I'm not sure if you took this into account but as Point-and-Shoots and smaller compacts increase in photo/image quality so too do the DSLRs.

Chris, thanks for the comment. I did take that into account. However, there's the "good enough" factor. Current point-and-shoots aren't good enough for those who have opted for DSLRs - generally speaking - but the large sensor point-and-shoot will provide "good enough" quality. Even as DSLRs continue to advance, if point-and-shoots can just get to the level of today's DSLRs, I think a large number of amateur DSLR users and potential customers will go the p&s route instead.

Secondly, as DSLRs advance, large sensor p&s will likely benefit from many of these improvements as well. They could very well be using the same sensors as are in the consumer DSLRs. -- Ben

>>Sensor sizes in compact cameras are usually very small and just can't compare to a crop DSLR let alone a full frame one. When manufacturers start to put decent sized sensors in P&S digital cameras, that situation will change, but that generally isn't happening, well at least not in affordable cameras.

Mark C, thanks for the comment. That's exactly the point of the article. I'm predicting that the large-sensor p&s is coming. We're not there today. Until then, consumer DSLRs will continue to do well. After that, they'll find a smaller and smaller audience as more potential customers move to the large-sensor point-and-shoot instead. -- Ben

An awful lot of people in this thread have no clue what a FT or micro FT sensor (no substantial difference between the two) can do. These sensors are not "P&S" since they are not 20% bigger than they typical P&S sensor. They are 400% bigger, only ~20% smaller than APS-C, and performing with the D5000 et al. -- this is not my assessment, it is the assessment of DP Review and many other independent reviewers of recent FT and micro FT cameras.

In addition, the lack of a mirror box in micro FT makes a short flange distance possible resulting in lenses that are both a lot more compact and significantly better optically than SLR lenses, particularly at wide angle. The long flange distance for SLRs imposes some really severe design limitations.

Cameras like the GH1 are unquestionably the wave of the future. I currently use a DSLR but DSLRs with optical finders will be gone within a decade.

Felt I should weigh in - I have wanted a DSLR for several years, but have held back. I use a 12MP P&S with 10x optical zoom and find it completely adequate for my day to day shooting. I'd ultimately like to add a DSLR for those really special occasions that demand the best possible images - weddings, portraits, births, etc. I sure don't see anything wrong with having more than one camera. One, that because of size and heft, I'd use sparingly; and one, because of convenience, I'd use routinely. I'd bet there are a lot of amateur photogs who would do or are doing, the same thing.

JayArgee, I think there are some people who intentionally buy a DSLR to complement their point-and-shoot. Certainly, the converse is true: most DSLR owners also have a point-and-shoot or even use their cell phone as that carry everywhere camera.

A few years ago, I did a story with PC Magazine, called Take the Perfect Picture that included profiles of four professional photographers: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,1970478,00.asp. In the profiles, we asked what camera they use when they're just hanging out and 2 of the 4 admitted to using point-and-shoots. (I'm guessing that the other two did as well but were too embarrassed to admit it. )

--Ben

You are arguing apples and oranges. SLR camera sales fell because most people only need one and it lasts a long time. I bought my last SLR because someone stole the previous one. I've bought lenses for it, but the camera itself still works fine. People continue to buy point and shoot cameras because they drop them, give them to the kids, want a new feature, etc. It's a whole different part of the market. I'll eventually buy a DSLR and then I'll keep it for a decade or two.

I think the main difference we're going to see change is that theres no compelling argument for a 35mm sensor as the gold standard other than tradition.

But it cant only be about size or Olympus would already be making a killing with its reduced sensor DSLR's/lenses which are substantially smaller than Canon/Nikon while still offering far better image quality than most compacts.

I think the main difference we're going to see change is that theres no compelling argument for a 35mm sensor as the gold standard other than tradition.

But it cant only be about size or Olympus would already be making a killing with its reduced sensor DSLR's/lenses which are substantially smaller than Canon/Nikon while still offering far better image quality than most compacts.

I agree with the tone of the article, but I will continue to advise my friends and family to buy low end DSLRs for family photos over P&S cameras.

Not only is there much less grain (which can be mostly fixed eventually by larger sensors in P&S as per the article) but there are other real advantages when taking photos of fast moving children indoors or after dark. The larger lenses give better low light ability, the faster auto focus means that you will be more likely to catch that cute expression half a second before the child breaks out in tears or flies off out of frame, the consecutive shots give a better chance of catching the action. Simply if your family memories are worth anything to you, they are worth a low end DSLR. Flash is often useless with children when they climb on your knee and ask for a photo, not to mention P&S cameras have no chance to shoot with flash a second time if your subject jumps off your knee 1.5 seconds after asking for a photo.

In fact for both home and limited professional use, I am considering trading up from a Canon 20D to a 7D in the next few months as it looks like a very good video camera as well.

