Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

[sekhar]

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.

And you missed my point. I AM convinced to go mirrorless as a matter of fact, but for a different reason (see my previous response) and not replacing my DSLR but having both. The thread was asking if mirrorless will make entry level DSLRs obsolete, and my responses said they address different needs and hence will not. One guy here and a gal there getting convinced means squat.

 

[brunerww]

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.

Exactly.

One additional thought - there are a few of us who are getting older, have small statures, or are disabled, for whom carrying a FF (or even APS-C) DSLR plus lenses is a real challenge.

Higher-end DSLM cameras like the OM-D, GH2 and GH3 give us hope that we can continue with our hobby/craft/profession at somewhere close to the same level of excellence - while taking an unhealthy and often painful strain off our backs, necks and upper bodies.

Best,

Bill

 

[sekhar]

Exactly.

One additional thought - there are a few of us who are getting older, have small statures, or are disabled, for whom carrying a FF (or even APS-C) DSLR plus lenses is a real challenge.

Higher-end DSLM cameras like the OM-D, GH2 and GH3 give us hope that we can continue with our hobby/craft/profession at somewhere close to the same level of excellence - while taking an unhealthy and often painful strain off our backs, necks and upper bodies.

Best,

Bill

Do you think though that DSLRs will also not come down in size/weight enough? I do see though they may always remain bigger/heavier than mirrorless.

 

[Trigger]

....there are a few of us who are getting older, have small statures, or are disabled, for whom carrying a FF (or even APS-C) DSLR plus lenses is a real challenge.

That's one thing that I don't hear anybody mention is the fact that the bigger physically a person is, the less of an issue is the size & weight of a larger camera, and conversely, the smaller you are, the more of an issue that big heavy camera is going to be.

 

[bobmax]

I've just got a Nikon D3100 for my son (who wants to get into photography), and I must say it's very light compared to the film Olympus OM30 I had.Perhaps it's because most of it appears to be plastic.
I havent picked up a camera since my OM30 then I decided to get back into it (cough, cough) I now have a Panasonic G2 which is lovely and light. Not bad images either. I can carry it and the two lens' I have without any effort at all.
i'm so happy with it that I'm seriously thinking of getting the G5. gotta learn a bit more first though. :mrgreen:

But I would think Nikon & canon will do all they can to compete with the size issue somehow, don't you think?

 

[usayit]

my responses said they address different needs and hence will not.

How does ^^^ that mean this vvvvv??? It doesn't... or else you should explain yourself more clearly.

The problem with the mirrorless cameras is that they have an identity crisis, they want to do everything.
....

But once you start adding the big long zooms, their killer advantage over DSLRs disappears.

....

why would anyone (other than early adopters) choose them over a DSLR?

Which that ^^ I repeat is inaccurate and I could care less if you are sold on mirrorless.

 

[sekhar]

my responses said they address different needs and hence will not.

How does ^^^ that mean this vvvvv??? It doesn't... or else you should explain yourself more clearly.

If x addresses different needs than y, x won't replace y. Like a car addresses different needs than a bus, so cars won't replace buses.

The problem with the mirrorless cameras is that they have an identity crisis, they want to do everything.
....

But once you start adding the big long zooms, their killer advantage over DSLRs disappears.

....

why would anyone (other than early adopters) choose them over a DSLR?

Which that ^^ I repeat is inaccurate and I could care less if you are sold on mirrorless.

Got it. You aren't interested in convincing me to buy mirrorless, and you aren't interested that I am convinced.

Look, nobody (certainly not I) said you are wrong. This is not about right/wrong, we're having a discussion here. Obviously a lighter/smaller body is better to some (may be even many) people, and those people will lean toward mirrorless over DSLR. But lighter/smaller is down on the list for most people when picking a camera. E.g., I got a 6D and it is supposed to be the lightest full frame. Yet, if I come here and say 6D is better than a 5D3 mainly because its lighter/smaller and downplay other stuff, you guys will laugh at me.

