Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

article on dSLR market

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 10, 2005 10:20:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

This article from Bloomberg.com has some interesting things to say
about the dSLR market. Among the things of interest ...

* Canon and Nikon have about 80% of the market, leaving Oly, Pentax and
Minolta (sorry if I forgot someone else) to scramble for the remaining
20%.

* Canon's plans call for shipping 1.8 million dSLR's this year, Nikon
to ship 1.6 million units.

* Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
to 10% due to competition.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/newspid=10000101&sid=aEus...

Bill

More about : article dslr market

Anonymous
July 10, 2005 10:59:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bill wrote:
>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
>to 10% due to competition.

But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
film.
In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

Preparedness necessities! Shop the
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 4:46:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

editor@netpath.net wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
>>to 10% due to competition.
>
>
> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
> market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
> experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
> people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
> photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
> in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
> film.
> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
> profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony
P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in
image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break
the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't
get me wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if
P&S cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many
people just won't see a need for a DSLR.

Having the P200 for the past several months has shown me that the
convenience of having a small capable camera is not to be under
estimated. Soon we will see very small, affordable cameras that give
the user many of the controls available on DSLRs with lenses that
provide a very wide range. If I can get a P&S with 90% of the
capability of a DSLR for less than half the cost and easily carry the
camera in my pocket, I doubt I would ever buy another DSRL. I bet there
are many people like me that would choose convenience over taking
marginally better pictures. Especially considering the cost difference
of the two options.
Related resources
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 6:28:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
news:m_ydnTcjjPM6ZEzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
> editor@netpath.net wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
>>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
>>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
>>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
>>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
>>>to 10% due to competition.
>>
>>
>> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
>> market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
>> experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>> people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>> photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
>> in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
>> film.
>> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
>> profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.
>
> I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in the
> upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony P200.
> It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in image
> quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break the ISO
> barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't get me
> wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if P&S
> cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many people
> just won't see a need for a DSLR.

It is impossible for all-in-one lenses to optically keep up with the
specialized lenses DSLR users rely on.
For this reason, there will always be a market for interchangable lens
cameras.
Larger sensors will ALWAYS produce less noise than their same MP smaller
cousins of similar technology.
Tiny lenses and sensors quickly bump up against barriers that are NOT based
on current technology, but instead are limited by light characteristics that
universally come into play.
While there will always be a market for small, "do-it-all" cameras, they
will always be outdone by cameras with larger optics, larger sensors, and
more specialized options.

Thus sayeth me!
:) 
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:02:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>editor writes ...
>
>The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
>experience is any guide.

I can't find the article to re-read it (looks like it was moved) but
IIRC they are saying the current market is under 4 million units/year
and were projecting that to rise to 6 or possibly even 8 million
yearly, something like that. So at least the marketing folks feel the
saturation point has not been reached.

Think about it this way ... so long as Canon and Nikon continue to
bring out dSLRs with more features and more megapixels at lower prices
the demand will still be there for new bodies. Once the pixel counts
flatten out (once the technology matures) then you will start to see
saturation. Just to use the Canon dSLR line, the D30 has 3 Mpixels and
sold like hotcakes for $3,000, 18 or so months later the D60 had 6
Mpixels for $2,200 (and the price dropped rapidly), then the 20D and
latest Rebel with 8 Mpix at prices of $1,500 and $999. It's easy to
see why demand for new models is high.

>In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
>profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.

The trend the article pointed out is that the consumer models are not
as profitable because of price pressures due to competition, while the
SLRs have less competition so the prices and profits are still strong.
How long this continues depends on whether or not there's a price war
in the dSLR market.

Bill
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:08:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> Walter Dnes writes ...
>
>In the film world SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
>In the digital world dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG
>viewfinders/LCDs

The viewfinders are the same and both are WYSIWYG for the most part
(usually some small cropping). The LCDs are just for reviewing images
you've already taken, which is a different function than for LCDs on
compact cameras.

>What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
>versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
>megapixels?

The larger sensor size leads to higher image quality (other things
being equal), especially at high ISO (compare the 8 Mpixel Sony 828 at
iso 400 to say the Canon 20D at the same iso for example). And
interchangeable lenses offer many more options with SLRs. Those are
probably the two most important things. For the majority of users
these advantages aren't that important, which is why compact cameras
outsell dSLRs by 10 to 1 or so.

Bill
July 11, 2005 10:07:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:46:42 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
<cds@erols.com> wrote:

>editor@netpath.net wrote:
>> Bill wrote:
>>
>>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
>>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
>>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
>>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
>>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
>>>to 10% due to competition.
>>
>>
>> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
>> market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
>> experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>> people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>> photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
>> in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
>> film.
>> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
>> profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.
>
>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
>the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony
>P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in
>image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break
>the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't
>get me wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if
>P&S cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many
>people just won't see a need for a DSLR.
>
>Having the P200 for the past several months has shown me that the
>convenience of having a small capable camera is not to be under
>estimated. Soon we will see very small, affordable cameras that give
>the user many of the controls available on DSLRs with lenses that
>provide a very wide range. If I can get a P&S with 90% of the
>capability of a DSLR for less than half the cost and easily carry the
>camera in my pocket, I doubt I would ever buy another DSRL. I bet there
>are many people like me that would choose convenience over taking
>marginally better pictures. Especially considering the cost difference
>of the two options.


