How much of a shrinking market for actual cameras?

[ShinySideUp]

With the advent of more and more sophisticated optics on mobile phones -- some of them offer huge resolutions -- how far will the demise of actual cameras go? Are we looking at the death of compacts and a race for the uitimate DSLR. In five years where will the camera market be?

More to the point, are we looking at the death, or at least the terminal illness, of 'real' photography with substitution by 'selfies', snaps and/or photoconstruction (the creation of an image without any photography (my interpretation))?

I resisted digital photography but in the end I succumbed as I got fed up of stinking of chemicals in the darkroom. Will I get fed up of going out to take actual images in favour of a computer-generated image?

I think not as I am now too old...but the youngsters...who knows?

 

[ghoti]

What is "real" photography?

 

[Phil V]

What is "real" photography?

What he said^.

Photography itself is growing not shrinking.

The camera market however, that's definitely changing. There will never be the polarisation that you imagine, because the point at which someone wants a 'real camera' makes them highly unlikely to want to buy a £5000 body.

The compact market is shrinking, but we're a long way off it disappearing, the camera phone is getting people 'into' photography and many of them will first move to a compact camera. I get more colleagues asking for camera advice now than I ever have, and it's mostly the mid range compact that's seen as being vastly superior to the phone camera.

But the market for 'proper' cameras has always waxed and waned. We've just experienced a massive peak, we're likely 10 years or more before there's another. Meanwhile the market will shrink, and there's a possibility that we'll lose a camera manufacturer.

 

[Pookeyhead]

More to the point, are we looking at the death, or at least the terminal illness, of 'real' photography with substitution by 'selfies', snaps and/or photoconstruction (the creation of an image without any photography (my interpretation))?

...or a repetition of the same stuff on Flickr, with the same processing over and over again? Maybe it's already happened, and cameras have nothing to do with it Maybe it's the shift towards processing instead of photography that will be the change that does for photography. Let's face it.. anyone can take images and process them to fool the ignorant into thinking it's great photography now. Quality is a thing of the past judging by what people seem to think is high quality in here in some of the crits I see. The actual device is the least of photography's worries. Cameras aren't actually that important in photography: A good photographer can make good imagery with anything. An idiot can ruin one taken with anything... and other idiots will lap it up thinking it's great.

Photographers will still take photographs. Poor photographers will still take poor photographs, as it's people that take photographs, not cameras. What equipment they will be using remains to be seen, but so long as there's provision for quality, who cares?

 

[damianmkv]

For me, it's about accessibility. I see the camera and sharing sites such as flickr as a way of documentation. My eldest asked me the other day why I used flickr and I told him that it's my life story ( albeit I missed the first 40 years ), my interests etc. and when I'm not here, it still will be and he'll be able to see it.

For the youngsters ( I'm talking early / pre-teens, such as my eldest ), I don't think they see camera phones as photography - I think they see them as a way to socialise via "likes" on IG etc. mention photography to most of them and they'll probably conjure up images of old men with box brownies. I'm pleased to say that my 11 year old is hankering after a dslr, he uses mine and he listens to instruction after realising there's more to it than snapping away. He also realises that it's not necessary to have a dslr to take a great photo, use your eyes and see, don't just look.

Use the tool you have to the best of your ability, continue to learn and you'll get better. Close your mind to change and advise and you'll get stuck in a rut. For me, I'll always want that perfect photo, more detail, sharper etcetc - realistically, I'm just having a little fun. If my limited ability makes one person try something different with their camera, great.

As the world changes, the camera will have to follow. I think there will always be a market for "less is more" cameras but manufacturers would be mad to ignore technological gains.

 

[snapper]

The DSLR well never ever die. Too many people nowadays know that cameras aren't the best in mobiles. People like us must educate people

 

[Steve T]

The next big camera game changer will be the arrival of affordable holographic image capture kit in whatever form it arrives in. I dont think it will be that long to be honest. The camera phone has introduced such a larger section of society to taking photos and dicking around with images, that there will be a preprimed market eager to progress to the next level and holograms are just too cool not to become a massive new industry.