I'm SO certain that the big guys are taking very careful steps to NOT canibalize their own market (or the DSLR market in general). I'm certain that they are perfectly capable of making a P&S sized camera with changeable lenses and a LARGE sensor. The perfect machine for 90% of people. But that would be bad for their business. No go.

This is the dumbest thing I've ever read. What you're missing is that with film, once you bought a camera, the film you used in it kept getting better too. With digital, that's the sensor so no matter how good a point-n-shoot gets, the DSLR is always going to have a bigger sensor.

Not to mention the lenses of a point n shoot are no match for high quality lenses of DSLR's....much less the instant shutter, advanced autofocusing, flash commander modes, or any of the countless benefits DSLR's have.

One big difference between SLRs and DSLRs is that when you bought a SLR back in the days you would keep it for years and years so of course after some time the sales would drop significantly but that will not happen on the same scale with DSLRs because they are not merely mechanical objects but hi-tech computers that will not stand the test of time like SLRs. The canon 7D that I bought this month will be totally backdated and utterly useless in 10 years from now.

I want a half-and-half too!

Here's what I like, based on my experience with a Minolta SRT-101 film SLR, a Kodak DC-280 and DC-3400 P&Ss, a Nikon 8400 P&S, a Canon G6 P&S, a Canon S5 IS P&S, and a Nikon D300 DSLR:

* AA batteries please (few DSLRs, many P&Ss). But if you can't do that, then please keep selling the proper chargers and batteries for ten years after selling the camera. Lithium batteries can be very cranky, and the cheap aftermarket replacement batts and chargers often fail to work at all.

* Interchangeable DSLR-mount lenses - so many excellent lenses out there!

* Vari-angle LCD viewer - *great* for framing up interesting perspectives or getting good close-up tech pix in cramped places!

* Easy but sophisticated controls like on any Canon P&S - excellent!

* Color rendition as on my Nikon D300 and Kodak DC280 P&S - both beautiful!

* Flash centered *directly* above the lens (all DLSRs, almost no P&Ss). Hate those side-shadows in technical close-ups that come from an off-center flash

* Extensible firmware as with Canon P&Ss (search the web for CHDK, so cool)

* As light weight and small size as can yet still get the high quality (P&S great, DSLRs nope). I'm getting a bit arthritic, but I still want that beautiful color, sharp focus and absence of noise!

* A *very* wide wide angle ( e.g. 12 mm DX lens ) that has corrected rectilinear imaging

Here are the things that annoy me:

* Visual Noise - the Purple and Green splotches where middle grays should be. Absolutely awful on all P&Ss, but DSLRs can have it too. Always gets worse when I push a picture's levels in Photoshop, which I almost *always* do, with almost *every* non-HDR picture.

* Barrel distortion. The lens and camera could talk to one another do to in-camera distortion correction. This is a shoo-in for DSLR-quality camera and lens system makers, but none of the majors are doing it! It's important with zooms in particular, since the distortion varies as focal length approaches the wide angle end. Have the lens and camera work together to figure it out. It can take me several minutes to tweak the parameters to fix it in Photoshop with Pano Tools. It would be easy, considering all the other image processing cameras do now. It would be a good selling point for keeping the interchangeable lens customer base.

* Mirrors in DSLRs - what a huge expense for something I have no use for. Throw out that flappy mirror, groundglass, pentaprism, optics so I can put my money into more lenses -- and give me a vari-angle LCD!

* Controls where I can't use the self-timer and exposure bracketing at the same time for HDR shots. Here my Canon G6 far outshined my Nikon 8400 and even my D300! The self timer lets mech vibration settle down, then the multi-exposure sequence goes off. As far as I can tell, my Nikon D300 won't do both at the same time! Absurd! And it's purely a UI design problem.

* The slow response of P&Ss is also purely a software construct, I believe. This is very annoying because I believe it doesn't have to be that way, I believe it's just made that way.

I will look at the FT offerings. Might be the best yet for me *if* they can get the noise and color things right.

Yes,Ben.I'm agree with your considerations.For future,digital photography have;
1)smaller body
2)no mirror
3)good electronic viewfinder
4)cooled sensors for low noise
Hi

Dear Ben,

I liked your article. I particularly enjoyed the historical facts and figures you included, along with a series of great pictures of cameras from yesteryear. I think you are quite right about history repeating itself.

It saddens me that your critics are reacting in haste, without first taking the time to digest what the Micro Four Thirds (MFT) system is and why it is a significant development in the evolution of digital photography. As you pointed out, some of your critics actually repeated points you already made in your article, which suggests they did not read the article carefully before trying to offer a rebuttal. So many arguments could be avoided if only people took the time to understand each other!

I recently started a new LinkedIn group, Micro Four Thirds Photographers, on the premise that mirrorless, large sensor, interchangeable lens cameras may well be the future of digital imaging. I own two MFT cameras, the Olympus E-P1 and the Panasonic DMC-G1, along with three MFT lenses, and three pro-quality Four Thirds Lenses. I am very happy with the quality of the images I can create with this equipment. The quality is so good that I will be using my MFT gear for business purposes in a new consulting firm I am preparing to open.

