Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

[Dao]

I do not believe entry level dslr is killed by the mirrorless camera, at least not yet. And I do believe it is made for that purpose. I believe in the DSLR market, the lower end models make up most of the profit in Canon and Nikon in the DSLR segment. Every D4 or 1DX sold, there are maybe thousands of D3200, D3100, T3i or T4i sold. Canon and Nikon pretty much dominant the entry level DSLR market.

Other manufacturers tried to compete with them, but just not even came close. Sony was close, but still not enough to make a difference. Companies like Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, Fijifilm, Pentax do able to push their point and shoot cameras out of the door, but once they enter the DSLR market, it is a whole new different ballgame.

I really believe the mirrorless camera was create to allow them to complete in the entry level DSLR market. You can tell by just look at who create this segment and who are the earlier adopters. And the last one who join this market is Canon, who is the one sell the most entry level DSLR in the world as they do believe mirrorless cameras out there may affect their overall DSLR sales.

I remembered a year or 2 ago I received an email from Canon asked me to take a survey. And most of the questions were around mirrorless camera. I guess they want to know what Canon DSLR users think about the mirrorless camera and what we expected from a Canon made mirrorless camera.


The bottom line is, yet mirrorless camera is a tool to gain entry level DSLR market share, but I do not think it kills that market yet.

 

[jake337]

Yes.... mirrorless have a long way to go before they can adequately replace DSLRs.

BUT

That wasn't the topic of this thread.

THe question was along the lines of they can replace ENTRY level DSLRs.

Like I said, doubt that will happen till you can buy a full frame(35mm) sensor mirror-less camera for the same entry level price!

 

[gsgary]

Go to a shop and handle it. Mirrorless cameras are compact, but not that much smaller than entry level DSLR's.

An EP2 is about as big as my Nikon full-frame mirrorless camera.

And it's huge compared with my 35mm twin-lens reflex camera. (HUMOR!)

Damn you have also got a Nikon S rangefinder i nearly bought a user condition one a few months ago

 

[BrianV]

I worked in a camera shop to pay for the first half of college. I got a range of customers from one that wanted a Nikon with a Motor Drive like he saw in a movie, to a High-School student dropping his money saved for a car on a really nice setup. First question I asked was- what kind of pictures do you plan on taking.

I was ready to buy a Nex7, until reading a review of the electronic viewfinder. The reviewer preferred the Olympus EVF-2. I have that one. At $139 for the body, I added an EPL1 to the mirrorless lineup. I use it for the P&S grabshot camera, and to document my camera and lens projects. It replaces the Nikon E3 with 60/2.8 and SB-29. That is a big camera.

 

[JDFlood]

People don't like change. That is fact. Just because someone doesn't want to stop using a technology that is no longer widely used means nothing more than nothing. Everyone hates change, everyone. The only difference is the amount/level of disdain of change. Some barely discernible, some it stops them in their tracks. In this case, except the RX100 and M9 none of the MILCs can get that FF quality. Personally I wasn't interested in the MILCs at all. Now I'm looking forward to the V3 as, perhaps, my first MILC.

Managing the Fear of Change
http://management.about.com/cs/people/a/MngChng092302.htm

I'm with Skiuer on this. Many people don't like change. Some do, I do. I am always an early adopter, in most everything. I have had each new iPad version, mini, and cameras just get better, love my D800. I introduce new information technology as a profession. JD

 

[skieur]

Bottom line is that Sony will continue to improve their Alpha SLT cameras, and Canon and Nikon will continue to try and come up with a better mirrorless camera. It really does not matter which company wins, the DSLR concept camera will be the loser. It is just a matter of time.

skieur

How are your Sony shares doing ? they must send you 10 free shares every time you post, Sony this Sony that

Actually I am invested in futures, oil site equipment, Walgreen and Best Buy and doing well, thank you. Irrespective of the company, in cameras, I prefer the Sony SLT to DSLRs and I use both.



skieur

 

[argieramos]

How are your Sony shares doing ? they must send you 10 free shares every time you post, Sony this Sony that

And how is Canon cameras IQ rates doing? Did they improve their sensor already?

 

[gsgary]

And how is Canon cameras IQ rates doing? Did they improve their sensor already?

