Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

[panblue]

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".

Good points about the ergonomics and control. In fact you make a good control-subject to test the idea. Would Derrel switch from a F3>F4>D1x>D2x>D3, twenty-five year progression, in preference for a mirrorless camera (as a replacement for SLR as an amateur/pro use camera?). I wouldn't think so, due to sensor/DOF, AF system, ergo, form, control.

Overread and curveshooter IMO make excellent points about the placement and philosophy of Olympus, Panasonic, Canon and Nikon. Panasonic put the optical SLR on ice after the L1/L10. The L1 utilised a pellical mirror system which was poorly received, although not as bad as some internet reviewers were stating. C&N aren't going to undermine their middle/high-end DSLR product line which accounts for something like 60%+ of global market share. Sony perhaps are big enough, so gigantic that they could push mirrorless as hard as anyone else and still benefit even though their A system is a major line too. I agree that Olympus seem to have crafted a perception of offering a product which is 'classier', aimed at the adept user. A sort of discerning enthusiast that's neither shooting on a tight budget, nor either a Leica owner (although I know of Leica/Olympus owners as well as Olympus>Leica progressions in upgrading). Leica+Panasonic is an interesting partnership; Sony+Zeiss is a natural one. Samsung+Schneider? ..probably mutually a good thing although it's a shame that Schneider doesn't up their game; in terms of pedigree, they are premier league.

 

[TheFantasticG]

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.

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.
[/quote]

Lots of people choose their first, be it entry level or not, on ergonomics (a.k.a. how comfortable it is to hold).

 

[BrianV]

I've been using the EP2 with the EVF-2, use a full-spectrum EP2 for technical work, and recently picked up an EPL1 for $140 to replace a general P&S. Many users of legacy lenses left u43 for 1.5x crop cameras as soon as they became available. The best electronic viewfinder is still the Olympus EVF-2, which is 3 years old. Leica is using the same viewfinder for the new Leica M with liveview. Improvements to the electronic viewfinders are coming much slower than I would have expected.

Nikon's entry into mirrorless, with a 2.5x crop factor, makes it near useless for legacy lenses.

 

[TheFantasticG]

Unless we're talking macro... then those AF-D legacy lenses like the 200mm and 105mm micro glasses get some incredible reach on the V1/V2.

 

[Derrel]

>>SNIP>>Nikon's entry into mirrorless, with a 2.5x crop factor, makes it near useless for legacy lenses.

Well, yes, and no...as Thom Hogan has written, using something like the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 gives the user the equivalent reach of a 500mm f/2.8 lens on the long end of the zoom, and the 300mm f/4 becomes an equivalent to a 750mm f/4 prime lens...he has mentioned these types of upside aspects several times in relation to nature/bird photography, where long lenses are so,so useful. Considering that a 300mm f/4 AF-S can be had for $1,000 used, it makes a very small-sensor Nikon body an option for "some" uses. Especially for use in decent lighting conditions, where the ISO level can be kept reasonable.

 

[Overread]

I must admit that, myself, one major attracting feature of a mirrorless camera is not just the size but the angle of view possible. The ability to have a small 70-300mm style lens give me around 600mm equivalent reach is quite a major gain for someone who wants to be able to get the odd wildlife grabshot without carrying around a monster of a lens.

 

[BrianV]

The original Kodak DCS200 and DCS420 were 2.5x crop cameras. So basically, the Nikon V series gives me the crop factor that I was using 20 years ago. If you are interested in long-telephoto work, it's okay. But for normal lenses, short telephoto, and wide-angle- not so good.

I've used the 500mm reflex-Nikkor on the DCS200 and DCS420, does give a lot of reach. Better be a really good EVF to focus it.

 

[brunerww]

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

+1. This is really a first-class discussion. Much more civilized and thoughtful than similar discussions I have seen at dpreview and elsewhere since the introduction of DSLM cameras (that's what Panasonic is calling them now)

A couple of thoughts from the perspective of someone who bought their first SLR in 1974 and remembers the period before the "Japanese invasion", when US and European TLRs dominated high end amateur photography.

- the amount of time between new camera innovation and the replacement of old camera technology can be incredibly short (see the introduction of the revolutionary Nikon F SLR). It took about 10 years, but TLRs were gone by 1970.

