POLL - The shape of things to come

[Damien_Demolder]

We are truly in the age of the multi-functional device. Try buying a mobile phone that doesn’t have a camera, or a cheap printer that isn’t also a scanner. By and large, DSLR users have so far escaped – but not for long. Whether you like it or not, things are changing and will continue to do so. Already you can’t buy a compact camera that isn’t also a movie camera, and soon the same will be true of the DSLR. Not long ago Live View was a novelty, but now it’s considered a standard feature, as is dust reduction and image stabilisation. Is it such a bad thing to have a feature that you can switch off if you don’t want to use it? Maybe not, but where will it lead? To be effective video cameras, DSLRs are going to need to change their shape too, surely. How do you feel about that? Does it matter? Is it about time we had a change, or perhaps DSLRs are DSLR-shaped because that has always worked.
So what’s next for the DSLR? How about Wi-Fi as standard, for transferring images or connecting to the internet to update your firmware? Fancy Google maps, or the weather, on your rear screen? You may have them sooner rather than later.

Do you think that all new DSLRs will have a movie mode within three years?

[DaveS]

Well, I voted yes, but with reservations. I don't think HD movie modes will come to the very bottom end of the market, as the technology to implement it well would be too expensive, and I doubt whether we'll see it in the very top end either. But in the middle, say the 50D to 5D or 90D / 700D range, yes definitely.
However I think some redesign might be in order to improve the viewfinder and LCD screen.
Can I introduce a couple of abbreviations, one is DSMC, used by Red, it stands for Digital Still and Motion Camera, the other is EVIL meaning Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens, pertaining to things like the G1 / GH1 and is used on certain US cine forums.

[huwevans]

I don't know, but if it is the case I'll be sticking to the secondhand market, or if necessary going back entirely to film.

[Fen]

I voted yes, but would prefer it didn't.

[Bawbee]

It will be available, you won't be compelled to use it though.

[Zou]

There will probably always be an 'oddball' (most likely German or Japanese hand-made very hard to get hold of) DSLR without such fripperies, but at somewhat prohibitive prices.

I have no objection to such 'features' on the grounds that one day I may want some of them, or one day they might develop into something more attractive. I still would prefer a fully manual mechanical based camera, but that's about as likely to appear at my price point as return flights to Mars.

One question though - with all the leaps being made in digital tech, how long before we see home scanning equipment improving? I'd love a Hassie Flextight, but at Epson prices. If that becomes a reality, just think how many film users would be able to continue enjoying their choice of media for far longer. Digital might just yet be the best thing to ever happen to film...

[DaveS]

What I would object to would be if the video functionality compromised the core DSLR function.
I don't think that will happen, as DSLR makers are more focussed on stills, witness the 5DII, with basically brilliant cine badly flawed by crass ergonomics.It will be interesting to see how the GH1 turns out, not to mention Red's long awaited offerings (Sorry no "irony" emoticon available).
Dave

[Learning]

Phone and GPS for sure. I suppose for townies WiFi. The overhead in terms of mass and volume should be so small as to be irrelevant. Photographers of the great outdoors might find a use of satellite links for phone and uploading images but that really would be too much to expect this year. 5 years and who knows what will be possible.

[Fire_Monkey]

I voted yes because I think the manufacturers believe it is the next "Must have" gadget that camera users want. Personally I hope I'm wrong!

[TimF]

I voted yes, but would prefer it didn't.

I voted Don't Know. If the question had been will all Japanese cameras have this then it would have been yes.

Like Fen I'm hoping they won't. I'd rather have something which is master of its particular trade, than a jack of all, which is invariably a compromise.

[Benchista]

Must say I'm entirely open to all of this, and can see loads of advantages, and precious few disadvantages.

[huwevans]

... precious few disadvantages.

I'll give you just one - another hundred pages in the user manuals that people won't be bothered to read, and then there'll be even more of them coming here expecting others to tell them how to use their ridiculously over-complicated cameras!


Don't bother stopping the world for me to get off - I'll just jump!

[Benchista]

Ah, you old Luddite, you!

[El_Sid]

I voted yes, but would prefer it didn't.

I'm with Fen on this...

I remain to be convinced that multi-function devices are really a satisfactory alternative to specialised products. Now matter how much clever technology you stuff in the item the old 'Jack-of-all-trades, Master-of-none' concept still applies.

My compact has movie mode and while I used it on Monday to film a steam loco that's probably the first time I've used it with any real intent... and I've had the camera at least two years......

As for the shape of DSLRs changing... Well that's fine if it improves the handling in relation to the prime function of the camera, ie to take technically good quality still pictures, but if it's a compromise to marginally improve a secondary function such as video mode then that would be a big no-no as far as I'm concerned.

[alanS]

I can't see myself ever wanting to upload pictures from my camera directly to the internet and I can't see myself wanting to log on using a camera either. Surely these features will only be truly useful to a tiny minority of people.

I suppose that all of these things and more will appear on DSLR's and I'll use them once to see how / if they work and then ignore them.

I'd rather manufacturers concentrated upon other issues such as preventing contamination on the sensor and in the optical path, image stabilisation, dynamic range and high ISO performance (without ever more noise reduction.)

[Carrie]

I can see the attraction for some market segments, and agree that its likely to become standard on mid range cameras at least.

I'm really hoping however that there is still space in the market for 'serious' cameras that focus on, and put their development money into, being the best at taking still photos.

I have a bad feeling that when it comes to cost less may well be (a lot) more.

[DaveS]

I wouldn't want the cam cluttered up with anything not image-related, and that includes GPS, WiFi, phone, whatever.
Cine functions, being image-related are ok, in fact I really want a good, affordable DSMC, especially for school events so I don't have to carry a DSLR and Camcorder on field trips.
I don't see how improved cine ability should impinge on the stills ability, since cine and stills are after low noise, wide dynamic range and high resolution, it's just the cinephiles also want less skew in the sensor as well.
Cine can be seen as a useful by-product of Live-View, so unless you're dead set against that as well, I don't see how having a good, usable cine function could be seen as detrimental.
I'm not convinced about EVFs as yet unless major improvements are made, Perhaps the Pelicle beam splitter may make a comeback, I don't know.
I will say, that one attraction of the mirror-less m4/3 system is that it frees lens designers to place the rear element where it will do the most good (Like a R/F) rather than where they have to because of obstructions in the camera throat
Dave.

[beejaybee]

I wouldn't want the cam cluttered up with anything not image-related, and that includes GPS, WiFi, phone, whatever.

Well said. Extend to scene modes, built-in flash units & video (on still cameras) and you have my sentiments exactly.

Start thinking about extras when the thing has a proper viewfinder ...

[alanS]

"built-in flash"

We'll never agree on this one but I could argue against the big, intrusive, room illuminating, atmosphere destroying, distracting and attention grabbing add on flash units that should be left in the studio and for the more unobtrusive and discrete approach of a little fill flash and the use of available light to preserve and accurately capture the scene whenever possible.

[DaveS]

beejaybee, I pretty much agree with everything you've said apart from the video bit (What a surprise )
I see the cine modes as a natural by-product of digital technology, especially once you add live-view.
The 5DII, now is a brilliant DSLR, but its cine functionality is seriously hampered by not having manual control of Iris, Shutter and ISO in cine mode. Add that and it would be neigh-on perfect, and without detracting from its DSLR ability.
Perhaps the answer is modularity (No names, no pack drill ) configure the camera as you need it, again without adding anything other than imaging ability.
Dave