Let's just pretend for a moment that DSLRs are officially dead and we're left with nothing else, but mirrorless cameras and cell phones. What would that mean to photographers?
DSLR Apocalypse
With so many articles discussing and predicting the death of DSLRs and rise of mirrorless cameras, there are lots of debates in the comments sections. There are people who are happy about it. Others are totally against it. Without any bias, let's say it really happens and the conveyor line labeled "DSLR" finally stops and the lights of the large manufacturing hangar are turned off.
Stories of Old
In order to think of possible outcomes we can relate the situation to something we have already seen in the past. For example, the cease of production of certain types of classic film stock. What happened then? Well, that film stock was not available in the stores. Did that stop photographers? It did stop those who were relying on film stock for their business. For example small photo businesses had their income mostly from developing film. But these are labs, not photographers, you might say. That's true, but lots of them were sporting both disciplines and their businesses were supported by a stronger and a weaker leg. The stronger one was the tool. Such experienced some tremendous losses.
What happened to the real film photographers? Did that stop them from creating art? No. They just started using other tools. For some the transition was technically painful, to others the pain was emotional. Several decades later the tools got better and the modern complaints are "no two card slots," "doesn't shoot 4K," "it's only 25 megapixels," etc. Art didn't stop with the stopping of a conveyor line for a particular tool.
Some Will Be Doomed, Others Not
What will happen if DSLRs are no longer available? You will be predestined of failure if:
- You are into the trade industry and you only sell DSLRs.
- You are technically servicing only DSLRs.
- All your money comes from investment in public stock on financial markets related solely to DSLRs.
- You are a member of secret society who swore an oath and cursed yourself if you would ever have used anything else but a DSLR.
In case you are not any of those, you will simply have to change your tool for making your imagination a reality. You may not find the new gadget that attractive or perfect, but think about vintage artists who used wooden sticks with horse hair at the end, dipping them into a solution of crushed rocks and linseed oil to create masterpieces which we still admire today. Yes, I'm talking about oil painters. They did well. They still do well with the same kind of instruments.
Conclusion
Times change. Industry changes. Technology changes. A visual can be represented by lots of means today. The most important tool is your imagination. It should not be bound by the tools. If it is, try unshackling yourself as soon as possible. Don't worry about the gear markets unless you have financial benefit from them. Worry about art. Be an art-ist, not a tool-ist.
Given the coming apocalypse, you should save yourself from big, bright, beautiful viewfinders with instant refresh and send all your DSLRs to me.
tell us how many amazing camera's and lenses you own. feels like a peeing contest.
They can just buy used ones. Heck, I just bought a another Mamiya 6 film camera on Ebay, as it's my favorite camera of all time. You don't have to be a sheep mindlessly following the herd. Buy and use what works for you.
Hi Tihomir, thanks for your article. I appreciate your point and your humor. Change is good, and it's inevitable. What matters to many people is the speed of change. When paintbrushes moved away from horsehair, the transition took decades. When digital photography started, the transition from film took years. I think if some folks stop hyperventilating for a couple of minutes and think about it, the big fear may be that the change will be lightning fast - like everything else these days. People like their DSLR camera bodies - they have spent time to get to know them. Lenses represent a big slice of a photographer's net worth. An abrupt end to the DSLR world would be difficult. As a DSLR shooter myself, it seems to me that the image file format is not changing, so my files are safe. New cameras will be increasingly lighter, smaller, and cooler mirrorless models. OK with me. There are so many DSLRs out there they will probably be around and going strong for the next decade. Besides, I can get some extra exercise when I hike around with my heavier DSLR. For me, good images are limited by the guy pushing the shutter button rather than a missing camera feature.
Thanks Rob.
I don't think DSLRs (or any other camera) will come to an abrupt end and will be immediately replaced by something else. Yes, change will cost money, because manufacturers care about profit, not about ease of transition. But if someone is a working professional, they will manage to earn money with old gear and replace it with something that will cover their minimal needs and upgrade with time.
