Why can't a dslr have the same amount of functions as a P&S or Bridge Camera (Page 5): Why not? A camera is capable to do filming without adding much hardware cost to manufacture and...

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

SteveR wrote:

The newer Nikon's are getting around the mirror problem by having the mirror remain up during the burst. It probably aids, too, in the number of fps that a camera can achieve.

As far as the number of functions on a DSLR, I remember posts questioning why cameras had to have the capability to film, when the photographers had no interest in doing so.

Why not? A camera is capable to do filming without adding much hardware cost to manufacture and just a one time firmware development cost. It will be a good selling point to both worlds.
If a dslr has all the fancy functions/mode, the result should be better than those of P&S.
Just like your smart phone, even though its primary purpose is phone, but all those add-on features have made life easier and happier.
I think it soon to or already happen(s)

Bill_de Loc: US

They can fit a lot more into the software in a dslr. But who wants the added menu items that will need to be included?

--

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

Rongnongno wrote:

Now I am thinking of going back to St Louis damn it.

-------------------

HEY! Bring IT ON, Dude ;-)

I will be OOT in RMNP in Colorado of the last week of this month, and First week of September.

(OOT= Out of Town.)

=0=

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

Bill_de wrote:

They can fit a lot more into the software in a dslr. But who wants the added menu items that will need to be included?

--

They can fit a lot more into the software in a dslr, why not?
If you don't intend to use those fancy functions, you won't need those pages.
It would take you less than 15 minutes to become familiar to set the basic functions on any new cameras.
When you are used to the new camera, then you might want to explore the added on functions and check which one would make your photographing easier.

imp by mike Loc: Minnesota/Wisconsin/North Carolina

Are you after the “ultimate” do-all Camera? Wait ‘til next year .... it will be coming out. (Of course this means you’ll never buy a camera, because you’re still waiting.)
On the other hand, I’ve own(ed) many cameras. I started with a Kodak Instamatic. One of my best shots was of the Punch Bowl Memorial with a Kodak Pocket Camera (110 film from the ‘70’s). Color (deep blue sky), clarity, it’s all there. Today, I use a NIKON D700, a PENTAX WG II, a PANASONIC DMC-FZ40, as well as an iPhone 6-plus. Is there a point? Give a great camera to a poor photographer & you’ll get junk. Give a cheap camera to a great photographer & you’ll get masterpieces. In other words, it’s in our ability to make the most of our tools. Each tool has its specialties & limitations. Learn them & work with them. Example: my PENTAX has a built-in ring light. Great for coping documents, etc by hand. My NIKON though, is not waterproof. So when it started raining at The Biltmore, I had to shield it & photograph the Chihuly exhibit with my iPhone.
Time, practice, a lot of shooting, a lot of experimenting, & a lot of reading is what is needed. The main thing is to ENJOY what you’re doing and shoot, shoot, SHOOT!
Cheers!
Mike

ELNikkor

I've considered getting a Sony Experia phone because of the 960fps slomo..., why don't typical DSLRs have slomo?

SteveR Loc: Michigan

tenny52 wrote:

Why not? A camera is capable to do filming without adding much hardware cost to manufacture and just a one time firmware development cost. It will be a good selling point to both worlds.
If a dslr has all the fancy functions/mode, the result should be better than those of P&S.
Just like your smart phone, even though its primary purpose is phone, but all those add-on features have made life easier and happier.
I think it soon to or already happen(s)

I understand that. The point that I was making is that many photographers prefer simplicity. I think that post was ably made by others as well. My most enjoyable camera? My ftb.

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

SteveR wrote:

I understand that. The point that I was making is that many photographers prefer simplicity. I think that post was ably made by others as well. My most enjoyable camera? My ftb.

I understand many prefer simplicity and many complexity.
If one shoot only manual mode and focus, can he buy such functions only camera?
If a manufacture custom make such camera, that would cost a lot more and no better than those with other add-on modes/functions.
The point I want to make why not the manufactures throw in as many functions(which only requires firmware cost) to satisfy a more variety of customers.
A dslr with similar functions and features of a modern P&S should produce better results respectively. Then why not?