 

[woof woof]

With the advent of more and more sophisticated optics on mobile phones --

There's an actual camera on most phones. It's accompanied by a computer and the ability to talk / text etc but it's still an actual camera and I'm certain that many of the more recent camera equipped smartphone provide better image quality than the compact cameras of just a few years ago. For example I have a Medion compact and a Canon Ixus compact and I'm pretty sure that my Samsung smartphone give better image quality.

If we look at smartphones not as phones with cameras but as cameras with phones does that makes it better? I think so

Selfies and snaps etc. Surely one of the great landmark moments was when cameras became cheap and accessible to the masses and shockingly I bet that smartphones better the image quality of some of those early cameras. More people have a camera with them more often now (I think...) than at any other point in our history and that has to be a good thing. Of course there'll be an avalanche of dross, inane and even offensive pictures but there'll also be pictures that'll give real joy, pause for thought and all of the other good things that the very best of photography gives. That many more people are now taking many more pictures has to be a good thing.

We see changes in just about all markets and it's not always change for the best but often it is. One of my previous fields was computing and in my time I saw so many changes and generally they were for the good. Dec and IBM are out and companies we'd never heard of ten years ago are in. So what? Kodak have gone and maybe Canon and Nikon will go too? Who knows? I'm happy to see cameras and photography go through the upheavals that have hit other fields. My GF takes many more pictures with her smart phone than I do with my cameras, she takes video clips to Who'd have imagined that 10 years ago? I say bring it on but I think that for quite some time there'll still be a market for dedicated cameras.

 

[Pookeyhead]

The DSLR well never ever die. Too many people nowadays know that cameras aren't the best in mobiles. People like us must educate people

I think you're wrong. I think it will die. Just not quite yet.

 

[RedRobin]

I think you're wrong. I think it will die. Just not quite yet.

....It depends what you mean by "die". Theoretically the DSLR body may cease to be manufactured eventually but I think we are talking many years and even then, it will go the way of film cameras and some photographers will still use them. I don't see Canon or Nikon disappearing in my lifetime. And then you have the whole system of lenses which Nikon and Canon offer.

Personally, I even dislike the feel of bridge cameras let alone phone cameras - I have disabled my Smartphone's camera and always carry a pocket size Lumix TZ60. Otherwise, for wildlife a nice weighty, aim and shoot Canon DSLR with only telephoto L lenses! Feels right!!

 

[Laudrup]

....It depends what you mean by "die". Theoretically the DSLR body may cease to be manufactured eventually but I think we are talking many years and even then, it will go the way of film cameras and some photographers will still use them. I don't see Canon or Nikon disappearing in my lifetime. And then you have the whole system of lenses which Nikon and Canon offer.

Personally, I even dislike the feel of bridge cameras let alone phone cameras - I have disabled my Smartphone's camera and always carry a pocket size Lumix TZ60. Otherwise, for wildlife a nice weighty, aim and shoot Canon DSLR with only telephoto L lenses! Feels right!!

Why would you do that?

 

[RedRobin]

Why would you do that?

....Simple, primarily because it kept taking pictures every time the side of the phone (Sony Xperia2) came into contact with the inside of my pocket and also when merely handling the phone generally. Plus, as I said, I don't like and therefore have no use for my phone's camera.

 

[DG Phototraining]

With digital there's really no 'need' to look directly through the lens to compose is there? Doing so makes the camera larger, heavier and noisier than it needs to be; and the lenses too are larger, heavier and more expensive than they really need to be if we accept we don't 'need' to look directly through the lens

I suspect sometime soon there'll be a mass move to smaller, lighter, cheaper (though not necessarily 'cheap') camera gear where you see a digital representation of what the sensor sees instead; probably be a big game changer within a few years of it being launched

If it ever happens

Dave

 

[RedRobin]

With digital there's really no 'need' to look directly through the lens to compose is there? Doing so makes the camera larger, heavier and noisier than it needs to be; and the lenses too are larger, heavier and more expensive than they really need to be if we accept we don't 'need' to look directly through the lens.

