Nikon D3200 is likely to be the real market threat

[Aglet]

24MP, cheap, well-featured and judging by the samples posted by imaging-resource, the IQ is pretty good too. Base ISO quite clean to 400, 800 and 1600 usable, even 3200 (& up) can be utilized in a pinch for small prints or with aggressive noise reduction. No red pattern noise showing up in the shadows at those usable ISO levels either, a problem that plagues many of Canon's contemporary EOS products.

Anyone else think that the D3200 is could me more of a motivator for Canon to make improvements than the limited threat of the D800/e?

 

[psolberg]

both companies push each other to be better. The D800 is a direct response to the 5D's popular formula and judging by the reactions and glowing reviews, it is a major hit. Heck I switched because of it

However the low end market works differently. people buying a low end camera are rarely informed enough to really choose beyond just comparing best buy display sheets. The few that are, don't really represent a big enough crowd to make a difference.

The reality is that I see no reason why anybody would pick any specific brand for an entry level body. Canon, Nikon, Sony or whatever. When I'm asked I always tell them to get the brand they can afford.

Want to know what the REAL rebel killer is? Mirrorless. It is only going to keep eating the bottom of entry level dslrs the way smart phones ate away basic point and shoots.

it is inevitable.

 

[TrumpetPower!]

No APS format camera will ever be a competitor with a 135 format camera, just as no 135 format camera will ever be a competitor with a medium format camera.

Unless, of course, you compare models several generations apart or the like. Then you might maybe find the lines starting to slightly blur if you squint hard enough, perhaps.

I'm sure the D3200 is a wonderful camera. It's just not in the same class as the D800 and the 5DIII, and it's ludicrous to pretend it is.

Sorry.

b&

 

[pdirestajr]

I have an alternate perspective.

Mirror less cameras are not the demise of entry level DSLRs, they are the evolution of Point-and-shoot cameras.

Point-and-shoots needed to advance to offer a point of difference from the camera people already have built into their current smart phone. To convince people they NEED to buy another camera, they had to introduce DSLR-like features into their market. Let's get serious, "mirrorless" cameras aren't a new category- they are just point-and-shoots with interchangeable lenses. And the majority of consumers who buy them and entry level DSLRs never even take the kit lens off!

The only chance for mirror less cameras to erode the DSLR market is for pros to start using them. People buy affordable DSLRs to feel like they have a "pro quality" camera. Most will never bother to learn what an aperture is, nor have any idea how big their sensor is. They basically have expensive point-and-shoots.

I live in Brooklyn, NY. Over the weekend I was at Brooklyn Bridge park with my family- the place was flooded with tourists from around the world. People had cameras around their neck every place I looked. 9 out of 10 of those cameras were Canon xxxD/ xxxxD. The other 1 was split between the occasional Nikon DSLR and Sony NEX.

My conclusion is Canon is doing fine. Nikon is the company that NEEDS to be aggressive to stay relevant.

How many TV shows and fancy directors are shooting award winning films on NIKON DSLRs? Canon doesn't need to advertise. Their free PR is huge! When consumers can afford to buy the equipment that they perceive is capable of shooting an episode of HOUSE, well, it helps.

Another thought:
Why can't people consider the fact that The 5D3 isn't over-priced, but that Nikon is taking a huge hit financially in reducing their price in hopes of taking some of the market back? Competition is great! Canon will continue to push back. They now don't have a choice.

 

[dunkers]

I for one would like to see Canon take this approach:


Rebel T4i - takes the AF system of the XXD system (all 9 cross type). I don't really care if they up the megapixel count or not.

Canon 70D - takes the AF system of the 7D (19 cross type). I would prefer they not up the megapixel count and keep it at 18mp. Keep the 18mp and use a Digic 5 processor. Keep the same 8fps or increase it to 8.5 like the old 1dmk2. This would reestablish the position of the XXD line as a semi-pro series rather than a prosumer.


Sure the 7D was a great camera, but it really messed up their lineup imo.

 

[ctmike]

Between the D3200 and mirrorless... yes, Canon should worry. Especially since it doesn't appear they have any reasonable response this round. Old sensor plus Digic 5 equals... what, exactly?

We shall see.

As for the high end, Canon really ought to worry there too. Oh they'll sell a ton of 5DIIIs.... it's a wonderful camera... but Nikon hit a home run with their D800 too.

Hopefully Canon has some advances up their sleeves; markets can turn pretty quickly.