To those who would dismiss the MFT system on the grounds that it cannot compete with DSLRs on image quality, I must point out that MFT cameras use the same full-sized Four Thirds sensor as Four Thirds DSLRs, which means the image quality is as good as DSLRs by default. There are now more than a dozen adapters for mounting high-quality legacy lenses from all the major camera manufacturers on MFT camera bodies. The possibilities for quality-conscious photographers abound!

Keep up the great work,

Fred Chapman
LinkedIn Group Owner
Micro Four Thirds Photographers

I sold my DSLR when I could no longer get into the Australian Open Tennis Championships with it. The body was OK, but they made me check my lenses at the gate. Now I use a Panasonic 12x point-and-shoot. I hate waiting for the shutter to click, but being able to carry a camera with a 12x zoom in my pocket is definitely tips the balance away from the DSLR.

Hmm. It seems to me that if the camera makers want to convice us (us == tech-y "prosumer" types with a litte money to burn on our hobbies, but not thousands) to keep buying SLR priced, SLR quality equipment, they'd build a 600-1200 dollar prosumer HD video camera that had the sort of lenses you can change in and out like are found on DSLR cameras. People who take video will always need lenses beyond the sort of one-size-fits-all type, and would undoubtedly love the freedom of a wide lens market. Frankly, I'm kind of baffled this doesn't exist.

Photographic creativity is still mostly in the "darkroom" ... post pix taking software has improved our ability to enhance images beyond our 20th century imaginations. Success has always been part timing, framing, and taking a whole bunch of shots. Now we can take a any number of them, get immediate results, zoom in or out, crop, color , etc. I agree with author of article ... there is much less of a need for all the manual camera functions.

Why not post a chart that shows DSLR and P&S sales for the last decade and see how that weighs against your theory... Film was a major pain in the ass for most people. Small wonder film SLR's took a hit when a much simpler piece of equipment delivering satisfactory results was produced.

Nice Article,

Its funny I remember many of the cameras you talked about in the history of how cameras became more automatic. You are very right about consumers wanting a Point and Shoot convenience with DSLR quality, an I am defiantly one of them.

I have been looking at the Canon PowerShot SX1IS 10 MP CMOS Digital Camera with 20x Wide Angle Optical Image Stabilized Zoom and 2.8-inch LCD

I takes faster pictures than most P&S and has a crazy zoom lens, One of the nicer features it has HD video ability as well.
It has a smaller CMOS sensor than a DSLR however and there have been a few complaints of noise at low light levels.

I feel they are very close to what I want, and I will wait until 2010 before buying it or one better with an even bigger CMOS sensor or a (MFT)tech. I think once a certain point is reached (and that is soon), DSLR's may indeed only be around for just the few that are willing haul the gear.

Basically, I want the following, and in time the market will provide it:

1. Fits in pocket
2. Greatly improved light sensitivity
3. Greatly improved dynamic range
4. Greatly reduced noise
5. Greatly improved autofocus speed/accuracy
6. Greatly reduced shutter lag
7. 20X optical zoom
8. Greatly improved optics, especially corner sharpness
9. Manual override on all aspects of focus and exposure
10. Greatly improved storage capacity and battery life
11. Greatly improved movie capability and still-frames-per-second
12. Of course, there must be corresponding improvements in its duties as an internet browser and communicator, GPS system, file storage, music and video player, radio, TV, etc etc. But on second thought I am not unwilling to carry around two pocket-sized devices.

death of the dslr?
author has so much time to reflex instead of going out there and shoot. yes p&s is convenient but it is not a tool of professionals. for people who wants pro results they will gravitate to pro tools. as long as we still have people who make a living shooting pictures there will alway be such a tool and i don't see dslr will go away anytime soon...or in my life time...another 40 years perhap? i just spent 4k on a pro lens and i'm surely not going to waste that money if i know dslr is going to die!

As a pro, people frequently ask me which point-and-shoot they should buy, not which DSLR. So I agree, most consumers are looking for convenient pocketable quality at a price they can afford. I ask them if they are going to use the built in zoom. If they say "yes", I tell them to look for one with vibration reduction (VR), something you don't mention in your article. This has become almost standard in P&S now and has, I believe done more for quality than lens configuration or sensor size.

As for pros, 35mm SLR you may remember, was considered "amateur" back in the film days. The question for us is -- when will DSLR quality match medium format. Most ads in magazines are still shot with medium or large format cameras, both digital and film. Nikon's ad for the D300s was shot with a Hasselblad!

So DSLRs are caught in the middle, being pushed by consumer auto everything from the bottom, and "give me 60mp, interchangeable lenses and full manual control in a portable camera" from the pros at the top

a Full Frame Sensor in a Point/Shoot?
Now we are talking, maybe, but I do not think so.

