# SLRs Obsolete?



## NIDALAP

Are SLR cameras obsolete? The cameras in smart phones are so good these days, that I think for the majority of the population having an SLR is a moot point... comments... opinions!


----------



## Sillygoose

I think it depends on who you're talking to. People who are more into the intricacies of photography might still prefer a DSLR or something with changeable lenses. 

I have a DSLR that I don't use much anymore because I've lost my connection to photography lately. However, if I were to take it up again, I love that extra surface and heft in my hand of having a physical shutter button to press and a lens to hold and adjust. I love the physical feedback of the shutter button and the satisfying "click" of the shutter actuating. Having interchangeable lenses helps too. I can increase the focal length and other variables without sacrificing photo quality. 

However, if I were just walking around and didn't want to carry a bunch of heavy gear with me, I'd probably be okay with my phone's camera. Or I'll bring my Fuji x100s. Maybe I'm more traditional, but the feel of a camera in my hands plays into the experience of photography.

Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk


----------



## AMihaylov

With phones you have fixed focal length and aperture, they perform worse than DSLRs in low light situations and shoot in jpg which is not so good for editing compared to RAW, but are smaller and lighter than DSLRS. On the other hand DSLRs are bigger, hevier, expensive, require good glass, tripod and remote (for landscapes) and some knowledge on how to use them. In other words if you want creative freedom use DSLR, for everything else your phone is good enough.


----------



## ConfusedOne

A phone camera will almost never replace a DSLR due to the smaller image sensor and limited features.
The only camera out there that could make a DSLR obsolete would be a mirrorless camera, but even that would come with some drawbacks.
Drawbacks include limited lens selection(unless it is micro 4/3), smaller grip, and generally more expensive.

Aside from that they are almost equal to if not better than comparable DSLR cameras.
Right now Mirrorless cameras are still not in the same level as Canon or Nikon, but 5 or 10 years from now that could change.


----------



## LeatherneckSD

Dslr is obsolete but not replaced by phones. Micro 4/3 has reached a level that the size advantage has past the quality gap. Phones are just good post processing suites that make good pics easier


----------



## Camera Bill

A microscopic sensor with low bit depth and limited color space is no match for a professional camera, don't believe the hype.


----------



## Ron521

Just as 35mm SLR's made better photos than the much more convenient point-and-shoot cameras, modern digital SLR's will make a better photo than whatever is in your camera. BUT, for many people, what is in your camera MAY be sufficient for your needs.

I used to collect 35mm cameras, and have roughly 100, mostly old rangefinders, but quite a few SLR's too. Nowadays it's just so easy to use the phone, since I have it with me anyway.


----------



## w4rmk

SLRs are still by far the best option for professional photography. I did wedding photography for a few years and my full frame Nikon setup did a great job providing the quality, range and flexibility that I needed.


----------



## nolte

I can't approach the picture quality of my dSLR with my phone. 
I've really really tried to take satisfying pics with the phone... it's so handy!

I guess I just lack the proper skill to use the phone.


----------



## Pallet Spoon

I use a "bridge camera" for both vacations and watch photography. Basically a glorified P&S with good photo, macro, and zoom (40X optical) capabilities. Canon SX40 HS. It also has a rather rare feature I demand for watch photography, but I also not find super handy on vacation - a flip out screen. I can shoot over crowds with ease. Hold the cam directly overhead and filp the screen so it is pointing directly down. I can see my shot perfectly and no one is in the way simply by looking up at the screen.


----------



## rotaexacta

They're tools for different purposes. A phone will never replace a DSLR and vice versa. The speed, durability, clean image files in really lowlight, lens flexibility, ability to print BIG and bokeh will always be a DSLR's advantage. Macro shots for watches are still best done by DSLRs because they have far lesser image distortion compared to the macro shots of naturally wide angle phone cams.


----------



## Redbaronace

I agree that a phone will likely never replace a SLR with variety of quality lenses. I shoot full frame with wide angle lenses 12-24mm lens for work as a real estate agent. My iPhone cannot get wide enough to shoot many of shots that I need for work. The other area where the phone cannot replace DSLR is in low light dusk shots. Tonight, I was shooting a home in twilight conditions on tripod with no flash. The shot came out beautifully. With my iPhone, it would just have been dark image. The other area where iPhone falls short is in trying to capture bokeh for portraits.


----------



## rick3000

Definitely not.
For every photo that makes me think my iPhone 7+ can replace my DSLR, there are 2 more that make me doubt it. With the right lens on a DSLR, I can worry about framing and look, not what random grainy ISO the phone decided to choose. If you only ever shot outside on sunny days, a phone could replace a DSLR, but if you want to shoot indoors, at night, wildlife, sports, etc a phone cannot compete, and they really aren't competing. Most people would not being buying DSLR's if there phone didn't have a camera, they would be buying $100 point & shoots. For me, I use my camera to capture memories, and I want to take high quality photos that are as "future-proof" as possible, my phone is great for spontaneous moments, and that is sufficient for most people, but I find it often leaves a lot to be desired.


