Nokia predicts the death of the DSLR - Yeah, right

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/dslrs_to_die/



Eric Stevens

On 2010-04-21 14:30:50 -0700, Eric Stevens said:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/dslrs_to_die/



Eric Stevens

I think the article had it about right. Vanjoki is out of his mind.

However, the DSLR is doomed. Some day something better will come along.
I am not holding my breath waiting for that, though.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2010-04-21 22:30:50 +0100, Eric Stevens said:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/dslrs_to_die/

In the paragraph "There are three major components to digital
photography..." it seems there are plans to eliminate the need for: a
subject, lighting, and a photographer.

The next paragraph "... notice that megapixelage is not on that list."
Without a subject and some lighting, it is currently quite difficult to
determine the number of pixels required

An interesting future awaits.

--
Pete

On 10-04-21 17:30 , Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/dslrs_to_die/


A sloppily written article at best. Near the end:

"It will not take long, less than a year, when phones
can record HD quality video and you can transfer it
directly to your HD television set." With small-sensor
pixel counts increasing and the power required to
operate them decreasing, he may very well be correct."

Given that an HD television is only a couple mega-pixels, HD video (of
some degree of quality) in a phone should be no great surprise.

But printable photos to go against a DSLR?

--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-21 17:30 , Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/dslrs_to_die/


A sloppily written article at best. Near the end:

"It will not take long, less than a year, when phones
can record HD quality video and you can transfer it
directly to your HD television set." With small-sensor
pixel counts increasing and the power required to
operate them decreasing, he may very well be correct."

Given that an HD television is only a couple mega-pixels, HD video (of
some degree of quality) in a phone should be no great surprise.

But printable photos to go against a DSLR?

It depends how you judge quality. There are plenty of people who
became disappointed with the imperfections of their P&S images and
bought a DSLR. Only to find that using it casually without having read
the manual or knowing much about photography gives them worse images
than their P&S -- as they see it. Because most P&S cameras turn up
contrast, saturation, etc., to produce crowd pleasing vivid colour and
impact. The cameras aimed at the casual end of the market also use
smarter auto algorithms, such as auto backlighting compensation and
dynamic range optimisation. The camera guesses what you were trying to
do and tries to do it well. Which works when the guess is correct, and
is very annoying when it isn't. So DSLRs tend to use less of those
special auto tricks as default, but will allow you to select some of
them deliberately when you want them. And of course always have full
manual control.

So as technology improves there will soon come a time when the best
camera phones will usually produce better photographs, including
prints, than a DSLR in the hands of someone who would have difficulty
understanding the camera manual if they'd bothered trying to read it.

--
Chris Malcolm

Chris Malcolm wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:
On 10-04-21 17:30 , Eric Stevens wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04/21/dslrs_to_die/


A sloppily written article at best. Near the end:

"It will not take long, less than a year, when phones
can record HD quality video and you can transfer it
directly to your HD television set." With small-sensor
pixel counts increasing and the power required to
operate them decreasing, he may very well be correct."

Given that an HD television is only a couple mega-pixels, HD video (of
some degree of quality) in a phone should be no great surprise.

But printable photos to go against a DSLR?

It depends how you judge quality. There are plenty of people who
became disappointed with the imperfections of their P&S images and
bought a DSLR. Only to find that using it casually without having read
the manual or knowing much about photography gives them worse images
than their P&S -- as they see it. Because most P&S cameras turn up
contrast, saturation, etc., to produce crowd pleasing vivid colour and
impact. The cameras aimed at the casual end of the market also use
smarter auto algorithms, such as auto backlighting compensation and
dynamic range optimisation. The camera guesses what you were trying to
do and tries to do it well. Which works when the guess is correct, and
is very annoying when it isn't. So DSLRs tend to use less of those
special auto tricks as default, but will allow you to select some of
them deliberately when you want them. And of course always have full
manual control.

So as technology improves there will soon come a time when the best
camera phones will usually produce better photographs, including
prints, than a DSLR in the hands of someone who would have difficulty
understanding the camera manual if they'd bothered trying to read it.

Well put, Chris.

--
john mcwilliams

On Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:46:07 -0700 (PDT), DanP wrote:

On 22 Apr, 00:28, John A. wrote:

And any technology that eventually improves phones' image quality to
equal today's DSLRs will in turn improve the DSLRs of the day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spot on. Given the same sensor technology the bigger sensor wins.
And bigger lenses let more light in.


DanP

And how does it win if that sensor has to be housed in a camera so large
and cumbersome that it's not allowed in most public events, can't be
carried into remote shooting locations, is so loud and noisy that it scares
away the very wildlife you are trying to photograph, is combined with
interchangeable lenses that get dust on that "winning sensor" every time
you have to change lenses and miss important photo opportunities while you
are fumbling trying to change lenses?

You have to think beyond sensor size if you are going to begin to declare
any one of them a winner when it comes to use in the real world.

But then, you're an idiot who does not live and work in the real world with
real cameras. You've made that quite clear.

C.P. Robbins wrote:
DanP wrote:
On 22 Apr, 00:28, John A. wrote:

And any technology that eventually improves phones' image quality to
equal today's DSLRs will in turn improve the DSLRs of the day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spot on. Given the same sensor technology the bigger sensor wins.
And bigger lenses let more light in.


DanP

And how does it win if that sensor has to be housed in a camera so large
and cumbersome that it's not allowed in most public events, can't be
carried into remote shooting locations, is so loud and noisy that it scares
away the very wildlife you are trying to photograph, is combined with

Spare us the dishonest propaganda.

--
Ray Fischer

On 22 Apr 2010 16:43:01 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:

C.P. Robbins wrote:
DanP wrote:
On 22 Apr, 00:28, John A. wrote:

And any technology that eventually improves phones' image quality to
equal today's DSLRs will in turn improve the DSLRs of the day.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spot on. Given the same sensor technology the bigger sensor wins.
And bigger lenses let more light in.


DanP

And how does it win if that sensor has to be housed in a camera so large
and cumbersome that it's not allowed in most public events, can't be
carried into remote shooting locations, is so loud and noisy that it scares
away the very wildlife you are trying to photograph, is combined with

Spare us the dishonest propaganda.

Spare us your proof that you don't ever use any cameras, or you'd know
better.

On 2010-04-22 09:43:01 -0700, (Ray Fischer) said:

C.P. Robbins wrote:
DanP wrote:
On 22 Apr, 00:28, John A. wrote:

And any technology that eventually improves phones' image quality to
equal today's DSLRs will in turn improve the DSLRs of the day.- Hide
quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Spot on. Given the same sensor technology the bigger sensor wins.
And bigger lenses let more light in.


DanP

And how does it win if that sensor has to be housed in a camera so large
and cumbersome that it's not allowed in most public events, can't be
carried into remote shooting locations, is so loud and noisy that it scares
away the very wildlife you are trying to photograph, is combined with

Spare us the dishonest propaganda.

Please don't argue with the troll. He likes it.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor