# 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

Derrel said:


> 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

curveshooter said:


> 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

curveshooter said:


> 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.



jrizal said:


> 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.



fjrabon said:


> 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.



TheFantasticG said:


> 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.



panblue said:


> 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

curveshooter said:


> 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

Overread said:


> 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.


----------



## panblue

Derrel said:


> 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

curveshooter said:


> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

BrianV said:
			
		

> >>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

Derrel said:


> 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

TheFantasticG said:


> 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


----------



## Village Idiot

Balinus said:


> 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!).



Sorry, but the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras. And for $1000-$1500, you can get a camera that can do 1080p at 30, 25, and, 24fps as well as 720 at 60fps for smooth slow motion. There's also a host of other benefits. I think the biggest thing that could be held agains them is the shallow DoF, but that's why a lot of people use them.


----------



## Balinus

Village Idiot said:


> Sorry, but the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras. And for $1000-$1500, you can get a camera that can do 1080p at 30, 25, and, 24fps as well as 720 at 60fps for smooth slow motion. There's also a host of other benefits. I think the biggest thing that could be held agains them is the shallow DoF, but that's why a lot of people use them.



Well, I've seen a lot of videos made with DSLR (Canon and Nikon) that made the vertical lines (i.e. building, trees, etc..) _oblique_ when panning. Did they fixed that problem? I thought at the time that it was a major problem, especially when filming kids, you need to pan like 100% of the clip you do.

In terms of specifications, the Sony can make 1080p60. Just looked at the T4i and it seems to only do 1080p30 and 1080p24.

So, clearly, even if they fixed the oblique vertical lines, they doesn't have the ability to shoot in 1080p60, which is a good indicator of video quality.

While doing my research, I've also stumbled upon reviewers that was saying that AF during videos was not so great with a DSLR. Is there improvements there?

Finally, the hacking possibility of the GH2 seems higher than any other models. Some people can shoot a stable 88Mbit, which is quite high. Though, I haven't hacked it, I'm too coward!


----------



## jake337

They will as soon as 35mm sized sensors are standard in them at an affordable price point.


----------



## jimmyjamjar10101

I don't really go much on mirrorless due to them being lens heavy and lacking grips.  I handled one when deciding on cameras in the shop and unlike the dslr, I thought I was going to drop the mirrorless.


----------



## brunerww

Village Idiot said:


> ...the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras...



Respectfully, this has not been my experience. I have shot video with both Canon T2i and T4i DSLRs - as well as the Panasonic GH2 DSLM - and I got rid of the Canons when I saw what the GH2 could do.

Here is the Canon 60D side-by-side with the GH2, note the horrible moire on the shingled roof from the Canon: [video=vimeo;20565849]https://vimeo.com/20565849[/video]

See this post over at indieforum to see a few examples of what the GH2 can do: IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum - View Single Post - *** Shot by a GH1 or GH2

In my view, the choice is clear for video shooters:

- for higher resolution, silent autofocusing lenses and reduced moire, buy a GH2 or the new GH3.

- for lower resolution, moire, lenses with loud autofocus motors and a great brand reputation, buy a Canon T4i

And, as far as lack of grip goes, the GH3 takes care of that, in a package that is still less bulky and lighter than a DSLR 


Best,

Bill


----------



## CP1

This is a funny thread. Mirrorless cameras are for a completely different market than DSLR's, even entry ones. With a MILC, companies are trying to get that point and shoot crowd pushed more into enthusiasts that doesn't want a bulky system (even though some of the lenses are pretty big). The DSLR market has a huge range of accessories, high end lenses, and are really meant for people much more into technical aspects of photography. Entry DSLR's are meant to get someone's feet wet, and to start thinking of lens investments as they progress into better bodies/FF bodies. At the moment, MILC's will still be for the point & shoot crowd/ enthusiasts until their accessory & lens lines start to grow (watch Sony, they lead the market). I don't think anyone considering a MILC over a DSLR is thinking about lenses, if they were, they I don't think they would consider the MILC...yet. Oh, and RX-1 is pretty cool, nice to see that finally come up in the market. These are my opinions, I'm not trying to troll anyone here


----------



## TheFantasticG

CP1 said:


> I don't think anyone considering a MILC over a DSLR is thinking about lenses, if they were, they I don't think they would consider the MILC...yet.



Then you would be surprised. I'm on half a dozen or so forums and some have switched completely over to a MILC system, i.e. sold off all their DSLR gear.


