Where Are Digital Cameras Headed?

[Dr. Cranky]

Has anyone else noticed that the digital camera market is moving back into having a whole bunch of lenses and peripherals? I bring this up because I'm not sure what to make of it. Most of us are really thankful we can save a bundle on film developing, and having a camera with all the features built in is a great plus. I've never been keen on having to change or tinker with too many add-ons, etc . . .

Just curious if anyone has predictions of where all of this digital photography madness might be headed. Thank you.

[Art Anderson]

Has anyone else noticed that the digital camera market is moving back into having a whole bunch of lenses and peripherals? I bring this up because I'm not sure what to make of it. Most of us are really thankful we can save a bundle on film developing, and having a camera with all the features built in is a great plus. I've never been keen on having to change or tinker with too many add-ons, etc . . .

Just curious if anyone has predictions of where all of this digital photography madness might be headed. Thank you.

Check me if I'm wrong, but it does seem to me that high-end digital cameras had all manner of peripherals, a wide variety of lenses (digital technology can do a lot, but IMO, it takes lenses to work the optical side of the equation.

That said, I'm about ready for a telephoto lens and one for close ups for my Olympus PEN.

Art

[Foxer]

I think this is good ... specifically designed lenses always are better than the compromised plastic things. These cameras will offer a good compromise for those wanting better shots without the very expensive digital SLR's with lenses that cost MORE than the camera!

I'm a SLR user from way back .. my first was in the '60's. I've gone digital with much pleasure .. these new digital SLR's can do SO much more than film. I have a versatile zoom for everyday shooting and also an extreme wide angle that admittedly doesn't get much use. If just for the special close up lens, car modelers can't go wrong with one of these interchangeable lenses if you want to get more from your photography.

[SoCalCarCulture]

Which segment of the Digital Camera market?

Point & shoots are being replaced by phones with ever increasing quality.

The DSLR market is shifting some users to the mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses.

I think the idea of creating a camera for every price point has confused many consumers, there are simply too many choices.

What type of camera were you thinking about when you posed the question?

[Dr. Cranky]

Dave, I was thinking of the Cannons and Nikons that I am seeing on television ads. Digital but with changeable lenses. Mind you, I am not against any of this, and since I have a Nikon (I rarely use) with about 4 different lenses, I like cameras with few parts but with lots of built-in options.

I'm not on the market for a new camera, but I am always interested in what others think about their equipment, and I ask here because so many of you take such great photos.

I'm also seeing these high-priced HD cameras people put on their heads or which could be taken into water, etc . . .

[Deathgoblin]

My last digital camera headed out the door when we got robbed about a month or so ago. Does that count?

[cartpix]

As you may or not have noticed from my avatar, I'm a motorsport photographer, on the side. I shoot a digital SLR with interchangable lenses. The quality of lenses varies, even within the same manufacturer. I have a light weight "vacation" 70-300mm "consumer" lens, that retails for about $300, that is pretty good for snap shots but is a little soft. For the track, I use "pro" lenses, that start at $2,000, that are tack sharp, down to what type of bug is splattered on the driver's helmet. I also shoot a frightfully expensive "pro" SLR body. It doesn't make the picture any better than a "consumer" body, but it locks in the metering & focus so much faster that I get shots I would have missed with a cheaper body. This is the kind of thing you need, to shoot something going 200MPH or more. You DO get what you pay for, at least with camera equipment.

Do you need $8,000 worth of camera equipment to take a picture of a model, sitting on a table? No. Will you take a better picture of that model with an expensive camera? A mid level "point & shoot" will take pictures that only the most discerning will notice the difference. The biggest problem people have with shooting models is lighting & shooting closer than the minimum focus distance of the lens/ camera. It's not the camera that takes a good picture, it's the photographer.

Jeff

[Greg Myers]

Marketing. You can't sell something everyone already has.

[Dr. Cranky]

Interesting discussion started, folks, thank you.

[TooOld]

I think Jeff is right when he said " It's not the camera that takes a good picture , it's the photographer " .

A person that knows what they are doing can take as good a photo with an inexpensive camera , if not better , than an amateur with $$$$ worth of equipment !

Digital cameras are going to get better , have more features , and cost more , just like everything else . There is always a point where the prices start to drop , but the manufacturers will always find a new feature to justify raising the price again .

Personally , I don't feel taking photos of a model to show on a forum should be about the photography . In fact , there have been some really great photos posted here that don't really show the craftsmanship and skill that went into the build ! A good point and shoot with a close up feature , and proper lighting without a clutterred background works just fine .