....(I have highlit what I am responding to in bold):

I find that looking through viewfinders which don't look directly through the lens is like looking through a fine mesh of nylon stockings! (putting ladies nylons over my head is not something I do a lot of, I hasten to add!). That visual 'mesh' is actually distracting in the subtle nuances of a composition.

Also, shooting a DSLR is like shooting a gun: Set it up, aim, fire, and bang! It's almost orgasmic when you nail it. You only get that tactile experience with a DSLR or film camera.

I suspect sometime soon there'll be a mass move to smaller, lighter, cheaper (though not necessarily 'cheap') camera gear where you see

a digital representation of what the sensor sees instead; probably be a big game changer within a few years of it being launched

If it ever happens
Dave

....That exactly describes what I don't like - A digital representation and not the direct tactile experience. Such methods are far too remote an experience for my personal liking.

I mostly shoot wildlife. But each to their own of course.

 

[ianp5a]

I find that looking through viewfinders which don't look directly through the lens is like looking through a fine mesh of nylon stockings!

You are quite about of date about that. People love the newest EVFs such as on the Olympus EM-1 and the Fuji XT-1 and various Sonys. You might still be able to tell you are looking through an EVF. But things are still progressing fast. And the advantages will outweigh any disadvantages. Change is unstoppable.

 

[RedRobin]

You are quite about of date about that. People love the newest EVFs such as on the Olympus EM-1 and the Fuji XT-1 and various Sonys. You might still be able to tell you are looking through an EVF. But things are still progressing fast. And the advantages will outweigh any disadvantages. Change is unstoppable.

....Sorry but I'm not convinced (meaning that it may be liked by you and many others but not by me). The fact that "You might still be able to tell you are looking through an EVF" says it all.

What some think of as 'advantages' don't necessarily outweigh what others think are 'disadvantages'. There's no point us having a debate as to which we think is 'better' - It's horses-for-courses and what suits us individually. For me it's DSLR every time.

 

[boliston]

hopefully the raw support in android lollipop will make people take mobile photography more seriously as jpeg only is really annoying and dated

 

[ianp5a]

....Sorry but I'm not convinced (meaning that it may be liked by you and many others but not by me). The fact that "You might still be able to tell you are looking through an EVF" says it all.

What I wrote is already the case today. Not the nylon stockings that you described. And they are only going to get better. You must have missed what I wrote. If you can't
imagine changes as things progress, then you are going to get a surprise. They will get so good, that most will prefer it over the old optical type. Sure, there will be some mirror-huggers around for a while.

 

[RedRobin]

It's not just about mirror-hugging though, is it?

It's more about Canon/Nikon glass and furthermore, their extensive choice of high quality glass. And then there's also the 'tactile experience'.

Anyroadup, I'm now off out with my gloriously heavy DSLR armaments to shoot some wildlife.

 

[ianp5a]

The lenses won't be an issue. You can keep and use your old lenses like people are doing happily today. But try to think beyond the transition period. Please.

And what is the difference in tactile experience? Is there basic principle that is different?

And regarding heavy gear, I'm sure they will continue to create heavy gear. You don't need to worry.

 

[odd jim]

You are quite about of date about that. People love the newest EVFs such as on the Olympus EM-1 and the Fuji XT-1 and various Sonys. You might still be able to tell you are looking through an EVF. But things are still progressing fast. And the advantages will outweigh any disadvantages. Change is unstoppable.

There is no need for change - I always prefer an optical VF over an EVF, even modern ones.

You can't compete with the optics of your own eyeballs through a decent lens.

I can't stand EVFs!!