----------



## Balinus

There's not a lot of lenses, but the ones that are there seems good. I badly want the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4.

But, I'm still not totally convinced. My biggest constraint is my need to do HD videos with the camera, and the videos posted by brunerww is a clear indication that Canon is not there yet. Though, maybe it would have been sufficient for my need. Who knows, I haven't bought one.


----------



## sashbar

These two types of photo cameras aim ( at least for now)  at two rather different groups of customers - MILCs are for those who want to get better quality images and DSLRs are for those who want to make better photopraphs.


----------



## usayit

Oh really?

Please back up your claim.  

I argue that the opposite is can be true.  I say the DSLRs still edge out the MILC in image quality (and performance) but their compact size and packaging enable the everyday user to make better photographs.  What's the first lesson many of us learn on honing our photographic eye?  "Never leave home without a camera."

I for one have been a photographer since I was a kid when image quality didn't matter one iota.  I just wanted to experiment making photographs.  Semi-professional - done that.  Invested with high end everything Canon - done that.  Darkroom - done that.  Like many, I also struggled with the idea of balancing my love for photography with a (non-photographic) career and a growing family.  Large systems just DON'T fit.  My son's bruised forehead is proof of that and was the final straw.  I went through a short stint when the camera stayed home.  The micro 4/3's system specifically was a refreshing change... a balance between form and function.

In the end, I believe the equipment choices we make have little to nothing to say about the photographer behind it.  IN the almost 10 years I've been active on the TPF, I've seen wonderful photographers with lowly P&S and lowly photographs made with high end DSLRs.  Its simply a general statement rooted in little foundation.


----------



## Village Idiot

Balinus said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras. And for $1000-$1500, you can get a camera that can do 1080p at 30, 25, and, 24fps as well as 720 at 60fps for smooth slow motion. There's also a host of other benefits. I think the biggest thing that could be held agains them is the shallow DoF, but that's why a lot of people use them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I've seen a lot of videos made with DSLR (Canon and Nikon) that made the vertical lines (i.e. building, trees, etc..) _oblique_ when panning. Did they fixed that problem? I thought at the time that it was a major problem, especially when filming kids, you need to pan like 100% of the clip you do.
> 
> In terms of specifications, the Sony can make 1080p60. Just looked at the T4i and it seems to only do 1080p30 and 1080p24.
> 
> So, clearly, even if they fixed the oblique vertical lines, they doesn't have the ability to shoot in 1080p60, which is a good indicator of video quality.
> 
> While doing my research, I've also stumbled upon reviewers that was saying that AF during videos was not so great with a DSLR. Is there improvements there?
> 
> Finally, the hacking possibility of the GH2 seems higher than any other models. Some people can shoot a stable 88Mbit, which is quite high. Though, I haven't hacked it, I'm too coward!
Click to expand...


The jello effect also happens on M43 cameras, it's just less apparent.



brunerww said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Respectfully, this has not been my experience. I have shot video with both Canon T2i and T4i DSLRs - as well as the Panasonic GH2 DSLM - and I got rid of the Canons when I saw what the GH2 could do.
> 
> Here is the Canon 60D side-by-side with the GH2, note the horrible moire on the shingled roof from the Canon: [video=vimeo;20565849]https://vimeo.com/20565849[/video]
> 
> See this post over at indieforum to see a few examples of what the GH2 can do: IndieTalk - Indie Film Forum - View Single Post - *** Shot by a GH1 or GH2
> 
> In my view, the choice is clear for video shooters:
> 
> *- for higher resolution, silent autofocusing lenses and reduced moire, buy a GH2 or the new GH3.
> 
> - for lower resolution, moire, lenses with loud autofocus motors and a great brand reputation, buy a Canon T4i*
> 
> And, as far as lack of grip goes, the GH3 takes care of that, in a package that is still less bulky and lighter than a DSLR
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Bill
Click to expand...


I don't get that. Not all M43 cameras shoot at 1080p where all Canons do. You also have a wider range of formats to shoot on Canon DSLRs.


----------



## Balinus

Village Idiot said:


> The jello effect also happens on M43 cameras, it's just less apparent.



Well, then I guess that "entry level Canons outshines the m34 format cameras" is not totally true then?  

i.e. : 





Village Idiot said:


> ...the video quality on even the entry level Canons outshines the m43 format cameras...



Or that would be saying that despites high ISO performances of the m43 format that are lower than their DSLR conterparts, that still, m43 formats outshines the DSLR in still photography?