----------



## GreenManalishi

My iPhone 7+ has allowed me to leave my Nikon at home when doing things like visiting museums, taking the kids to see dolphins, etc. It will never replace the DSLR for low light, professional photography, or even capturing important events.


----------



## Gunnar_917

Is Rolex obsolete becuase Steinhart do such a good job with the same design and execution?


----------



## Sevenmack

The answer is it depends. If you are doing a general point-and-shoot or wide angle landscape shot, a smartphone camera will do fine, especially if it is an Android with manual controls for ISO. But if you want to take macro shots, get high-quality lume shots and just want to be able to control for focal point and aperture, only a DSLR or high-quality mirrorless camera such as the Sony A6000 (which I own) will do. And many point-and-shoots with higher end features such as the Sony RX1000 will rival smartphones.


----------



## kopitedavo

you really notice the difference when you print your photos.


----------



## cageracer

SLRs, by definition (but perhaps not common understanding), have a large flapping mirror between the lens and the sensor and they have almost unquestionably been rendered obsolete by the new Sony A9. I doubt we'll be seeing mirrors in cameras in 3-4 years.

Many people though equate interchangeable lens with SLR. 'Real' cameras are in no way endangered by phone cameras for anything beyond casual happy snaps.


----------



## eljay

cageracer said:


> SLRs, by definition (but perhaps not common understanding), have a large flapping mirror between the lens and the sensor and they have almost unquestionably been rendered obsolete by the new Sony A9. I doubt we'll be seeing mirrors in cameras in 3-4 years.
> 
> Many people though equate interchangeable lens with SLR. 'Real' cameras are in no way endangered by phone cameras for anything beyond casual happy snaps.


I've heard the "SLRs will be dead in a few years" line a few times before...

Modern EVIL cameras can do a lot of what people used to use SLRs for and they offer definite benefits for the design of short lenses. However, the metering, autofocus and viewfinder being independent of the imaging sensor in an SLR give significant benefits for some uses, e.g. in speed for sports shooting.


----------



## cageracer

Check out the A9 mate - SLRs are now obsolete. 693 point phase detect focus system, and can focus 60 times per second. It can shoot 20fps with no viewfinder blackout. With these sorts of advances in electronics, the mirror itself is now redundant. Sure, I like an optical viewfinder, but the electronic ones are getting pretty good.


----------



## A MattR of Time

Show me any cellphone that can do this:


----------



## kopitedavo

I've a 60d but i want to try the nikon p900. the zoom looks amazing.


----------



## Tekniqs

Nope! I think they still have their uses for more professional work. I think for casual photography, you can just use your phone or a mirrorless cam


----------



## LB Carl

I live by the beach and photograph coastal birds, surfers, sunrises etc. I'm an enthusiast, out early in the mornings to photograph the birds which are out when the beach is quiet before the crowds show up and there are always other photographers out there walking the beach every day with SLR's just like me and none of them are taking their photos with smart phones. They've got tripods and gear and do it for a hobby, some even professionally. Beach goers who are there with their friends and family for a day at the beach are using their smart phones or P&S cameras. -- So to me, while the use of SLR's is shrinking, there's still a decent number of people interested in going beyond what you can do with a smart phone.


----------



## A MattR of Time

kopitedavo said:


> I've a 60d but i want to try the nikon p900. the zoom looks amazing.


It is. 83x optical zoom. I turned the digitial zoom off. Don't need it.

See the lion by the gate:










Pure optical zoom


----------



## Carson

For the average snap shooters yes! Anyone else who tried night, action, events, portrait photography need a DSLR.


----------



## GDI

If you are serious about photography and if you print you will not have any phone as your only camera. But I find an DSLR/SLR as optional and use mirrorless for digital, and rangefinders and panoramic cameras for film. Good thing about mirrorless is the ability to adapt many system lenses to one body. Phones can't replace System cameras (expanding the question beyond DSLRs), digital system cameras can't replace film cameras for certain B&W shooters or specialty cameras, etc...


----------



## GDI

Example, you can't create a single shot undistorted panorama with movement in the frame with a phone, or a DSLR.


----------



## eljay

GDI said:


> Example, you can't create a single shot undistorted panorama with movement in the frame with a phone, or a DSLR.


That depends how much detail you need really. Use a modern high resolution full frame digital and wide angle lens, then crop. Also, if there's motion, that setup will easily outperform most films, even if you use a medium format camera.