 

[StephenM]

The mass market may well switch to devices other than cameras to take photos. If you're going to carry (for example) a mobile phone that will give you all you need in a photo, why spend more money and carry something else to do the same job?

That then begs the question as to what will happen to the camera makers when they are no longer mass market. As far as I can tell, the shrinkage in the number of makers is in part due to the accountant's requirement for profit margins and market share. You don't get small fish any more.

What won't change is that the limitations of mobile phones etc. will limit what a photographer can actually record. Resolution isn't the thing I have in mind - it's things like differential focus, or specialist lenses/camera functions (aka "movements").

On the question of optical v electronic viewfinders; there are pros and cons. On the Sony a7r the viewfinder does brighten to reflect what will be recorded, meaning that you can see the subject better when the light levels are low. It also gives you a better idea of depth of field since you're looking stopped down without the viewfinder dimming. On the other hand, I am aware that the view isn't as good as an optical finder; I'm aware of the lag. It's better with the a7r (I think) that the Olympus OM1 DEMI (brief experience only) but still noticable. On the other hand, most optical viewfinders on modern DSLRs are too small and poky for me to consider suitable for serious use. I've spent too many years with Olympus OM cameras and then medium and large format to find the typical DSLR viewfinder suitable for composition.

 

[Mozziephotography]

Out taking sports photos with my Box Brownie tomorrow!

 

[RedRobin]

The mass market may well switch to devices other than cameras to take photos. If you're going to carry (for example) a mobile phone that will give you all you need in a photo, why spend more money and carry something else to do the same job?

....Golly! In answering that question, where do I start!? I don't intend to sound rude but without writing an essay in response, if I have to explain the answer to that question then I fear it would not be understood. However, perhaps you are only referring to 'the mass market' - The plebs, if we were living in ancient Rome.

On the question of optical v electronic viewfinders; there are pros and cons. On the Sony a7r the viewfinder does brighten to reflect what will be recorded, meaning that you can see the subject better when the light levels are low. It also gives you a better idea of depth of field since you're looking stopped down without the viewfinder dimming. On the other hand, I am aware that the view isn't as good as an optical finder; I'm aware of the lag. It's better with the a7r (I think) that the Olympus OM1 DEMI (brief experience only) but still noticable. On the other hand, most optical viewfinders on modern DSLRs are too small and poky for me to consider suitable for serious use. I've spent too many years with Olympus OM cameras and then medium and large format to find the typical DSLR viewfinder suitable for composition.

....I don't agree about a DSLR viewfinder being unsuitable for composition. Speaking as a retired (but hardwired) professional Art Director who has also worked with all the formats (including those cameras which reverse the image!) up to and including 10 x 12 plate cameras, if you have the eye for composition at all then you have the eye for composition - It's an innate and abstract sense and nothing to do with rules of thirds etc which are guides which those who don't have the eye have to rely on. Such an innate sense allows you to compose on even a small postage stamp. When you are in a DSLR viewfinder you are in the scene being photographed and that is mostly why I dislike EVFs so much because they give a feeling of remote detachment when compared with DSLR through the lens.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Current EVFs are still awful. Sorry, they really are. One day they will get close. I don't think that is an issue.

Whether you like it or not, dSLRs have the perfect size and shape for taking photos effectively and efficiently. They have to be rugged and durable which means metal parts, etc. I don't see that changing. Period.

The consumers and show-off cool guy semi-pro wannabe hipsters will always try hunt the latest and greatest fashion accessories. There is no f*****g problem carrying a rebel / entry level nikon around, but guess what - it looks so uncool, cheap and plasticky. The shape is very unattractive. And it squeaks when you take a photo. Ewww. The bridge cameras are so s*** nobody wants them anymore.
There is the answer out there already. The lunar and stellar. Yes, the crappy hasselblads nobody bought because they were so stupidly expensive. I bet you if you put an apple or samsung logo and price (£300-500) them in line with regular sony's this would be hugely successful. This is exactly why fuji is doing well - they make cameras that apparently look good / sexy / cool (not in my opinion though). Sony's look kind of OK with that metallic shiny body and lens, but they are also pretty weird at the same time. I wonder how long it will take for the japanese marketers to figure this out.