Village Idiot said:


> I don't get that. Not all M43 cameras shoot at 1080p where all Canons do. You also have a wider range of formats to shoot on Canon DSLRs.



I haven't seen any Canons doing 1080p60. Unless I'm mistaken?


----------



## simpsonshoots

I think the question is that can lenses ever be sufficiently reduced in size that the quality traditionally associated with DSLRs is possible to achieve on Compacts? The Sony NEX-5 is a nice piece of kit, but compared to a budget bridge with a kit lens, like the Nikon 3200, I'm not sure if optically it competes.


----------



## sashbar

usayit said:


> Oh really?
> 
> Please back up your claim.
> 
> I argue that the opposite is can be true.



It depends on what do you mean by a good photograph and by a good image quality.  A good photorgaph to me  (almost always)  implies a good image quality. Whereas good image quality does not nessessary mean a good photograph*. I am not saying that MILCs have a better image quality than DSLRs. 
What I am saying is there are two customer's mindsets - one group wants their photos to be sharper, more colourful, more detailed and generally more beautiful than what they get with their cheap compacts. MILCs have a good trick up their sleeve - " Look, it is small and user friendly, just like your compact, well - almost. But it has all the options just like a DSLR !"
 But the truth is - these options will remain exactly as it is - just options, buried deep in their menus. Most MILC users will use Auto mode most of the time.  Wheeas DSLR buyers strive for a better photograhpy rather than just a better image quality. And that, of course means going beyond Auto. I hope it is clear. I can even go as afr as to suggest that a typical MILC user will never devote as much time, energy, additional funds etc into his photography as an average DSLR user will do.  I would say today's MILC is "smart casual".  It is a smart choice for a casual photography.   

*There are of course some famous great photographs with a poor image quality, but this is a completely  different story.


----------



## rexbobcat

simpsonshoots said:
			
		

> I think the question is that can lenses ever be sufficiently reduced in size that the quality traditionally associated with DSLRs is possible to achieve on Compacts? The Sony NEX-5 is a nice piece of kit, but compared to a budget bridge with a kit lens, like the Nikon 3200, I'm not sure if optically it competes.


The NEX has a DSLR sensor in it...


----------



## usayit

sashbar said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?
> 
> Please back up your claim.
> 
> I argue that the opposite is can be true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It depends on what do you mean by a good photograph and by a good image quality.  A good photorgaph to me  (almost always)  implies a good image quality. Whereas good image quality does not nessessary mean a good photograph*. I am not saying that MILCs have a better image quality than DSLRs.
> What I am saying is there are two customer's mindsets - one group wants their photos to be sharper, more colourful, more detailed and generally more beautiful than what they get with their cheap compacts. MILCs have a good trick up their sleeve - " Look, it is small and user friendly, just like your compact, well - almost. But it has all the options just like a DSLR !"
> But the truth is - these options will remain exactly as it is - just options, buried deep in their menus. Most MILC users will use Auto mode most of the time.  Wheeas DSLR buyers strive for a better photograhpy rather than just a better image quality. And that, of course means going beyond Auto. I hope it is clear. I can even go as afr as to suggest that a typical MILC user will never devote as much time, energy, additional funds etc into his photography as an average DSLR user will do.  I would say today's MILC is "smart casual".  It is a smart choice for a casual photography.
> 
> *There are of course some famous great photographs with a poor image quality, but this is a completely  different story.
Click to expand...


Whole lotta nothin in that post... complete drivel.



> DSLR buyers strive for a better photograhpy rather than just a better image quality.



Load of generalized B.S.  I see A LOT of DSLR owners who barely switch past Auto AND Auto doesn't necessarily mean less of a photographer.   There are a lot of DSLR users here that pixel peep and spend countless threads discussing pure image quality and couldn't point out an effective photograph if their life dependent on it.  

I ask to back up your claim... and the truth is you can't because there is no correlation... between a photographer's intent, experience, and the equipment they shoot with.   Look at history... there has never been a correlation.  There was a time that 135 format was largely laughed at as a "toy" format and only a serious photographer would use MF or LF.  Sounds familiar to the drivel you are attempting to press.


----------



## IByte

.....What's a MILC, Is it the stuff I pour, mix in with my whey shake every morning?  Someone help.....where is Em!!! Mishy!! Hello?


----------



## usayit

Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Camera

Personally.. I'm not big on that terminology.