If the film P&S and film SLR is any go by, why should the digital be
any different. Both of them (film P&S and SLR) have been around for
many years and yet both survived for their own reasons. Therefore, I
think the same will happen with the digital equivalents.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 11:52:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
[]
> I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
> the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a
> Sony P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the
> 300D in image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the
> P&Ss break the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors,
> IMHO.

But as soon as you put an equally large sensor into a P&S as a DSLR to
produce the same noise perfomance, the camera would become much larger,
heavier, and more expnsive. The advantage of the P&S is lost. For that
reason, P&S may use slightly sensors and become a little bigger, but not
compete with the DSLR. Perhaps the 4/3 system will become much more
popular, though?

David
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:19:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris wrote:
>That's just a restatment of what I just said, but you seem to think you're
>disagreeing with me. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say that the camera
>manufacturers will have to rely on products such as DSLRs for their profits
>in future, because the phone guys will outcompete them in consumer
>photography, this doesn't mean that I think phone cameras will compete with
>DSLRs. Quite the opposite.

Camera phones don't compete now - and won't in the forseeable future
- even with tiny consumer digicams like the Pentax Optio S.

Save on gas! Shop the http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:29:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1121047190.900983.106170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
editor@netpath.net <editor@netpath.net> wrote:

>Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
>film.

No, it'll be their phone.

The traditional photo companies are going to be given a *very* hard time by
the phone manufacturers and consumer electronics people over the next few
years. Increasingly it'll be the "niche" markets, like DSLRs, to which
they'll have to turn if they want to stay in the game.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 1:29:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:cvo9q2-h0a.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <1121047190.900983.106170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> editor@netpath.net <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>>Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
>>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
>>film.
>
> No, it'll be their phone.
>
> The traditional photo companies are going to be given a *very* hard time
> by
> the phone manufacturers and consumer electronics people over the next few
> years. Increasingly it'll be the "niche" markets, like DSLRs, to which
> they'll have to turn if they want to stay in the game.

They might be given a run for their ultra compact camera models, but
phones...no matter how "fun" they migh tbe at the moment...still come
nowhere near the quality and usability of dedicated cameras. Battery
limitations, lens and sensor compromises, and flash power/proximity issues
will severely limit the capabilities of phone cameras.

I think they may well take a bite out of the portion of the market
least-inhabited by people interested in quality. There are plenty of these
people... :(  But they'll never touch quality-driven DSLR markets simply
due to natural and unavoidable optical and lighting limitations.

Thus sayeth me.
:) 
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:05:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Rob wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:46:42 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>>editor@netpath.net wrote:
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
>>>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
>>>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
>>>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
>>>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
>>>>to 10% due to competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
>>>market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
>>>experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>>>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
>>>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
>>>film.
>>> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
>>>profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.
>>
>>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
>>the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony
>>P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in
>>image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break
>>the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't
>>get me wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if
>>P&S cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many
>>people just won't see a need for a DSLR.
>>
>>Having the P200 for the past several months has shown me that the
>>convenience of having a small capable camera is not to be under
>>estimated. Soon we will see very small, affordable cameras that give
>>the user many of the controls available on DSLRs with lenses that
>>provide a very wide range. If I can get a P&S with 90% of the
>>capability of a DSLR for less than half the cost and easily carry the
>>camera in my pocket, I doubt I would ever buy another DSRL. I bet there
>>are many people like me that would choose convenience over taking
>>marginally better pictures. Especially considering the cost difference
>>of the two options.
>
>
>
> If the film P&S and film SLR is any go by, why should the digital be
> any different. Both of them (film P&S and SLR) have been around for
> many years and yet both survived for their own reasons. Therefore, I
> think the same will happen with the digital equivalents.

I didn't mean to imply the DSLR market will disappear. I think the P&S
segment will put more pressure on them and slow, or even shrink, their
market share. People who earn a living from photography and very
serious enthusiasts will always opt for the more complicated and
expensive equipment. I've used SLR and DSLR cameras for the last 25
years and I see a point where the P&S segment will give me a camera that
meets most of my requirements AND gives me convenience to carry it
everywhere I go. At that point I really don't see the need to invest
any further in DSLR equipment. The P&S market has already caught many
DSLRs in the pixel race and now they are targeting ISO and features too.
Granted, DSLRs will advance too but much of the technology they use
will quickly filter into the P&S segment.

As for lenses, at some point a maker will offer a small, lite camera
with interchangeable lenses. I'll be able to carry around in my pockets
what I need a bag for with a DSLR. Plus, there are completely new lens
technologies on the horizon. I bet we will see gel lenses that are
shaped electronically to deliver performance undreamed of with glass.
I'm just speculating but then again three years ago I didn't expect a
camera with features and resolution like the P200 to be on the market
that would cost $350 and easily fit in a pant pocket.
July 11, 2005 2:13:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Mark²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:7ZqAe.8345$Eo.3391@fed1read04...
> While there will always be a market for small, "do-it-all" cameras, they
> will always be outdone by cameras with larger optics, larger sensors, and
> more specialized options.
>
> Thus sayeth me!

Sounds like the argument someone would have advanced when 35mm film cameras
were becoming available.
Just remember 35mm became popular because it was "good enough" and was more
portable than others.
Bigger always offers better quality, but people always want smaller cameras.
It it a perpetual tradeoff. Nothing says that in the digital world the
tradeoff will occur in the same place as for film. I'm of the opinion that
digital will settle on something smaller than 35mm as the most popular
format in the long run. Of course, just as with film there will be larger
and smaller available for those who desire it.

