Most Cameras are obsolete or soon will be

GH4 with 14-140mm lens

 

July 2014

I read today  on Thom Hogan's dslrbodies website a report of Canon's latest quarterly results for camera sales. Interchangeable Lens Cameras (ILC) are down 19% year on year and Compacts down 38% year on year.

At the same time I noted a high level of interest on the dpreview website for the Panasonic FZ1000,  a new "all in one" superzoom camera.

What does this tell us ?  Two obvious things, I think. 

First regular compact cameras are being replaced by smart phones, en masse.

Second,  customers are increasingly opting not to buy a new ILC.

I have been using  ILCs for almost 50 years. I find the least appealing feature of  the interchangeable lens camera is precisely that which defines it, namely the requirement to change lenses if a wide range of focal lengths is required. I am not alone.

I understand industry data indicates the majority of ILC buyers mount a kit zoom or superzoom lens to their ILC and leave it there permanently.

The message is: (almost) everybody hates changing lenses and most camera users avoid doing so. Even professional photographers will carry two bodies, one with a standard zoom lens mounted, the other with a tele zoom lens, so as to avoid having to change lenses.

Aspheric lens elements Recent developments in technology have made highly accurate aspheric elements available in mass produced lenses for consumer products. Those same aspheric elements allow lenses to be made which have a longer focal length range and more compact dimensions at a lower price point than was possible in the pre-aspheric era.

Rise of the superzoom,  "all in one" camera. This type of camera has been around for several years but has until now not managed to challenge ILC hegemony of the  quality camera market. Indeed this camera type has for years been referred to as a "bridge", presumably meaning a bridge between compact and ILC types.

Until very recently most superzoom cameras used very small sensors with a diagonal of about 7.7mm. but the latest ones including the Sony RX10 and Panasonic FZ1000 use the larger 15.9mm sensor providing much better picture quality.  They are able to do this because of the benefits offered by lenses containing multiple aspheric elements.

These new superzoom cameras are starting to make ILCs  look irrelevant. They are less bulky and less expensive than an ILC with superzoom lens mounted.  I would say right now the picture quality of the RX10 and FZ1000 is good enough for most photographers most of the time and that most users are probably wasting their money on larger/more expensive ILC kits.

Better zoom lenses.   For many years after I started using cameras there was no such thing as a zoom lens for the mass market. There were a few zooms available for motion picture use but these were huge and cost as much as a house.  Now we have budget consumer zooms producing picture quality every bit as good as that of fixed focal length lenses. The argument for fixed focal length lenses is becoming weaker all the time.

Improved performance of small imaging sensors   The imaging performance of small sensors is increasing every year. My first digital SLR was a Canon EOS 20D. This has a DXO Mark RAW performance score of 62. When I look back at my photos made with this camera I never think that they are in some way deficient.  The camera's technical capability was perfectly adequate to make a good photo in almost any circumstance. The current Sony RX10 with a considerably smaller sensor has a DXO Mark score of 69.

So to the extent that DXO Mark scores are a valid guide to real world performance, we see a strong improvement in performance over time, such that the performance  of large sensors a few years ago is now matched or exceeded by current generation smaller sensors.

Smaller sensorspermit the use of smaller lenses and allow the use of zooms with increased focal length range.

Multi asphericelements permit the use of smaller lenses, with increased focal length range.

DSLR - vs- MILC  A few years ago I thought that the DSLR as a camera type would be overtaken by the Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens type (MILC). I still think the MILC will become more popular than the DSLR but I now think they will both be overtaken by the fixed zoom lens type.

In fact, I think that apart from special purpose items such as the waterproof/shockproof  type almost the entire camera/lens lineup of the major manufacturers could be replaced by just 6 products.  Here they are:

1.  Advanced Compact  This has a 15.9mm (so called "one inch") or 21.5mm ("four thirds") sensor, a compact handle, built in EVF,  and a zoom lens which covers wide to normal diagonal angle of view, say 85 degrees to 24 degrees. This corresponds to a focal length of 23-100mm on a full frame (sensor diagonal 43mm) camera.

This camera would suit the enthusiast/expert or even professional user who wants more performance and  better ergonomics than a smartphone can offer but still maintain compact   dimensions.

2. Superzoom, all in one camera   This already exists in the form of the Panasonic FZ1000 with 15.9mm sensor. If a smaller sensor was used, say about 10mm diagonal, an even greater zoom range could be used, covering very wide to super telephoto.

This would suit the beginner/enthusiast/expert who wants one camera which can do just about everything with good picture quality. It is ideal for holiday/travel use.

Now we come to four products which I think can replace all the DSLRs, MILCs and all their interchangeable lenses.  Really. All of them. 

These are full featured  cameras each with built in zoom lens of high quality. Each has a fully articulated monitor, built in EVF in a hump, built in flash, full anatomical handle and thumb support and a full suite of controls for the enthusiast/expert user. They would have a sensor in the size range of 15.9mm ("one inch") to 21.5mm ("four thirds") diagonal.

In my conception there are two focal length ranges, wide/normal and long/very long.

There are two specification levels:

The first is for the amateur/enthusiast emphasizing compact dimensions of body and lens.

The second is for the expert/professional user, with an emphasis on higher performance, larger battery and buffer, higher burst speeds and wider lens apertures. Size, mass, performance and price are greater.

3. Amateur/enthusiast, wide/normal  This has a diagonal angle of view in the range 90 degrees (wide) to 20 degrees (long). This is equivalent to about 22-120mm on a full frame camera or 11-60mm on a micro four thirds camera. The package is compact yet well specified. The lens has an aperture of about f3.5-5.6. The angle of view range is suitable for most photographs made by most users.

4. Amateur/enthusiast, long/very long  This has a diagonal angle of view of about 21 degrees to 4.1 degrees, equivalent to about 130-600mm on a full frame camera or 65-300mm on a micro four thirds camera. The angle of view range is suitable for many types of sport/action/wildlife/bird photography. The lens aperture range is about f3.5-5.6.

5. Expert/professional, wide/normal  This has the same diagonal angle of view as #3 above. The body is larger with a bigger handle holding a larger battery. There is a larger buffer, faster burst performance and more highly specified user interface with three dials. The lens has a wider aperture of about f2-2.8.

6. Expert/professional, long/very long  The lens focal length has an extended range with a diagonal angle of view of 21 - 3.5 degrees, equivalent to 130-800mm in full frame or 65-400mm in micro four thirds. The body has the same features as that of #5 above with a high specification and performance capability, especially for sport/action. The lens has a wider aperture than that in #4, in the range f2.8-5.6.

That's it. Six products. That's all.

What about ultrawide lens capability ?  No problem, just mount a converter.

What about specialty lenses  Such as tilt/shift ?  I used large format cameras then 35mm cameras with tilt shift lenses for many years. But since the advent of Photoshop I regard the tilt shifts as obsolete.

What about single focal length lenses ?  In my view, they are not required. Their limitations exceed their benefits in my view.

That's it really,  I think that great changes are coming to  the  market for new cameras.

I think that the number of different makes, models and manufacturers will fall steeply to a much lower level than that which prevails now. 

I think that ILCs will be overtaken by cameras with built in zoom lenses which will better serve the majority of buyers' requirements.

If users can have the main advantage of  an ILC  (choice of different focal lengths) without having to change lenses and  without losing picture quality, I would say it is game over for the ILC.  

We shall see.