The mass market may well switch to devices other than cameras to take photos. If you're going to carry (for example) a mobile phone that will give you all you need in a photo, why spend more money and carry something else to do the same job?

That then begs the question as to what will happen to the camera makers when they are no longer mass market. As far as I can tell, the shrinkage in the number of makers is in part due to the accountant's requirement for profit margins and market share. You don't get small fish any more.

What won't change is that the limitations of mobile phones etc. will limit what a photographer can actually record. Resolution isn't the thing I have in mind - it's things like differential focus, or specialist lenses/camera functions (aka "movements").

On the question of optical v electronic viewfinders; there are pros and cons. On the Sony a7r the viewfinder does brighten to reflect what will be recorded, meaning that you can see the subject better when the light levels are low. It also gives you a better idea of depth of field since you're looking stopped down without the viewfinder dimming. On the other hand, I am aware that the view isn't as good as an optical finder; I'm aware of the lag. It's better with the a7r (I think) that the Olympus OM1 DEMI (brief experience only) but still noticable. On the other hand, most optical viewfinders on modern DSLRs are too small and poky for me to consider suitable for serious use. I've spent too many years with Olympus OM cameras and then medium and large format to find the typical DSLR viewfinder suitable for composition.

You don't need a camera to compose. It should be in your mind and then you just frame it up in the VF. The 1Ds / 5DIII are certainly OK, but certainly not as big as MF. The a7 has one of the most out of date EVFs on the market. That was really difficult to understand - I thought sony would give their new flagship the best it had.

 

[ShinySideUp]

As the OP I have an obligation to post a response as to my opinion and actions.

This post has made me think about my own photography aspirations and my on/off relationship with the hobby. I have had a change of heart and have decided to get rid of my Fuji X10 and my Nikon D7000 and and use the money towards putting everything into my existing FX lenses and a new (due to arrive later today -- Sunday) Nikon D750. In the New Year, I shall be upgrading to a new phone -- a Galaxy Note 4-- and will use that for occasional snaps while I'm at work (driving) but concentrating on using the D750 for everything else.

 

[StephenM]

....Golly! In answering that question, where do I start!? I don't intend to sound rude but without writing an essay in response, if I have to explain the answer to that question then I fear it would not be understood. However, perhaps you are only referring to 'the mass market' - The plebs, if we were living in ancient Rome.



....I don't agree about a DSLR viewfinder being unsuitable for composition. Speaking as a retired (but hardwired) professional Art Director who has also worked with all the formats (including those cameras which reverse the image!) up to and including 10 x 12 plate cameras, if you have the eye for composition at all then you have the eye for composition - It's an innate and abstract sense and nothing to do with rules of thirds etc which are guides which those who don't have the eye have to rely on. Such an innate sense allows you to compose on even a small postage stamp. When you are in a DSLR viewfinder you are in the scene being photographed and that is mostly why I dislike EVFs so much because they give a feeling of remote detachment when compared with DSLR through the lens.

I was only referring to the mass market when I was referring to the mass market. I thought that the term was neutral rather than emotive; but if you want to call the mass market "plebs", then I won't stop you - just point out that I didn't. Beyond that, I'm unclear as to your point.

As to whether you agree with my comments on viewfinders, sorry, but as I said quite clearly my comments referred solely to my own experience. If your experiences differ, fine - but that doesn't change mine. Or my opinion based on them. So long as I find them unsuitable for purpose, I'll continue to regard them as such. I didn't bother going into the reasons in detail, and won't now as being irrelevant to this thread.