-j
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:16:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J Taylor wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> []
>
>>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
>>the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a
>>Sony P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the
>>300D in image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the
>>P&Ss break the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors,
>>IMHO.
>
>
> But as soon as you put an equally large sensor into a P&S as a DSLR to
> produce the same noise perfomance, the camera would become much larger,
> heavier, and more expnsive. The advantage of the P&S is lost. For that
> reason, P&S may use slightly sensors and become a little bigger, but not
> compete with the DSLR. Perhaps the 4/3 system will become much more
> popular, though?

The P&S segment won't use large sensors. That would defeat their
purpose. They will likely develop and use their own technology. I'm
just basing my rantings here on what I've experienced using the P200
verses the 300D. It isn't a huge distance behind a DSLR in picture
quality. It seems to me that the DSLRs are not advancing as fast as the
P&S segment. Much of their technology and form has been around for
decades. Plus DSLRs have to be backward compatible from a tecnology
aspect because of the huge investment most people make in lenses etc.
P&S cameras don't need to consider this so they can be more aggressive
in adopting newer technologies. It will be interesting to watch how the
two types of cameras advance in the upcoming years.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 2:22:45 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mark² wrote:
> "Michael Johnson, PE" <cds@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:m_ydnTcjjPM6ZEzfRVn-rQ@comcast.com...
>
>>editor@netpath.net wrote:
>>
>>>Bill wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% >those of compact cameras in units
>>>>but bring in more than 33% of their total >camera revenue, and that
>>>>dSLRs have a much higher profit margin >due to lack of competition, and
>>>>a faster growth rate. They expect profit >margins on the dSLR models to
>>>>better 35% while margins on the compact >cameras are projected to drop
>>>>to 10% due to competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> But digicam makers will be forced to stay in the consumer-digicam
>>>market. The dSLR market will - very - soon saturate, if the film
>>>experience is any guide. Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>>>photos of the kids or vacation with - and that's small enough to stick
>>>in a purse; by size alone, that won't be any kind of SLR - digital or
>>>film.
>>> In short, digicam makers will still make far more of their total
>>>profits from consumer digicams than from dSLRs.
>>
>>I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in the
>>upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a Sony P200.
>>It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the 300D in image
>>quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the P&Ss break the ISO
>>barrier they will become formidable competitors, IMHO. Don't get me
>>wrong, the 300D is clearly the better camera of the two, but if P&S
>>cameras keep advancing the way they are currently, I wonder if many people
>>just won't see a need for a DSLR.
>
>
> It is impossible for all-in-one lenses to optically keep up with the
> specialized lenses DSLR users rely on.
> For this reason, there will always be a market for interchangable lens
> cameras.
> Larger sensors will ALWAYS produce less noise than their same MP smaller
> cousins of similar technology.
> Tiny lenses and sensors quickly bump up against barriers that are NOT based
> on current technology, but instead are limited by light characteristics that
> universally come into play.
> While there will always be a market for small, "do-it-all" cameras, they
> will always be outdone by cameras with larger optics, larger sensors, and
> more specialized options.
>
> Thus sayeth me!
> :) 

I completely agree with you based on today's technology. However, as
technology advances we might see radical changes in lens/sensor design
that makes a more level playing field between DSLRs and P&S cameras.
P&S camers are free to radically change their design, form and
technology without penalty to the user. DSLRs will need to consider
compatibility with older technology such as lens design which IMO may
prevent them from taking full advantage of newer technologies. Either
way it goes it will be fun to watch the technology race.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:09:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 10 Jul 2005 18:20:07 -0700, Bill Hilton, <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:

> * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
> but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
> dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
> a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
> better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
> to 10% due to competition.

Pardon the following dumb question from a digital-camera newbie...

In the film world
=================
- SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
- non-SLR cameras have sorta-OK viewfinders (OK if you're not too
close to the subject; forget about those bug macro shots).

In the digital world
====================
- non-SLR cameras have true WSYIWYG viewfinders/LCDs. I.e. on my
Panasonic FZ5, if I have the lens cap on, I see a black screen on
the viewfinder/LCD, which can save lots of embarressment.
- dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG viewfinders/LCDs.

What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
megapixels?

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:09:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address)"
<wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote in message
news:42d25353$0$2440$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> On 10 Jul 2005 18:20:07 -0700, Bill Hilton, <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
>> but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
>> dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
>> a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
>> better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
>> to 10% due to competition.
>
> Pardon the following dumb question from a digital-camera newbie...
>
> In the film world
> =================
> - SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
> - non-SLR cameras have sorta-OK viewfinders (OK if you're not too
> close to the subject; forget about those bug macro shots).
>
> In the digital world
> ====================
> - non-SLR cameras have true WSYIWYG viewfinders/LCDs. I.e. on my
> Panasonic FZ5, if I have the lens cap on, I see a black screen on
> the viewfinder/LCD, which can save lots of embarressment.
> - dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG viewfinders/LCDs.
>
> What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
> versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
> megapixels?
>
> --
> Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
> Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
> the instructions at the end of the 550 message.