Well this is kind of a stupid article. A DLSR exists as it does as a housing for a high quality lens. All of the actual imaging is in the lens, and a little point and shoot is not going to have either the aperture size or the quality of optics or the variety of optics that a DLSR has.

A zoom lens is not a replacement for a fixed prime lens. It is a useful tool on its own, but anyone who is serious about photography is not going to be able to deal with the limitations that comes along with this form factor.

One day if the laws of physics substantially change this will change too, but for now, larger size = larger aperture and better optics. Not to say that a point and shoot will not be adequate for most people, it will be and they are producing pretty good pictures.

It's just that they don't match up side by side and won't.

what ? I never really imagined the normal consumer of dslr cameras were the same consumers of pocket cameras.

for me personally it was never about convenience when I bought my first dslr it was quality. I needed the highest quality camera available. They fullfilled my need and they still do .

I would never use a dslr camera for family pictures etc, etc, really hard to carry around and all those points . But for my business if I need a camera that has the best quality and lenses I will still be sticking to dslr.

Dslr made it possible for small businesses to photograph their own products in high quality like never before. I imagine a lot of the consumers of dslr are small business people .

Here's my reason for staying with a DSLR...I started in the early Seventies with a Petrie Ft EE, then the Konica shown above and to a variety of interchangable lens SLR's...after nearly forty years, the only camera I'm physically comfortable holding and working with is a big and bulky SLR with an eyepiece that I have to squint through, lenses that I have to pick, the whole shebang.

Oops. Gouged some sacred cows here. At least you didn't say anything less than wonderful about a specific brand, or the site would have melted from the screams and moans.

My immediate reaction to this article was that it had to have been written by a non-photographer FOR non-photographers. And by that I mean: just because you own a camera (especially now in the digital age) doesn't mean you're a photographer.

Consider that there are three classes of DSLR, something you don't mention at all: consumer grade, prosumer, and professional grade. Your comments are applicable to many (not all) of the folks using consumer DSLRs, and some of those using prosumer grade. They're irrelevant to the rest of us.

I don't mean to knock you too much, as you obviously researched the history quite a bit and provided a lot of interesting tidbits. But an article that doesn't consider the top end of the market, the pro segment, is neither balanced nor valid.

Then again, maybe the article is just mistitled. If you'd called it "Death of the Consumer DSLR" I'd have been more or less in agreement.

"At the end of the day, the pros alway wind up shooting manually (or close to manual with aperture priority). That's what the DSLRs provide. Complete control."

So very inaccurate.

One of the most revolutionary aspects of digital point-and-shoots is how much more manual control you have than you ever did with film point-and-shoots. It's easy to find a digital point-and-shoot with full control over aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation for both camera and flash, image stabilization, movable focus points, configuring custom settings, saving in raw format, and if you want, a hot shoe on top. That's why my point-and-shoot is a pocket-sized Panasonic LX3 - to give me as close an SLR experience as possible, complete with Leica lens, for times when I really don't want to take the big SLR with me. Just yesterday I was out shooting in aperture priority and switching to full manual in some cases to compensate for the lighting. On my point-and-shoot.

If you want manual control, you don't need an SLR. You need an SLR because you need a larger, more sensitive low-light sensor, lens options, faster autofocus, higher shot speed, etc. Those are the real reasons to get an SLR. And that's why, even with my nice point-and-shoot, I'm also about to upgrade a half-decade-old digital SLR to a Canon 7D. Because an earlier poster was correct, these articles should not assume that photographers, or even families, only use one camera. SLR vs compact is not a zero-sum game.

>>Then again, maybe the article is just mistitled. If you'd called it "Death of the Consumer DSLR" I'd have been more or less in agreement.

MP, I agree with you that that would have been a more precise title. I tried to make the article clear that I was talking about the consumer DSLR segment (and that by "death," I was referring to the marginalization of the consumer DSLR from the wider appeal that it holds right now. It's clear, however, from the comments that many people either did not pick up on that and thought that I was writing about the entire DSLR category, or they simply did not read all the way through the column. -- Ben

In the near future we will see digital cameras with interchangeable-lenses with no mirror. After that also the mechanical shutter will dissapear.
Future digital Interchangeable-lens camera with no mirror and no shutter (DIL) camera will also have bigger sensor size (30 x 45mm as so called full frame). This means better resolution. Cropped sensor sizes stays because of high demand in nature and sport photograhy. Sensor technique has long way to go to get better pixels and better after sensor processing.

I'm the owner of ShutterCal.com, a web based photography community with a couple thousand users ((5,000+)

The number one camera used on our site BY FAR (based on actual data of uploaded photos) is the Nikon 40D. DSLR's account for a large majority of our uploads, which is surprising because a majority of our members also consider themselves to be amateur or hobbyist photographers.

A surprising lacuna, no mention of the Canon G series. A lot of pros use a G10 or the new G11 as a walking around camera to supplement their SLRs

Excellent article. Clear, concise and well reasoned.