- I bought my last SLR in 2004. Big mistake. I had to buy a DSLR by 2005, because film was getting hard to find and the writing was on the wall.

- I bought my last DSLR in 2010. I bought it because it was "video capable". Sadly, it wasn't really - as with all DSLRs, the optical viewfinder went blank when I tried to shoot video because the mirror locks up and away from the sensor - but right into the light path of the viewfinder. Doh! But I read somewhere that the new "mirrorless" cameras didn't have that problem - so I bought a "second generation" DSLM. Contrary to what's been said by some, it had the ergonomics of a DSLR, just as many knobs, dials and manual adjustments as my DSLR, and it weighed a lot less. For a geezer like me, that's important. But its autofocus speed and JPEG image quality did not quite measure up to the performance of my DSLRs.

- I just got a UPS tracking number for my second mirrorless camera - a "third generation" DSLM. This camera will autofocus as fast as a Nikon, and its still images can be blown up to poster size. It has the time-tested ergonomics of a DSLR, the lenses are lighter - and I don't have to carry around a vestigial mirror and reflex mechanism.

The first DSLMs hit the market about 3 years ago. Only now are they hitting their technical stride. If Panasonic, Olympus and the smaller players are able to stick with it, old TLRs and SLRs will be welcoming a lot of DSLRs to the attic in a few years ("You too? That's OK, pal - we didn't see it coming either." )

Cheers,

Bill

 

[TheFantasticG]

I don't like DSLM. MILC sounds better.

 

[curveshooter]

I don't like DSLM. MILC sounds better.

Agreed. Even m4/3 is better than DSLM.

 

[brunerww]

It"s not my idea, it's Panasonic

FWIW, I find it easier to answer the "what kind of camera is that, a DSLR?" question with, "it's a DSLM, just like a DSLR, only mirrorless."

People are generally satisfied with that - whereas "MILC" turns into an off-color joke and "micro 4/3" turns into a discussion of sensor size.

Best,

Bill

 

[TheFantasticG]

Nope. I'll keep calling them MILCs.

 

[Village Idiot]

I think most of us that embrace the mirrorless format are those that already have a good DSLR kit. I have seen people sell their whole kit and take up exclusively using the M43 system, but it's not something that's a common occurence. The lens selection is good and getting better, there are a ton of legacy lenses that can be adapted, and anything that has a hotshoe has nearly limitless potential for lighting; It's just that the form factor and ergonomics aren't there for someone who needs precision and control. Not to mention, an OM-D and E-P3 cost $1k, or nearly $1k new without a lens. You can get new entry level DSLRs for $500.

However, there are those of us that want DSLR or near DSLR quality without the bulk and the weight. I took my E-P3 and two lenses on vacation to the beach this year and had a blast. It's so much easier carrying those up and down the boardwalk and around the car show grounds rather than a FF DSLR with grip, 4 lenses, flash, triggers, and other miscellaneous junk.

 

[Balinus]

Total newbie to photography, so take my opinion with a grain of salt. Though, I bought a GH2 with a 14-140mm lens last year and here's the arguments that sold me to the m4/3 format.

I have 2 kids so I need to be able to do 2 things quite fast : photos and videos. From my readings, videos doesn't seems adequate with DSLR, at least in the price range of about 1000 to 1500$. Of course, I also need to be able to produce good photos. I know that's a compromise, but these mirrorless cameras are the only choice of someone that needs to do both.

So, unless DSLR becomes adequate at producing good videos, I'll be forced to stick with the mirroless systems.

Now, in terms of the quality of the photos, we were disappointed by the JPEG rendering of the GH2. We switched to RAW and with some minor post-processing we are quite pleased and we are now considering buying an (expensive!) Panasonic 25mm f/1.4 lens to adjust for the fact that in low lighting, the GH2 is not the performer (and also for the fact that my kids are moving quickly!).

 

[brunerww]

Good post, Balinus. Pretty much the same reason these two pro shooters are switching to the Panasonic GH3 DSLM from Nikon DSLRs:



On the GH2's JPEGs - I agree. Part of the reason I'm upgrading from the GH2 to the GH3 is to get better JPEG rendering and better low light perfromance. That said, I've been able to get pretty good JPEGs out of the GH2 by fixing the auto white balance and using a circular polarizer to fix the GH2's tendency to blow out the sky. Like these:







Best of the holidays,

Bill