----------



## GDI

eljay said:


> That depends how much detail you need really. Use a modern high resolution full frame digital and wide angle lens, then crop. Also, if there's motion, that setup will easily outperform most films, even if you use a medium format camera.


I need the most distortion-free detail possible for printing and a wide angle is last thing I would look to for that. Stitching a DSLR shot is great and can eliminate distortion, but moving subjects are then the problem. The only way to solve both problems is a swing lens panorama camera (Noblex, Widelux, and others) and I am unaware of any such digital cameras (any curved sensors available yet?). I have seen digital photos that the photographers claim replicate these features, but they really don't, but I am open to see the ones that do.


----------



## mjb2

Phone cams are getting better and better, more detail/megapixels and noise reduction algorithms allowing 
for pretty high iso and decent focusing....but (bigger sensor) dSLRS cannot be beat if you want: *bokeh*


----------



## eljay

Noise reduction algos are no substitute for clean sensor output though. They are, at best, a guess at what's noise and what's real detail.


----------



## Nanook65

Here is the thing...
If you are ok with "good enough" then your phone is going to do just fine. If you want to do something specific that is difficult for a phone then it isn't going to cut it. y may go down in popularity, but they are not going away any time soon.


----------



## mjb2

>> may go down in popularity, but ... not going away any time soon <<

The same can probably be said of film, at least for medium format+ size.


----------



## lvt

Not obsolete but less mandatory than before.

Sent from my LG-H630 using Tapatalk


----------



## Nanook65

lvt said:


> Not obsolete but less mandatory than before.
> 
> Sent from my LG-H630 using Tapatalk


this


----------



## colincronin

I think phones have definitely made SLRs less "necessary" in a sense. Phone cameras has improved significantly in quality with their sensors/low light capability, and some phones have "Pro" modes where you can adjust things like ISO and shutter speed manually (if not by default there are always apps). While I expect this to continue to improve, I don't think will ever replace SLRs and other enthusiast/professional cameras. There are certain things that those cameras can do much more easily (full control over aperture, much better depth of field, much longer focal range without image quality drop. 

To me phones and SLRs aren't an "either/or" proposition... they each have their place depending on what you want to do. And make no mistake, you can take some awesome and creative photos with a phone. It's just a slightly different art form.


----------



## GreenManalishi

iOS 11 allows you to create pseudo long exposure photos from live photos. I have been playing with the feature a lot lately. It can't replace a SLR, but it is pretty cool what a phone can do.


----------



## camb66

Never heard so much rubbish in my life, there is a galaxy between phone and quality SLR pictures. Phones are handy for snaps when you have nothing else but if you want to produce photos at the enthusiast level or above and want to to serious post processing, its a no brainer.


----------



## dboulders

camb66 said:


> Never heard so much rubbish in my life, there is a galaxy between phone and quality SLR pictures. Phones are handy for snaps when you have nothing else but if you want to produce photos at the enthusiast level or above and want to to serious post processing, its a no brainer.


I agree 100%. If your interested in simply shooting wrist shots for IG and basic pics of youself and/family then a phone should more than suffice. If your after image quality as well as low light performance, then DSLR/Mirrorless is the only option. Once you go down the rabbit hole that is photography gear, you can fine tune your kit to your specific needs with different lenses, flash options etc. Just my .02


----------



## jwk7443

Agreed, megapixels are overrated, and tiny phone camera sensors are way behind the big sensors found in DSLRs and Full Frame DSLRs. Even my old Nikon D80 with good glass, runs circles around my iphone 7 camera now.


----------



## n4rwhals

I don't think SLRs are obsolete. 

Cellphone cameras has made photography more accessible though.


----------



## 0seeker0

I remember reading an article about DSLR vs mirror less. Read like mirrorless is the new wave, but lacks in lens choices and doesn’t offer as much freedom as DSLR. I personally shoot DSLR for the options and freedom, but a quick phone shot or my wife’s point and shoot is nice sometimes.


----------



## camb66

no cell phone can do this.


----------



## eg01st

For quick selfies in bathroom, or just a reference photos - sure, phone cameras are more than enough for most people.
But if you want to create something that is joy to look at, DSLRs will never be replaced. 
I have an ancient 13 years old (!) Canon EOS 20D with 50mm lens, but it still makes decent photos:


----------



## eljay

jwk7443 said:


> Agreed, megapixels are overrated, and tiny phone camera sensors are way behind the big sensors found in DSLRs and Full Frame DSLRs. Even my old Nikon D80 with good glass, runs circles around my iphone 7 camera now.


Certainly "megapixels" on its own is fairly meaningless because it doesn't guarantee the quality of those pixels and I agree that there's a lot of confusion, for example when someone you know tells you their phone is better than a DSLR because it has more pixels.

I will now dump some musings...

