d2b2 Loc: Catonsville, Maryland, USA

When they pry it from my cold, dead fingers!

Oly Guy

I cannot think of the term I like SLRs with prismatic viewers the best - cancel the optical phrase-

Bipod

Many rangefinder and a few SLRs also had "sports finders" (wire sights)
available as an optional accessory (in addition to the internal OVF).

Sports finders were the norm on press cameras and underwater cameras,
though some did have built-in OVFs as well. I have an old Minolta Duak35
water-resisstant camera with a sports finder accessory as part of the package.

In bright sunlight, a "sports finder" is much better than having to rely on a
LCD/LED screen on the back of a camera (which isn't usable without a dark cloth
or something similar).

Interestingly, sports finders are even available for some smart phones as aftermarket
accessories.

The point is that there are many kinds of viewfinder, suitable for different purposes.

Nikon understood this when it designed the F body. At least nine different
finders were available for the Nikon F2. I have the orginal: the "Photomic"
DP-1. But you can even get a waist-level finder (with no metering) for the F2.

The finder you love today you may hate tomorrow if you start doing a different kind
of photography. So the idea that everyone should use an EVF is just plain wrong.
Switching to EVF is good for them -- it's cheaper to manufacture.

Jim70 Loc: Delaware

I'm still waiting for a 300mm f2.8 lens to go on sale for $25!

Murray Loc: New Westminster

Nope!

Bipod

So how would you explain the more than 70% decline in global shipments of
digital still cameras between 2011 and 2017?

During this period, sales of smart phones grew substantially.
The trade press thinks the two facts are related, and I'm inclined to agree.

Camera manufactutres provide an upgrade path: from compact P&S to "bridge camera"
to high-end. But there is no upgrade path from an Apple iPhone to a digital camera.
Apple doesn't make cameras. And which digital camera will make phone calls?

Finally, there has been a change in the marketing of cameras from a focus on them as
cameras to a focus on them as "technology". From everything I've read about him,
Edward Weston didn't care a whit if his view camera had the very latest anything.
But digital cameras are now market more like personal computers.

The art world is very different: everybody understands that innovation in art isn't
about using the very latest paintbrush. And musicians are willing to pay a lot for
a 1956 or 1963 Stratocaster. And it's not just rarity: reissues of classic eletric guitars
are very popular.

Fender also makes Strats with active pickups--the latest electronics, offering reduced
hum, a better tone control and a volume control that doesn't change output impedence.
But most players prefer passive electronics--so Fender makes both.

I don't understand why photographers have bought into the techmology treadmill,
and are willing to accept a technology that is less capable (e.g., lower resolution)
just because it is more convenient.

If musicians cared only about convenience, then Casio would have put Steinway out of
business years ago, and Fender would now mostly be selling elecrtic ukeleles.
Fortunately, musicians care about how the music sounds. An instrument with a lot of
electronics is just as likely to sound bad as an acoustic instrument--perhaps more likely.

I suppose it's because people expect art and music to be difficult, but camera manufactuers
(beginning with Eastman Kodak) told the public that photography was easy and convenient.
(To it's credit, Kodak's photography books were much more realistic than its advertising slogans.)

"You press the button; we do the rest" -- when are people going to stop beleiving that?

The smart phone camera is just the next level. "You don't even need a camera to take pictures--
just use your phone!"

Someday people are going start looking at photographs again, and they are going to wake
up suddenly with a bad hangover. It was a great party, Apple and Samsung made a lot of money,
but now look at all the trash that's left behind! We've gone for 30 years with very few good prints,
and very few images that are going to survive.

Most of the digital images that have ever been taken have already been deleted or lost. But photographs
were stuck into albums and cherished for generations.

To steal a phrase from Marshall McLuhan: In the future, photographs will last for 15 minutes.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Well, I bought mine 8.5 years ago. I've no need to "upgrade" yet. I've had G.A.S yes, but it passed.
People keep buying the "latest and greatest" phones. Those phones have cameras.
Maybe they are not "serious" enough? Maybe they would never have purchased a DSLR anyway? Poll people who have phones, ask them if they would have purchased a DSLR. Probably not. In the film days not everyone had an SLR, but they had "Instamatics"... Which are now in the phone. (And actually better than Instamatics.)

As for photos in albums, albums are now on the computer or phone. That's where my albums are located. Why print and store a dozen (or more) albums? People can carry albums with them in their phone or tablet. I've copied a dozen or two images to my phone.

"So how would you explain the more than 70% decline in global shipments of
digital still cameras between 2011 and 2017?"
Possibly approaching market saturation???

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Technology, which I am enjoying, did not "force" me to buy a digital after all of the (6-8) film cameras I had. They still work. And, BTW, the Nikon Df is how many years old now? I still don't see the price dropping off a cliff. Ditto many of the other FF DSLRs. The only concern long term I would have is that digital cameras (like newer autos) has so much electronics built in that their lifespan won't be a long as a well maintained film camera ... or a non turbocharged engine with ECUs all over the car.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Interesting in another post in today's forum issue, the topic is finding batteries for old film cameras and a Luna Pro light meter. I rest my earlier point - electronics are the choke point, not well made mechanical devices.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

You are spot on! Our current camera systems will service us quite nicely for many years to come. We should just enjoy it!

There are two types of people in the world, particularly as it pertains to technological advances. Those who fight change ... and those who embrace change.

I have been in hi tech for 50 years, so I fall into the latter camp. But I also realize many fall into the former camp. Who’s right??

The beauty is, both camps are right, because we make it work for us. Happy shooting!

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

[quote=Fredrick]You are spot on! Our current camera systems will service us quite nicely for many years to come. We should just enjoy it!

There are two types of people in the world, particularly as it pertains to technological advances. Those who fight change ... and those who embrace change.

Smack my knuckles if you like for wandering off topic a little, but being a bit of a gearhead, I see many changes, in particular in automobiles, that are NOT beneficial, but just added to conform to ill considered gov't rules promulgated by college communications majors who do not understand the technology of their rules nor the unintended consequences. So yes, sometimes I fight change.

User ID

NONE of that yada yada yada answers the question.
And acoarst YOU can never answer it. ONLY a person
who owned an "SLR without an optical viewer" could
EVER answer the question. We're dealing in unicorn
poop here, dontcha know ? "SLR without an optical
viewer". Hen's teeth. Got that ? OK. Cool.

EDIT ! EDIT ! STOP THE PRESSES !

Just deciphered an obtuse cryptic clarification [great
oxymoron there] From OlyGuy, the owner of the "SLR
without optical viewer". My Rosetta stone hints that it
might refer to early model SLRs lacking a pentaprism,
having only a folding hood on the focus screen.

siamesecatmanuk Loc: Leicestershire UK

Wow ! I started something when I wrote this post ! I shall carry on using my coolpix p 7000 and Nikon d7100 till I ether die or can't get out to photograph any more.
Graham

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Robert1 Loc: Davie, FL

I recently wrote this in another forum, and i think this is one of the reasons why of the decline in cameras sales.

"my 20 years old daughter is into photography. she knows I can give her any camera she wants with the lenses she wants (she already have an entry level Pentax SLR/lenses. for Xmas what did she asked for? a GoPro 7 with all the accessories (she got it). my other daughter's wish? the best cell phone for pictures, and she also can have any camera she wishes. None, and I mean NONE of their friends have a camera of any type. When I ask why, invariably they all say the same thing: they don't like the bulk of cameras; and more importantly, they need to share right away; which they can't do with cameras as easily as a cell phone, if that is possible at all."