Two interesting articles ...

Two interesting articles ...

... that are no doubt linked.

1] Editorial: 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months

2] Camera shipments continue to fall - 45% drop in a single year





.

Smeggy - possible reason(s) for the downturn could be:

(1) "Techno-babble" - if you look at Flickr membership 2-3 years ago, it was a "serious" site for "pro/semi-pro/keen amateur" photographers. Nowadays, a search of the "popular cameras" shows that there are less and less Pentax/Canikon cameras, and increasingly being flooded out with Balckberry/Nokia/iPhone smartphones - a "dumbing-down" if you will. These smartphone users enjoy the "benefits" of point and shoot, always on hand smartphone photography.

(2) prior to the digital revolution, we all had either a Kodak/Halina/Vivitar, etc "point-and-shoot" camera, or a Canikon/Pentax, etc 35mm SLR. The market appears to be confusing folks with said techno-babble to the point that the casual buyer will buy a Nikon, or Canon, or whatever, based on tv advertising. Some folks will even be fooled into believing that the mini-usb port will allow the owner to hook their camera up to an electric kettle so that they can make themselves a wee cup of tea!!

IMHO - people need to be "re-educated" about the scope and limitations of each type of camera - in an honest way. If the ergonomics of a Nikon is better than a Canon, then buy it. Similarly, if the IQ of a Pentax is better than a Hasselblad with a digital back, then buy Pentax! Don't be fooled into buying a Samsung P&S just because they are giving away a Galaxy S3 Tablet pc with each purchase!..

But then again - what the heck do I know!! I never knew Sheffield Wednesday was a football club - I thought it was a local Bank Holiday in a part of Yorkshire!!

Here's me trying to convince myself that I do need the DSLR after mucking about with P&S for the last few year as that was all I could afford at the time, now I can almost afford to induldge and you throw this one out.

All I can say is it's a good job the wife couldn't give a monkeys about reading on here

Im not convinced that the two article are linked, the 1st article is mostly devoted to expressing the benefits of High end compacts over a DSLR. The second article shows a decline in ALL camera sales, compact/fixed lens cameras suffering more than most. There is no distinction between high end and low end so its possible that high end compacts have not seen a decline.

My suspicion is the sales decline is due to a combination of market saturation (i.e lots of people already have a digital camera of some form, underwhelming technical advantages - particularly in respect to image quality, and most people continue to be financialy squezed so there is limeted finances to spend on luxury goods, and a good avaiablibity on second hand market.

The easiest camera to get high quality images out of is the DSLR. A modicum of skill is also needed, but if we can't put in the effort we can't expect to reap the rewards.

Compacts, high end or not, do not have the ease of use or versatility.

Compacts may not have the versatility of DSLRs but they do have ease of use.

You're also more likely to have one with you, and most people ALWAYS have a mobile phone with them.

Doesn't matter how High quality your camera is if you've left it at home

So you book the photographer for the wedding at £1000+ and he turns up with an iPad, phone, or some such. Now that would lead to some photo opportunities.

CSCs and compacts are great, but DSLRs just have so much more flexibility, speed, better ergonomics IMHO, and importantly an OVF. I am always puzzled why people ditch their full frame DSLR to go for a Sony NEX7 (or whatever). Why not a smaller crop-sensor DSLR, and get best of both worlds. Or maybe a high-end compact, for 'travel light' days when the functionality of a DSLR isn't needed....

My wife has a Canon digital compact with a 12x zoom. Its quite nice, for a compact, we bought it so that she would have the reach to get some good shots on our honeymoon in Kenya where 3x didn't seem likely to cut the mustard.

My wife is not really interested in Photography, but she has a reasonable eye. She is basically the ideal target market for that type of camera and she got some very good, well composed shots. If you look at them in isolation, you might be forgiven for thinking "what would I need an SLR for, when this compact fits in my pocket and has a 28-330mm equivalent lens"

If you then look at the shots of the same animals taken at the same time from the same land-rover with my K10D + DA 55-300, you would think again.

Even though the K10 is no spring chicken at this point and has only 10mp to the Canons 12 it easily captures more detail and gives the shots a general feel of quality and depth which the compact simply can't match.

My wifes compact is 2 years old at this point, but I sincerely doubt things have changed enough to alter the outcome, especially if you let the DSLR camp use a K5 II.

The GR is the first compact I've used that genuinely gives DSLR quality, but it's not as versatile or as easy to use as a K-5 or similar.

Nice articles, thanks!

Good articles. I still see the quality compact as a complement to the DSLR, although in some situations as a natural first choice over a DSLR. I would imagine many could see good enough reasons to have both. I'm taking the kids camping tomorrow by the lake. It's not a photo trip and it just doesn't make sense to take the full landscape kit. However, a Ricoh GR, gorillapod and cokin A or two will mean that if there is the offchance of a wonderful sky then I can get the shot at pretty much DSLR. So in that way it is a very versatile option. The Q is good for the family album shots but just doesn't cut the mustard not for a high quality landscape. I can see a big market for the quality compact and expect to see more options soon.

I sold my K-30 and lenses earlier in the year as the dslr was simply too heavy, with all the kit, to take traveling. I bought a compact 20X superzoom instead. It was a tough decision and having used it in a variety of locations ranging from animal shots on safari, through street shots in cities to landscapes in the fjords I've pretty much come to the conclusion that neither replaces the other satisfactorily.

There are plenty of occasions where I wouldn't be without the the portability and versatility of the compact. It's just so convenient to carry it in a pocket, no bags, no weight. On the whole the photos have been much better than I expected which hasn't always been the case with the dslr. I think that higher expectations with the dslr led to pixel peeping and a higher degree of self criticism so it's a pleasant change to be pleasantly surprised with the results.

At first glance, for most photos, it's hard to tell the difference between the compact and my K-30 provided that it's the full photo and not a crop.

And that's the issue - rightly or wrongly I had got used to being able to crop or enlarge a photo quite severely with little or no loss of quality and you simply can't do that with a small sensor. To be honest it can't stand any form of cropping or enlargement and that can be a problem.

The loss of quality is also quite apparent in certain photos and they always seem to be the best ones! We came across a once in a lifetime opportunity of a Cheetah with her cubs and I have some cracking shots, but I would have paid a great deal to have the K-30 and the DA* 300mm just then instead of a compact. The photos are 'nice', but they aren't close to what they could have been.

On the other hand there have been plenty of occasions when I have got a shot with the compact when I wouldn't have been carrying the dslr so it's really a no-win situation.

The answer I guess is to have both, but that's even more weight and potential confusion trying to decide which one to use when the subject is disappearing at speed.......

I also miss the viewfinder more than I thought.

I've considered getting something like the Ricoh GR or Fuji X100 as a compromise, but would miss the zoom.

Hopefully Pentax will be the first company to bring out a superzoom with an APSC sensor and viewfinder. That would do.

A Pentax K-50 with the 18-270mm zoom would cover almost all travel requirements and wouldn't be excessively bulky would it? It would knock your compact for six in terms of quality and even ease of use.

Sadly not, John. I had a K-r with an 18-250mm for around a year which was great, but still too heavy (I have a particular problem with my neck and back) and a bit too conspicuous in some of the poorest areas. Tried the K-30 with the 40mm Ltd, but found the fixed 40mm length a bit limiting.

I have to say I have been tempted by the K-5's recent price drop, but have managed to resist. Likewise the Q for £149 recently. Fingers crossed something will come out in the next year or two.