DSLRs have the same viewfinder capability as their film cousins, IOW,
WYSIWYG. But the LCD is not "real time," as it is on P&S and other non DSLR
cameras. Many non DSLRs have electronic viewfinders, and thus have
limitations due to resolution and refresh rate.
The "viewfinder" and LCD screen are not one and the same, the viewfinder is
that little glass window on the world on the top area of the camera, just
like on film cameras, whether SLR, P&S or rangefinder.
If it has a lens mount, then it's not a P&S, it's a DSLR. The primary
difference between a DSLR and a so called "prosumer" camera like the Oly
C-8080 is that the DSLR has interchangeable lenses, and a larger sensor, not
necessarily more pixels.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:09:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 11 Jul 2005 11:09:07 GMT, "Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my
real address)" <wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:

>On 10 Jul 2005 18:20:07 -0700, Bill Hilton, <bhilton665@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> * Canon says dSLR sales are about 10% those of compact cameras in units
>> but bring in more than 33% of their total camera revenue, and that
>> dSLRs have a much higher profit margin due to lack of competition, and
>> a faster growth rate. They expect profit margins on the dSLR models to
>> better 35% while margins on the compact cameras are projected to drop
>> to 10% due to competition.
>
> Pardon the following dumb question from a digital-camera newbie...
>
>In the film world
>=================
> - SLR cameras have true WSIWYG viewfinders
> - non-SLR cameras have sorta-OK viewfinders (OK if you're not too
> close to the subject; forget about those bug macro shots).
>
>In the digital world
>====================
> - non-SLR cameras have true WSYIWYG viewfinders/LCDs. I.e. on my
> Panasonic FZ5, if I have the lens cap on, I see a black screen on
> the viewfinder/LCD, which can save lots of embarressment.
> - dSLRs don't seem to have true WYSIWYG viewfinders/LCDs.
>
> What am I missing? What's the technical difference between a dSLR
>versus a high-end "P&S" with a flash shoe, a lens mount, and lots of
>megapixels?

Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?

For that matter show me any point and shot with an F1.4 speed lens.


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
July 11, 2005 3:09:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>

Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
I'm guessing there are very few out of the millions who use cameras who
actually use these.
Last time I checked they were very expensive as well.
Digital cameras seem to be capable of better high ISO performance than film
so there is even less reason for this type of lens going forward.

-j
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:30:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <m4rAe.8347$Eo.2512@fed1read04>,
Mark² <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote:
>
>"Chris Brown" <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:cvo9q2-h0a.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org...
>> In article <1121047190.900983.106170@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> editor@netpath.net <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Meanwhile, there will always be PLENTY of
>>>people just wanting a simple, reasonably-inexpensive camera to take
>>>photos of the kids or vacation with - [...] that won't be any kind of SLR

>> No, it'll be their phone.
>>
>> The traditional photo companies are going to be given a *very* hard time
>> by
>> the phone manufacturers and consumer electronics people over the next few
>> years. Increasingly it'll be the "niche" markets, like DSLRs, to which
>> they'll have to turn if they want to stay in the game.
>
>They might be given a run for their ultra compact camera models, but
>phones...no matter how "fun" they migh tbe at the moment...still come
>nowhere near the quality and usability of dedicated cameras.
>
>I think they may well take a bite out of the portion of the market
>least-inhabited by people interested in quality. There are plenty of these
>people... :(  But they'll never touch quality-driven DSLR markets simply
>due to natural and unavoidable optical and lighting limitations.

That's just a restatment of what I just said, but you seem to think you're
disagreeing with me. For the avoidance of doubt, when I say that the camera
manufacturers will have to rely on products such as DSLRs for their profits
in future, because the phone guys will outcompete them in consumer
photography, this doesn't mean that I think phone cameras will compete with
DSLRs. Quite the opposite.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 3:31:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All depends on what you want to do, and how much you want to spend to do
it.

I use both a high end point and shoot and a dslr and while it is often
difficult to tell the difference between final images (particularly
after post-processing), the dslr lets me use much faster lenses, some
very heavy hitting telephotos and the firing speed I need for some
situations. I can go for higher noise levels. The P&S (with accessory
converters) is great for street photography, long trips, shooting around
the house, etc.and with converter, inexpensive very wide angles. And,
it's hard to beat the tilting/swiveling lcd with histogram. If I HAD to
choose between the two for my desert island or mountain hideaway I would
take the P&S.

At the end of the day, serious photographers will want BOTH
capabilities, but my uneducated guess is that it is the P&S which,
long-term, will increase market share, just as in the consumer market
laptops are taking off and desktops languishing somewhat. Size and
portability are worth a heck of a lot.

Bill Hilton wrote:
> This article from Bloomberg.com has some interesting things to say
> about the dSLR market. Among the things of interest ...
>
>
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:06:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 10:20:09 -0700, "J" <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:

>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>
>
>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>I'm guessing there are very few out of the millions who use cameras who
>actually use these.
>Last time I checked they were very expensive as well.
>Digital cameras seem to be capable of better high ISO performance than film
>so there is even less reason for this type of lens going forward.

So? they are expensive, if they get the shoot you want they are worth
it. F1.4 lenses aren't that expensive and there are a few million of
those out there.

"Digital cameras seem to be capable of better high ISO performance
than film.." depends on the digital camera. Your P/S digital won't
cut it at high ISO (3200) compared to the 1 series Canons or even the
20D.


******************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 5:25:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris wrote:
> Here, however, it's already started. High street photographic retailers are
>now selling phones - they're giving shelf space over to them that used to be
>taken by P&S digital.

What else are they supposed to sell? There's nil market for film
anymore in the U.S.! There's nil market for film cameras in the U.S.
anymore, either. Nil aftermarket (memory cards just get reused over
and over, unlike film) for digicam sales. So camera stores here sell
ALL sorts of gizmos unrelated to photography - telescopes, even
high-end butane lighters and flashlights!
You are reading way more into what Brit camera stores sell than is
there.

