Fascinating going back and seeing people's predictions on the DSLRs

[RichA]

In the story comments. Some were right-on, some dead wrong, some humble enough to say they didn't know.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/8533710022/consumer-dslr-cameras-dead-in-5-years

[Alfred Molon]

Am 03.09.2023 um 10:37 schrieb RichA:
> In the story comments. Some were right-on, some dead wrong, some humble enough to say they didn't know.
>
> https://www.dpreview.com/news/8533710022/consumer-dslr-cameras-dead-in-5-years

DSLRs are indeed out (replaced by mirrorless cameras).
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[Magani]

My stalwart Canon 6D died on our last trip (power board and possibly main board). There's no way I'm replacing it with a DSLR.
Santa has said I can look at a mirrorless R6 Mk II. :-)

Cheers,
Magani

[RichA]

Interesting how some saw it clearly, picked pretty much the date of demise and some thought it would never happen.

[Whisky-dave]

What suprises me is that cameras haven't adoped easy interfaces to share to FB and other social media sites.
Even my canon connect app is cluncky to get pics on my iPad.
Surely it's not that difficult to implement the phone software on modern cameras whether DLSRs for pros or Mirrorless
for those that want a bit better images and videos than even high end phones can offer.

[David Taylor]

On 05/09/2023 12:51, Whisky-dave wrote:
> What suprises me is that cameras haven't adoped easy interfaces to share to FB and other social media sites.
> Even my canon connect app is cluncky to get pics on my iPad.
> Surely it's not that difficult to implement the phone software on modern cameras whether DLSRs for pros or Mirrorless
> for those that want a bit better images and videos than even high end phones can offer.

My camera has a DropBox app and can upload over Wi-Fi or mobile data....
Yes, it's a phone.
--
Cheers,
David
Web: https://www.satsignal.eu

[Whisky-dave]

I have an iphone that I can use as a low end camera. If only my camera had a facebook or youtube app for uploading.
Not that I'd have much use for it, but that sot of thing is very popular for people that don't go via a computer.
In fact it shouldn't be difficult for a camera to be used as a phone.

[RichA]

Wifi is still horrible in most cameras. Convoluted process, easily dropped connections. There may be some out there that are solid, I've yet to run into one.

[David Taylor]

On 05/09/2023 16:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
> I have an iphone that I can use as a low end camera. If only my camera had a facebook or youtube app for uploading.
> Not that I'd have much use for it, but that sot of thing is very popular for people that don't go via a computer.
> In fact it shouldn't be difficult for a camera to be used as a phone.

Some of my Panasonic cameras had a Wi-Fi connection, but it required a special
program on the PC, and I never really used it after trying once.

Using DropBox on the phone is very easy - once set up with a user name and
password just open the app when you wish, and you can always leave it running.
Photos are up on your PC/Mac whenever you get home.

A "phone" type account would either require a second phone account (e.g.
Giffgaff at £10/month for 15 GB), or tethering to an existing phone connection.
Upload over Wi-Fi is good at 50 Mbps, but testing just now upload over 5G
mobile was just 2.5 Mbps, definitely /not/ good! Having the extra hardware in
the camera might require a licence for the hardware (increased price) and would
reduce battery life.

[David Taylor]

On 06/09/2023 02:22, RichA wrote:
> Wifi is still horrible in most cameras. Convoluted process, easily dropped connections. There may be some out there that are solid, I've yet to run into one.

I suppose in principle that a camera should offer the same Wi-Fi antenna
possibilities as a phone or a tablet, but perhaps there's more metal in the
higher-end cameras?

User-interface design is always a matter for contention!

[m-m]

My Nikon connects to my phone via bluetooth. No need for wifi

--
m-m
www.mhmyers.com

[Alan Browne]

That would be slow.

Better would be for a negotiated connection (via BluToo) to set up a
temp network over WiFi. Much faster transfer if there are a lot of
photo to move.

--
“If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything."
-Ronald Coase

[nospam]

In article <060920230925019425%nosp...@nym.ore>, m-m

<nosp...@nym.ore> wrote:

>
>
> My Nikon connects to my phone via bluetooth. No need for wifi

bluetooth is *slow*. it may be sufficient for controlling the various
functions of the camera, however, it is not an option for transferring
photos or video.