Harry0 Loc: Gardena, Cal

[quote=Manufacturers could add all sorts of features at almost no cost by modifying the firmware. They can even add features by means of updates to the firmware. So why don't they? Profit. Even though it would cost nothing to tweak the firmware of the cheapest camera in the line, they save features for more expensive cameras. The prices are higher, so you get more features, and the company makes more money..[/quote]
I don't remember exactly where and when- but it hit me enough each time to remember.
There (at diff times) a Nikon and three Canon honcho interviews. (and IBM in the '80s) And they talked about "price points". It may even cost a buck or two to remove a feature, but they needed their customers to recognize a hierarchy in their products.
This is how Sony suddenly got *real* popular, and why Fuji X's have a cultish following. Sony and Fuji just leap frogged the competition with better cameras. Fuji supports their older cameras with ups, extras and firmware upgrades; and are not designed with legacy baggage. They *dp* cost more, tho.
And why Nikon "df" cameras are still worth @ 2x more than they should.
Tiny little warm fuzzy features may mean a lot to a corp's focus group's idea of consumer bragging rights. Given the same lens, is there really a big quality difference betwixt the same photo from a D3300, a D5300, or a D7300? My D7100 was almost magical- but not much more than my D80.
I'd *love* to have a firmware editing program and just remove half the crapola. Sepia- really?

Bill_de Loc: US

tenny52 wrote:

I understand many prefer simplicity and many compl... (show quote)

Their market research might tell them that all the frills you want are not in demand by the majority of high end dslr camera users ... today.
Or, they are holding back to give people who do want them a little push into mirrorless. It could be they are depending on that to give mirrorless a kick start while dslr advocates hold out until they are satisfied that the bugs are out. It might have been part of a long term strategy.

In other words, what will do the most to ring the cash register. A for profit corporation, by its charter, is first and foremost in it for the money.

---

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

Harry0 wrote:

I don't remember exactly where and when- but it hi... (show quote)

It would be a good selling point if the manufacturers allow their users to customize and download their up-to-date firmware.
There are enough competing manufacturers out there trying to gain favors of the majority both simplicity and complexity. Then you will hear someone says" I choose to switch to this brand because they are always trying to update the firmware and allow free downloads; so my gear will not be left as orphans".
Being generous to its users will increase their popularity.
Remember how big Kodak once was?
Then why not?

tenny52 Loc: San Francisco

tenny52 wrote:

It would be a good selling point if the manufactur... (show quote)

If not the smartphone manufacturers were so aggressive in improving their photo technology...one day they will surpass dslr with adoptive lens and bigger sensors.
Remember the Kodak demise.
Big Dslr manufacturers beware, your loyal buyers are dying, literally speaking.

BebuLamar

tenny52 wrote:

If not the smartphone manufacturers were so aggressive in improving their photo technology...one day they will surpass dslr with adoptive lens and bigger sensors.
Remember the Kodak demise.
Big Dslr manufacturers beware, your loyal buyers are dying, literally speaking.

I wouldn't worry about any of that. I bought my DSLR and won't be buying another for a long time. I am not an upgrader.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

BebuLamar wrote:

I wouldn't worry about any of that. I bought my DSLR and won't be buying another for a long time. I am not an upgrader.

I agree with you. Once you’ve acquired good enough equipment that it’s no longer the limiting factor in your art, then further advances have to come from improvements in your execution. I’m perfectly happy with my DSLR and mirrorless walk-around bodies, and while I could use another couple of lenses for the mirrorless, I’m content to work on my skills, as I am now the limiting factor.

fishone0 Loc: Kingman AZ

DSLRs are made for Pros and the other is made for consumers --I have FF DSLRS and love my consumer camera --I think it is so much more fun --so as for being a pro snob I love my consumer camera I have a lot of fun with it and my DSLR stays home now