For the same sensor size and technology however, more pixels is almost always better than fewer. Smaller pixels of course result in more noise, but only at the pixel level, and noise is not meaningfully measured at the pixel level. Measured at the image level, smaller pixels do not significantly increase noise, all other things being equal. Meanwhile, those smaller pixels contain more spatial data, while you also have more flexibility to choose how the noise is dealt with. Using larger pixels is effectively the same as averaging the noise, and we have smarter noise reduction algorithms than that.

I also like to look at having more pixels as being a free, optically perfect, teleconverter. For instance, if I upgrade my old 8MP DSLR to a 24MP one, I could then crop an 8MP section of the 24MP image and call it an effective 1.75x focal length multiplier.

A raw file from a modern high resolution DSLR such as a Canon 5DSR might be reasonably large (50-70MB), but its storage cost is ~0.2c, i.e. it approximates to zero. 

Speaking of which, I think the existence of the 5DSR and its equivalents prove that DSLRs aren't obsolete. There's no other practical way to produce images with that level of quality and detail. Medium format is clunky and mirrorless still doesn't have the comprehensive ecosystem behind it.

I think what's happening to DSLR sales is _partly_ because, in a similar fashion to Intel CPUs, they've experienced significantly diminished incremental improvement over the last several years. From year to year they're simply not offering the number of new features or level of improvement experienced during the peak, so it's possible for people who don't abuse their gear to carry on happily using older models; the new stuff isn't improved by a wide enough margin to make the upgrade necessary or worthwhile.


----------



## jxhenry

nah it's not gonna be obsolete for a long while. phones can't match the sensor size and versatility in lenses


----------



## 0seeker0

camb66 said:


> no cell phone can do this.





jxhenry said:


> nah it's not gonna be obsolete for a long while. phones can't match the sensor size and versatility in lenses


My thoughts exactly. I've taken some decent shots with my phone. There just isn't any depth or what I consider the feeling and emotion I can capture with my dated but tack sharp D700.


----------



## Ard

Are we talking about DSLR or film SLR cameras? 

I still have my old SRT 200 Minolta from 1980 which was what I learned photography with. Although I miss Kodachrome I must admit that being able to view results with my now obsolete Nikon D80 is far superior to crossed fingers or the need to bracket so many exposures that a film bag was needed on many shoots.

Smart phones? I don't have one, I use a Sonim because they are tough. I don't text, I make calls.

Even though my Nikon is old there is no way that someone with a smart phone will capture images of the Aurora Borealis like I do with a f2 Sigma and a DSLR on a tripod. (see avatar) Any of my photography done with the DSLR is superior to my waterproof point and shoot cameras that I carry while working. 

Answer from here is a resounding nope.


----------



## thesantini23

SLRs aren't obsolete if you want view photos on any screen or poster larger than your phone. not to mention control over technical elements.


----------



## DaveAllen

Camera Bill said:


> A microscopic sensor with low bit depth and limited color space is no match for a professional camera, don't believe the hype.


This. While cell phones and point and shoot cameras get better all the time, so do professional grade DSLRs. There is no comparison whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that the average person needs one. Cell phone cameras today are great *for what they are*, and may be plenty for folks simply documenting life's adventures. For other folks, a P&S camera might fit the bill and provide what they need. When image quality is critical, a good quality DSLR is the bare minimum, and some would even say a good medium format is needed. Comes down to what you need, but when the image quality provided by something like a D800 is necessary, there simply isn't anything less that would do. Whether you need that kind of quality or not is another matter, but there aren't any cellphones or P&S cameras that can even come close a newer FF DSLR...


----------



## Nanook65

DaveAllen said:


> This. While cell phones and point and shoot cameras get better all the time, so do professional grade DSLRs. There is no comparison whatsoever, but that doesn't mean that the average person needs one. Cell phone cameras today are great *for what they are*, and may be plenty for folks simply documenting life's adventures. For other folks, a P&S camera might fit the bill and provide what they need. When image quality is critical, a good quality DSLR is the bare minimum, and some would even say a good medium format is needed. Comes down to what you need, but when the image quality provided by something like a D800 is necessary, there simply isn't anything less that would do. Whether you need that kind of quality or not is another matter, but there aren't any cellphones or P&S cameras that can even come close a newer FF DSLR...


Exactly!
Thing is most people don't NEED a FF DSLR. I'm sure that the % of the people that buy a consumer grade DSLR will continue to decline as many of the people that bought those in the past will find a phone camera to be satisfactory.


----------



## Archiesdad

Carson said:


> For the average snap shooters yes! Anyone else who tried night, action, events, portrait photography need a DSLR.


Settled.


