5 ms·

It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't ca

It's a huge investment in software and hardware for an almost non-existent user base. Most current DSLRs already have Wifi or a Wifi option; those that don't can be fitted with a Wifi SD card. It turns out that hardly anyone actually uses that feature, because Wifi transfer rates are generally a more problematic bottleneck than the inconvenience of pulling the SD card and putting it into a card reader. The main users of Wifi tethering appear to be sports and news photographers, who do sometimes need to upload a photo right now. Adding what amounts to an entire smartphone to every DSLR is simply madness - the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera is almost certainly the kind of person who has an Adobe Creative Cloud account; they're not going to post-process an image on the back of their camera through choice.

zazaraka 7y ago
> for an almost non-existent user base > the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The DSLR camera makers focus on a constant/shrinking market of pros, while totally ignoring a booming Instagram market.
- ilikehurdles 7y ago
  After all the resizing, compression, and filtering artifacts are applied, I imagine the high price and inconvenience of the additional gadget would be a difficult obstacle to overcome for almost negligible difference in picture quality. DSLRs, even those from the mid 2000s take gorgeous pictures compared to even the best smartphones today, but that difference barely shows on an Instagram feed.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jdietrich 7y ago
  >I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing. The better lens and sensor on a DSLR is essentially irrelevant to Instagrammers, because the limitations of phone camera hardware are barely visible on a 6" phone screen in typical shooting scenarios. The point of using a DSLR-type camera is to gain more control over the imagemaking process. Unless you actually learn something about photography, that extra control is just an array of footguns. Faffing about with cables and cards is utterly trivial compared to pretty much any aspect of serious photography.
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    >The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing. Every SLR I've seen has an Auto mode. You don't need to know intricacies to put it in that mode and leave it there forever. I don't know why people keep parroting that an iphone is capable of comparable images to an SLR, it's just not true. Even on Auto everything and with the result shrunk down to 2 Megapixels, an SLR will take much more pleasing images. The short depth of field will be very noticeable. In anything close to lower light the difference will be astronomical. Like a nice image instead of a blurry mess that you immediately delete. Yes, the differences will be noticeable on a phone screen. DOF makes a massive difference to the overall image. You can't get around physics and the weight and size of those lenses are tolerated for a good reason. If it was only about control then you there would definitely be camera phones with all the functionality of SLRs. When the lens is so hopelessly tiny there's no point trying to control anything else because you will hit the limits of the lens/sensor in basically any situation. You can't open the aperture wide enough to get a pleasing DOF, and you don't have enough leeway to control shutter speed. And forget about zooming. All of those things are advantages because of the larger lenses, and are the difference between nice photos and, well, cameraphone images. I would definitely think Instagrammers, with their endless vanity, would be interested in anything that makes their photos more appealing.
mdorazio 7y ago
This is akin to people who said "why would you want computer-like features on your phone? Everyone who's willing to pay $500+ for a phone already has a laptop!" A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom, interchangeable lenses, etc. of a full-body camera, but don't want to deal with the clunky interfaces and multi-step processes just to get your images/videos to a format, style, and place you want them. Yes, that's a subset of the market, but it's probably a bigger potential userbase than traditional "pure" photographers.
- throwanem 7y ago
  Most of the YouTubers to whom I subscribe, who produce video and mention or show the equipment they use to do so, turn out to be using Canon DSLRs. If you're already doing video production, the single additional step of pulling an SD card out of a camera and sticking it in a computer to pull your raw takes off isn't a high bar to clear. With regard to Instagram, sure, you have a point. A DSLR-to-social-media flow doesn't have anything like the same ease of use as one involving a phone camera. But I'm willing to argue that the production values involved in being a serious Instagram influencer, and the degree of artifice that's necessary to that sector's pretense of an artlessly beautiful life, means the bar for switching to an interchangeable-lens system isn't as high as you think it is. Indeed, I'd be astonished if a significant segment of that crowd has not already done so.
- jdietrich 7y ago
  How many Instagrammers and YouTubers do you personally know? How many conversations have you had with them about their needs, preferences and workflow? Have you ever done a direct image quality comparison between an iPhone X and a mid-range DSLR?
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  I think any video editing on a ~3in, sub HD screen on the back of a camera is going to be a horrible experience because of sheer logistics (UI, controls), rather than "vision-less manufacturers". Not to mention issues like slow media access speeds, horrible upload speeds, etc. I really don't think video editing on your camera is anywhere the market you think it is. Especially for people wanting "higher IQ, interchangeable lenses", etc. Apart from anything else, most of those people are dealing with B roll, intros, etc., or should the camera have to deal with that? And audio editing, or background music? I don't think this seems like much of an area where you can blame cameras. And it's certainly not a bigger market than "people who want to use a camera to take pictures".
Lukeas14 7y ago
I think that huge investment is going to pay off several times over for whichever company is willing to make it. Canon and Nikon each share almost 50% of this market because their offerings aren't much different from one another. A DSLR that has the same functionalities, software magic and ease of use as a phone would be a game-changing product. Right now phone cameras are so far ahead technologically but permanently held back by physical form-factor. The only thing preventing camera companies from matching them is making massive investments in their software divisions. The user base would be everyone who buys <$1000 crop sensor cameras, which is already significant. This includes parents taking photos of their kids playing sports from across the field, (un)official school photographers, Instagram boyfriends, all non-pro photographers who need separate telephoto lenses. Improving ease of use would expand this market greatly since the main barrier to entry is learning how to use a DSLR.
mobjack 7y ago
Wifi tethering is cumbersome to set up and is a janky experience. I want to take a picture of someone at a party and share it with them in a few seconds like I can do on my phone. It is the main reason I don't use a DSLR much at all anymore.