Preparedness necessities! Shop the
http://stores.ebay.com/INTERNET-GUN-SHOW
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 7:31:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<<On the contrary - 5 megapixel models are already here, and the field
is
moving fast. For the market segment in question - those wanting to take

snapshots of vacations and family, the newer camera phones are already
very
capable, and have the advantage that people won't need to remember to
pick
them up. >>

True ONLY if you are willing to accept fuzzy pictures created by the
substandard lenses that are on many P&S cameras! Pixel count does not
fix the sins of a cheap lens any more than putting slower film improved
the sharpness of disposable film cameras! It takes skill and
experience to make good lenses. Almost anyone can make a bad lens
(just use a pinhole camera!)

--Wilt
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:12:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1121098799.711011.267600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
editor@netpath.net <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
> Camera phones don't compete now - and won't in the forseeable future
>- even with tiny consumer digicams like the Pentax Optio S.

On the contrary - 5 megapixel models are already here, and the field is
moving fast. For the market segment in question - those wanting to take
snapshots of vacations and family, the newer camera phones are already very
capable, and have the advantage that people won't need to remember to pick
them up.

In fact, one thing that's notable here in the UK at the moment is that the
TV news is *full* of footage of the London Tube bombings, both stills and
video, that people who were on the bombed trains took with their phones.
Indeed, the police have appealed for people with footage of the incidents,
and their aftermath, to send it in to them for use in their investigation,
and they're getting a lot. Such use of camera phones has become a news item
in its own right.

Phones are going to do to comsumer digital cameras what consumer digital
cameras did to 35mm point and shoot cameras - take away a vast section of
the market, and they're going to do it soon. Maybe it'll be slower to happen
in the US - mobile trends there seem a few years behind everywhere else.
Here, however, it's already started. High street photographic retailers are
now selling phones - they're giving shelf space over to them that used to be
taken by P&S digital. 2-3 years ago, only high-end phones had slots for
flash-memory, but now it's a common feature, and the media they use works in
the digital print kiosks that have been supplanting all those minilabs. If
anything, the takeup of these devices seems to be happening faster than the
takeup of the digital cameras that they're now supplanting. Look for it to
accelerate in 2006.
Anonymous
July 11, 2005 9:12:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Chris Brown wrote:
> In article <1121098799.711011.267600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> editor@netpath.net <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>
>> Camera phones don't compete now - and won't in the forseeable future
>>- even with tiny consumer digicams like the Pentax Optio S.
>
>
> On the contrary - 5 megapixel models are already here, and the field is
> moving fast. For the market segment in question - those wanting to take
> snapshots of vacations and family, the newer camera phones are already very
> capable, and have the advantage that people won't need to remember to pick
> them up.
>
> In fact, one thing that's notable here in the UK at the moment is that the
> TV news is *full* of footage of the London Tube bombings, both stills and
> video, that people who were on the bombed trains took with their phones.
> Indeed, the police have appealed for people with footage of the incidents,
> and their aftermath, to send it in to them for use in their investigation,
> and they're getting a lot. Such use of camera phones has become a news item
> in its own right.
>
> Phones are going to do to comsumer digital cameras what consumer digital
> cameras did to 35mm point and shoot cameras - take away a vast section of
> the market, and they're going to do it soon. Maybe it'll be slower to happen
> in the US - mobile trends there seem a few years behind everywhere else.
> Here, however, it's already started. High street photographic retailers are
> now selling phones - they're giving shelf space over to them that used to be
> taken by P&S digital. 2-3 years ago, only high-end phones had slots for
> flash-memory, but now it's a common feature, and the media they use works in
> the digital print kiosks that have been supplanting all those minilabs. If
> anything, the takeup of these devices seems to be happening faster than the
> takeup of the digital cameras that they're now supplanting. Look for it to
> accelerate in 2006.

Just as television and computers are merging so are mobile phones,
pagers, PDAs, digital cameras and DV devices. I too believe that once
device does all will be here sooner than later. Plus it will likely do
these functions much better than we expect.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:03:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com>, John A. Stovall
says...

> For that matter show me any point and shot with an F1.4 speed lens.

Not F1.4, but Olympus produced a series of cameras with an F1.8 lens
(2040, 3040, 4040 and 5050).
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:05:57 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <346dnTHUsr_V4k_fRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
says...

> The P&S segment won't use large sensors. That would defeat their
> purpose.

Why not ? There are so many compact film P&S which use a 24x36mm frame,
so P&S digital cameras should easily be able to take larger CCDs.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 4040, 5050, 5060, 7070, 8080, E300 forum at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
Olympus E300 resource - http://myolympus.org/E300/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 12:05:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <346dnTHUsr_V4k_fRVn-rA@comcast.com>, Michael Johnson, PE
> says...
>
>
>>The P&S segment won't use large sensors. That would defeat their
>>purpose.
>
>
> Why not ? There are so many compact film P&S which use a 24x36mm frame,
> so P&S digital cameras should easily be able to take larger CCDs.

IMO, it goes against the grain of what makes P&S cameras attractive to
the average user - size. Small sensors allow for small lenses and
smaller packaging. I haven't seen a compact film camera that compares
in size to the smallest digital cameras. As cell phones, PDAs, cameras
merge into one unit, compact components will become more desirable.
Plus, I doubt they will need to be large in order to provide great image
quality.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:48:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <CcKdnVKm28fnM0_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
Michael Johnson, PE <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>Just as television and computers are merging so are mobile phones,
>pagers, PDAs, digital cameras and DV devices. I too believe that once
>device does all will be here sooner than later. Plus it will likely do
>these functions much better than we expect.