[Whisky-dave]

On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 08:11:23 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
> On 05/09/2023 16:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
> > I have an iphone that I can use as a low end camera. If only my camera had a facebook or youtube app for uploading.
> > Not that I'd have much use for it, but that sot of thing is very popular for people that don't go via a computer.
> > In fact it shouldn't be difficult for a camera to be used as a phone.
> Some of my Panasonic cameras had a Wi-Fi connection, but it required a special
> program on the PC, and I never really used it after trying once.
>
> Using DropBox on the phone is very easy - once set up with a user name and
> password just open the app when you wish, and you can always leave it running.
> Photos are up on your PC/Mac whenever you get home.

I was thinking more about someone using a real camera that wants to post an image or two to facebook or other social media site.
Very easy with a phone, but not from a camera.

>
> A "phone" type account would either require a second phone account (e.g.
> Giffgaff at £10/month for 15 GB), or tethering to an existing phone connection.

Or just put your existing micro-SD from phone to camera or some people have family accounts with mulpiply cards.

> Upload over Wi-Fi is good at 50 Mbps, but testing just now upload over 5G
> mobile was just 2.5 Mbps, definitely /not/ good! Having the extra hardware in
> the camera might require a licence for the hardware (increased price) and would
> reduce battery life.

Yes that could be true on both counts but surely you could have an inbuilt function that could turn wifi & bluetooth
on and off when selecting an image to upload.

anyone rememebr those SD cards that had wifi on them. Guess that weren't very good or practical.

[David Taylor]

On 07/09/2023 13:08, Whisky-dave wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 September 2023 at 08:11:23 UTC+1, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 05/09/2023 16:34, Whisky-dave wrote:
>>> I have an iphone that I can use as a low end camera. If only my camera had a facebook or youtube app for uploading.
>>> Not that I'd have much use for it, but that sot of thing is very popular for people that don't go via a computer.
>>> In fact it shouldn't be difficult for a camera to be used as a phone.
>> Some of my Panasonic cameras had a Wi-Fi connection, but it required a special
>> program on the PC, and I never really used it after trying once.
>>
>> Using DropBox on the phone is very easy - once set up with a user name and
>> password just open the app when you wish, and you can always leave it running.
>> Photos are up on your PC/Mac whenever you get home.
> I was thinking more about someone using a real camera that wants to post an image or two to facebook or other social media site.
> Very easy with a phone, but not from a camera.
>
>> A "phone" type account would either require a second phone account (e.g.
>> Giffgaff at £10/month for 15 GB), or tethering to an existing phone connection.
> Or just put your existing micro-SD from phone to camera or some people have family accounts with mulpiply cards.
>
>> Upload over Wi-Fi is good at 50 Mbps, but testing just now upload over 5G

>> mobile was just 2.5 Mbps, definitely/not/ good! Having the extra hardware in

>> the camera might require a licence for the hardware (increased price) and would
>> reduce battery life.
> Yes that could be true on both counts but surely you could have an inbuilt function that could turn wifi & bluetooth
> on and off when selecting an image to upload.
>
> anyone rememebr those SD cards that had wifi on them. Guess that weren't very good or practical.
>

I think you might argue that if it's for a social media site there's no need
for a so-called "real" camera. But I agree that if smaller depth of field of
longer telephoto is required I would take my own "real" camera!

Have you made a request for such a facility to your favourite camera maker, and
what was their reaction?

[nospam]

In article <ud9dn9$2biei$2...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> I suppose in principle that a camera should offer the same Wi-Fi antenna
> possibilities as a phone or a tablet, but perhaps there's more metal in the
> higher-end cameras?

that doesn't matter. many phones and laptops have metal bodies, without
issues.

the solution is a rf transparent (usually plastic) antenna aperture.

> User-interface design is always a matter for contention!

for camera makers (as well as other hardware companies), it's generally
quite bad.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-06 04:36, David Taylor wrote:
> On 06/09/2023 02:22, RichA wrote:
>> Wifi is still horrible in most cameras.  Convoluted process, easily
>> dropped connections.  There may be some out there that are solid, I've
>> yet to run into one.
>
> I suppose in principle that a camera should offer the same Wi-Fi antenna
> possibilities as a phone or a tablet, but perhaps there's more metal in
> the higher-end cameras?