 

[takoman46]

I think that the D3200 is a smart move by Nikon for the consumer market. As stated earlier, almost all consumers don't really know what they're buying in a given DSLR. All that matters is megapixel count. So by packing 24 megapixels into their entry level DSLR, Nikon is playing right into what will spark interest at the consumer level. Who cares whether a consumer will make use of the 24 megapixels? I'm sure many of the D3200 buyers will perceive that they can produce images that look just as good as a 5D Mark III (although any educated user will find this claim laughable) because it has one more megapixel. Also, I would expect that the image quality at higher ISO to look even worse than the previous lower resolution model. How much tech is Nikon really willing to pack into a $600 body? A good practice in business is to give the consumer what they want, regardless of how ridiculous the request is.

 

[stabmasterasron]

I think you guys seriously underestimate the sophistication of the average entry level dslr consumer. A few years ago, that was me. I didn't know much about cameras back then, but I sure did not go down to best buy and plop down $600 for the first dslr I saw. I did months of research on the internet first. Before I purchased I already knew that MP was not as important as IQ (also that MP did not = IQ). I also understood that buying a dslr means you are buying into a system of lenses and accessories that are at least as important as the body itself. Maybe all consumers are not as thorough as I am, but I find it hard to believe that the "average" consumer that is smart enough to know they want a dslr is so uneducated that they are reduced to the levels that you guys on here claim.

Sub $200 dollar cams are an impulse buy and not subject to much thought - therefore you get very inexperienced people buying them who look at MP count. Cams above $500 are no longer an impulse buy and the consumers in the market for those cams are more sophisticated than you think.

 

[davidson]

Another thought:
Why can't people consider the fact that The 5D3 isn't over-priced, but that Nikon is taking a huge hit financially in reducing their price in hopes of taking some of the market back? Competition is great! Canon will continue to push back. They now don't have a choice.

i stated this in another thread, and i;m glad to see that someone else has the same thinking, just because the d800 is cheaper doesnt mean that the 5d3 is over priced or that canon is ripping off its customers. nikon is being more aggressive because they have to be.

 

[Aglet]

No APS format camera will ever be a competitor with a 135 format camera, just as no 135 format camera will ever be a competitor with a medium format camera.

Unless, of course, you compare models several generations apart or the like. Then you might maybe find the lines starting to slightly blur if you squint hard enough, perhaps.

I'm sure the D3200 is a wonderful camera. It's just not in the same class as the D800 and the 5DIII, and it's ludicrous to pretend it is.

Sorry.

b&

You misunderstand my point, gotta stop thinking MF & pro cameras for a moment.

It's not to compete with those larger sensor cameras, it's that it could carve out a sizable chunk of mindshare in the low end crop-sensor market by those fixated on more MP, video and all kinds of other features that appeal to the non-pro. When some clerk at the local store shows someone who has no brand affiliation the D3200 for $700 vs the T2i or T3 at a similar price points, the D3200's basic specs will likely have more appeal to the unfamiliar. That it'll have IQ better than the comparable Canon product is actually going to be secondary.
This could translate into market share as well and these little cameras sell by the container-loads compared to the mid-line and pro stuff. Canon will have to respond to that perception with something as it could weigh more heavily on the bottom line than those of us who ordered D800s instead of 5D3s.

And, there's nothing all that wrong with a crop sensor camera even for doing landscape or other fine work if you restrict yourself to low ISO and use the best glass available. The increased DoF with the smaller sensor can be even be a slight advantage at times if you don't have a tilt-shift lens. So, for some applications, APS-C can compete with larger cameras and for some other applications, they are actually even preferred.

 

[RC]

I have an alternate perspective.

Mirror less cameras are not the demise of entry level DSLRs, they are the evolution of Point-and-shoot cameras.

Point-and-shoots needed to advance to offer a point of difference from the camera people already have built into their current smart phone. To convince people they NEED to buy another camera, they had to introduce DSLR-like features into their market. Let's get serious, "mirrorless" cameras aren't a new category- they are just point-and-shoots with interchangeable lenses. And the majority of consumers who buy them and entry level DSLRs never even take the kit lens off!

The only chance for mirror less cameras to erode the DSLR market is for pros to start using them. People buy affordable DSLRs to feel like they have a "pro quality" camera. Most will never bother to learn what an aperture is, nor have any idea how big their sensor is. They basically have expensive point-and-shoots.

I live in Brooklyn, NY. Over the weekend I was at Brooklyn Bridge park with my family- the place was flooded with tourists from around the world. People had cameras around their neck every place I looked. 9 out of 10 of those cameras were Canon xxxD/ xxxxD. The other 1 was split between the occasional Nikon DSLR and Sony NEX.

My conclusion is Canon is doing fine. Nikon is the company that NEEDS to be aggressive to stay relevant.