I watched the press shutterbugs at the end of the World Series last night. To my eye, there was not a single mirrorless out there... FWIW
All of this is eerily reminiscent of the SLR-DSLR transition. The same type of arguments, the same anecdotal claims that you weren't seeing professionals use DSLR's (until they did), etc. You'd think that we'd have learned by now. It's not something that'll happen overnight, but it's just a matter of time. DSLR development will slow down. Many of the people married to their DSLR's will age out of the industry. For better or worse, people will just get used to the new status quo and then one day we'll look around and suddenly see that most people aren't using DSLR's anymore, but nobody will be able to pinpoint some revolutionary moment because it won't exist. It'll be a gradual transition just like the last one was.
Michael, yours was a very thoughtful answer to my comment. I've referred to mirrorless users as early adopters (see the book "Innovators Dilemma") only to have people say that it was already a sustaining technology. I, fundamentally, think that you are correct. Nevertheless, you should read the following compelling article that implies that any "XSLR" may be under a much more formidable game changing attack that we may be ignoring: https://blog.halide.cam/inside-the-iphone-11-camera-part-1-a-completely-...
Smartphones and computational photography in general are an interesting twist and they are certainly going to transform the industry. If we're honest, most of us are not making massive prints and there's a hard limit to the amount of image quality (whether in the form of sheer megapixels or lens sharpness) that can actually be appreciated in most of the mediums that our photography ends up on. I think that phones have already reached that level of quality in ideal conditions (they're still working out the low-light issues). The multiple cameras of new phones also addresses the weakness of not having interchangeable lenses.
The way I see it, traditional photography tools and phones are approaching the problem of improvement from different angles. In the traditional photography industry, we're creating bigger sensors, squeezing more megapixels in them, grinding better glass for our lenses, etc. Phones, because of their limited form factor, are largely approaching the problem from a software angle. They employ AI to recreate details, remove noise, approximate lighting, etc. In terms of potential, I think that any sensible person can agree that there's far more actual potential in software to transform imagery than any amount of hardware. After all, it's software that does retouching, color grading, etc. A sharper lens is not dramatically different from a slightly less sharp one...
While phones are undoubtedly going to have their place, I do wonder how the issue of reality will play into all of this. Yes, we can argue to what degree any image taken with any camera is reflective of reality, but I do think that there's a difference between capturing details and digitally recreating details in software (however good the AI may be). For all practical purposes, there might not be, but when we consider documentation and journalism, I do think that there is a decent question to be asked there. How much journalistic integrity does a heavily AI-processed photograph have? How important is it to capture the actual details as opposed to capturing enough for an AI to re-create an excellent approximation of what was there based on processing a lower quality base image?
Perhaps it doesn't matter because these are largely theoretical questions that won't affect the vast majority of shooters. Will anyone care that a speck of dust was on the floor in real life, but not re-created by the AI output? Probably not, but I do think it's worth wondering what we begin to give up when we allow AI to dictate the facsimile of reality that we experience when we look at images.
I see another issue. Because consumers make up about 2/3rds of all sales in any product, advances in Smart Phone technology could take away tremendous revenues from traditional camera makers. This will effectively reduce R&D budgets which is required to develop the systems that advanced amateurs and pros are seeking.
This is true. Sometimes I think about the older days when most people had compacts and it was only pros and enthusiasts that had SLR's in the first place, but back then, those compacts were being sold by the camera brands. Now that revenue has gone so I do wonder how the industry will evolve. I'm guessing that we're likely to see some consolidation ahead. I wouldn't be opposed to the idea of all of these camera companies sharing more technology such as a standardized open source mount (a missed opportunity in my opinion) or standardized adoption of DNG in order to save on costs across the board for the industry,
Fair point... on a broader basis, see the following: https://blog.halide.cam/inside-the-iphone-11-camera-part-1-a-completely-...
Yeah you are right about the price. In the past the mobile carriers subsidized the cost. I am sitting here with an IPhone 8 which I purchased for $299. It’s hard to wrap my head around $1500. It’s more than a rectangle though. These things have so much power. They are really management information systems. I recently recovered from hernia surgery and because of lifting restrictions, I couldn’t carry my DSLR gear. For nearly two months I shot this thing in raw and retouched in LR and got some nice images.... the business strategy is that you have a great phone, apps and a great camera for the price of a Rebel. Who knows..
I've noticed a similar thing with video cameras at news events. Most people are still using big, ENG-style video cameras, not the smaller DSLR/mirrorless hybrid cameras like so many predicted would take over the video segment.