Looks like lots of arm-chair photographers weighing in... way too many comments for me to bother reading a bunch of opinions, especially when I prefer to form my own. OK, my batteries are charged and I'm out to make some photographs. That is what it is about after all, no??

PS- to zoom w/ the DP1 or DP2, use your feet ;-)

Apparently, this article was written by a hack who did a lot of research but knows nothing about the real world of photography. It's as though it's the general public point/shooters who make up the vast majority of photographers who get all the serious consideration, and the pros and the accomplished amateurs who are a tiny minority and deserve no attention. And the title of the article is the silliest of all: If we're to have a "death" of the DSLR, that gets better all the time and has virtually become the world standard of serious photography, what is supposed to replace it? Mr. Gottesman: Hie thee to a Photography 101 class and earn a passing grade before progressing any further!

I never owned an auto focus film SLR and often focus my DSLR manually, I don't see them going away soon. Not if you want BIG prints, or quality photos for law enforcement work, they have to be perfect out of the camera not after post processing! I enjoyed the article and it might just come to pass someday....but not soon.

Ben, interesting discussion which you initiated. Yet some points:
a) My impression is that most people who buy a DSLR buy it to impress others (mine is bigger than yours....). They are not shopping for image quality or convenience. Why should they move to point and shoot?
b) Going digital and doing away with the pentaprism has obvious benefits and at some time this will happen.

Therefore what we will have at some time are cameras with exchangeable lenses - this is the only way of showing that mine is bigger than yours - but with digital viewfinders. The size of the sensor does not really matter, these will evolve, in different sizes and technologies.
This leads me to the last point:
c) The technical quality of the picture (focus, color saturation, contrast...) will continue to be not important. The move from film to digital happened despite a significant reduction in technical quality (color saturation, contrast, resolution...). This is nothing to worry, as some (most?) of the most famous photos were shot in b/w, with point and shoot cameras and in an atrocious quality (from a purely technical point of view).
The bigger worry is that the artistic quality seems to be deteriorating as well, with ps and DSLR making it to easy to shoot technically good pictures.

Magnus

I agree completely with Magnus.
I took pictures for a living for 25 years, retired from the government, and began selling cameras at retail when the digital age went mainstream--roughly 1995. In that time what I saw was that one of every two camera purchasers bought "whatever the best camera was" to prove that "mine is bigger than yours is." Among my customers, that still exists.

There will always be DSLR cameras for two classes of customers: (1)professional photographers for whom no P/S will ever suffice; and (2)picture shooters (to be distinguished from "photographers") for whom the "mine is bigger than yours" mindset still exists.

I shoot with two Panasonic cameras, an eight-MP FZ30 and an LX-3. For 90% of my pictures, these cameras suffice, because for the most part, good enough is good enough, and then, of course, there is the Leica glass. For the extraordinary picture, or for my grandkids playing sports, I still drag out my F-3 SLR. I just can't justify the dollars to shell out for a DSLR. And quite frankly, I'm tired of fifteen pounds on my shoulder.

But I digress...The manufacturers could, right now--if they really want to--produce large-sensor P/S cameras, but why should they? There will always be a market for consumer-grade DSLRs in large quantity because there will always be a strong component of customers who want the one that allows them to say "mine is bigger than yours," and because the most-cameras-sold is still the goal of the producers.

Sure, picture quality is in the end the most important goal. But who is buying the cameras? What percentage of cameras are purchased by professionals and prosumer enthusiasts, and what percentage are purchased by folks looking to take pictures at their kids' birthday parties? For the largest percentage of consumers, just give 'em a camera that will take "good enough" pictures and will fit in their pocket. Consumer-level DSLRs won't ever go away because there will always be those who want a "better than my friend's" camera. But for the masses, who purchase the overwhelming percentage of all cameras sold, the perfect P/S is the holy grail. And once Panasonic, or Sony, or Canon, or Nikon decides that quality is more important than quantity (and when do you thing THAT might be?), they will market the one camera for everyone.

And not one day sooner.

What a crock! DSLR's are tools of the professional photographer and enjoyed by countless amateur photographers. Their benefits go way beyond the points mentioned, they are so sensitive a star constellation can be captured hand held, and images can be enlarged larger than poster size. It will be years before DSLR's die out. It's true that DSLR's are the minority among devices that can capture an image or video, but your leaving one very important issue out, they are fun.

This article is historically interesting but lacking in information for serious photographers. I use a wide 10-20 lens on my DSLR and no point-and-shoot currently exists that can do what this lens can do. Also remember most of these cameras are very poorly built and break very easily--even the low end DSLRs. Consumers should be looking for durability and increased focal/dynamic range. Together we can stamp out planned obsolescence. I'll let my phone become my point-and-shoot and for real work I grab the big lenses. In essence, this is where I believe trends are going. The dedicated point-and-shoot might just go Bye Bye.