 

[ianp5a]

The viewfinder is probably the only reason that a smartphone will have to deviate from it's current form factor if it is to replace mainstream cameras. As resolution will just keep increasing. Meaning digital zooming will replace long lenses. Multiple sensor arrays across the back of the phone will replace large sensors. And have the benefit of saving a 3D depth map. So you can choose your focus and depth of field later. Lytro style. But better.

So for a decent viewfinder, you'd need some sort of eyepiece magnifier or even stereoscopic 2 eye attachment. Occurs Rift style. Only better. Where people will find the 3D immersion clearer than the one eye viewfinders of today.

Sure, some people today won't use their imagination and let go of the present. Maybe there is a reason. Perhaps they don't want change. Everything is perfect as it is?

 

[RedRobin]

I was only referring to the mass market when I was referring to the mass market. I thought that the term was neutral rather than emotive; but if you want to call the mass market "plebs", then I won't stop you - just point out that I didn't. Beyond that, I'm unclear as to your point.

As to whether you agree with my comments on viewfinders, sorry, but as I said quite clearly my comments referred solely to my own experience. If your experiences differ, fine - but that doesn't change mine. Or my opinion based on them. So long as I find them unsuitable for purpose, I'll continue to regard them as such. I didn't bother going into the reasons in detail, and won't now as being irrelevant to this thread.

....Sorry if you seem to have taken umbrage, Stephen. I wasn't trying to change your opinions but was merely referring to them in discussion. We must agree to differ

EDIT: I would add that using the word "plebs" should not be interpreted as an insult to anyone. Those who know Roman history will understand 'S.P.Q.R.' and that it greatly respected 'the masses'.

 

[RedRobin]

The viewfinder is probably the only reason that a smartphone will have to deviate from it's current form factor if it is to replace mainstream cameras. As resolution will just keep increasing. Meaning digital zooming will replace long lenses. Multiple sensor arrays across the back of the phone will replace large sensors. And have the benefit of saving a 3D depth map. So you can choose your focus and depth of field later. Lytro style. But better.

....As you probably already know, the camera capabilities for mobile phones are advancing in leaps and bounds and some are directed at those who are already familiar with 'conventional' cameras and in-depth photography. It is exciting, but as with all pieces of equipment, the individual user will favour equipment also based on tactile feel - What they individually feel most comfortable with.

Sure, some people today won't use their imagination and let go of the present. Maybe there is a reason. Perhaps they don't want change. Everything is perfect as it is?

....I think that it's both inspirational and exciting to enjoy advances in technology but the individual will embrace more enthusiastically the equipment which enables them in a way which they can ENJOY, and a huge part of that enjoyment is what FEELS tactile and comfortable. For me, personally, that is still a nice weighty glass lens on a tough body with lots of ergonomically positioned controls in my efforts to achieve a result which I want to keep and share. That's DSLR. If I didn't accept or embrace any technological changes I would still be using my Nikon F and Canon EOS-1 (non-digital) film cameras.

When photographing a subject we climb inside and LIVE in the viewfinder. That's why, in my opinion, the VF is such an important part of the process. The best cameras free you by allowing you to change settings on-the-fly while still looking DIRECTLY through the viewfinder.

 

[ianp5a]

For me, personally, that is still a nice weighty glass lens on a tough body with lots of ergonomically positioned controls in my efforts to achieve a result which I want to keep and share. That's DSLR.

But not just DSLRs have that. Anyway, yes that would be tricky to replicate with a smartphone. However it might be the case that in future demand for that is too small and things don't go that way. The "it's the picture that counts" bunch might dominate.

 

[RedRobin]

But not just DSLRs have that. Anyway, yes that would be tricky to replicate with a smartphone. However it might be the case that in future demand for that is too small and things don't go that way. The "it's the picture that counts" bunch might dominate.

....There is something being worked on for smartphones which is a pretty surprising equivalent. I'll see if I can find it and post a link here later.

I agree that the bottom line is that "it's the picture that counts" but I also feel that the experiences of how you achieve it is, for many (and me!), what gives joy and inspiration.