Nikon still makes Nikon F6 film camera today... and that market has been "dead" for F-Stoppers for over a decade. So I wouldn't be surprise if there is still a small group buying them, they will make them for awhile.
A woman I share darkroom time with recently bought a new F6. I don't understand why, given its high price and that there are plenty of very good, older used Nikons out there. But there you have it.
Bottom line, I will use what's available. I'm still using film cameras when they're supposed to be dead.
Almost 2 years ago I decided to bite the bullet and purchase what is presumably my last DSLR; a Nikon D850. I had huge buyers' remorse for a while because I already owned a D800, which I also thought was going to be my last DSLR. I bought the D850 because I was somehow convinced that I was future-proofing myself through the last years of the DSLR era. I might have actually done that to a point. What I was also protecting was my lens investment. For a non-professional I have a somewhat formidible assortment of choice full frame Nikon and Sigma glass. So that's going to be my kit for the foreseeable future. I can only hope that if and when the D850 dies, or is lost down a cliff somewhere, that my lenses will still be of some use. I guess I could still resort to the now 'antiquated' D800. No big hardship there. I guess my GAS is finally fading.
guess you dont realize yet that DSLR is still outselling the mirrorless market and due to its very large user base it has from economic perspective a bigger interest to lens manufacturers than the mirrorless market. i also have two nikon DSLRs and the D850 is one of them. im about to buy a Z6 to compliment them. its not going to replace them and for my lenses, it has an adapter to fit F mount to a Z mount body. as Nikon doesnt have a 300/400/500/600 prime or zoom yet i guess ill use my F mount glass. oh, i wont buy that 200-600 zoom they working on if it has a F6.3 on the top end. canon and nikon do not yet have high end glass for their mirrorless mounts and sony has issues in stadiums with those led boards in some cases. so mirrorless for sports like the Olympics isnt yet an option. i would pick a nikon D6 or Canon 1DxIII over the sony A9.
At 70, retiring next year, I'm just about finished with my photo gear purchases. At last count I have spent in excess of $50K on photo gear in the last 15 years or so. Much of that gear is still in use and functions well. Granted some of the DSLRs sit idled by the next latest and greatest, but every one still works even my first DSLR a Canon Rebel XT. Some pieces have been gifted into the hands of deserving students. Where our gear addiction takes us is our own fault.
Will DSLRs go the way of film? Who knows. I'm fairly certain my path is already mapped, my retirement savings and income is for my future care and to cover household emergencies, not to be spent on the next latest, best ever, coming down the road. I have far too much invested in great glass to abandon it in favor of some new and improved concept however great it may be.
New things will come and go, some great, some pretty bad. I'll be happy to spend whatever time I have left enjoying what I have and honing my meager skills. Happy shooting!
if you get the images you want, why upgrade to the new? time left? you might live to a 100 and beyond. skills, everyday i learn that there is so much to learn (Dunning kruger effect) im 50 and only have about 60 years left to live.
Stop learning and you die. New isn't always better is it? Have fun shooting.
Well stated my friend.... I too am 70, and I find that finding ways to improve my skills, as I approach the end of the runway, is far more important than the next gadget. As we age, our focus turns to what's important rather than what is new... all the best.
Depends on the photographer. There would be plenty of DSLRs to buy if we wanted to. Just like there are tons of film cameras to buy. So.......
Well....I'd just continue shooting with what I have. Oh....and I could also choose any DSLR I have wanted for less money. A win - win I suppose.
I will avoid mirrorless for as long as I can! Never bought a Point and Shoot and that's what I equate them to. One day I may be forced too as I am a photographer, but will fight it tooth and nails. I just don't want to take my pictures by watching a TV. There are still a lot of inherent problems with it. Funniest thing is that I just read about the new R's over heating the camera. Which jives with what I have been saying that it's just another thing to break in the camera. Anyone out there remember the old Pentax K1000? Canon is promoting it because it will add to their enormous income and then there are the Morons that will just eat up the new tech. whether good or bad. I think Canon has done a great big disservice to us LONG time loyal customers by not offering us an upgrade that we had waited several years to see. Personally, I was holding out for the 5Ds Mark II and the 24-70 f/2.8 IS and neither have come out. BOO Canon.