Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

[curveshooter]

I don't see how entry level DSLR's will survive given the proliferation of MILCs. I bought a Nikon D3100 this summer as my first step up from point-n-shoots. At the time, I didn't even realize MILC's existed - perhaps due to a weak marketing push in a US ILC market and US consumer mindset thoroughly dominated by Canikon. I received a trade offer on the Nikon that I couldn't refuse (non-photography related), and figured I'd step up to the D5100. But this time I stumbled upon MILCs - not due to marketing or store presence, but because I was at a party and someone was using a MILC. And it was a no-brainer to ditch the mirror, bulk and weight.

I can't imagine there are many consumers that fall into the entry level DSLR target demographic for whom a MILC wouldn't be more appealing. Thoughts?

 

[jrizal]

As of the moment, there are not much lenses available for MILCs which give DSLRs advantage. For some the lack of a viewfinder is a deal breaker and there are not much options for lighting. Lastly, prices of MILCs are more expensive than entry level DSLRs and are comparable to mid-range DSLRs. I was considering the Sony NEX-5 but couldn't afford it. This simply means that entry DSLRs are still alive and kicking.

 

[Derrel]

The single BIGGEST problem that I see with the EVIL ands MILC types of cameras are the serious,serious ergonomic and menu-diving issues that their manufacturers seem blind to. Every time I read a review, or go to actually examine a new MILC camera, I am warned off or scared off by serious ergonomic problems, or just simply abysmally POOR controls. Like the new little Nikons, for example....zOMG...was the design team all high? The newer Sony cameras...WTF??? I dunno...the majority of the MILC cameras I have seen are too "fiddly" for my tastes. Too menu-based as far as controls and parameter adjustments go.

I see more simplicity in the Canon Rebels and the low-end Nikons like the D3100 and D5100. Ergonomically, the slab-sided, slippery bodies of say, the new small Nikon mirrorless models make them kind of unappealing to me, and then when I READ thorough, extensive reviews of them (the Nikon's specifically, but also the Sony and Panasonic and Oly offerings) I encounter all these negatives and caveats and workarounds and complaints. As a former salesman, I know first hand that MANY consumers value simplicity and directness of control over complexity and menu-diving. SO far, the MILC cameras seem to be designed more by committee and less "by shooters".

Simply put: the 35mm-style, autofocus, compact SLR type camera has been refined over many,many years and many models. MILC cameras are still finding their way, design wise, and there seems to be a LOT of bad design, making its way into final, production models. Not sure how that happens. Until the MILC offerings get much better, I see very little chance that the entry level d-slr type cameras are "dead in the water".

 

[curveshooter]

Simply put: the 35mm-style, autofocus, compact SLR type camera has been refined over many,many years and many models. MILC cameras are still finding their way, design wise, and there seems to be a LOT of bad design, making its way into final, production models. Not sure how that happens. Until the MILC offerings get much better, I see very little chance that the entry level d-slr type cameras are "dead in the water".

The Canon and Nikon entries seem very half-hearted. Sort of "Well, I guess we should offer some kind of MILC, but let's not help validate the category by joining M4/3, and let's not make our MILC offerings desirable enough to cannibalize our entry level DSLRs".

 

[fjrabon]

The problem seems to be that MILCs are aimed at being a 'nice point and shoot' and thus, mostly geared towards being shot on full auto. This, in turn means that buttons are eschewed over a 'simple looking' layout with few physical buttons. The problem being that for experienced shooters who need control, physical buttons are actually simpler than menus.

 

[TheFantasticG]

The Canon and Nikon entries seem very half-hearted. Sort of "Well, I guess we should offer some kind of MILC, but let's not help validate the category by joining M4/3, and let's not make our MILC offerings desirable enough to cannibalize our entry level DSLRs".