WiFi at 2.4 and 5 and 6 GHz doesn't need much of an aperture in the
metal. Indeed, just unseen gaps around displays or such are likely
sufficient.

> User-interface design is always a matter for contention!

Indeed.

[Alan Browne]

On 2023-09-07 18:06, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2023-09-06 04:36, David Taylor wrote:
>> On 06/09/2023 02:22, RichA wrote:
>>> Wifi is still horrible in most cameras.  Convoluted process, easily
>>> dropped connections.  There may be some out there that are solid,
>>> I've yet to run into one.
>>
>> I suppose in principle that a camera should offer the same Wi-Fi
>> antenna possibilities as a phone or a tablet, but perhaps there's more
>> metal in the higher-end cameras?
>
> WiFi at 2.4 and 5 and 6 GHz doesn't need much of an aperture in the
> metal.  Indeed, just unseen gaps around displays or such are likely
> sufficient.

For that matter, the lens itself would be RF clear at these
frequencies... so just have (a) small antenna(s) in the sensor "volume"
somewhere and the signals will easily travel.

[David Taylor]

On 07/09/2023 23:06, Alan Browne wrote:
> WiFi at 2.4 and 5 and 6 GHz doesn't need much of an aperture in the
> metal. Indeed, just unseen gaps around displays or such are likely
> sufficient.

That's true, but even phone makers don't get it right all the time!

I was also thinking of those who don't approve of any "plastic" in a camera....

[Whisky-dave]

Why not, unless camera manufactuers are happy to lose sales to phone makers.
if you don't want ot then don't use it.
But one of the main driving factors of new phones is a better camera.
When did yuo last hear of someone updating their phone because they got better phone reception.

> But I agree that if smaller depth of field of
> longer telephoto is required I would take my own "real" camera!

well some buy add-ons such as lenes to connect to their phones.

>
> Have you made a request for such a facility to your favourite camera maker, and
> what was their reaction?

Doubt they'd be much point the last time I tried such a thing was when I asked if they could include a pre-shutter
where a series of pictures could be recorded before the shutter is pressed. Like I had in the late 90s with my webcam
connected to my G4 tower Mac.
You know the sort of thing later done with phones and now on the new gopro hero 12 ,
which I was looking at the specs of last night, who the hell would want 5k3 video resolution at 60fps or 4k at 120fps.

[nospam]

In article <ude8vi$3b8pj$1...@dont-email.me>, David Taylor

<david-...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > WiFi at 2.4 and 5 and 6 GHz doesn't need much of an aperture in the
> > metal. Indeed, just unseen gaps around displays or such are likely
> > sufficient.
>
> That's true, but even phone makers don't get it right all the time!

which ones don't?

a phone that can't connect to cellular, wifi & bluetooth is not going
to sell particularly well, mostly because it won't work.

> I was also thinking of those who don't approve of any "plastic" in a camera....

not enough to matter, and it's only a small antenna aperture anyway,
not the entire body.

[geoff]

An all-metal screen wouldn't be much use either.

geoff

[nospam]

In article <N7qdnUYbtr8tBmb5...@giganews.com>, geoff

<ge...@nospamgeoffwood.org> wrote:

> >> I was also thinking of those who don't approve of any "plastic" in a
> >> camera....
> >
> > not enough to matter, and it's only a small antenna aperture anyway,
> > not the entire body.
>
> An all-metal screen wouldn't be much use either.

what all metal screen?

[geoff]

Exactly. Too quick to jump down a throat there rather than think about
what is being said regarding previous comments.

geoff

[-hh]

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:09:29 PM UTC-4, Magani wrote:
> On Monday, 4 September 2023 at 8:33:33 am UTC+10, Alfred Molon wrote:
> > Am 03.09.2023 um 10:37 schrieb RichA:
> > > In the story comments. Some were right-on, some dead wrong, some humble enough to say they didn't know.
> > >
> > > https://www.dpreview.com/news/8533710022/consumer-dslr-cameras-dead-in-5-years
> > DSLRs are indeed out (replaced by mirrorless cameras).
>

> My stalwart Canon 6D died on our last trip (power board and possibly main board).
> There's no way I'm replacing it with a DSLR.
> Santa has said I can look at a mirrorless R6 Mk II. :-)

Santa made the same approval here, for Labor Day thanks to an impending trip.
Deep learning curve vs my 7Dmk2 to work through.

-hh