Smartphones will kill off DSLR's soon/

[theREALdotnet]

Show me a smartphone with an eye-level viewfinder and I might agree with you.

I don’t remember ever looking at a great photograph and thinking, “wow, the photographer must have used an eye-level viewfinder”…

 

[Zensō]

Modern smartphone cameras are incredible, and they function extremely well—arguably better than DSLRs—for most people. Still, in the hands of a skilled photographer, one who also has advanced skills in post processing, a DSLR is capable of a higher level of quality in some circumstances. Sports, wildlife, astrophotography, and some landscape subjects come to mind. In other words, those situations that require tracking focus, fast shutter speeds, and/or a long reach telephoto.

 

[Gorgonzola]

I don’t remember ever looking at a great photograph and thinking, “wow, the photographer must have used an eye-level viewfinder”…

The viewer might not perceive the difference but the photographer certainly does.

 

[theREALdotnet]

The viewer might not perceive the difference but the photographer certainly does.

I remember buying magnifier and right-angle attachments for my viewfinder when I had a (D)SLR. And I remember missing the waist-level finder of my very first SLR.

 

[Prana Ferox]

Viewfinders and what not generally aren't about how good the shot is, it's whether you spot the shot and catch it at all

 

[theREALdotnet]

Viewfinders and what not generally aren't about how good the shot is, it's whether you spot the shot and catch it at all

Yes, in general, all types of viewfinders are. The point was specifically about eye-level viewfinders (little peep holes that you press against your eye socket).

 

[pablolie]

Not everybody needs a "DSLR" (I am firmly in the mirrorless camp though). So smartphones only "kill off" the use for a good camera when one isn't needed, which is probably the case for 95% of people. Those of us with higher photography ambitions know why and when we need a "real" camera, because there are quite a few things smartphone cameras don't do well or can't do at all.

I do think smartphones and real cameras simply fill different needs, and they don't really target or even less "kill" each other. I also think the there was a digital camera fad, where many people that should have never owned "DSLR" cameras felt compelled to buy one.

The fact sales volumes are going down is a sign of market correction, not extinction. But there are things smartphones can't do - wildlife photography is a no brainer, but there are many others ranging from creative low light scenarios to professional portraits or macro photography. I love my smartphone camera and take great shots with it - but I know exactly when I need to bring a real camera to the table.

 

[TonyJZX]

in the end this is like saying the motor car will kill the horse

well yes for most of us, the horse is dead

i think at the end of the day, professionals will move to multi thousand dollar mirrorless units

would you say the 645 format is 'dead'????

 

[Gorgonzola]

I remember buying magnifier and right-angle attachments for my viewfinder when I had a (D)SLR. And I remember missing the waist-level finder of my very first SLR.

Yes, I had one of those too for my last film SLR. In recent years mirrorless cameras with eye-level finders also have view screens that are tiltable thus obviating much of the value of the old, optical right-angle attachments.

 

[pablolie]

in the end this is like saying the motor car will kill the horse ...

...or that playing music off your smartphone speaker will replace your HiFi system. I think that is a 100% accurate metaphor, since -to my amazement- many people listen to music off their smartphone speakers, or best case have some bluetooth boombox (some of them actually sound pretty good)... but, are you ready to say "smartphones will kill HiFi chains?" just because they already do so for many people?

 

[Sal1950]

I couldn't care less either way.
I won't carry one of them bricks in my pocket.
I'm keeping my small and light flip phone.

 

[antcollinet]

I couldn't care less either way.
I won't carry one of them bricks in my pocket.
I'm keeping my small and light flip phone.

Wow, a flip phone? Isn't that the vinyl of the cellphone world?

 

[EJ3]

Wow, a flip phone? Isn't that the vinyl of the cellphone world?