----------



## B....

If the resulting captured image is the only criteria for one's approach to arriving there, then all bets are off IMO.
But the pleasure one has in getting there is another sensibility is it not? The physical manipulation & tactile sensations & response of the equipment to some of us is huge!
I like the analogy of the sound processing of my bass guitar in overdub recording. In today's recording world, digital processing has become outstanding & the preferred approach. Top grade analogue processing on the other hand is expensive, & "labour intensive". BUT, the satisfaction is beyond comparison. 
If you want the best time keeping, go quartz. ;-)
B.


----------



## SeikoAutomatic_01

I feel that a digital SLR is still the best choice for wildlife and sports, especially motorsports photography.


----------



## MrLeatherback

Perusing through this thread, I've seen _waaaaaay_ too much discussion about megapixels and _waaaaaay_ too little discussion about lenses.

The simple fact is this: megapixels don't matter anymore.

Nowadays, all cameras -- whether the cameras being discussed are in phones or are standalone devices -- have high enough resolutions to make great looking 8"x12" prints.

But honestly, you're probably not looking at 8"x12" prints anyways. More than likely, you're looking at photos on the web (like you're doing right now), where any image 1000 pixels in height looks great.

Ignore megapixels.

On the other hand, do not ignore lens quality. More importantly, do not ignore focal length.

Myself, I shoot a ton of photos with my iPhone. But if I need to take a super-duper, artsy-fartsy photo of a watch, where just a section of the dial is in focus while a compressed background and foreground is out of focus, then I'm going to be using a 100mm lens (or longer) on a DSLR to get the zone of focus I desire, while also creating a compressed background and foreground. Sure, I could pull out my phone, squeeze off a few shots, and then do a bit of Photoshop trickery after the fact, but iPhones shoot relatively wide -- roughly the equivalent of a 30 mm lens -- and no amount of Photoshop work will give me the compression effects provided by a long lens on a DSLR.

One last thing: if I want to do any sort of work with off-camera flashes (and I almost always want to do work with off-camera flashes) then a DSLR -- or some other form of standalone camera -- is the only way to go.


----------



## wintershade

This whole thread is ridicilious. I mean, OP, are you joking? You're comparing a Casio to a Lange....

But if I must engage.... for me, nothing will replace a 100% optical view finder. I tried switching from my Cannon 5D bodies to Olympus MP-1, and the electronic viewfinder and lack of a mechanical viewfinder just ruined the experience for me. Something about that shutter slap just sends tingles up my spine.

But honestly, the OP clearly has not appreciation for real photography with this thread. I mean, you could maybe make an argument that mirrorless is the future and big bulky full frame sensors are no longer necessary even for fine art photography, but to compare an iPhone to what a pro can do with a 5D and a backpack of high-end glass, give me a break....


----------



## Seabee1

I wonder how many (d)SLRs are sitting in drawers, unused because someone thought that was what they needed to take the pics that they wanted to take. Turns out all they needed as a small, lightweight P&S camera, and what better than one that comes included in one's cell phone.

If DSLRs become obsolete I personally do not believe it will be because of cell phone cameras. If they become obsolete it will be because people found a simpler, smaller, very reliable and ever present camera in their phone to be everything they need to satisfy their desires. There is a bit of snobbery in photography, as there is in watch collecting as there is in most hobbies, pastimes and pursuits but the bottom line is that people will do, and use whatever it is that pleases them regardless of what other more *experienced* people may think, suggest, say or decree.

If there is a problem it's that the idea of what constitutes a *good* photograph has become...vague. Social media, which requires massive input from all its participants, decrees that anything posted will be visible for only some short period of time before it's buried under the incoming tide of random thoughts, links and images. I think for many people the idea of printing out a photo, framing it and hanging it on a wall is a bit ludicrous because how will it be seen?

There's all this talk about pixel count, sensor size, tripods, nighttime photography, etc. but the bottom line is that where one used to have to lug all this heavy, expensive, complicated equipment around it can, for the most part, be carried in a shirt, pant or hip pocket. And for a LOT of people that is all that matters. Plus if you never used, never owned a DSLR (or SLR for that matter), if you never grew up having to load a roll of film, wasting film, exposing and developing film, if you've never experienced the thrill of seeing one of your prints come back, framed and ready to be hung on the wall (where if you're lucky you might get 4 or 5 *likes* max) then all this talk about image quality, sensor size etc is just a waste of time. Take a picture, post it to social media, wait for likes, look and like other people's pics, rinse and repeat.