Havnt shot digital for over 4 months
Leica user now

 

[gsgary]

Actually I am invested in futures, oil site equipment, Walgreen and Best Buy and doing well, thank you. Irrespective of the company, in cameras, I prefer the Sony SLT to DSLRs and I use both.

skieur

I prefer Rangefinders now

 

[rexbobcat]

How are your Sony shares doing ? they must send you 10 free shares every time you post, Sony this Sony that

And how is Canon cameras IQ rates doing? Did they improve their sensor already?

http://25.media.tumblr.com/a86240b247fc8a3579fab663a61fec86/tumblr_mer6oyZqOm1rxf6yzo1_500.gif

 

[sekhar]

The problem with the mirrorless cameras is that they have an identity crisis, they want to do everything. With a pancake lens, they are terrific point and shoots - small/convenient and immediately appealing to folks who want quality with simplicity and don't mind spending for it. But once you start adding the big long zooms, their killer advantage over DSLRs disappears. Look at a GH2 with a zoom - doesn't look much different from a DSLR, does it? If they have the same bulk, offer similar quality, etc. why would anyone (other than early adopters) choose them over a DSLR?

 

[brunerww]

Not quite the "same bulk" - especially with DSLR lenses. Interesting perspective on this from Marlene Hielema, a shooter in the process of switching to the GH3 who says she will likely sell her 5D Mark II:

 

[usayit]

The problem with the mirrorless cameras is that they have an identity crisis, they want to do everything.
With a pancake lens, they are terrific point and shoots - small/convenient and immediately appealing to folks who want quality with simplicity and don't mind spending for it.

For some, what you describe isn't a problem but an advantage.

But once you start adding the big long zooms, their killer advantage over DSLRs disappears. Look at a GH2 with a zoom - doesn't look much different from a DSLR, does it? If they have the same bulk, offer similar quality, etc. why would anyone (other than early adopters) choose them over a DSLR?

I can only speak for micro 4/3 but what you say is not true for that system. Long zooms are significantly smaller than the equivalent in APS or full frame DSLRs.

Look at the first picture in this link:

Review of Panasonic Lumix GX Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 Lens

The 70-200 f/2.8 (nikon and canon are similar in size/weight) compared to the equivalent Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8. The 70-200 f2.8 dwarfs the panasonic in both size and weight.

In this link there is a picture comparing the size of the Canon 100-400L vs Panasonic 100-300mm.

Frontal Lobbings: July 2011

Again, the 100-400mm is MUCH larger than both the Panasonic 45-200 and the 100-300mm. The panasonic's equivalent FOV on the long end is 600mm AND its faster.

The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is even smaller than the Canon 50mm f/1.8. My 12-35mm f/2.8 is about the size of a Canon 85mm f/1.8. On and On and on. The size/bulk is shrunk across the entire line of focal lengths.



It is important to note that I specifically mention micro 4/3 here because to generalize all mirrorless cameras together while discussing lenses is futile as they vary quite a bit from camera brand to brand... in part due to the fact that mirrorless cameras themselves have different form factors AND sensor sizes. Also each mirrorless system is still in their infancy (micro 4/3 being the most mature) thus lens availability is also a factor. The reason why I chose to compare to the Canon 70-200 and 100-400 is because I shot with both for years and know them very well.

 

[sekhar]

Guys, the point wasn't which one is x% smaller/lighter than the other. There is a big difference between point-and-shoots that you can put in your pocket and be cool at parties vs. stuff you carry around your neck looking like a dork. It makes no difference your fancy GH3 setup is only 70% a 5D2 one or whatever. The bottom line is that the two kinds of cameras serve different purposes, and my point was that mirrorless doesn't know which category it belongs to. If you pitch me a camera that shoots awesome pictures just like a DSLR, but is something I can put in my pocket, I (and a ton of others) would readily shell out a premium to get it. If on the other hand you give me something that is kind of like a DSLR, but is smaller/lighter, it's a much harder sell. There is no way you're going to put that GH3/zoom thingy in your pocket without a big bulge (though that might appeal to some, LOL!).

 

[usayit]

Guys, the point wasn't which one is x% smaller/lighter than the other.

You missed our point....

We are not interested in convincing you to go mirrorless

We simply pointed out the inaccuracies of your response to thread.


The video link shows at least one photographer whose switch was driven by size and packaging... she isn't the only one.