----------



## pab

In the past 8 days I have had literally 4 friends and family members buy 2  D3200's and 2 D5100's.     I think at the current price points consumers tend to spend just a few more dollars to get seemingly a much better camera based on specs.    

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BrianV

The original question was "are entry-level DSLR's dead in the water". The D600 kit camera+lens just dropped below $2K, for a 24MPixel full-frame camera. That will push DX and comparable DSLR's down in price, across the board. A good entry point DSLR with zoom lens is under $450 these days. That is about the same as a NIB EPL-1 body from Cameta camera for $140, EVF-2, and 14~42 kit lens. Want a 45/1.8 in u43 format: more than a Nikon 85/1.8 for full-frame.

Two things need to happen for "MILC"s to compete: better resolution electronic viewfinders that compare with optical viewfinders, and more realistic pricing by the manufacturers at introducion of new products. The Olympus EVF-2 has been out for 3 years, and still seems to be highly regarded. Basically the same chip as in the OM-D, and the same that Leica uses for their new cameras. It's a decent finder, but no where near as good as an optical finder, SLR or RF.


----------



## LungFish

Entry-level DSLRs and MILCs offer different things to the consumer and can therefore co-exist. When the mirrorless format reaches maturity their market share will reach equilibrium. 

For now I believe the newness of the mirrorless market is one of it's drawcards, every manufacturer has it's own take and it's exciting to see what they come up with. Unfortunately I think this is temporary, eventually the less succesful companies will follow the popular ones and they will all be pretty similar. Just like DSLRs.


----------



## Steve5D

Based on what I saw at Best Buy last weekend, the entry level DSLR market is alive and well and thriving...


----------



## skieur

There are a lot of cell phone shooters out there who shoot more for Facebook type reasons than anything else and like the small size of their "cameras".   They are not likely to progress to a DSLR.   They are more likely to move to the smaller size of a high quality point and shoot with more features and a large telephoto range.

skieur


----------



## amolitor

When entry level DSLRs die off, what will we call the cheapest _available_ model of DSLR?


----------



## rexbobcat

amolitor said:
			
		

> When entry level DSLRs die off, what will we call the cheapest available model of DSLR?



Formerly-Professional DSLRs

Concise and not at all confusing.

I also don't get all of the Best Buy flack (well, maybe to some extent but...)

I mean, when I went try had all of the current models except the D4 and 1DX.

Don't judge people just because they "only" have a 5DII and MUST have the 5DIII in order to take macro pictures of garden flowers at two in the afternoon. True story lol


----------



## dprasad

I personally would not consider a mirrorless camera as a replacement for a entry level DSLR; since with a mirrorless I find that you do not get the feel as you would with a DSLR. I find that a mirrorless is a good camera for when you cant carry your DSLR around, or need something small and compact to use.

 I believe that models such as the Canon T3, Nikon D3000 will remain available.


----------



## BrianV

I'm guessing that most "Professional Grade DSLR's" are used by photographers that do not rely on it for their income and a lot of "Entry Level" DSLR's and mirrorless cameras are used for scientific and technical photography. I use a modified EP2 (Visible+Infrared) in the Lab and a Leica M9 for personal use. Both are defined here as "Mirrorless".


----------



## skieur

amolitor said:


> When entry level DSLRs die off, what will we call the cheapest _available_ model of DSLR?



Well, if companies move away from DSLRs there won't be any cheapest available DSLR to worry about.


skieur


----------



## kathyt

My second shooter has the Fujifilm X-Pro1 and always brings it along. It has such a lag time after you press the shutter button. The image quality is really nice though. I also like the auto WB. Everytime I grab it to take a shot I feel I am going to throw it over my shoulder because it is soooo light.


----------



## shents

curveshooter said:


> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> jrizal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> TheFantasticG said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, I've spent over $300 looking for the right ergonomic mouse based on quality and how it feels in my hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> panblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...



Hey I was going to buy the d3100 due to budget, but can now afford the d5100 so I have been racking my brain also.. its a mare! I hav also been looking at the sony a37.. A s a newb I guess you are always worried its the wrong choice, spesh as I dont have much knowledge on lenses..I will almost def get the d5100 i think, Do you guys think is a good cam just the size in hands is all that puts you off?.... I have vern troy hands it will be fine :lmao:


----------



## 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

skieur said:
			
		

> 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

skieur said:


> 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

skieur said:
			
		

> 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

Derrel said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

BrianV said:


> 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

skieur said:


> 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

BrianV said:


> 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....