How many TV shows and fancy directors are shooting award winning films on NIKON DSLRs? Canon doesn't need to advertise. Their free PR is huge! When consumers can afford to buy the equipment that they perceive is capable of shooting an episode of HOUSE, well, it helps.

Another thought:
Why can't people consider the fact that The 5D3 isn't over-priced, but that Nikon is taking a huge hit financially in reducing their price in hopes of taking some of the market back? Competition is great! Canon will continue to push back. They now don't have a choice.

Excellent points, and they all make a lot of sense.

 

[pdirestajr]

I think you guys seriously underestimate the sophistication of the average entry level dslr consumer. A few years ago, that was me. I didn't know much about cameras back then, but I sure did not go down to best buy and plop down $600 for the first dslr I saw. I did months of research on the internet first. Before I purchased I already knew that MP was not as important as IQ (also that MP did not = IQ). I also understood that buying a dslr means you are buying into a system of lenses and accessories that are at least as important as the body itself. Maybe all consumers are not as thorough as I am, but I find it hard to believe that the "average" consumer that is smart enough to know they want a dslr is so uneducated that they are reduced to the levels that you guys on here claim.

Sub $200 dollar cams are an impulse buy and not subject to much thought - therefore you get very inexperienced people buying them who look at MP count. Cams above $500 are no longer an impulse buy and the consumers in the market for those cams are more sophisticated than you think.

I agree with you that a 600-1000 "entry level" camera in NOT an impulse buy, and that the "average" consumer has above average intelligence and has done some level of research- even if that means a trusted friend's advice.

But as I stated earlier, I believe the "average entry-level DSLR user" will not advance beyond that camera. They will have no need to, as even an entry level camera is MORE than enough for what they will ever need. As is the perfectly capable zoom lens with image stabilization that came with the kit. They will also get their hard earned money's worth out of it because chances are it will be the family camera, and wont be replaced till it dies. They won't buy multiple lenses and wont complain when a new version of their camera comes out with one stop more dynamic range in the shadows! They will leave the camera on auto everything and enjoy what they paid for- great photos with the push of a button.

I am not saying entry level DSLR users don't go on to higher-end models, because they do. I had a Rebel XS (cheapest DSLR) 5 years back because that was all I could afford at the time. Before that I had a "full-frame" Rebel G!

There are different markets that overlap within these systems- that is the purpose of different price points and features.

I can't even tell you how many Aunts and family friends I have given photography 101 pointers to who have owned their DSLR for years! And try explaining that their 18-55mm lens is cropped to blah, blah...

 

[D_Rochat]

I think you guys seriously underestimate the sophistication of the average entry level dslr consumer. A few years ago, that was me. I didn't know much about cameras back then, but I sure did not go down to best buy and plop down $600 for the first dslr I saw. I did months of research on the internet first. Before I purchased I already knew that MP was not as important as IQ (also that MP did not = IQ). I also understood that buying a dslr means you are buying into a system of lenses and accessories that are at least as important as the body itself. Maybe all consumers are not as thorough as I am, but I find it hard to believe that the "average" consumer that is smart enough to know they want a dslr is so uneducated that they are reduced to the levels that you guys on here claim.

Sub $200 dollar cams are an impulse buy and not subject to much thought - therefore you get very inexperienced people buying them who look at MP count. Cams above $500 are no longer an impulse buy and the consumers in the market for those cams are more sophisticated than you think.

I think you overestimate the sophistication of the average entry level dslr consumer. YOU are the minority. Now I'm not saying the average consumer is stupid, but many people have this notion that all it takes to make good images is a dslr with as many mp as possible as if the person behind the camera has nothing to do with it. I've over heard many customers in Best Buy while I fondle cameras and the stuff that comes out of their mouths is quite funny. Of course, the employee working the camera section doesn't help inform them as he knows just as little as they do.

Aside from that, I live in a very touristy city and everyone has a dlsr in the summer and I assure you that 90% of them have the cameras in full auto. I can't help but look as they walk by..... My point is that all they want is a "camera that will take good pictures". Like previously mentioned, most will never REALLY get into photography or even know how to take their lens off.

Either way, I think they'll make the new Rebel shinier and add a few more mp to catch the attention of said consumers and everything will be good. I think dunkers is spot on with his prediction.

*edit* For the record, I remember saying to people years ago that my little 5mp (was it that many?) full auto p&s was amazing and I don't see why anyone would need one of those big cameras. I was hot sh*t back then. Now I suck....