I enjoy far more driving from A to B in a petrol guzzling high performance car with hard suspension than I would in a marshmallow armchair on four wheels such as the latest Toyota Pious! It's the tactile feel and enjoyment therein. But Each To Their Own.

 

[odd jim]

The viewfinder is probably the only reason that a smartphone will have to deviate from it's current form factor if it is to replace mainstream cameras. As resolution will just keep increasing. Meaning digital zooming will replace long lenses. Multiple sensor arrays across the back of the phone will replace large sensors. And have the benefit of saving a 3D depth map. So you can choose your focus and depth of field later. Lytro style. But better.

So for a decent viewfinder, you'd need some sort of eyepiece magnifier or even stereoscopic 2 eye attachment. Occurs Rift style. Only better. Where people will find the 3D immersion clearer than the one eye viewfinders of today.

Sure, some people today won't use their imagination and let go of the present. Maybe there is a reason. Perhaps they don't want change. Everything is perfect as it is?

I can't see digital zooming replacing long lenses, not in our lifetimes anyway!

The technology involved would be astronomically expensive and so complicated it would almost be prohibitive to bring it to long lens standard.

 

[ianp5a]

I don't know how long it will take. But sensors will continue to get better and better. Where you'd crop the middle out of a good quality 200Mp sensor and get a field of view equivalent of 300mm.

 

[odd jim]

I don't know how long it will take. But sensors will continue to get better and better. Where you'd crop the middle out of a good quality 200Mp sensor and get a field of view equivalent of 300mm.

You'd still need a lens (which will be tiny) capable of recording a massively detailed image, cropped to silly levels, on top of the sensor capable of recording detail at silly resolutions, then dealing with the side effects this creates.

Then size and physics of the lens and sensor come into play and you're back to square one!

 

[ianp5a]

They will use all sorts of techniques, such as lens calibration, to overcome all the side effects. Including the physics using a multi lens multi sensor array. And results will be of a high quality.

 

[Phil V]

But not just DSLRs have that. Anyway, yes that would be tricky to replicate with a smartphone. However it might be the case that in future demand for that is too small and things don't go that way. The "it's the picture that counts" bunch might dominate.

It's a few years since I've trotted this one out: "Its all about physics".

Image making is about bending the scene in front of us onto a recording medium, the method for doing this requires making use of the laws of physics. Larger sensors, and therefore larger lenses, and larger apertures are physical constraints that can't be 'miniaturised'. Whilst there are plenty of photographs where this simply doesn't matter, there are also plenty that do. It's amazing how many photographers don't 'get' this.

When Leica made 35mm photography acceptable, some people thought it would kill larger formats. 60 odd years later and professional studios all over the world are still recording images on sheets of film and larger digital sensors. Yes it's a niche market, but it still exists. The possibilities I have with my 'miniature' DSLR's might not be required by 'everyone' but it's a big enough market for manufacturers to survive.

The last lull in photography killed off a number of camera manufacturers, but plenty survived to take advantage of the popularity that digital brought. I'm looking forward to the next lull, so that when I turn up at a wedding I'm not just one of the many people with a DSLR and it's obvious I'm 'the photographer', it'll make getting people to 'look at the photographer' easier.

 

[odd jim]

They will use all sorts of techniques, such as lens calibration, to overcome all the side effects. Including the physics using a multi lens multi sensor array. And results will be of a high quality.

How does lens calibration overcome the resolution issue?

Or a multi sensor array?

You can't bend the laws of physics. Distance and light will always remain a constant.

 

[ianp5a]

Edit.

It's a few years since I've trotted this one out: "Its all about physics"..

Yep. Single sensors have physical limitations when it comes to miniaturisation. Which is why a multi lens and sensor array will be used more.
Anyway you'll be doing weddings on a tablet next! ☺

 

[odd jim]

lol who, me?

I still can't see how multi sensor arrays compensate the laws of physics.