Lots of good info, in both the article and the comments. Here's my 2 cents:

No matter how good other aspects get, compact cameras will always be inferior to a camera that offers a lens that stops down to at least f/16, and preferably f/22. It would also help if the manufacturers were smart enough to extend (or at least maintain) the low end of the ASA range, instead of bumping it up to 80 or 100. Sure, sometimes you want to capture an image with very little available light, but it often works the other way, too. Moving water is not supposed to look crystalline.

I fear that this is indicative of camera design being driven by marketers and MBA's instead of people who actually understand and appreciate fine photography. IMHO, given the available technology I don't see any excuse for some of the design compromises that are made even in supposedly "prosumer" non-dSLR cameras.

I am surprised that the focus is on the proportion of people buying DSLRs. Why not say the number of people are buying DSLRs but an evn greater number of people are buying point and shoot and using the mobile phones. Some of these people will upgrade to a DSLR in order to capture better quality pictures. But the real point should be that people are taking pictures. It is easier and more affordable.

This article is limited. The reader should be cautious. Physics play a bigger part in photography then do electronics. What matters most is photons landing on a sensor. As mentioned, the bigger the sensor, the greater the light gathering.

However, the bigger the sensor, the more glass is required to have more photons land on the bigger sensor. The current GF1 with the 14-45mm lens is quite bulky and far from a point and shoot in my opinion. Essentially the EP-1 and GF1 are digital SLRs with the mirror box removed. This is not step in advancement but merely a good idea! I am a big Nikon user but I am happy to see Olympus and Panasonic get creative. They clearly have a purpose in the market.

Just don't believe the marketing hype. An advancement in photography is going to come from physics not electronics, (perhaps a liquid glass flexible element, perhaps a vibrating sensor for dithering ultimately reducing noise). Take it from an electrical engineer. Happy Shopping! Go buy a D40 with a 35mm 1.8 and call it a day.

I can't believe that the article or any of the commenters haven't mentioned the most important factor in the growth of DSLRs--how the photos are viewed!
When all you are looking at is a 4x6 print practically anything looks good from 110 point and shoots to 8x10 view cameras. In the film years, most people's photos rarely got beyond 4x6s. Now with digital, we view our photos on ever-increasingly larger screens. To be technically acceptable, the photos have to be of exceeding excellent quality. Imagine if we looked at all of our snapshots from the 70s at 11x14--that' just the situation today with digital. People who never view their photos except in their cameras and just bring their cf cards into the photo lab to have 4x6s printed are probably pretty happy at their slightly unfocused, slightly blurry, slightly grainy photos. At that size almost all pictures look pretty good. It is the people who, look at their photos on their large screened computers before taking them into labs are pretty horrified at the results from their point ande shoots and run out and get a dslr the first chance they get.
Think about it.

Although I may agree with Ben that eventually electronics, and economies or scale may push the existing feature sets and the sensor quality of today's DSLRs onto the Digital P&S equivalent of 2010 offering similar or better photo quality with zoom capability as well as exposure and lens control, he has obviously missed a very important factor that makes an SLR or in this case a DSLR the size that it is.

Case in point; ergonomics and weight-to-balance ratio. I was made aware of this important fact by my 11-year old daughter who has been bitten by the photography bug; I had transitioned off a prior digital P&S to her (Nikon Coolpix 5600 5MP) and after taking a few hundred shots, she dumped the camera on my desk demanding a much stable gear to shoot with. Her major issue with the camera, it is too light and almost always shakes causing most of her images to blur. She was actually hinting towards the fact that a certain level of force is exerted against the weight of any object being held to counter the gravitational force being applied on it. In other words, a balance has to be there for the object to remain steady and without shake in our hand while holding it in a distinct position similar to while holding a camera. SLRs or DSLR with thier bulk also accomplish that by filling the photographers hands and providing a sizeable amount of weight for our biceps, triceps, deltoids, and all shoulder and back muscles to act in unison and collectively exert a singular force oppositely equal to the weight of the camera while compensating for the shooting posture.

I invite all to try it for themselves, it is much easier to maintain and keep a slightly heavier object (based on the physique) held in a steady position than a lighter object.

It could be argued that a cell phone camera held at an arms length could be equally as stable as a much heavier DSLR/SLR. Now we are talking a paradigm shift in how humans will capture images in the near or too distant a future. The thought of holding puny and light DSLRs at arms length though may be absurd to pro, semi-pro, or even novice serious photographers for now. The JURY may still be out in the meanwhile...

Interesting article. I took what I thought was the "leap forward" (lol) to digital photography in 2001 and have owned 3 point and shoot digital cameras. I still keep a digicam around for some shots, so I'm not anti-digital photography.

I just wasn't satisfied with the image quality of P&S digicams and they aren't exactly cheap either. I was tired of charging batteries, the images looking cartoonish, blown-out highlights (all CCDs have this problem, even on high-end cameras) and the digital noise in darker locations. The relative lack of ability to focus on the subject and blur the background.. everything was in focus giving it a "flat" appearance.