 

[takoman46]

I think you guys seriously underestimate the sophistication of the average entry level dslr consumer. A few years ago, that was me. I didn't know much about cameras back then, but I sure did not go down to best buy and plop down $600 for the first dslr I saw. I did months of research on the internet first. Before I purchased I already knew that MP was not as important as IQ (also that MP did not = IQ). I also understood that buying a dslr means you are buying into a system of lenses and accessories that are at least as important as the body itself. Maybe all consumers are not as thorough as I am, but I find it hard to believe that the "average" consumer that is smart enough to know they want a dslr is so uneducated that they are reduced to the levels that you guys on here claim.

Sub $200 dollar cams are an impulse buy and not subject to much thought - therefore you get very inexperienced people buying them who look at MP count. Cams above $500 are no longer an impulse buy and the consumers in the market for those cams are more sophisticated than you think.

From my experience, you would not have fallen into the category of consumer. Yes, it is true that all of us at some point started off with and entry-level DSLR... but I wouldn't consider any of us the average consumer since we had an enthusiasm for photography that led us to thoroughly research purchases even though we knew very little about what we would eventually want in our futures as photographers. The simple fact that you visit this forum is proof that you have an interest in photography beyond the average consumer right? There are a lot of people out there that have money to spend and a $500-600 entry-level DSLR is a drop in the bucket for many. It already comes with a kit lens and has a built-in pop-up flash, so it's everything you need to take photos that are as good as any professional photographer in their mind.

Here's a funny but true story: I've had bunch of friends and acquaintances ask me if I shoot in manual and I tell them that I tend to use aperture priority a lot. Most of the responses were along the lines of, "What's aperture priority? I don't have that feature on my (insert entry-level DSLR name here)." Then I tell them that aperture priority is the "Av" shooting mode and they say "Oh! Is that what that means? I shoot in manual so I don't know how to use aperture priority". Really???... Another thing someone told me was that their 18-55 IS was better than my 24-70 L because my 24-70 didn't have image stabilization.

So if you don't fit this description, then you definitely do not classify as the consumers I'm referring to. ;D

 

[x-vision]

Why can't people consider the fact that The 5D3 isn't over-priced, but that Nikon is taking a huge hit financially in reducing their price in hopes of taking some of the market back?

Well, in that case I wish Canon would take a financial hit too.

Why should I be overpaying - so that Canon can make more money off me???
How is that a good deal for me, the buyer.

 

[nicku]

Given that Canon's next xxxD camera will likely have 24MP, it should be capable of answering the challenge posed by this Nikon camera.

...and very likely that Canon will ''miss the train'' if they continue to be late with the new rebel announcement.....

 

[tomscott]

The only chance for mirror less cameras to erode the DSLR market is for pros to start using them. People buy affordable DSLRs to feel like they have a "pro quality" camera. Most will never bother to learn what an aperture is, nor have any idea how big their sensor is. They basically have expensive point-and-shoots.

Rubbish pros only make up around 15% of the market. Consumers make up the rest.

 

[KeithR]

Why should I be overpaying - so that Canon can make more money off me???

Correct. Welcome to capitalism.

How is that a good deal for me, the buyer?

It isn't, nor is it intended to be. Welcome to capitalism.

 

[pdirestajr]

The only chance for mirror less cameras to erode the DSLR market is for pros to start using them. People buy affordable DSLRs to feel like they have a "pro quality" camera. Most will never bother to learn what an aperture is, nor have any idea how big their sensor is. They basically have expensive point-and-shoots.

Rubbish pros only make up around 15% of the market. Consumers make up the rest.

Not "rubbish". You missed my point. My point was that only if "pros" started using Mirrorless cameras, then consumers would be drawn to them in a way that it would erode the DSLR market. I know the pro market is the minority, but the consumers want to feel like they have a "pro-quality" camera.

The pros need to be seen on the sidelines of the SuperBowl or filming a TV show with their hot-pink-shiny- pancake-pocketable-mirrorless-camera, for the market to take a drastic shift.

A small fashionable camera at a hefty price tag is not going to inspire the masses to drop the DSLR.

After all, bigger is better right?

 

[Neeneko]

pros only make up around 15% of the market. Consumers make up the rest.

True, but pros have high marque value, they have a disproportionate impact on the direction a company like Canon goes and their community's take on things tends to filter down through the rest of the consumer base.

Marketing and engineering love to focus on the 'power users' of their industry, reviewers like to focus on them, and consumers like to feel that they are not going the 'toy' route which means looking at what the 'real' users are avoiding.

Photography is a VERY image conscious hobby, with large numbers of 'average' users trying to look as professional as possible, and significant numbers of professions trying to differentiate themselves from 'guys with cameras' or 'prosumers'.