No, on average, it will be slightly above the lowest quality that people
will buy. You can be sure that the megapixels will be there (megapixels
sell). With noise reduction, sensitivity will be there too (at the expense
of resolution, who cares about resolution). Lenses will be the cheapest
that they can get away with. I wonder how it is going to work in the
battery department.


..
--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Philip Homburg wrote:
> In article <CcKdnVKm28fnM0_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
> Michael Johnson, PE <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>
>>Just as television and computers are merging so are mobile phones,
>>pagers, PDAs, digital cameras and DV devices. I too believe that once
>>device does all will be here sooner than later. Plus it will likely do
>>these functions much better than we expect.
>
>
> No, on average, it will be slightly above the lowest quality that people
> will buy. You can be sure that the megapixels will be there (megapixels
> sell). With noise reduction, sensitivity will be there too (at the expense
> of resolution, who cares about resolution). Lenses will be the cheapest
> that they can get away with. I wonder how it is going to work in the
> battery department.

I suspect there will be a range of devices from the bargain basement
models to the ones that perform quite well. The manufacturers will
probably want to exploit every niche of the market.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:51:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>
>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.

I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:51:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:03 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>
>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>
>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.

Then you lack imagination and don't do low light and night shooting.

The Canon 85mm F1.2L is considered by many to be one of the finest
portrait lens made.
*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:51:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:03 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>
>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>
>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.

Any time you want to make your subject stand out from the rest of the
'stuff' in the picture, depth of field is one of the considerations.
The shorter it is, the more the subject is able to be isolated from
the rest of the picture; not just the background, but the foreground,
too.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:05:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:03 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>
>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>
>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.

F1.0 uses:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/223012/1

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/223012/2


*********************************************************

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:29:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1121113502.967399.168940@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
editor@netpath.net <editor@netpath.net> wrote:
>Chris wrote:
>> Here, however, it's already started. High street photographic retailers are
>>now selling phones - they're giving shelf space over to them that used to be
>>taken by P&S digital.
>
> What else are they supposed to sell?

The other stuff they sell too - inkjet cartridges, photo paper, CD and DVD
recordables, camera bags, tripods, etc. etc.

What's notable is that where they used to have P&S digicams, they now have
phones.

And they've been forced to do this - the phones are getting "good enough".
Unlike the readers of this group, most of whom probably see photography as
an activity in its own right, most people just use a camera as a means to an
end - a way to record snapshots at social events, etc.. When you have that
mindset, why are you going to bother to buy a digital camera when the one
device you always carry everywhere, the one that you increasingly rely on to
keep your life organised, already takes pictures and video?

> You are reading way more into what Brit camera stores sell than is
>there.

I think you're wrong - I think your view of the market is stuck somewhere
around the year 2000, and I don't think we'll have to wait very long to see
which one of us is right.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:29:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1q88pjeipa6hm1k7jl0lror7d2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>
>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.

I often shoot a 50mm f/1.4 wide open. If it went to f/1.2, I'd probably
shoot it at that, also wide-open, for precisely the same sort of shots I use
the 1.4 wide open for.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 8:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 11:30:29 GMT, Chris Brown, <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:

> For the avoidance of doubt, when I say that the camera manufacturers
> will have to rely on products such as DSLRs for their profits in
> future, because the phone guys will outcompete them in consumer
> photography, this doesn't mean that I think phone cameras will
> compete with DSLRs. Quite the opposite.

I think that we'll see "dSLR features" in "P&S" cameras. I remember
here in Canada a few years ago...

- car dealerships started offering low-interest car loans that
undercut the banks

- banks responded by offering car loans bundled with insurance

- the insurance companies cried foul and complained to regulators

I think we'll see a similar migration of features down the chain in
digital cameras...

- cellphones/pda's/whatever-you-call-them will match today's low-end
P&S digital cameras on features, and undercut them on price

- straight P&S digital cameras will match today's low-end dSLR's on
features and undercut them on price

- what *LARGE* market is there above the dSLR to steal customers
from? If your market is constantly getting whittled away from the
bottom, and you can't add to it at the top, you are looking at a
shrinking customer base

A Panasonic FZ5 easily matches a 4-year-old "low-end dSLR". The mega
pixels are there, and the 12X optical zoom matches an add-on lens or two.
4 years from now, we'll probably be looking "P&S cameras" with 20 mega
pixels, 24X optical zoom, and a larger sensor. The "dSLR market" may
still be there, but it'll be reduced in size.

Many of the features associated with dSLRs today will be in P&S
cameras of the future. From a production efficiency point of view, it
might be an idea to include a lens mount and flash shoe on every
"standalone" (i.e. not a cellphone/PDA) P&S camera, and have fewer
assembly lines to run. Every "P&S" camera will be equivalant to today's
basic dSLR. The dSLR enthusiasts will load up on super-duper lenses,
while the average Joe will simply use what came in the box.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 8:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 07:52:56 GMT, David J Taylor, <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> []
> > I think the DSLR market is going to see some very stiff competition in
> > the upcoming years from the P&S segment. I have a Canon 300D and a
> > Sony P200. It really shocked me to see how close the P200 is to the
> > 300D in image quality for many, many shooting conditions. Once the
> > P&Ss break the ISO barrier they will become formidable competitors,
> > IMHO.
>
> But as soon as you put an equally large sensor into a P&S as a DSLR to
> produce the same noise perfomance, the camera would become much larger,
> heavier, and more expnsive. The advantage of the P&S is lost.