I started out on 35mm film, had a darkroom, the whole 9 yards. But digital is so much better, easier and cheaper. But just as there are people who say that cell phones can never capture the image, the IQ or the experience, there were the people who said something similar when digital came out. There will always be people yelling at the kids to get off of their lawn. It is what it is. So who cares about cell phone cameras, not like it's going to impact your own pursuit of photography. As for me I'm down to just using my fujifilm x70. Hotshot little camera, takes amazball photos. While I still have my Nikon DSLR I haven't touched it in over a year (and way longer than that for my FM2). And while I used to shoot everything nowadays I just do street photography (well, mostly). So anyway, as to the OP's question, NO. Cell phones won't make DSLRs obsolete. It's the people who choose to use cell phone cameras, it's what they desire, and it's what they feel is important, that will make DSLRs obsolete. But you know, the purists out there will insist that no cell phone will ever compare to DSLRS. There are purists out there that will insist that no DIGITAL will ever compare to 35mm film. No mpeg, CD will ever compare to a vinyl disc. So the dinosaurs roar and poop but eventually the comet gets them all (well, except maybe for the birds. It's always the birds...)


----------



## dangdep

I think that as a consumer of images (which we do A LOT of these days), I don't really care what took the photo or how it was taken,--all that matters is if it is a good photo. However, I'm very much into photography and as a producer of photographs I definitely geek out over how photos are made. I think there's a big difference between "taking" a picture, you know, just snapping a true-to-the-moment photograph or some event or someone's face, in a straight matter-of-fact documentarian sort of way, and then "making" a picture, or taking full control over the lighting (setting it up yourself or finding the right natural light), directing the subject or framing it in a way that transmits a particular message or highlights some element of it, and setting the camera to capture precisely what YOU WANT it to capture and therefore portray. You know, an iPhone might seem to do the trick but it won't really get you "there." Of course "there" is just a feeling and nearly impossible to describe, but when a picture got there, you know. Anyone can go out and take a photo of a beautiful landscape, but not everyone can make surreal beautiful photos of it. 

Have you ever tried taking a picture of a beautiful sunset, or a terrific personal moment, only to look back at it and it doesnt really quite capture what you were feeling and thinking in the moment? Well, a good photographer whose camera and its settings have become like an extension of their hand, they'll be able to capture those feelings and thoughts, really get the essence of the scene. 

Not to say great pictures cannot be made with phone cameras, they can. But it does have its limitations.


----------



## Almanon

NIDALAP said:


> Are SLR cameras obsolete? The cameras in smart phones are so good these days, that I think for the majority of the population having an SLR is a moot point... comments... opinions!


Photography was my hobby back in the day. I had a couple of SLRs lying around and I put them on eBay recently. They didn't bring much if that is any indication. The digital process is so much easier. I'm sure there are people out there still using film, but it must be getting hard to find the necessary supplies to adequately stock a dark room.


----------



## Patent Guy

I’ve seen many wonderful photos taken with non SLR digital cameras and smartphones. It’s about the photo, not the gear.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Razahanif

Patent Guy said:


> I've seen many wonderful photos taken with non SLR digital cameras and smartphones. It's about the photo, not the gear.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I second this, it's not the gear it's who's behind the gear.

- A Raza Hanif


----------



## fiddletown

I don't think that the competition for the DSLR is the cell phone. It's the new generation of interchangeable lens, mirrorless digital cameras including those made by Nikon, Sony, Leica, and Fuji. And compared with those designs, I think the DSLR is on its way out.

The single lens reflex system was a way, in a film camera, to allow composition and focusing to be done through the lens, seeing exactly what the lens sees, and then immediately take the picture (unlike with a view camera requiring that the film be inserted before taking the picture). It made through the lens composition and focusing convenient and mobile. And it allowed easy interchangeability of lenses. 

But the single lens reflex system relied on a fairy complicated optical and mechanical arrangement. The light coming through the lens must make a detour at a mirror which reflect the light onto a viewing screen. The mirror must quickly retract in coordination with shutter to allow the light to then reach the film at the focal plane in order to expose the film to register the image. And the light hitting the viewing screen must pass through a heavy and complex glass prism to invert and orient the image making it intelligible to the photographer for composition and focus. The trade off was that the SLR camera was notably more complex, larger and heavier than rangefinder cameras of the day. But notwithstanding that size and weight penalty, the functional advantages of the SLR made it the "gold standard."

Now with digital technology it's possible to see the "through the lens" image through an electronic viewfinder reading directly off the sensors which will record the image. So one has "through the lens" composition and focusing capability, and easy interchangeability of lenses, without the complicated and bulky optical and mechanical system of the old school SLR. So these mirrorless, digital cameras can provide all the functionality of a DSLR while being no larger or heavier than a compact or rangefinder camera, even with a full frame 35mm sensor.


----------



## lewdog

I definitely don't believe cell phones, or even mirrorless, have replaced DSLRs for most. The larger sensor has decided advantages in image quality. Another is selection and quality of lenses. Another is comfort and efficiency of interface. I actually bought a smaller, decent sensor size camera and am going to sell it simply because it's so much easier to use my full-frame!