[crazyjim]

I don't know half of what you guys are talking about but I'm still looking into a new camera. I was playing with a Sony at Wal-Mart on Saturday night and it took a very nice clear closeup of the sales ticket. I thought that would be good for engine pics. I don't remember the model but it had 16 mega pixels and 10x zoom. Price was right at $200.00. I don't need or want all those fancy lenses and settings. I just want to turn it on, point at what I want, take the pic, load on to the computer, resize it to smaller, put on Photobucket, and post on the forum.

[Dr. Cranky]

Jim, you bring up a good point in terms of thinking realistically about the uses of the camera before plunking down lots of dough.

[crazyjim]

We take a few pics around the house (chinon lilies are blooming). A bunch when we go somewhere. Most of the pics are my builds. I don't mind spending the money, but I just can't see buying a gorgeous Mercedes roadster when a Nissan pickup is more practical for me.

[cartpix]

Jim does make a good point. Buy what suits you. If you want to take pics of your models or the family at the Grand Canyon, a point & shoot is what you want. The best advantage to this is, it weighs nothing & you can just slip it in your pocket or your wife's purse when you're not using it. If you want to shoot your kids playing sports, you may want to move up to a digital SLR. Now you have something that's a bit more bulky & not easily concealed. If the kids play night sports, you better start looking at more expensive "faster" lenses (f4 or f2.8). Big lenes are heavy lenses. If you want to get shots of Indy cars hauling the mail down the back straight at The Brickyard, you better get a 2nd on your house. You better start working out, too. you'll be carting around 20 or 30 pounds, all day.

Jeff

[SoCalCarCulture]

Like Jeff says consider what you want the camera for - but remember it's just a tool to capture images.

Most people never learn anything about photography but a little knowledge of those tools can go a long way toward improving your images and make it easier to wade through all the camera offerings out there.

[sjordan2]

Just like all prior technology, there will continue to be more features at a lower price, with a growing number of Web-related add-ons to jack the price up some more.

[Mr. Moparman]

I use a nice pretty metallic blue Kodak Easyshare C1530. Shoots nice and good when I put my car against a nice white background!

Edited June 18, 2012 by Mr. Moparman

[Pete J.]

As you may or not have noticed from my avatar, I'm a motorsport photographer, on the side. I shoot a digital SLR with interchangable lenses. The quality of lenses varies, even within the same manufacturer. I have a light weight "vacation" 70-300mm "consumer" lens, that retails for about $300, that is pretty good for snap shots but is a little soft. For the track, I use "pro" lenses, that start at $2,000, that are tack sharp, down to what type of bug is splattered on the driver's helmet. I also shoot a frightfully expensive "pro" SLR body. It doesn't make the picture any better than a "consumer" body, but it locks in the metering & focus so much faster that I get shots I would have missed with a cheaper body. This is the kind of thing you need, to shoot something going 200MPH or more. You DO get what you pay for, at least with camera equipment.

Do you need $8,000 worth of camera equipment to take a picture of a model, sitting on a table? No. Will you take a better picture of that model with an expensive camera? A mid level "point & shoot" will take pictures that only the most discerning will notice the difference. The biggest problem people have with shooting models is lighting & shooting closer than the minimum focus distance of the lens/ camera. It's not the camera that takes a good picture, it's the photographer.

Jeff

Jeff -

I have a question for you, and this is done with all seriousness. What is the purpose of and SLR in the digital age? I shot 35mm for many years and in the days of film it was important to see through the lens to see exactly what you were going to get for exposures, depth of fields etc. In my mind, the advent to digital photography made the mechanical bits of an SLR unnessesary What you see on the output screen or the viewfinder on a digital camera is what you are going to get. My thought on digital SLR is that this was a way of making high end photographers comforable. The main thing that I see that is an advange to the Digital SLR are the interchangable lenses. In my mind, where Sony is going with their NEX series of cameras makes far more sence. Combine the high end optics and digital imaging and dump the SLR mechanicals. You still have through the lens viewing and focus, exposure and depth of field without the expense and weight of the SLR mechanism. Am I missing something here?

[Harry P.]

Doesn't mater whether film or digital, the heart of a camera is the lens/optics.

In the days of film, we had simple "point and shoot" cameras for Joe and Jane Average, and high-end SLRs with interchangeable lenses for the pros or the serious amateur. And that hasn't changed with today's digital cameras.

You can change the technology from film to digital, but you can't change the basic laws of optics. Light is light, a lens is a lens, whether the "receiving end" is a piece of photographic film or an electronic surface. A good lens will always be the defining element of a camera, and professional photographers will always want a wide selection of lenses to meet various applications and situations.

So bottom line... we've gone from film to digital, but the basics of optics have not changed, and we still have the simple point-and-shoot camera for the average guy, and the more sophisticated SLRs with a wide variety of lenses for the pros.

