Are entry level DSLR's dead in the water?

[BrianV]

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!)

 

[Animonster]

I think we'll find again and again that these companies will continue to find ways to bring in revenue from various sources... It's probably more profitable to keep starter DSLR's alive will also trying to sell the more expensive MILC's as high end consumer digital cameras rather than hobbyist type DSLR's.

Dunno, we'll see. But I so much prefer my 60D to these new Sony's and what not

 

[skieur]

Camera manufacturers are great copycats. Minolta was the first to integrate light meters into cameras, and then all camera makers followed suit. Sony was the first camera maker to put a live view (point and shoot type) screen on a DSLR, and pretty soon all camera makers did the same.

Sony developed a interchangeable lens camera without a flipping mirror and no surprise, all camera makers started to produce their own version of a mirrorless camera.

Now, it is a matter of market and profit. If the market for DSLRs begin purchasing mirrorless cameras instead, then DSLRs will become LESS profitable to produce and become more expensive to buy and then the shift will begin. (Perhaps it has already.)

There will be some who think that DSLRs will live forever. Probably the same people that are still holding on to beta VCRs, Kodachrome film, manual rangefinder film cameras, black and white film enlargers, reel to reel audio tapes, 8 track cassettes, and 3 megapixel digital cameras because the pixels are larger.

Some photographers like to be on the forefront of change in order to take advantage of it. Others need to be dragged kicking and screaming into changing their equipment or methods.

skieur

 

[TheFantasticG]

There will be some who think that DSLRs will live forever. Probably the same people that are still holding on to beta VCRs, Kodachrome film, manual rangefinder film cameras, black and white film enlargers, reel to reel audio tapes, 8 track cassettes, and 3 megapixel digital cameras because the pixels are larger.

Some photographers like to be on the forefront of change in order to take advantage of it. Others need to be dragged kicking and screaming into changing their equipment or methods.

skieur

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

 

[BrianV]

Camera manufacturers are great copycats. Minolta was the first to integrate light meters into cameras, and then all camera makers followed suit. Sony was the first camera maker to put a live view (point and shoot type) screen on a DSLR, and pretty soon all camera makers did the same.

Sony developed a interchangeable lens camera without a flipping mirror and no surprise, all camera makers started to produce their own version of a mirrorless camera.
-snip-

skieur

My 1937 Contax III has a working meter in it, has interchangeable lenses, and does not have a flipping mirror in it. The F1.5 lens on it is quite good.

On a recent vacation to Williamsburg VA over Thanksgiving, I saw as many people using a mirrorless interchargeable-lens camera as using a Leica M9. I saw almost as many DSLR's as those using fixed-lens point and shoots. The Mirrorless camera makers have a long way to go.

 

[Derrel]

Sony developed a interchangeable lens camera without a flipping mirror and no surprise, all camera makers started to produce their own version of a mirrorless camera.

SNIP>>>

skieur

Ummmmm, CANON developed, and sold the Cannon Pellix, a 35mm interchangeable lens single lens reflex with a non-flipping, stationary, semi-transparent "pellicle" mirror back in the late 1960's. It was a poor seller, and the idea was a virtual dead-end. Sony's development of the Alpha-series d-slr cameras with a stationary mirror was a response to the stone-cold sales of their early Alpha-series models, which could not take market share away from either Canon or Nikon d-slr models...so...SONY decided to try and re-invent their offerings...and the non-flipping mirror concept was dug out of the dumpster.

Your statement seems to read as if SONY developed the pellicle mirror idea and that "all other camera makers" offered products trying to capitalize on SONY's engineering brilliance....but that is not what has happened...the mirrorless,interchangeable lens cameras that Nikon has premiered for example are much smaller and more-compact that the SONY Alpha SLR models; Olympus has the new OM "fake-SLR" model which is mirrorless; Canon now has a mirrorless camera; there is absolutely NO leadership being demonstrated by SONY in this field...nobody at all seems to be "leading" the mirrorless experiments. The entire product category is a mess.

Nikon's recent $600 price cut from $899 to $299 on the "new" Nikon V-1 with the 10-30mm zoom lens kit??? Oh-My-Gawd....what a horrible,horrible,horrible blunder that has been for Nikon!!! A camera that is barely a year old, now discounted so,so steeply that people are asking, "What the heck is wrong with this thing!?!?!?" Yeah...mirrorless...everybody following SONY? NO...not at ALL...the entire MILC category is a veritable free-for-all, as each company tries desperately to create a new market using new ideas and concepts.

Will the MILC category/concept be as massive a bust as the APS-C film fiasco was? it is doing well in Japan, but elsewhere...not so much.

 

[skieur]

Sony developed a interchangeable lens camera without a flipping mirror and no surprise, all camera makers started to produce their own version of a mirrorless camera.

SNIP>>>

skieur

Ummmmm, CANON developed, and sold the Cannon Pellix, a 35mm interchangeable lens single lens reflex with a non-flipping, stationary, semi-transparent "pellicle" mirror back in the late 1960's. It was a poor seller, and the idea was a virtual dead-end. Sony's development of the Alpha-series d-slr cameras with a stationary mirror was a response to the stone-cold sales of their early Alpha-series models, which could not take market share away from either Canon or Nikon d-slr models...so...SONY decided to try and re-invent their offerings...and the non-flipping mirror concept was dug out of the dumpster.