----------



## DOYAM

These tricks the phone companies are using are software tricks and thats it. None of them are the actual science of what is actually causing depth of field, long exposure, frame size, etc. I have a Canon 6D just to take personal pictures with and if you know what you are looking at, its wayyyy better than anything else. The shutter speed at 1/4000 of a second is fast too. Though not quite fast enough to freeze to props in my drone...


----------



## izatt82

Not sure they are obsolete, but they are loosing ground fast. Was this taken with with a DSLR or phone?


----------



## izatt82

izatt82 said:


> Not sure they are obsolete, but they are loosing ground fast. Was this taken with with a DSLR or phone?
> View attachment 13214189


Image didn't show. https://photos.app.goo.gl/7gke6mgWhiaYxaJv7


----------



## Kilograph

I used to dabble in photography and had several lenses to complement my 40d - prime 180mm for macro, 18-36, 80-200, and a prime 28? I can't remember that last one.
Now I try taking pics with my phone and its *always* disappointing, so no I don't think SLRs are obsolete.

The reason I stopped using my SLR was all the crap I had to carry around. Four lenses, backup batteries, and the body itself, plus a plethora of memory cards, cleaning apparatus, lens hoods and cables.
I swear the bag felt like 50lbs after a few hours and in certain situations, I'd feel uncomfortable with $8k of gear on my back.


----------



## McCarthy

If anybody thinks that DSLRs (or mirror-less) are obsolete, it only means that they have simply no clue of proper photography.

Ever tried to print a huge poster from a cell phone photo? Ever tried to freeze the action of a sports game from 40 meters away with a cell phone? Ever tried to blur out the ugly background with 1.2f on a cell phone? Ever tried to archive the amount of details and 3D pop you get from a proper ZEISS lens on a cell phone? Ever tried to mount your cell phone on a tripod for a long exposure night shot?

Cell phones are good for stupid selfies and if you end up in a car crash and need some evidence real quick. They are not good for anybody who knows anything about real photography, nor professional work, nor true art, nor true passion.

Try this with a cell phone... good luck... https://500px.com/gift-of-light


----------



## rwbenjey

As good as the camera is on my iPhone, it still pales in comparison to my dSLR.


----------



## khelben

Would you want your photographer to use a cellphone, or a proper camera to take pictures of your wedding?


----------



## PolishX

Not even close, for casual pics or teenagers sure. Now mirrorless is coming up very fast but the money in photography is in glass always has been always will be. Even the best mirrorless camera like the Fuji and others still need amazing glass to get the pics. Think Im wrong try taking telephoto shots with a camera phone. Not everything is an app which many people under the age of 30 fail to comprehend. I laugh when I see people come here to Alaska and shoot pictures with camera phones. With my D7000 from Nikon which is older, I can easily blow any picture up I take to poster size with no degradation of image. Ive got several shots on my walls that I took. Camera phones have their place but so do full size cameras. I do gear reviews for one of my jobs and Im amazed at how many people use a camera phone for product photos. It really shows a lack of professionalism.


----------



## 0seeker0

It’ll be interesting when Nikon step into the mirrorless game, stretch some of the competition from Sony and Fuji. I don’t ever see that style replacing DSLRs.


----------



## PolishX

0seeker0 said:


> It'll be interesting when Nikon step into the mirror less game, stretch some of the competition from Sony and Fuji. I don't ever see that style replacing DSLRs.


Id be happy if they figured that out as well. Or maybe an affordable FX body would be nice


----------



## Sherpat

PolishX said:


> Or maybe an affordable FX body would be nice


I'll echo that. I love my D3300 with its 24-megapixel sensor, about as many as you're gonna find in a DX camera at the moment. But man, it sure would be nice to have that larger square....

FWIW, pro fotog Tony Northrup did a very interesting segment on this subject last year. If you've got 25 minutes to kill, it might be worth a listen:


----------



## 34SFSoldier

I’m still praying for d5x. I hung on to my stupid expensive d3x as the d4 and d5 blew through and the 850 has the capabilities but not the body I need. Having sad that, my 3x has the res for most everything and is a tank. A fast 40px pro body (and a quieter shutter) would earn my money. I’ve seen good work with phone but not excellent in the kind of stuff I do like wedding and landscapes. Dslr rule field because they do it well.


----------



## Sabeking

camb66 said:


> Never heard so much rubbish in my life, there is a galaxy between phone and quality SLR pictures. Phones are handy for snaps when you have nothing else but if you want to produce photos at the enthusiast level or above and want to to serious post processing, its a no brainer.


Completely agree... and, the best camera is the one in your hand.