Likewise, the killer advantage (in my view anyway) of mirrorless is with the ultra small pocketable ones that produce awesome quality comparable to that of DSLRs without the weight/size. But if you look at a mirrorless that is bigger like a DSLR, you will begin looking at other stuff like viewfinder, focusing, etc.

There was another thread where someone asked for suggestions on a sub $1K video camera, and brunerww made an excellent suggestion to go with GH2, and I heartily supported that because I've seen the fantastic footage that GH2 produces, even with its limitations of small sensor, and not because it's mirrorless. You probably don't care whether or not I supported, but my point is that we need to evaluate based on what the camera can deliver, not its technology.

 

[JRG2501]

DSLRs are anything but dead. Mirrorless systems are very cool but they are quite expensive and in terms of weight they don't offer that much of a benefit. Entry level DSLRs are useless when it comes to their tiny little viewfinders. I'm still used to the giant "window" the Nikon F3 in ifs glory days. Mirrorless cameras don't suffer those limitations yet whenever speed is of the essence they lose big time. Not only are they much slower when shooting in serial mode but it takes a sheer endless moment before the screen is back. DSLRs black out just as long as they need. Especially when working with a moving subject that, e.g. dogs, that is worth more than anything.

Entry level DSLRs are usually cheaper than a mirrorless camera but somehow they don't really cut the mustard. One wants a "better" camera costing at least as much as a mirrorless alternative. Still, a lot of people go for stuff like D3100's. They may not even be as good as previous models but still do a great job for very little money. A lot of time will pass before mirrorless cameras dominate the market completely.

 

[usayit]

Mirrorless cameras don't suffer those limitations yet whenever speed is of the essence they lose big time. Not only are they much slower when shooting in serial mode but it takes a sheer endless moment before the screen is back. DSLRs black out just as long as they need. Especially when working with a moving subject that, e.g. dogs, that is worth more than anything.

Not completely true at least with my OMD E-M5.

Olympus OM-D E-M5 Review: Digital Photography Review

No screen lengthy blackout here.
For STATIC object... its as fast as anything I've used (including Canon 1dMarkIIn)... extremely fast.
It does do 9fps with no problems either... and its adjustable for slower speeds (I tend to shoot at 7fps). As long as there's a card in there to keep up.

What I will say... is that yes... it falls flat on its face for tracking moving objects. Its not at all as effective at predictive AF as the Canon higher end bodies. I think its a matter of time before this limitation is resolved. No idea how.. perhaps on chip PDAF.. but I think they can do it with improvements to CDAF as well.

 

[jrizal]

Just my take.

DSLRs are still here and even the $2000 Nikon D600 is still considered entryl-level given that its price is way above a good number cannot afford. From that perspective, then entry level DSLRs will remain. But perhaps the question should be that can mirrorless cannibalize DSLRs market and that DSLRs will only be for a niche market in the future.

 

[Village Idiot]

Not only are they much slower when shooting in serial mode but it takes a sheer endless moment before the screen is back. DSLRs black out just as long as they need. Especially when working with a moving subject that, e.g. dogs, that is worth more than anything.

Can you please let my OM-D know that it needs to behave and not be capable of shooting faster FPS than my 5D MKII?

 

[cgipson1]

When we have no more beginners... we will have no more entry level DSLR's!

 

[usayit]

Not only are they much slower when shooting in serial mode but it takes a sheer endless moment before the screen is back. DSLRs black out just as long as they need. Especially when working with a moving subject that, e.g. dogs, that is worth more than anything.

Can you please let my OM-D know that it needs to behave and not be capable of shooting faster FPS than my 5D MKII?

You should also remind it that its an entry level camera....... no thoughts about being more capable.

 

[skieur]

When we have no more beginners... we will have no more entry level DSLR's!

With cell phone cameras, that won't be very long.

 

[Village Idiot]

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.