----------



## Dao

I do not believe entry level dslr is killed by the mirrorless camera, at least not yet.  And I do believe it is made for that purpose.   I believe in the DSLR market, the lower end models make up most of the profit in Canon and Nikon in the DSLR segment.  Every  D4 or 1DX sold, there are maybe thousands of D3200, D3100, T3i or T4i sold.  Canon and Nikon pretty much dominant the entry level DSLR market.

Other manufacturers tried to compete with them, but just not even came close.  Sony was close, but still not enough to make a difference.  Companies like Samsung, Panasonic, Olympus, Fijifilm, Pentax do able to push their point and shoot cameras out of the door, but once they enter the DSLR market, it is a whole new different ballgame.

I really believe the mirrorless camera was create to allow them to complete in the entry level DSLR market.   You can tell by just look at who create this segment and who are the earlier adopters.   And the last one who join this market is Canon, who is the one sell the most entry level DSLR in the world as they do believe mirrorless cameras out there may affect their overall DSLR sales.

I remembered a year or 2 ago I received an email from Canon asked me to take a survey.  And most of the questions were around mirrorless camera.  I guess they want to know what Canon DSLR users think about the mirrorless camera and what we expected from a Canon made mirrorless camera.


The bottom line is, yet mirrorless camera is a tool to gain entry level DSLR market share, but I do not think it kills that market yet.


----------



## jake337

usayit said:


> 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.




Like I said, doubt that will happen till you can buy a full frame(35mm) sensor mirror-less camera for the same entry level price!


----------



## gsgary

BrianV said:


> 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!)



Damn you have also got a Nikon S rangefinder i nearly bought a user condition one a few months ago


----------



## BrianV

I worked in a camera shop to pay for the first half of college. I got a range of customers from one that wanted a Nikon with a Motor Drive like he saw in a movie, to a High-School student dropping his money saved for a car on a really nice setup. First question I asked was- what kind of pictures do you plan on taking.

I was ready to buy a Nex7, until reading a review of the electronic viewfinder. The reviewer preferred the Olympus EVF-2. I have that one. At $139 for the body, I added an EPL1 to the mirrorless lineup. I use it for the P&S grabshot camera, and to document my camera and lens projects. It replaces the Nikon E3 with 60/2.8 and SB-29. That is a big camera.


----------



## JDFlood

TheFantasticG said:
			
		

> 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



I'm with Skiuer on this. Many people don't like change. Some do, I do. I am always an early adopter, in most everything. I have had each new iPad version, mini, and cameras just get better, love my D800. I introduce new information technology as a profession. JD


----------



## skieur

gsgary said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
Click to expand...


Actually I am invested in futures, oil site equipment, Walgreen and Best Buy and doing well, thank you.  Irrespective of the company, in cameras, I prefer the Sony SLT to DSLRs and I use both.



skieur


----------



## argieramos

gsgary said:
			
		

> How are your Sony shares doing ? they must send you 10 free shares every time you post, Sony this Sony that



And how is Canon cameras IQ rates doing? Did they improve their sensor already?


----------



## gsgary

argieramos said:


> And how is Canon cameras IQ rates doing? Did they improve their sensor already?



Havnt shot digital for over 4 months 
Leica user now


----------



## gsgary

skieur said:


> Actually I am invested in futures, oil site equipment, Walgreen and Best Buy and doing well, thank you.  Irrespective of the company, in cameras, I prefer the Sony SLT to DSLRs and I use both.
> 
> skieur



I prefer Rangefinders now


----------



## rexbobcat

argieramos said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How are your Sony shares doing ? they must send you 10 free shares every time you post, Sony this Sony that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how is Canon cameras IQ rates doing? Did they improve their sensor already?
Click to expand...


http://25.media.tumblr.com/a86240b247fc8a3579fab663a61fec86/tumblr_mer6oyZqOm1rxf6yzo1_500.gif


----------



## sekhar

The problem with the mirrorless cameras is that they have an identity crisis, they want to do everything. With a pancake lens, they are terrific point and shoots - small/convenient and immediately appealing to folks who want quality with simplicity and don't mind spending for it.  But once you start adding the big long zooms, their killer advantage over DSLRs disappears. Look at a GH2 with a zoom - doesn't look much different from a DSLR, does it? If they have the same bulk, offer similar quality, etc. why would anyone (other than early adopters) choose them over a DSLR?