I was also thinking about how the CCD will eventually wear out and produce more washed out images and my "gear" will be obsolete and worthless about a year after buying it. No resale value. Not the same with old film gear though.. read on:

For most of my picture taking, I went "back" to a film SLR. I consider it a leap forward though, but that's only for myself and only my personal 2 cent opinion.

The good thing for me about digital photography being so popular is that good film SLR gear has become dirt cheap!

I picked up a Pentax MZ-50 35mm film SLR with a decent lens for a total of $100 that works perfectly fine and has a lot of features. The two Panasonic lithium CR2 batteries last about a year! It is a bulky camera though, but the prints turn out really nice and I can always have film negative scans done on the Fuji Frontier machine and put on a CD to share with friends or appreciate myself on my computer monitor screen. Good enough for me anyway.

I only shoot a roll of film a month and with my digital camera I didn't take many pictures either.

I've been told by "pros" (I assume they were as they were the big names in digital photography) that if you are amateur and shoot less than 100 pictures per month, then film is more economical. So, 36 exposures a month is all I care to take, but I take a long time to compose a shot. I love taking my time to get it right the first time instead of machine-gunning a bunch of shots on a digicam just to get one "correct" picture.

I'm not a Luddite and don't hate digital photography or photographers, but I'm glad that 35mm print film will always be around. It's too bad that slide film is almost dead as I can't find it where I live.

I don't have any particular explanation why my 35mm shots turn out better than my digital shots do, but maybe it has something to do with the "sensor" with film being bigger (24mm by 36mm) and knowing you have to pay per exposure, thus you have to get it right.

Ben
Scary title! But at age 80 I don't have to worry about death of the DSLR. Maybe the threat of death will drive down the price of Canon's 15MP DSLR so I can continue to upgrade from my 1940s basic Brownie?

In bright light the field I am seldom able to view an image in the LCD, and I presume that's a problem with P/S cameras as well.

I try to overcome blur from photographer and camera shake by recording lots of images of a subject.

I have no problem processing images with Photo Shop CS4 and printing up to 13x19 on a Canon Pro9000 printer. Archiving is practically automatic and easier than storing my 14,000 old 35mm wet film images.

BTW in response to a previous comment, I think a P/S camra with a rotating LCD viewfinder is already available.

Longevity

Something I fail to see mentioned in the article here is a real reason for the drop off in SLR sales. Once you have an SLR, do you really need to replace it? I still use the Nikon FM2 that I bought used in 1986. Coupled with modern film (especially Kodak Ektar 100), I'm just as happy with the shots I get from it as I am from my Nikon D300. The most I've used a Digital camera is about 3 years, while I've now used the FM2 for 23 years. The shots I get with the FM2 are ready for use once they're developed at Costco (along with a nice CD of scans). The shots I get with the D300 almost always require post processing to look even remotely as good as film.

Personally from where I'm sitting the real advantage I see to people moving to P&S's and DSLR's is all the great film gear out there "cheap". As a result I'm now shooting Medium and Large Format, and loving it. Where DSLR's rule in *my opinion* is in action shots and microphotography. For landscapes and portraits I often prefer film.

What I'd like is digital with a full-frame sensor and something like a 35-70mm zoom, image stabilization, offers low light performance like the Nikon D3s, can be shot fully manual, has selectable focus points, AND is about the size of that Konica C35 shown above. All for under $300.

DSLR's in some form will survive. I can't imagine a professional covering a major league game pulling out a low cost consumer-oriented whatever and be flexible enough to provide high quality, high resolution images to his employers. (20x zooms without severe optical defects are pipe dreams.) SLR's dropped off because of the widening price difference between low cost consumer types and professional quality camera gear. As pointed out earlier, the issue of survival of equipment type is its intended use, i.e. party and Auntie Jane snaps versus advertising, artistic and commercial applications.

A couple of people have posted that the reason film SLR sales dropped off is that you didn't really need to replace the film SLR once purchased. But that argument doesn't make any sense unless your stating that everyone who had any interest in buying a SLR had bought one and that there were no new SLR customers entering the market.

--Ben

"Mirrorless Fullframe Camera". It is close and close.
I think it will be Sony.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/sony_hints_at_mirrorless_interchangeable_camera_system_news_288858.html?aff=rss

According to your numbers 2 Million SLR's were sold in 1987, and only 600,000 in 1997. During that period the US population increased from 242 million to 268 million. People are still using Nikon F and F2's purchased in the 60's and 70's. Lots of people still use cameras from the 50's and don't see any reason to upgrade. With film cameras you upgrade your 'sensor' by buying newer and better film. The picture quality I get now from a Nikon FM2 and a 50mm Series E lens shooting *cheap* Fuji film is amazing compared to what I was getting with the same camera and lens back in 1987.

