Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

Let's just say this. The 5D MKII sits at home when I'm on my motorcycle. When I would travel it would take up nearly an entire bag and when you're going on weekend trips, there's not a lot of room for clothes and whatever else you need. The OM-D with two lenses fits easily into a swingarm bag and takes up negligible space.

Took a trip to the Agawa Canyon in September with two bodies (G1 & E-M5), four lenses & five spare batteries in as small bag that fit in my carry-on bag. My wife had a GF1 so I had a spare battery for her.

µ4/3 is a sweet compact system & can produce excellent images.
 
Entry level DSLRs have a HUGE advantage of a wide variety of high quality glass they can be used with. An aspiring new photographer does not invest in a camera, he/she invests into an access to the wide range of top quality lenses (usually Nikon/Canon) that allow them to make steps into a creative photography. So entry level DSLR is just that - the Entry. Mirrorless so far is pretty dull, one buys a camera and then what? The glass is not that inspiring. It is still point and shot with auto mode used 90% of the time. I remember having Olympus 5060 - a fixed lense camera with all bells and whistles - it had more direct buttons than any entry/mid DSLR , all the modes of an SLR camera etc. But you would never use all that because in reality it would make little difference - formally you have all controls you need but in reality due to the weak glass/sensor the camera does not give you this creative freedom that even an entry level DSLR does. It is like a 1,0 L Supermini with the sixth gear and a Sport mode. You have the control to switch it into the 6th gear, but it will not drive as a sports car. Funny thins is - many cheap entry level DSLRs with great glass will. So to me on surface a mirrorles is a competitor to entry DSLRs, but in reality it is a completely different camera and market. It may well change in the future, but as of now to me it is a very nice photo toy capable of very nice pictures.
 
Last edited:
So to me on surface a mirrorles is a competitor to entry DSLRs, but in reality it is a completely different camera and market. It may well change in the future, but as of now to me it is a very nice photo toy capable of very nice pictures.

Many of the comments have been based around the idea that a photographer needs/wants total capacity to do everything and with essentially the highest resolution he/she can get. That totally ignores that there are some significant downsides to having this capability. The lenses are grotesquely expensive and heavy, as are the bodies and most of that immense flexibility is wasted most of the time. I have three friends, pro photographers all, that have switched from high end dslrs to using either mirrorless Fuji or micro 4/3 as the way they saw their needs going.
One shoots all his assignments from races to weddings on a G3 (?).

I'm considering that exact change myself, just now evaluating which system I want.
 
Nikon's entry-level d-slr cameras now have 24-megapixel sensors...higher MP count than any d-slr in the entire Canon range. The new upper-end of Nikon's entry-level range, the Nikon D7100, has a 24 MP sensor, and AMAZING high-ISO performance. In short, much of what we formerly knew about "entry-level" d-slr bodies has been shifted within the past six months...it is now possible to buy a very small,lightweight Nikon entry-level d-slr that has a 24 MP sensor and a very capable AF system. Somehow, I think entry-level d-slrs from Nikon just became less-dead-in-the-water. Even the LOWEST-cost Nikon d-slr, the D3200, has a 24 megapixel sensor. That alone makes an entry-level body a MUCH more-capable camera for say, high-resolution backpacking/trekking landscape shots where total weight and size of the body is an important factor. Nikon's ultra-performance new 18-35mm AF-S zoom, and their ultra-performance 28mm f/1.8 AF-S and their astounding-performance 85mm f/1.8 AF-S lenses have really,really,raised the bar lens-wise. Small,light,affordable, and extremely high-performance, newly-designed lenses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have adapters for Nikon F-Mount, Nikon S-Mount, Contax RF Mount, Leica M-Mount, Leica 39mm mount, Konica Mount, Kodak Retina/Voigtlander Deckel Mount, and Canon FD/FL mount for my u43 camera, and over 200 lenses that I can use on it. I gave away the C-Mount adapter with a 12.5mm F1.4, 25mm F1.4, and 30mm F1.9.

The big draw of mirrorless cameras is the ability to use lenses from almost any system with it. You can use lenses from "dead mounts" like Konica, Minolta MC/MD and Canon FL/FD with it.

Entry level DSLR's certainly are not dead in the water. Mirrorless cameras have a lot of attention from "enthusiasts" that like to use legacy glass.
 
i think that SLR's will be around for a long time to come, entry level and high end. but i can definitely see mirrorless cameras slowly starting to gain more attention and market share. especially once canon and nikon start to make a push
 
Canon has cottoned onto the "I want a smaller DSLR type camera" and provided it with this rebel. It's an interesting move, but iffy as I'm not quite sure of its target market. Maybe beginner level kids/younger audiences for whom the bigger DSLRs are more difficult to use? (don't forget large numbers of kids start "Photography" at school and often "need a DSLR" for the class).
 
My understanding is that women, as a group, tend to prefer smaller and lighter cameras over larger and heavier. My experience in camera sales confirms this. I had many female customers lament the weight of a number of cameras that men never complained about. Part of it I think is that many women are planning on carrying the camera in their purse--along with 8-10 lbs. of other junk! Women often have much smaller hands than men, and of course, a down-sized camera will be a better fit for them than something large, like say a Nikon D4, or the Mamiya RZ-67. Back in the day, Olympus had good success with the OM-1 35mm SLR, which was MUCH smaller than contemporary SLR's ,which were, admittedly quite bulky. After the success Olympus demonstrated, Nikon and Pentax rushed to build lines of smaller, lighter cameras, and had good luck with them. So, I think Canon's on solid ground with this down-sized d-slr.
 
Ahh I'd forgotten about that aspect; certainly you raise a very good point indeed (esp with regard to handbags).
 
Modern DSLRs are absurdly huge and heavy, and as far as I can tell it's because the marketing department has told engineering that people associate higher-end gear with bigger and heavier.
 
Modern DSLRs are absurdly huge and heavy, and as far as I can tell it's because the marketing department has told engineering that people associate higher-end gear with bigger and heavier.

Getting a little cynical aren't we? Perhaps it is the computing power, and all the switches and sensors. JD
 
I normally miss the boat on trends - I recently bought a D5100.
 
So here...

we have a discussion regarding the DSLRs being killed off by mirrorless.

Way over there in the mu-43 forum...

we have a discussion regarding MFT being killed off by Full frame


interesting what people are concerned about.
 
Oh and yes... I agree with Derrel.. Not just women though.... people who want good cameras BUT have to balance it with higher priorities (kids!!!!) Its the same observations I have had in my time behind the counter. Tamron sold a load of super zooms specifically to that market.

Discussions on photo forums along trends and rumors tend to

* ignore market segments.
* forget that each segment has their own needs and each manufacturer has specific products to target them
* assume enthusiasts group is the largest segment.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top