----------



## brunerww

Not quite the "same bulk" - especially with DSLR lenses. Interesting perspective on this from Marlene Hielema, a shooter in the process of switching to the GH3 who says she will likely sell her 5D Mark II:


----------



## usayit

sekhar said:


> The problem with the mirrorless cameras is that they have an identity crisis, they want to do everything.
> With a pancake lens, they are terrific point and shoots - small/convenient and immediately appealing to folks who want quality with simplicity and don't mind spending for it.



For some, what you describe isn't a problem but an advantage.



> But once you start adding the big long zooms, their killer advantage over DSLRs disappears. Look at a GH2 with a zoom - doesn't look much different from a DSLR, does it? If they have the same bulk, offer similar quality, etc. why would anyone (other than early adopters) choose them over a DSLR?



I can only speak for micro 4/3 but what you say is not true for that system.   Long zooms are significantly smaller than the equivalent in APS or full frame DSLRs.  

Look at the first picture in this link:

Review of Panasonic Lumix GX Vario 35-100mm f/2.8 Lens

The 70-200 f/2.8 (nikon and canon are similar in size/weight) compared to the equivalent Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8.   The 70-200 f2.8 dwarfs the panasonic in both size and weight.

In this link there is a picture comparing the size of the Canon 100-400L vs Panasonic 100-300mm.  

Frontal Lobbings: July 2011

Again, the 100-400mm is MUCH larger than both the Panasonic 45-200 and the 100-300mm.  The panasonic's equivalent FOV on the long end is 600mm AND its faster.

The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is even smaller than the Canon 50mm f/1.8.  My 12-35mm f/2.8 is about the size of a Canon 85mm f/1.8.  On and On and on.  The size/bulk is shrunk across the entire line of focal lengths.



It is important to note that I specifically mention micro 4/3 here because to generalize all mirrorless cameras together while discussing lenses is futile as they vary quite a bit from camera brand to brand... in part due to the fact that mirrorless cameras themselves have different form factors AND sensor sizes.   Also each mirrorless system is still in their infancy (micro 4/3 being the most mature) thus lens availability is also a factor.   The reason why I chose to compare to the Canon 70-200 and 100-400 is because I shot with both for years and know them very well.


----------



## sekhar

Guys, the point wasn't which one is x% smaller/lighter than the other. There is a big difference between point-and-shoots that you can put in your pocket and be cool at parties vs. stuff you carry around your neck looking like a dork. It makes no difference your fancy GH3 setup is only 70% a 5D2 one or whatever. The bottom line is that the two kinds of cameras serve different purposes, and my point was that mirrorless doesn't know which category it belongs to. If you pitch me a camera that shoots awesome pictures just like a DSLR, but is something I can put in my pocket, I (and a ton of others) would readily shell out a premium to get it. If on the other hand you give me something that is kind of like a DSLR, but is smaller/lighter, it's a much harder sell. There is no way you're going to put that GH3/zoom thingy in your pocket without a big bulge (though that might appeal to some, LOL!).


----------



## usayit

sekhar said:


> 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.


----------



## sekhar

usayit said:


> sekhar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...

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

usayit said:


> sekhar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

brunerww said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trigger

brunerww said:


> usayit said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....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.
Click to expand...


----------



## 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

sekhar said:


> 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.



sekhar said:


> 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

usayit said:


> sekhar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> sekhar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which that ^^ I repeat is inaccurate and I could care less if you are sold on mirrorless.
Click to expand...

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

JRG2501 said:


> 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

JRG2501 said:


> 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

Village Idiot said:


> JRG2501 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## skieur

cgipson1 said:


> 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.


----------



## Ron Evers

Village Idiot said:


> 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.


----------



## sashbar

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.


----------



## The_Traveler

sashbar said:


> 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.


----------



## Derrel

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.


----------



## BrianV

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.


----------



## bwestern

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


----------



## Derrel

Canon JUST introduced a brand-new, ultra-small, low-end d-slr a day and a half ago...the Canon EOS 100D.

Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1 Hands-on Preview: Digital Photography Review

This camera, also known as the Canon SL-1 (depending on the market in which it is sold), is billed as the smallest, lightest d-slr ever made.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/rebel-sl1.htm


----------



## Overread

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).


----------



## Derrel

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.


----------



## Overread

Ahh I'd forgotten about that aspect; certainly you raise a very good point indeed (esp with regard to handbags).


----------



## amolitor

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.


----------



## JDFlood

amolitor said:


> 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


----------



## jsf1sh

I normally miss the boat on trends - I recently bought a D5100.


----------



## usayit

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.


----------



## usayit

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.


----------