I assume that a bigger sensor implies a longer focal length. If you
keep the traditional camera layout, yes it will be bigger. How about
going to a "camcorder body", with the lens pointing along the long axis
of the body?

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 8:48:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 04:28:35 -0700, Skip M, <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:

> Many non DSLRs have electronic viewfinders, and thus have limitations
> due to resolution and refresh rate. The "viewfinder" and LCD screen
> are not one and the same, the viewfinder is that little glass window
> on the world on the top area of the camera, just like on film cameras,
> whether SLR, P&S or rangefinder.

On my Panasonic FZ5 the EVF (electronic viewfinder) is the same image
as the LCD (obviously scaled down). It's only capable of driving either
the LCD or the EVF, not both at the same time. The image is definitely
"through-the-lens". As I mentioned earlier, if the lens cap is on, the
LCD or EVF image is completely dark. I've been using the EVF exclusively
the past few days, because it's been so bright and sunny. Yes, I could
crank the LCD brightness up high enough to be usable on a sunny day.
But don't expect the battery to last too long.

--
Walter Dnes; my email address is *ALMOST* like wzaltdnes@waltdnes.org
Delete the "z" to get my real address. If that gets blocked, follow
the instructions at the end of the 550 message.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:13:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> Philip Homburg wrote:
>
>> In article <CcKdnVKm28fnM0_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
>> Michael Johnson, PE <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Just as television and computers are merging so are mobile phones,
>>> pagers, PDAs, digital cameras and DV devices. I too believe that
>>> once device does all will be here sooner than later. Plus it will
>>> likely do these functions much better than we expect.
>>
>>
>>
>> No, on average, it will be slightly above the lowest quality that people
>> will buy. You can be sure that the megapixels will be there (megapixels
>> sell). With noise reduction, sensitivity will be there too (at the
>> expense
>> of resolution, who cares about resolution). Lenses will be the cheapest
>> that they can get away with. I wonder how it is going to work in the
>> battery department.
>
>
> I suspect there will be a range of devices from the bargain basement
> models to the ones that perform quite well. The manufacturers will
> probably want to exploit every niche of the market.

The problem with the idea that everything improves is that
you ignore physical limits. For example, the noise in P&S
cameras are due to photon counting statistics, and that is
related to the small sensor collecting so few photons.
See:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size....

The only improvement left is to increase quantum efficiency.
That might gain a factor of 2 to 3 in signal-to-noise.
But small sensors will always do poorly, as there are simply
a finite number of photons.

Roger
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 11:38:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Walter Dnes (delete the 'z' to get my real address) wrote:
[]
> I assume that a bigger sensor implies a longer focal length. If you
> keep the traditional camera layout, yes it will be bigger. How about
> going to a "camcorder body", with the lens pointing along the long
> axis
> of the body?

Yes, larger sensor, longer FL, bigger (and heavier) optics. I don't like
the rifle style of camera (some Sonys have this form factor) and it
doesn't appeal to me at all. What has been an interesting development,
though, has been the folded optics. Freed from the design constraints of
the DSLR thinking, new form factors are appearing from the optical
designers. Whether that can help with the long image-stabilised zoom,
larger sensor (8.8 x 6.6 mm or better) camera I don't know.

Cheers,
David
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 1:29:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <1121121090.825973.222450@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
wilt <wiltw@aol.com> wrote:
>
>True ONLY if you are willing to accept fuzzy pictures created by the
>substandard lenses that are on many P&S cameras! Pixel count does not
>fix the sins of a cheap lens any more than putting slower film improved
>the sharpness of disposable film cameras! It takes skill and
>experience to make good lenses.

I expect this problem will be fixed by the companies in question buying
lenses from... wait for it... a lens manufacturer.
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:03:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <QLSdnY9urLywfU_fRVn-rQ@comcast.com>,
Michael Johnson, PE <nospam@ourhouse.com> wrote:
>Philip Homburg wrote:
>> No, on average, it will be slightly above the lowest quality that people
>> will buy. You can be sure that the megapixels will be there (megapixels
>> sell). With noise reduction, sensitivity will be there too (at the expense
>> of resolution, who cares about resolution). Lenses will be the cheapest
>> that they can get away with. I wonder how it is going to work in the
>> battery department.
>
>I suspect there will be a range of devices from the bargain basement
>models to the ones that perform quite well. The manufacturers will
>probably want to exploit every niche of the market.

Niche markets are very expensive when it comes to consumer electronics.

My guess is that when the hype is over, there will be hardly any phone with
a serious camera. Phones will take the low-end. Then, depending on how many
telcos are going to give camera phones away, there will be a market for
low-end digital P&S.

Above that there will be a market for more serious P&S camera (with
lenses too big to fit in a mobile phone).

And above that you get the dSLRs, medium format, etc.



--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:16:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <q66bq2-mob.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>What's notable is that where they used to have P&S digicams, they now have
>phones.

Which may make sense because the digital P&S market may be close to
saturation, and may have very small margins. The camera phone market
may be bigger.

In .nl, there is typically a bonus when you get a GSM phone subcription.
Therefore, dedicated phone stores tend to sell phones. A camera store cannot
compete unless they to deal with the telcos as well.

>And they've been forced to do this - the phones are getting "good enough".
>Unlike the readers of this group, most of whom probably see photography as
>an activity in its own right, most people just use a camera as a means to an
>end - a way to record snapshots at social events, etc.. When you have that
>mindset, why are you going to bother to buy a digital camera when the one
>device you always carry everywhere, the one that you increasingly rely on to
>keep your life organised, already takes pictures and video?

