Hacker News Reader

Comment by ekianjo | Hacker News Reader

Nikon did not confirm nor deny the report so it's basically a pure fluff piece.

> As well as the rise of mirrorless tech, SLR cameras have also been out-competed by smartphone technology, which has shrunk the camera market over decades.

The market has shrunk but it's nothing to do with smartphone cameras, it's like saying McDonalds have shrunk the market for three stars restaurants. Not the same audience at all, not the same use, you'll find that the DSLR market has been mostly stagnating innovation wise for a while, making it hard to justify buying a new model for just a few more megapixels every now and then. A 10 years old DSLR is still a formidable image-maker.

View on HN

I disagree. A large percentage of the DSLR market are hobbyists who want to feel professional, just like with musical instruments, sports equipment and so on. Amateurs outnumber professionals by 1000:1 or more.

A large percentage of those people have realised they can take really good photos with their phone now, good enough that they don't feel inadequate, and maybe they don't feel like carrying around heavy equipment either.

That market is gone and will never return.

> can take really good photos with their phone now

That does not make any sense, it was already the case that you could make excellent pictures with compact cameras 15 years ago, without having a DLSR. If your hypothesis was right the DSLR market would have disappeared much earlier.

Are you really comparing 2005 compact cameras to the multi-lens machine learning tiny sensor capabilities of modern phones?

Your argument only holds up if you're taking high aperture landscape photos in broad daylight...

The Sony Rx-100 Was released in 2012. That's 10 years ago already and that still beats hands down the best phones out there in terms of image quality.

Early digital compact cameras were terrible compared to phones today.

On the other hand they were revolutionary compared to film cameras, so it didn't really matter.

Before, one had to make a conscious choice to get a compact camera. People who wanted to take pictures had a choice-- do I get a SLR and have all the bells and whistles and be "serious", or do I get a compact camera? Also, appearances matter-- do I want to look serious?

Now, a pretty excellent compact camera is in pretty much everyone's hands. So the question becomes-- is it worth another camera to be serious? Would I even carry it anywhere?

I think most of the hobbyists have stuck with DSLR/mirrorless, but I knew a lot of people that used a dslr for family / vacation pictures. Those people all use phones now.

Although We’re probably saying the same thing, just differing on our definition of hobbyist.

Yes, most of those vacation photos look terrible. Good enough on a beach at midday, but in other lighting conditions they're often under exposed or blurry or backlit or just poorly composed. And in fairness to smartphone cameras, most of those problems are more due to photographer incompetence than device limitations.

I was just on vacation and took some photos with my phone camera, and some with my Nikon D4000 and a pretty basic 55-200 lens.

The phone pics have the benefit of some pretty good automatic processing, ease of use (the thing is already in my pocket), and for typical landscape or portrait stuff, they are just fine.

But there really is no comparison when it comes to "real" bokeh/shallow DOF stuff, not to mention the sheer flexibility offered by a full-fat lens, bigger sensor, and controls that don't have me poking around in touch screen menus. I could even swap to my 35mm f/1.8 if I wanted to shoot in lower light than my phone can do without digital tricks or longer exposure times.

If I were in the market today, perhaps I would go for a mirrorless camera, but as someone decidedly not professional at all WRT photography, I still enjoy having something flexible in addition to using my phone as a decent backup point-and-shoot camera.

Yes, but... a phone you take with you every day is different from an SLR that you take on specific occasions.

Perhaps 20% of pictures I've shot have been on a DSLR, and 80% on phones. By sheer numbers, a really big share of the best shots are from a phone camera. And there's a lot of things that I took pictures of, that there's some rather obvious phone camera penalties from... but at least I have a picture while with a DSLR I would likely not.

It's freeing, too, to not have to choose between "do I lug the big camera today in difficult conditions or get no photos today?"

... I am looking forward to picking up a mirrorless to reduce the barrier a little bit of carrying "the big camera".

