The DSLR is fading away | Hacker News Reader

The DSLR is fading away

cnet.com

12 pointsbryan09 comments

It's tricky, I have had a DSLR for around 8 years now, not the most expensive one but not cheap either and I have a couple of lenses to do damage.

The problem is that my iPhone takes an amazing photo now, in the last couple of years smartphones have built amazing image processing and the ability to take a crystal clear shot without much intervention.

As an example, I went to a desert dirt bike/buggy race a few months ago and I took my DSLR. It allowed me to take some amazing photos at a distance with my 200m lens and they looked fantastic. However for taking photos up close or in motion the iPhone was fantastic. It allowed me to take burst shots of images of fast moving objects, and automatically showed me the best image of that group of burst images and allowed me to delete all others I rejected on the fly.

The only downside is that it takes a serious toll on the iPhone battery, whereas the DSLR chugs through hundreds of photos without blinking an eye (only a shutter).

DSLR's can get you an amazing photo if you have the kit for that type of photo and the settings dialed in. For many of us owning and using a DSLR is a hobby and we enjoy getting the most out of our shots. I think a DSLR will still give you the best image for most shots for now, but smartphones will only keep getting better. And they will allow you to capture most shots with little to not thought.

See also: manual transmission ICE cars. I’m hoarding so I never have to give up the satisfaction of skillfully operating a complex mechanical device through fine muscle control and sensory feedback. Loaded a roll of black-and-white film in my Pentax ME Super just yesterday. Might go take some manually-focused photos of my cars.

For most people carrying DSLRs (e.g., Canon Rebels), an iPhone would yield better results. Most won't make use of post-processing, focal lengths, apertures that an interchangeable lens camera with high dynamic range provides. Phones have better in-camera image processing than a stock Rebel.

I've stopped using my full-frame because it's heavy and good photography is a commodity and so easy. Maybe if I posted pictures on social media, I'd use it.

I've looked a few times into what it would cost for a "decent" camera that beats my smartphone, across a range of compacts through to entry level mirror-less, or even looking into what it would cost me to get some more lenses for an old 500D I have lying around.

I've come to the same conclusions each time, that I'm better off sticking with the smart phone camera in terms of value for money, there's simply not enough to pull me back to the dedicated camera world, despite part of me really wanting to go back.

> Most won't make use of post-processing, focal lengths, apertures that an interchangeable lens camera with high dynamic range provides.

On the other hand, as someone who does do extensive post-processing, I've moved to capturing raw images even on my phone. There are frequent occasions when I've found that this allowed me to get a much higher quality capture. I'm using a several years old Android, though, so YMMV.

> I've stopped using my full-frame

On some level it's really depressing to me to think about how much high quality equipment is just sitting in closets thanks to smartphones. I know I'll likely never be able to afford a full frame DSLR on my plausible future salaries (I'm not in the tech industry).

RAW on phone is great.

My reason for not using my full-frame less often is that posting photos on social media made me feel like a narcissist so I stopped. I didn't really have the passion to take and process photos just for the joy of it, I mostly was carrying it around during trips and outings.

I suspect "good phone camera" is still quite unevenly distributed. My current phone (Umidigi F1) is decidedly mediocre; I suspect that, as much if not more than CPU, is a big place manufacturers show daylight between the $200 phone and the $1000 one.

I tend to be suspicious how much that software and MIPS can compensate for optics and sensor size. I know a lot of the premium phones will augment the main sensor with, say, 5MP "macro" and "wide angle" sensors with more appropriate optics, but that feels like an admission they're not going to produce great results in those sections of their range. I'd sort of love to see a phone with a single uber-sensor (like the old Nokia 808 or Lumia 1020) and several lenses on some sort of steampunk-looking rotary assembly, or better, a screw mount of some sort, so you could approach the flexibility of an interchangeable-lens camera. I've seen the little aftermarket macro lenses you can clip onto a cameraphone, and the idea is right but the execution seems doomed to terrible results.

I guess I'm weird-- I mostly want to take macro photos of models and invertebrates, rather than photos of humans, so what I want in a camera device is probably not what Joe Instagram wants.

Yeah, my point is that most people that have do have high-end phones are better off with a smartphone than an entry-level camera with kit lens.

But if you're doing macro or telephoto or anything else, yeah, a bigger sensor camera with lenses is 10x better for the capabilities.

I think this article gets it right, I do see a gradual downward trending of DSLR usage

Context: I consider myself a serious amateur photographer. I own a Nikon full frame DSLR (D750) as well as a slew of Nikon professional prime an zoom lenses. I also own a Nikon N80 film camera, and a 30+ year old Nikon FE2 camera. I also did large format photography and had a Shen Hao HZX 4X5 Camera as well as a 60+ year old Graphlex Crown Graphic 4x5 camera and a Mamiya RB76 medium format camera (sold those a few years ago). Oh, and I also own a Fuji X100F mirrorless (I wanted a high quality camera that was easier to carry than my DSRL+lenses).

The only recent manufacturer I can think of that came out with a DSLR was Nikon (with the D780) and they ae possibly coming out with a D850 successor. I don't see any new full frame DSLR cameras being produced (I still expect to see consumer level DSRL cameras). But this does not mean the cameras will die out, since there is a robust used market. The D750 was first produced in 2014, I bought one in 2019 (it was my first full frame DSLR, prior I had a D300 DX camera). It is 24 MP, which is still pretty decent and should last me for a couple more years. Some of my DSLR lenses (which are compativle with the Nikon N80) I bought used (great way to save money). For me, since I intend to stick with Nikon, moving to mirroless at this point makes no sense because

a) For the type of photos I take, does not make a difference. 24 MP is plenty enough for me https://www.flickr.com/photos/williamkimeria/51370902562/siz...

b) Nikon Mirrorless is still not on par with their DSLR offerings. The Nikon Z7II is a great camera, 47 MP but lacks features they have in their prosumer and high end DSLRs. I would also need to get a whole slew of new lenses (there is an adapter to use my existing lenses but it is clunky). If I were willing to switch to another manufacturer (I'm not, I have been very happy with Nikon for 25 years) I could see myself switching right now.

I suspect I will move over to mirrorless with Nikons next version of the Z7 (possibly in a couple of years) but will keep my DSLR and lenses (but sell some on the used market, www.keh.com is a godsend).

But as some have pointed out, phone cameras get better and better. I expect those to cannibalize the sales of mirrorless rangefinders (like the X100 range) but you will never get the flexibility that prosumer DSLR/mirrorless systems give you (dynamic range, ability to switch lenses, super-fast focus if you are a sports photographer etc). But I am at the point where I am comfortable using my iPhone (and I have the XS, not the latest) for day to day photos where I either don't have my camera or did not carry it)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com