If I can talk on the phone, that is all I need, receiving a text is nice too. I only answer: "yes, no, maybe or call me". I usually am doing things that I need both hands for, so texting is out. Watch a video on my phone, nope. That's why I have a large screen monitor. I have no use case for a SMART phone. Not to mention, no phone works in a lot of places that I go (unless it's a SAT phone.

 

[jbattman1016]

If I can talk on the phone, that is all I need, receiving a text is nice too. I only answer: "yes, no, maybe or call me". I usually am doing things that I need both hands for, so texting is out. Watch a video on my phone, nope. That's why I have a large screen monitor. I have no use case for a SMART phone. Not to mention, no phone works in a lot of places that I go (unless it's a SAT phone.

I respect your choice, just keep in mind that a lot of smart phones cost less than flip phones and you do not need to use social media just because you have one. You can still just make calls and text, but you'll now have the ability to do more IF every desired.

With that said, I miss physical buttons and the few phones that have physical keyboards are not a great value.

Unihertz Smartphones

Unihertz is dedicated to making unique smartphones even for minority groups of people, such as small phones, QWERTY keyboard phones, and rugged phones, which have successfully raised funds on Kickstarter. We aim to create more special smartphones. Shop Unihertz Smartphones at official Unihertz!

www.unihertz.com

 

[Sal1950]

Wow, a flip phone? Isn't that the vinyl of the cellphone world?

Nope, Unlike vinyl, it will make a phone call exactly as well as a dumbphone

I respect your choice, just keep in mind that a lot of smart phones cost less than flip phones and you do not need to use social media just because you have one. You can still just make calls and text, but you'll now have the ability to do more IF every desired.

Ah, cost. My flipper from TracFone has cost me around $100 a year for close to 20 years now.
The phones themself have never been more than $40

 

[Sal1950]

And they take pictures too.

 

[KellenVancouver]

If I can talk on the phone, that is all I need, receiving a text is nice too. I only answer: "yes, no, maybe or call me". I usually am doing things that I need both hands for, so texting is out. Watch a video on my phone, nope. That's why I have a large screen monitor. I have no use case for a SMART phone. Not to mention, no phone works in a lot of places that I go (unless it's a SAT phone.

Honestly, texting cracks me up. My kids are constantly texting, but if you think about it, texting is the modern equivalent of a 19th century telegraph, the significant difference being one technology is wired while the other is wireless. The average person texts 36 words per minute, while a person easily speaks between 150-200 words per minute. Texting is probably the best example of back-to-the-future there is.

 

[Blumlein 88]

Honestly, texting cracks me up. My kids are constantly texting, but if you think about it, texting is the modern equivalent of a 19th century telegraph, the significant difference being one technology is wired while the other is wireless. The average person texts 36 words per minute, while a person easily speaks between 150-200 words per minute. Texting is probably the best example of back-to-the-future there is.

I get the usefulness of texting in some contexts. Lots of people get addicted to it. Usually if someone texts me about three times my reply becomes....."Call me". Some people rather text than talk to you. Seems weird to me.

 

[Sal1950]

I get the usefulness of texting in some contexts. Lots of people get addicted to it. Usually if someone texts me about three times my reply becomes....."Call me". Some people rather text than talk to you. Seems weird to me.

What really gets me is then they expect an immediate answer.
I tell them all, if you want to send me a message, do an email and I'll answer it when I get to it.
I don't live my life with a phone up my butt, same as my computers.
If you really want an instant answer, call and ask.

 

[Blumlein 88]

What really gets me is then they expect an immediate answer.
I tell them all, if you want to send me a message, do an email and I'll answer it when I get to it.
I don't live my life with a phone up my butt, same as my computers.
If you really want an instant answer, call and ask.

I do have to say, email has become so infused with junk from places you have done business with it is almost as bad as junk mail in the mailbox for regular mail. Texting makes some more sense. I'd almost say for personal use email is going out of style. Texting is somewhere between a phone call and email. For many casual purposes texting fits. Of course I do have my phone with me most of the time.