I have the latest iPhone 13 Pro Max, shoot RAW and with acoustic filters mounted on my phone and what not. Both my photos and iPhone photos that I’ve seen at “iPhone photography” art exhibits are clearly lower quality.

Now one could argue about whether the tiny censors on smartphones in of itself is just another dimension of artistic expression.

But my personal aesthetic preference as a hobbyist photographer and art consumer is that unintentional censor noise is not good.

I have an old DSLR (Nikon D90, circa 2008) and hadn't taken it anywhere in quite some time (due to it being big and heavy and smartphones being more or less good enough). However, I had been slightly disappointed with the vacation photos I was getting on my iPhone 11.

So I dug out the old DSLR and brought (lugged?) it with me on a recent vacation to Peru. I threw in the largest SD card it would accommodate (32GB), which gave me literally thousands of photos at the highest quality JPEG setting (don't really want to deal with post-processing RAW images). The only lens I brought was a 35mm 1.8 DX lens.

I have to say that the quality of my photos was much better than I had seen in quite some time. It is hands down better than my smartphone. Even though they are both ostensibly 12MP, the larger sensor and lens make a big difference. The two things I missed from my iPhone were super wide angle shots and low light. Since I had my iPhone with me, I could just pull that out if needed.

I briefly thought about buying a new DSLR or a mirrorless, but really my old one is good enough. I will probably just buy an 18-55 zoom or something for my next vacation.

> I disagree. A large percentage of the DSLR market are hobbyists who want to feel professional, just like with musical instruments, sports equipment and so on. Amateurs outnumber professionals by 1000:1 or more.

And tons of people who want to have a youtube channel. Hell there are lots of people that use a SLR just for their zoom calls.

As a hobbyist photographer myself I can confirm that I spend serious amount of money on equipment that is pro-level. The last camera I got was the Nikon Z6 Mark II, which is an entry-level pro camera. Why? Because "The picture quality matters" and it feels good to have a really nice camera when you're standing around a bunch of other hobbyists who all have pro cameras.

For the most part the people who take photos with their phones were never really buying DSLRs. They were buying all the other digital cameras. When you go for a DSLR you're wanting to control everything, shutter speed, the aperture, etc. You want to be able to go wide-lens, tele-lens, you want to be able to choose between 2000/second and 100/second. You want to do time delay.

If you're even half interested in taking good photos you're looking to get a DSLR even if you don't understand everything. You can look at the photography sites for hobbyists such as youpic.com and 500px.com. These sites are full of people sharing their hobby photos and you'll find 1-2 out of hundreds using their mobile.

"There are lots of people that use a SLR just for their zoom calls."

That's the crap webcam problem. You'll never use the mirror mechanism in a DSLR in that situation.

Nikon promotes using their DSLRs as webcams.[1] What you really want, of course, is the good optics, sensor, and electronics without the viewfinder, mirror, battery, and manual controls, and with good connectors and no overheating during continuous operation.

Neither the webcam makers nor the traditional camera makers have addressed this market. So who's doing it? Hikvision, the surveillance camera makers.[2] Their thing is making high-rez cameras that handle widely varied lighting conditions. So they offer some of those packaged as webcams.

[1] https://www.nikonusa.com/en/learn-and-explore/webcam-utility...

[2] https://www.hikvision.com/en/products/Turbo-HD-Products/Turb...

I wanted to buy the PTZ from Hikvision, its almost impossible to get one in the USA.

Nikon and Canon used to make the vast majority of their revenue from their entry level DSLR systems.

That customer base has pretty much disappeared and it has everything to do with smartphones. If I recall the statistic correctly, the DSLR market shrunk by 40% across the board in just a few years because of this.

Due to this, Nikon and others have re-positioned their market to high price/margin prosumer/pro gear mostly.

DSLR camera is still better of course, but people won't use it due to its bulky and heavy and their mobile phone can do 80% of photoing faster and probably just as good albeit a few areas that DSLR still has advantages. But for most of us, a good enough camera is just fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com