They have every right to do as they please and not eat into their DSLR sales. They make more money off of the DSLR market (at least I assume this given the MSRP of lenses and bodies). As soon as the AF on the EOS-M comes around it'll be a hot seller. As soon as the external controls come around on the Nikon V line (and the V2 is definitely a move in the right direction), it'll be a hot seller. I don't see these two as being major money makers in the US market (given that I don't study market trends and what I see is not backed by any education on the subject and completely subjective). Japan and Europe? Sure. The D5100 is almost too small for my hands, as Derrel accurately points out, if the ergonomics aren't there I'm not going to purchase it. Hell, I've spent over $300 looking for the right ergonomic mouse based on quality and how it feels in my hand.

 

[panblue]

I bought a Nikon D3100 this summer as my first step up from point-n-shoots. At the time, I didn't even realize MILC's existed

I was at a party and someone was using a MILC. And it was a no-brainer to ditch the mirror, bulk and weight.

I can't imagine there are many consumers that fall into the entry level DSLR target demographic for whom a MILC wouldn't be more appealing. Thoughts?

Not to be unkind but the realisation that to choose a mirrorless body over the heft of (some) SLR is a no-brainer belies some inexperience/lack of awareness. There can be some benefits to a heavy/steady camera and mirrors/optical finders over EVF.

 

[panblue]

I don't believe DSLR cameras to be dead in the water. They represent something that novices aspire to use/own/master. Maybe in a few years/decade it will be different but not yet.

 

[curveshooter]

Thanks for the responses. A lot of the objections to the suggestion that MILCs are going to decimate the market for entry level DSLRs come from the perspective of experienced photographers - a group that I would submit is NOT the target demographic for entry level DLSRs.

As of the moment, there are not much lenses available for MILCs which give DSLRs advantage. For some the lack of a viewfinder is a deal breaker and there are not much options for lighting. Lastly, prices of MILCs are more expensive than entry level DSLRs and are comparable to mid-range DSLRs. I was considerd the Sony NEX-5 but couldn't afford. This simply means that entry DSLRs are still alive and kicking.

I agree with you on price. Hopefully that will change as competition increases and sales volumes grow and costs can be defrayed over larger numbers of units.

Not sure the lack of an optical viewfinder, or any viewfinder at all, is such a dealbreaker for many prospective entry level DSLR buyers. You've got a generation of people who grew up on point-n-shoot digicams.

The problem seems to be that MILCs are aimed at being a 'nice point and shoot' and thus, mostly geared towards being shot on full auto. This, in turn means that buttons are eschewed over a 'simple looking' layout with few physical buttons. The problem being that for experienced shooters who need control, physical buttons are actually simpler than menus.

Derrel made much the same point, but the benefit of dials and buttons is most obvious to experienced shooters, not newbies. Again, we've got a generation of people who are used to digicams, for whom lots of dials and buttons may not be a priority when they are considering their first ILC.

Hell, I've spent over $300 looking for the right ergonomic mouse based on quality and how it feels in my hand.

We're talking about entry level DSLRs. The average consumer looking to step up from digicams to their first ILC is probably not obsessing about ergonomics.

Not to be unkind but the realisation that to choose a mirrorless body over the heft of (some) SLR is a no-brainer belies some inexperience/lack of awareness. There can be some benefits to a heavy/steady camera and mirrors/optical finders over EVF.

No offense taken, I love a good discussion. Your point about the benefit of a heavier camera is a good one, but again, this is coming from the perspective of an experienced shooter, not someone who is contemplating stepping up from point-n-shoots.

I'd love to hear from people who are buying or have recently bought an entry level DSLR (Nikon D3100, 3200, and whatever Canon's equivalent is) with full awareness of the MILC offerings prior to their purchase. Why did you opt for a DSLR - did you really want fast autofocus of moving objects, or very shallow DOF?

As I said earlier, when I bought the D3100, I had no idea there was an entire genre between digicams and DSLRs, and I'll bet MANY entry level DSLR buyers in the US in 2012 are likewise unaware. But as that changes, I think the market for MILCs will benefit at the expense of the market for entry level DSLRs.

