I like to write two things: history and predicting the future. I’m pretty accurate on the former and usually entertain people when I try to do the latter. I started to write a history article about the most important, landscape-changing advances in the digital camera world. When I started researching it, I realized that in most cases the landmark introduction was, at the time, met with very mixed reviews: some people loved it, some hated it, some thought “this is amazing,” others thought “nobody’s going to buy that ‘piece of ___.‘” It was only a year or two later that we looked back and said “the ___ changed everything.”

So here are my own opinions of the biggest events in digital SLR history. Notice that many of these “photography changing” events weren’t initially greeted with universal praise. Most film photographers were dragged kicking and screaming into digital. The sub $1,000 digital SLR was hated by pros that saw their market eroding as soccer moms began to take their own high quality images. Many people with investments in crop-sensor specific lenses still don’t think full-frame cameras are an advantage.

When I was researching this piece, I realized we’re living through one of those “great advances in photography” moments right now (in my opinion), although a lot of people are still saying “nobody cares about that.” So I’ve given a sort of prospective This Changes Everything Award for 2009. I’m usually completely wrong with my predictions, but eventually I’ve got to get it right. Maybe this time.

The Biggest Introductions in Digital SLR History

• 1991 – Kodak introduces the 1 Megapixel DCS for $25,000
  Why? The first digital SLR, it proved the concept was possible and got the attention of other manufacturers.
  The initial response: None. Nobody noticed. Less than 1,000 were sold.

• 1994 – The Apple Computer Quick Take Camera
  Why? You could make a 640 X 480 blurry image with the brick-shaped (and sized) camera. But at $749 people could actually afford one, and some did.
  The initial response: mostly laughed at and considered a toy. (Full disclosure: I had one and it got me started in digital photography, so I may be hugely prejudiced here. At the time I thought it was the coolest thing I’d ever seen.)

• 1999/2000 – The Nikon D1 and Canon D30 SLRs
  Why? At 2.75 and 3.25 Megapixels, you could actually make reasonable prints, nearly as good as film at 5 X 7. For the first time, digital SLRs were practical and useable.
  The initial response: “Why would you spend that much when film is so much better?”

• 2003 – The Canon Digital Rebel (300D)
  Why? A 6 megapixel camera for under $1,000. For millions, their first SLR.
  The initial response: overwhelmingly positive, really.

• 2003 – The Canon 1Ds
  Why? At 11 megapixels it produced images arguably as good as film, perhaps better. Digital SLR became competitive with top-end film SLRs.
  The initial response: Generally positive except for legions of film shooters doing comparisons trying to show film resolved more detail and everyone who was rather shocked at the price.

• 2005 – The Canon 5D
  Why? The first affordable full-frame camera, when digital seemed headed for a 1.5 crop standard size.
  The initial response: Largely “not a professional camera” and discussions of its shortcomings, with a strong smattering of “full-frame isn’t needed anymore.”

• 2007 — Nikon D3
  Why? The first time a manufacturer did not increase megapixels, but rather increased ISO performance and dynamic range.
  The initial response: Generally positive except for some defensive comments from fanboys of other brands.

Honorable Mention:
Some really great technology that, while wonderful, doesn’t really change the landscape overall would include image stabilization (in body and lens), the Micro 4/3 format, and the digital rangefinder camera. Autofocus was pre-digital, so I don’t consider it eligible.

Our Response to Technology Leaps

In general, every technology leap is met with a group who are awed and thrilled. Another, often larger, group is defensive and derisive. Some of these latter just don’t see the point, others are really threatened that they are going to have to learn new techniques or buy expensive equipment to keep up. Blasting the new technology seems to help quiet their nerves. This is exactly what’s going on now with my nomination for technological leap of 2009 — which is one of the reasons I think I’m correct on this prediction.

The This Changes Everything Event of 2009

The Video enabled SLR
Nikon’s D90 was the first released, Canon’s 5D MkII’s 1080p video created the most impact, and the Micro 4/3 cameras brought the most video features (and possibly forced Canon to upgrade their feature set), so we’ll give this award to all the manufacturers. Well, except Sony. And, as I was reminded, they were available in late 2008—but they really only became readily available in 2009.

The initial response: Among photographers, largely “I’ll never use that, it’s useless” and “it’s raising camera prices for features I don’t want,” along with some scatterings of “that’s pretty cool” and “the video quality is awesome.”

So why do I think this is a digital-photography-changing event as important as affordable full-frame, the first film-quality digital SLR, or the sub $1,000 digital SLR? Read on, but remember that I’m not stating the following reasons are good or bad for photography. I’m just stating that things will be different, and these are some of the things I think will happen.

• Video SLRs (or at least HD video) will change the profession of imaging. It’s already well underway in the wedding and event photography fields. A lot of customers want to deal with one person or company for video and photo, and a growing number of imaging professionals are willing to give them that.

• Video SLRs will result in more interchangeable equipment. Videographers usually have more invested in accessories like monitors, audio equipment, etc. than they do in cameras and lenses. If a manufacturer wants to get them to change camera brands, they had better make a camera that takes those standardized accessories.

• Video SLRs mark the beginning of the end of Strobes. I’m actually going to write a full article on this next week. But video lighting, while currently a bit more expensive and less powerful than strobes, can generally be used for still photography. Strobes, however, are useless for video. Additionally, continuous lighting is simpler (no radio controls, sync cables, etc.) and has a very high “cool factor.” Anyone shooting much video is going to have to get continuous lights, and many will use those instead of strobes, not in addition to strobes.

• Video SLRs will bring new accessories. The classic tripod-and-ballhead isn’t very useful for shooting video. I expect we’ll see more compact fluid-heads introduced in the next few years, and the “fluid ballhead.” I think we’ll see a lot more LCD eyepiece products, since manual focus with LiveView is the way most videographers work. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see more high-quality electric viewfinders in SLR cameras, too. Not to mention more robust “video-out” connections, so an external LCD monitor can be used as an alternative to the viewfinder and LCD altogether.

And Some Things Won’t Change — Much

Fine art prints have always been and will always be. Portraits, baby pictures, wedding photographs will always be. Even less-than-fine-art (say, my work) will continue to be printed and hung on the wall. And they won’t be HD video pull-downs; they’ll still need the resolution and techniques of still photography.

When the dust all settles, there will still be us photographers, taking images, and constantly arguing about equipment and post processing. But things will be a little different.