The two markets can co-exist. People can have cameras in their phones for
day to day life and take digtal P&S on holyday. But you may be right,
the mass market for photography can be satisfied with very low quality.
Most people probably don't need more than a camera in a phone.

This may be a good thing. When the mass market is lost to most manufacturers,
they will be forced to deal with serious photographers.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:20:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <a7r5d1div9e3nug2c08esqio2qqfj3ls2s@4ax.com>,
John A. Stovall <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:03 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
>Homburg) wrote:
>
>>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>>>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>>
>>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>>
>>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.
>
>F1.0 uses:
>
>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/223012/1
>
>http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/223012/2

A blank screen with some text about no permission. I can do that without
a lens.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:25:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <7aq5d199465ps9f493hnfk6sbuuksgg6js@4ax.com>,
Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:03 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
>Homburg) wrote:
>
>>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>>>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>>
>>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>>
>>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.
>
>Any time you want to make your subject stand out from the rest of the
>'stuff' in the picture, depth of field is one of the considerations.
>The shorter it is, the more the subject is able to be isolated from
>the rest of the picture; not just the background, but the foreground,
>too.

DoF of 50/1.0 is 2cm at 1 meter distance. At two meters it is 8cm.

What kind of subjects do you have in mind?


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:25:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 10:25:04 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
Homburg) wrote:

>In article <7aq5d199465ps9f493hnfk6sbuuksgg6js@4ax.com>,
>Bill Funk <BigBill@there.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 21:51:03 +0200, philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl (Philip
>>Homburg) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"John A. Stovall" <johnastovall@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>>>news:vs05d15ueqsljpq8saqghlu9hssg8r12k7@4ax.com...
>>>>> Show me a point and shot, I can put an F1.0 50mm lens on?
>>>>
>>>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>>>
>>>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>>>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>>>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.
>>
>>Any time you want to make your subject stand out from the rest of the
>>'stuff' in the picture, depth of field is one of the considerations.
>>The shorter it is, the more the subject is able to be isolated from
>>the rest of the picture; not just the background, but the foreground,
>>too.
>
>DoF of 50/1.0 is 2cm at 1 meter distance. At two meters it is 8cm.
>
>What kind of subjects do you have in mind?

It makes no difference what subjects *I* have in mind.
Maybe a better question is, why can't *you* think of one?
Is my explanation faulty becasue *you* can't apply it?

But an example: a tombstone, where the inscription is the subject, and
either access is limited, or some feeling of the surroundings is
wanted, but not the distraction that the surroundings being in focus
would present.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"
funktionality.blogspot.com
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:28:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <417bq2-mob.ln1@narcissus.dyndns.org>,
Chris Brown <cpbrown@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote:
>In article <1q88pjeipa6hm1k7jl0lror7d2@inews_id.stereo.hq.phicoh.net>,
>Philip Homburg <philip@pch.home.cs.vu.nl> wrote:
>>In article <dau9ob$5kq$1@news01.intel.com>, J <momokuri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Show me a market for people who use F1.0 50mm lenses wide open.
>>
>>I have an old 55/1.2. The depth of field (at 1.2) is so small that it makes
>>a nice lens for back focus tests. I have no idea what pictures work well
>>at f/1.2. And f/1.0 will be even worse.
>
>I often shoot a 50mm f/1.4 wide open. If it went to f/1.2, I'd probably
>shoot it at that, also wide-open, for precisely the same sort of shots I use
>the 1.4 wide open for.

What kind of subjects? Whenever I wanted to use my 50/1.4 in low light I
found that the DoF was too small.


--
That was it. Done. The faulty Monk was turned out into the desert where it
could believe what it liked, including the idea that it had been hard done
by. It was allowed to keep its horse, since horses were so cheap to make.
-- Douglas Adams in Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Anonymous
July 12, 2005 2:43:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> Philip Homburg wrote:
>>
>>> In article <CcKdnVKm28fnM0_fRVn-jw@comcast.com>,
>>> Michael Johnson, PE <cds@erols.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Just as television and computers are merging so are mobile phones,
>>>> pagers, PDAs, digital cameras and DV devices. I too believe that
>>>> once device does all will be here sooner than later. Plus it will
>>>> likely do these functions much better than we expect.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No, on average, it will be slightly above the lowest quality that people
>>> will buy. You can be sure that the megapixels will be there (megapixels
>>> sell). With noise reduction, sensitivity will be there too (at the
>>> expense
>>> of resolution, who cares about resolution). Lenses will be the cheapest
>>> that they can get away with. I wonder how it is going to work in the
>>> battery department.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect there will be a range of devices from the bargain basement
>> models to the ones that perform quite well. The manufacturers will
>> probably want to exploit every niche of the market.
>
>
> The problem with the idea that everything improves is that
> you ignore physical limits. For example, the noise in P&S
> cameras are due to photon counting statistics, and that is
> related to the small sensor collecting so few photons.
> See:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size....
>
> The only improvement left is to increase quantum efficiency.
> That might gain a factor of 2 to 3 in signal-to-noise.
> But small sensors will always do poorly, as there are simply
> a finite number of photons.

True but it seems like I hear that we have reached our limit on so many
things and then they seem to break a barrier and we're off to the races
again. I know we can't change nature but I bet someone will get
creative and find a solution to the problem. It always weems to orrur.
!