zazaraka 7y ago

> for an almost non-existent user base > the kind of person who spends >$1000 on a bulky and complex camera I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The DSLR camera makers focus on a constant/shrinking market of pros, while totally ignoring a booming Instagram market.

ilikehurdles 7y ago
After all the resizing, compression, and filtering artifacts are applied, I imagine the high price and inconvenience of the additional gadget would be a difficult obstacle to overcome for almost negligible difference in picture quality. DSLRs, even those from the mid 2000s take gorgeous pictures compared to even the best smartphones today, but that difference barely shows on an Instagram feed.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jdietrich 7y ago
>I'm talking about opening up a new market - instagrammers, who already spend money on ring lights, tripods for their phones, but who don't want to learn all the intricacies of using a DSLR camera + adapters + laptop. The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing. The better lens and sensor on a DSLR is essentially irrelevant to Instagrammers, because the limitations of phone camera hardware are barely visible on a 6" phone screen in typical shooting scenarios. The point of using a DSLR-type camera is to gain more control over the imagemaking process. Unless you actually learn something about photography, that extra control is just an array of footguns. Faffing about with cables and cards is utterly trivial compared to pretty much any aspect of serious photography.
- brokenmachine 7y ago
  >The people who don't want to learn the intricacies of photography just use their phone. Unless you learn those intricacies, your phone will reliably take better images, because Apple have spent stupid amounts of R&D money on optimising their image post-processing. Every SLR I've seen has an Auto mode. You don't need to know intricacies to put it in that mode and leave it there forever. I don't know why people keep parroting that an iphone is capable of comparable images to an SLR, it's just not true. Even on Auto everything and with the result shrunk down to 2 Megapixels, an SLR will take much more pleasing images. The short depth of field will be very noticeable. In anything close to lower light the difference will be astronomical. Like a nice image instead of a blurry mess that you immediately delete. Yes, the differences will be noticeable on a phone screen. DOF makes a massive difference to the overall image. You can't get around physics and the weight and size of those lenses are tolerated for a good reason. If it was only about control then you there would definitely be camera phones with all the functionality of SLRs. When the lens is so hopelessly tiny there's no point trying to control anything else because you will hit the limits of the lens/sensor in basically any situation. You can't open the aperture wide enough to get a pleasing DOF, and you don't have enough leeway to control shutter speed. And forget about zooming. All of those things are advantages because of the larger lenses, and are the difference between nice photos and, well, cameraphone images. I would definitely think Instagrammers, with their endless vanity, would be interested in anything that makes their photos more appealing.

mdorazio 7y ago

This is akin to people who said "why would you want computer-like features on your phone? Everyone who's willing to pay $500+ for a phone already has a laptop!" A very large number of would-be content creators (not just Instagram, either - YouTubers also) want the higher image quality, dynamic range, optical zoom, interchangeable lenses, etc. of a full-body camera, but don't want to deal with the clunky interfaces and multi-step processes just to get your images/videos to a format, style, and place you want them. Yes, that's a subset of the market, but it's probably a bigger potential userbase than traditional "pure" photographers.

throwanem 7y ago
Most of the YouTubers to whom I subscribe, who produce video and mention or show the equipment they use to do so, turn out to be using Canon DSLRs. If you're already doing video production, the single additional step of pulling an SD card out of a camera and sticking it in a computer to pull your raw takes off isn't a high bar to clear. With regard to Instagram, sure, you have a point. A DSLR-to-social-media flow doesn't have anything like the same ease of use as one involving a phone camera. But I'm willing to argue that the production values involved in being a serious Instagram influencer, and the degree of artifice that's necessary to that sector's pretense of an artlessly beautiful life, means the bar for switching to an interchangeable-lens system isn't as high as you think it is. Indeed, I'd be astonished if a significant segment of that crowd has not already done so.
jdietrich 7y ago
How many Instagrammers and YouTubers do you personally know? How many conversations have you had with them about their needs, preferences and workflow? Have you ever done a direct image quality comparison between an iPhone X and a mid-range DSLR?
FireBeyond 7y ago
I think any video editing on a ~3in, sub HD screen on the back of a camera is going to be a horrible experience because of sheer logistics (UI, controls), rather than "vision-less manufacturers". Not to mention issues like slow media access speeds, horrible upload speeds, etc. I really don't think video editing on your camera is anywhere the market you think it is. Especially for people wanting "higher IQ, interchangeable lenses", etc. Apart from anything else, most of those people are dealing with B roll, intros, etc., or should the camera have to deal with that? And audio editing, or background music? I don't think this seems like much of an area where you can blame cameras. And it's certainly not a bigger market than "people who want to use a camera to take pictures".

Lukeas14 7y ago

I think that huge investment is going to pay off several times over for whichever company is willing to make it. Canon and Nikon each share almost 50% of this market because their offerings aren't much different from one another. A DSLR that has the same functionalities, software magic and ease of use as a phone would be a game-changing product. Right now phone cameras are so far ahead technologically but permanently held back by physical form-factor. The only thing preventing camera companies from matching them is making massive investments in their software divisions. The user base would be everyone who buys <$1000 crop sensor cameras, which is already significant. This includes parents taking photos of their kids playing sports from across the field, (un)official school photographers, Instagram boyfriends, all non-pro photographers who need separate telephoto lenses. Improving ease of use would expand this market greatly since the main barrier to entry is learning how to use a DSLR.

mobjack 7y ago

Wifi tethering is cumbersome to set up and is a janky experience. I want to take a picture of someone at a party and share it with them in a few seconds like I can do on my phone. It is the main reason I don't use a DSLR much at all anymore.