 

[panblue]

I think the very short flange to sensor distance of cameras like the NEX has enabled a significant-sized userbase who adapt legacy lenses onto their mirrorless cameras. There seems IMO a real correlation between the emergence of cameras like the NEX and an increase in the amount of old/vintage lenses changing hands via ebay etc. My guess is those users/buyers of mirrorless are a mix of less-experienced but savvy amateurs as well as experienced amateurs recycling optics from what was, until then, obsolescent film camera systems, gathering dust.

Perhaps there are two generalised users of mirrorless, obviously with some deviation; the point-and-shoot crowd seeking better IQ and using only kit lenses; the informed enthusiast using a mirrorless in conjunction with a wide range of legacy lenses.

Of course, there are also adaptors for SLR-to-SLR, DSLR-DSLR, DSLR-to-SLR, etc.

 

[jrizal]

As I said earlier, when I bought the D3100, I had no idea there was an entire genre between digicams and DSLRs, and I'll bet MANY entry level DSLR buyers in the US in 2012 are likewise unaware. But as that changes, I think the market for MILCs will benefit at the expense of the market for entry level DSLRs.

MILCs have their own niche. It's basically a bridge camera for point-and-shooters who still don't want to go to DSLRs but want DSLR quality pictures. But it's still to early to tell. Most of the people I know who have MILCs don't use any other lens at all besides the kit lens. And I haven't seen many people using it compared to entry level DSLRs. But this is personal observation though. I am still using my D3100 and would want to graduate to the D7000 with better glass but would also like to have a Sony NEX-5 or an Olympus PEN as a backup or alternative camera. If only I had the money! Dream on!

 

[Overread]

I think that the Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are at the moment still trying to find their feet in the market as a whole - however it does seem that they also have a cross market appeal and, at these early stages some companies are appealing more toward some markets than others. I get the feeling that Canon and Nikon is aiming after the casual market far more than say Olympus who are clearly also aiming for the more advanced photographers (heck their OMD costs as much as a 7D!)
I suspect that with a bigger slice of the DSLR market than others Canon and Nikon are quite happy for the other companies to focus on the mirrorless market more strongly - or to at least spend more investment in establishing the identity of the market.

I agree that the mirrorless range has still got to establish its own identity and niches in the market, but that its also strong enough that its already carved out a section of the pie for itself that it won't be letting go of. It won't replace the DSLR just as it wont' replace the bridge camera or the pure point and shoot - but I think it will sit very comfortably between the two.

It's also a market that compliments well - a lot of the mirrorless owners I know also own a DSLR (often several) and what they wanted was a DSLR but much smaller for those times when its just for fun or when they don't want to be "that person with the camera". So its certainly a range which can sit alongside the DSLR.


Will it affect entry level DSLR purchases - yes of course it will. Some of them will be eaten away, however at present the DSLR still has several key advantages over the mirrorless and some of those advantages won't go away in time (such as the increased background blurring). Further don't underestimate the influence of decades of DSLR advertising and SLR advertising. To the average person, even though they are more common now, the SLR/DSLR line is still something many aspire to own.

 

[curveshooter]

Further don't underestimate the influence of decades of DSLR advertising and SLR advertising.

Very much agreed. I would speculate that Olympus, Panasonic and the other MILC manufacturers don't have the advertising budgets (for the camera divisions) that Canon and Nikon do, so market awareness and mindshare isn't there yet, and I would guess that Canon and Nikon won't heavily push the advertising for their MILC offerings - after all, why grow consumer awareness of a genre in which there are many competitors when you can continue to focus consumers on a genre in which you are one of two dominant competitors.

 

[Derrel]

Some EXCELLENT points have been brought up by numerous posters in this thread!!! Awesome discussion! Really!

 

[KmH]

Entry-level DSLR's, consumer grade DSLR lenses, and other DSLR accessories make the camera makers a lot of money, because they literally sell boatloads of them.

Camera makers sell far fewer prosumer grade DSLR's, and even fewer pro grade DSLR's.

Cell phone and mobile device cameras are hurting P&S camera sales.