Somewhat misleading in that the Canon Pellix was not digital, did not have an OLED viewfinder, was not high resolution etc. etc. Trying to compare apples with oranges, eh Derrel?

Your statement seems to read as if SONY developed the pellicle mirror idea and that "all other camera makers" offered products trying to capitalize on SONY's engineering brilliance....but that is not what has happened...the mirrorless,interchangeable lens cameras that Nikon has premiered for example are much smaller and more-compact that the SONY Alpha SLR models; Olympus has the new OM "fake-SLR" model which is mirrorless; Canon now has a mirrorless camera; there is absolutely NO leadership being demonstrated by SONY in this field...nobody at all seems to be "leading" the mirrorless experiments. The entire product category is a mess.

Since I am sure that Sony is NOT violating any Canon "innovations", trademarks, rights etc., it therefore means that the Sony non-flipping mirror approach is ORIGINAL, new, and innovative. Nevertheless, whether Sony was providing leadership or not is somewhat irrelevant in the sense that my point is that EVERY other camera maker in their OWN manner went in the same direction as in TOWARD a mirrorless camera despite their own visions of the nature of a "mirrorless camera".

Nikon's recent $600 price cut from $899 to $299 on the "new" Nikon V-1 with the 10-30mm zoom lens kit??? Oh-My-Gawd....what a horrible,horrible,horrible blunder that has been for Nikon!!! A camera that is barely a year old, now discounted so,so steeply that people are asking, "What the heck is wrong with this thing!?!?!?" Yeah...mirrorless...everybody following SONY? NO...not at ALL...the entire MILC category is a veritable free-for-all, as each company tries desperately to create a new market using new ideas and concepts.

Nikon definitely made a mess of it with the V-1, which may explain why Sony is catching up to Nikon in marketshare in some countries in Europe.

Will the MILC category/concept be as massive a bust as the APS-C film fiasco was? it is doing well in Japan, but elsewhere...not so much.

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

 

[BrianV]

The Canon EOS-RT with Pellicle mirror came out in the 1980s, I had a friend that used it with 1000mm lenses for wild-life photography.

 

[skieur]

The Canon EOS-RT with Pellicle mirror came out in the 1980s, I had a friend that used it with 1000mm lenses for wild-life photography.

Yes, but as I stated it was a film camera without any of the viewfinder characteristics of the Sony SLT.

 

[BrianV]

Mirrorless cameras have a very long way to go. Improvements to the sensor have been reasonable over the last three years, improvements to the viewfinder are stagnant. The sensor in the EP2 is a "dated relic" in terms of dynamic range compared to new offerings. The EVF-2 is still one of the best viewfinders available. It is no where near good enough to replace a DSLR or viewfinder camera. Until a mirrorless camera can be held up to eyelevel and give the same quality image as using a single-lens reflex, DSLR's will be around for a long time. Until sensors with global shutters can be developed with the same dynamic range as an entry-level DSLR, there is no advantage in terms of time-lag for taking the picture after pressing the button. Sensors for u43 with global shutters exist now, but sacrifice 10dB of dynamic range using that mode compared with using the same sensor with a mechanical shutter. There is no advantage in image quality between a mirrorless camera and a DSLR. The advantage for them is the ability to use legacy lenses, which is why they are popular among a certain segment of the market. The other advantage is using a live-view camera for Infrared work, viewing a portion of the spectrum that your eye cannot see. Scientific/technical work: I use it for that.

I picked up an EPL1, new-in-box for $139 put the 17/2.8 on it- use it at home. My other "Digital interchangeable-lens, mirrorless cameras" cost a good bit more.

 

[Trigger]

Interesting:

Best Camera of 2012: And the Winner is...: Digital Photography Review


It's merely the results of a poll, but interesting (as are the subsequent comments).

 

[usayit]

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.

 

[BrianV]

Could it? when the viewfinders catch up, and the manufacturers get realistic about prices at introduction. Will they?- not for a while.

Eye-level viewing with an entry-level DSLR is better than the best eye-level viewfinder of current mirrorless cameras.

What the entry-level DSLR really has going for it: lots of people see professionals use the top-of-the-line cameras. They know there is an upgrade path. Lots of Nikkormats sold because pro's used the Nikon F. 40 years later, lots of Nikon and Canon entry level DSLR's sell because of pro use of Nikon and Canon.

 

[gsgary]

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

 

[usayit]

Could it? when the viewfinders catch up, and the manufacturers get realistic about prices at introduction. Will they?- not for a while.

Eye-level viewing with an entry-level DSLR is better than the best eye-level viewfinder of current mirrorless cameras.

At the sales counter, the typical consumer walking into the door buying an entry level DSLR has no clue what a good viewfinder is. As a former photo retail guy, I am positive I can layout on the table things that are important to that consumer which favor the mirrorless cameras. More information and feedback IN the viewfinder, eye-level video, size, face-recognition, etc.etc.etc.. Comparison of a DSLR optical to an EVF makes the DSLR viewfinder look "dated" and spartan.

Now if you came at me and said that the typical consumer (US really) buying entry level cameras is still driven by the notion of "bigger is better" and what ever they see on TV, I would be totally in agreement. But once a shift in that notion is made (as it has in other markets), it will only be a matter of time.

Really.... The reason for my previous response, is that many of the points brought up in this thread are from the viewpoint of someone who is "involved" in photography. When discussing "entry" level products in photography, you have to consider that the majority of the consumers are coming from a different viewpoint....