- - - Updated - - -



camb66 said:


> Never heard so much rubbish in my life, there is a galaxy between phone and quality SLR pictures. Phones are handy for snaps when you have nothing else but if you want to produce photos at the enthusiast level or above and want to to serious post processing, its a no brainer.


Completely agree... and, the best camera is the one in your hand.


----------



## McCarthy

Sabeking said:


> Completely agree... and, the best camera is the one in your hand.
> 
> - - - Updated - - -
> 
> ..the best camera is the one in your hand.


That's nonsense and only account in the typical saying in the gun community when being in a deadly force situation, but with a camera you have a choice, and a phone is a pretty bad choice if you try to replicate DSLR or mirror-less. It ain't gonna happen. There is a reason why pro photo / video equipment needs so much glass.


----------



## Sabeking

McCarthy said:


> That's nonsense and only account in the typical saying in the gun community when being in a deadly force situation, but with a camera you have a choice, and a phone is a pretty bad choice if you try to replicate DSLR or mirror-less. It ain't gonna happen. There is a reason why pro photo / video equipment needs so much glass.


Wow, I'm not sure how to take your comment. I'm saying a cell phone is not a great option; however, if it's all you have, use it... interesting, I'll bet most of pictures taken and shared in these forums are from a cell phone. I appreciate seeing these pictures.

BTW, gun owners have a right, not from government, to own guns and say anything they want. You also have a right not to listen.


----------



## McCarthy

Sabeking said:


> Wow, I'm not sure how to take your comment. I'm saying a cell phone is not a great option; however, if it's all you have, use it... interesting, I'll bet most of pictures taken and shared in these forums are from a cell phone. I appreciate seeing these pictures.
> 
> BTW, gun owners have a right, not from government, to own guns and say anything they want. You also have a right not to listen.


Your statement implies otherwise, much like the book "The Best Camera Is The One That's With You".

https://www.amazon.com/Best-Camera-One-Thats-You/dp/0321684788

If you have a crash and need evidence photos, an iPhone will do. If you want to send a quick text with photo, an iPhone will do. But anything halfway decent, creative, let alone (semi) pro and a PHONE is a total fail to take photos.

Only somebody who doesn't even own an DSLR / mirror-less or knows how to PROPERLY operate a DSLR / mirror-less would make a claim that an phone will be fine, no matter the circumstance.

Also, I was referring and referencing to the saying "Any gun is better than no gun.", and in analogy to your similar statement "the best camera is the one in your hand". Your statement doesn't make sense, because either way it delivers mediocre quality and bad results compared to a DSLR or mirror-less, which is - please keep that in mind - the topic of this thread!


----------



## Carl.1

I still use my Olympus OM4ti 35mm. I suppose I am rare in today's worldof digital. I like it and it works.


----------



## Sabeking

McCarthy said:


> Your statement implies otherwise, much like the book "The Best Camera Is The One That's With You".
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Best-Camera-One-Thats-You/dp/0321684788
> 
> If you have a crash and need evidence photos, an iPhone will do. If you want to send a quick text with photo, an iPhone will do. But anything halfway decent, creative, let alone (semi) pro and a PHONE is a total fail to take photos.
> 
> Only somebody who doesn't even own an DSLR / mirror-less or knows how to PROPERLY operate a DSLR / mirror-less would make a claim that an phone will be fine, no matter the circumstance.
> 
> Also, I was referring and referencing to the saying "Any gun is better than no gun.", and in analogy to your similar statement "the best camera is the one in your hand". Your statement doesn't make sense, because either way it delivers mediocre quality and bad results compared to a DSLR or mirror-less, which is - please keep that in mind - the topic of this thread!


Just a FYI... for most moments, I use my iPhone X; however, I also have Leica full frame, Olympus OMD with a number of good lens for each. I believe most people who use a DSLR understand the difference in what you can get. I also believe an iPhone provides value for sharing moments.

I'm truly not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing. Nonetheless, happy shooting...


----------



## JimFava

PolishX said:


> Not even close, for casual pics or teenagers sure. Now mirrorless is coming up very fast but the money in photography is in glass always has been always will be. Even the best mirrorless camera like the Fuji and others still need amazing glass to get the pics. Think Im wrong try taking telephoto shots with a camera phone. Not everything is an app which many people under the age of 30 fail to comprehend. I laugh when I see people come here to Alaska and shoot pictures with camera phones. With my D7000 from Nikon which is older, I can easily blow any picture up I take to poster size with no degradation of image. Ive got several shots on my walls that I took. Camera phones have their place but so do full size cameras. I do gear reviews for one of my jobs and Im amazed at how many people use a camera phone for product photos. It really shows a lack of professionalism.


Absolutely correct. Camera bodies are just receptacles for the light. Some have lots of bells and whistles, but they don't have to. All things being equal, the quality of the lens will determine the quality of your image.


----------