[kruleworld]

Has anyone else noticed that the digital camera market is moving back into having a whole bunch of lenses and peripherals?

i guess the cheap cameras are being smashed by in-phone cameras, so they might disappear in the next few years, leaving only the high-end dedicated cameras. They might do HD video as well.

[Greg Myers]

I use a nice pretty metallic blue Kodak Easyshare C1530. Shoots nice and good when I put my car against a nice white background!

Notice how the image is out of focus as you look to the right

[martinfan5]

Missed you at this months meeting Greg

[cartpix]

Jeff -

I have a question for you, and this is done with all seriousness. What is the purpose of and SLR in the digital age? I shot 35mm for many years and in the days of film it was important to see through the lens to see exactly what you were going to get for exposures, depth of fields etc. In my mind, the advent to digital photography made the mechanical bits of an SLR unnessesary What you see on the output screen or the viewfinder on a digital camera is what you are going to get. My thought on digital SLR is that this was a way of making high end photographers comforable. The main thing that I see that is an advange to the Digital SLR are the interchangable lenses. In my mind, where Sony is going with their NEX series of cameras makes far more sence. Combine the high end optics and digital imaging and dump the SLR mechanicals. You still have through the lens viewing and focus, exposure and depth of field without the expense and weight of the SLR mechanism. Am I missing something here?

I think it has more to do with backward compatibility. The lenses & flashes you have invested in, over the years, still work on the digital side. The distance from the lens mount to the sensor must remain the same as mount to film. When you have a collection of expensive glass, it's hard to just chuck it all & invest in a new system. On the pro body side, I'd really miss my vertical shutter button on side & the loud shutter. Plus the heavy pro bodies balance the heavier lenses better than my consumer backup body.

I briefly looked at the NEX on DPReview & it looks like a nice higher end consumer system. It only has 7 lenses & 3 of those have 2012 as the release dates. It looks like a nice system to buy if you're moving up from a point & shoot. Even Sony has made it clear that it is targeting people to upgrade from compact cameras rather than offer a 2nd camera to SLR owners.

Jeff

Edited June 19, 2012 by cartpix

[Pete J.]

I think it has more to do with backward compatibility. The lenses & flashes you have invested in, over the years, still work on the digital side. The distance from the lens mount to the sensor must remain the same as mount to film. When you have a collection of expensive glass, it's hard to just chuck it all & invest in a new system. On the pro body side, I'd really miss my vertical shutter button on side & the loud shutter. Plus the heavy pro bodies balance the heavier lenses better than my consumer backup body.

I briefly looked at the NEX on DPReview & it looks like a nice higher end consumer system. It only has 7 lenses & 3 of those have 2012 as the release dates. It looks like a nice system to buy if you're moving up from a point & shoot. Even Sony has made it clear that it is targeting people to upgrade from compact cameras rather than offer a 2nd camera to SLR owners.

Jeff

Jeff- Thanks for the response, but I still don't see any advantage to having an SLR mechanism on any digital camera. If you build a camera body with a professional CMOS and bayonets to fit the current crop of optics, why do you need the SLR mechanism? Even the cheapest digital camera is giving you the same "through the lens" view that the SLR is. In point of fact the digital is doing a better job because you are actually seeing the image that will be recorded. The flip up mirror to the view finder adds nothing to the equation as far as I can see. SLR's were orignally created to correct the variance of what you saw in a range finder type viewfinder and what the film was recording through the lens. Since the question was where are digital camera going, would it not make sense to get rid of this relic of the film era or am I missing something?

[2002p51]

Yea Pete, I think you are missing something. As you know, like Jeff, I'm a professional motorsports shooter and one thing I can tell you is that panning with a 200 mph race car while you're holding the camera at arm's length trying to get a critical view in that little screen is nearly impossible. And while it's true that I've been shooting with SLRs for 30 years now and I'm too used to it (i.e. too old ) to change now, I think the traditional SLR system will be with us on the pro side anyway for many more years.

I also echo the previous comments about the camera only being a tool. It's the photographer that makes a great photo, not the camera. It's almost an insult when somebody says; "Gee, your photos are great. I bet you have a really nice camera!"

Having said that however, I've become really impressed with some of the "cheap" cameras that are out there now. It used to be the worst camera you could have was the one on your cell phone. Most of the early ones were simply awful. I would see people using them at car shows and such and just feel it was a waste of time. Last year I got my first "smart phone", an HTC, and I'm using the camera in it more and more. Not for my racing of course, but I now think of it as being able to have a decent camera with me at all times. And that's a big step for me!

So, before I ramble on anymore I'll just say that the choices on the camera market today may seem confusing but you just have to really think about what you want to use it for and find the right camera for the job. Just don't fall into the "more megapixels, the better" trap. That's a whole 'nother rant!