Yes, there were features that caused people to buy new SLR's, but this was nothing like with digital cameras. America has become a throw away culture, all these gadgets need to be replaced every couple years. How many of the DSLR sales are to someone that already has at least 1 DSLR? The Nikon D40 was a great little camera from what I hear, but it was also a "gateway drug", and led to a lot of purchases of cameras like the D80 or D90 and the D300.

Your comment "But that argument doesn't make any sense unless your stating that everyone who had any interest in buying a SLR had bought one and that there were no new SLR customers entering the market." is a bunch of nonsense. The 600,000 sales in 1997 that you quote easily takes into account a LOT of new customers.

What would be interesting to see is the number of cameras that people went through prior to switching to digital, versus how many they've gone through after switching. I've gone through twice as many digital cameras in half the number of years. During a significant amount of the time I've had digital cameras I've also shot film, though I did take a break from film for a while, I'm back shooting more film than ever.

Photographers will still need interchanging lenses, cameras, speed or apertures whether they are shooting digital or film. What a "good" photographer needs a good photographer to buy... just like painters are still using and changing the type of paint or canvas you prefer and need.

Re DSLR vs Point and Shoot, it generally comes down to making pictures vs taking pictures.

I have two DSLR cameras, but I do use and appreciate both a convenient point and shoot and my cell phone. I take different type shots with all these.

Great article! I have personally due to finances been "stuck" using a digital point and shoot for 4 years now, all the while I've been saving and dreaming of owning a DSLR.(never reaching the goal since newer, better, and more expensive models appear faster than I can save up for one) However with the abilities of my compact camera enhanced by simple firmware tweaks using CHDK an open source hack of the Canon Powershot series, I'm able to do many things with great ease, customability and convenience that even the highest priced DSLR can't do. All in a $130 camera that fits in my pocket! If any camera company built a camera with those capabilities coupled with a larger sensor to improve low light performance, depth of field (better aperture control) RAW format, and a really good zoom (at least 5X, but better up to 20X) in the slim body of a compact I'd consider that the near perfect camera and I'd definitely buy it over a noisy DSLR, I can't believe that after all these years they're still shoving moving mirrors into cameras! This is the digital age for crying out loud! We all look at the LCD's on our cameras DSLR's and compacts, we've been looking at them for years in our video cameras, and we view our images later at home on them, so why do we need that noisy vibration inducing SLAP of a mirror?! Not to mention the whole HD video thing, it's easier on compacts than on DLSR's we've had that forever and just now they're hitting the DLSR models, made difficult again because of that stupid mirror!

Theres someother points about P&S cameras thats been missed. Reliability p&s cameras dont last more than about 12 to 18 months of careful use.

Another point is since p&s are so cheap loosing one, dropping one, breaking one its not a big deal meaning that people take as much care of these cameras as they do their mobile phones. Where as when you buy a DLSR of a couple of thousand dollars you treat it better, you keep it clean and you maintain it.

Since I posted my first comment five days ago, at least two people have posted comments along these lines: "Doing away with the mirror and pentaprism in a DSLR is a good idea, and it will happen some day, but until then..."

Doing away with the mirror and pentaprism has already happened!

It happened a year ago, in Fall 2008, when Panasonic came out with the Lumix G1—the world's first camera in the Micro Four Thirds camera system—a no mirror, no prism, interchangeable lens camera system based on the full-sized Four Thirds DSLR sensor.

The fact that so many people don't realize this has already happened is why Ben's article is so important. Far too many of Ben's critics haven't taken the time to understand one of Ben's key points, which is this:

It's no longer true that we have only two choices, a DSLR or a P&S camera—we now have the Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens (EVIL) camera as well, and it is changing the game.

What Ben is trying to do is make people aware of this important new development in digital photography. Many of Ben's critics are completely ignoring a central point of his article and responding instead with outdated old-school DSLR vs. P&S debates. Sacred cows indeed!

Hey everybody—I got news for you: Micro Four Thirds ain't your grandfather's digicam!

It takes time and effort to keep up with new developments in the photography industry. Old prejudices die hard. Ben is doing more than his part to keep people informed. If you don't agree with what Ben wrote, at least have the courtesy to read and understand his arguments so that you don't waste our time with unfair, outdated, uninformed criticisms.

Ben, you're doing a great job.

Please keep it up,

Fred Chapman
LinkedIn Group Owner
Micro Four Thirds Photographers

P.S. Pro photographers use a wide range of equipment, from Hasselblad to Holga, and everything in between. Real pros understand that it's about using the right tool for the job, not pushing one format or one brand over all others.

P.P.S. Pro photography is also about trying new things and doing things creatively. If you are a slave to old thinking, your work will never stand out in a crowded field. If you want to unleash your creativity, first free your mind! Don't shut out new ideas -- embrace them! Micro Four Thirds is an important new idea, worthy of creative professionals everywhere.