The Next DSLR Will Be Entry Level [CR3]

[Loswr]

555-OHWELL

Shouldn't that be 555-ROCKWELL?

 

[DanielW]

555-OHWELL

Shouldn't that be 555-ROCKWELL?

;D ;D ;D

 

[jiphoto]

Just release a 12MP sensor with very good low light performance (clean images at ISO6400) and 100d body and i'm sold. Put 2 fps and no video and I can live with that.

I agree with your idea, but I know we are a minority. :-X I'd buy several units 12 megapixel camera with clean image at ISO 6400 and priced around $ 600. : The problem is that this hypothetical camera could steal sales of more expensive models, and Canon not want to decrease their profits. :-\

That's more or less what Nikon did with their Df, except that they had delusions of becoming another Leica, and priced it far beyond its feature set. Now, I'm not a fan of Nikon at all, but just imagine what they could've done with the market segment that's not interested in video if they'd just priced the Df at about $800-1200! I'm sure a lot of us would suddenly forget our hatred of Nikon. It's like a full-frame, SL1-sized 6D equivalent. Trouble is, the D4's sensor is in the Df, which gives us some idea of which sensor Canon would have to use in a body like you're describing. It'd be the 1DX, 5D3, or 6D sensor, and we all know how expensive that would be. Then we'd have complaints (from all the people who aren't going to buy it anyway) about just recycling another sensor in a crippled camera. Believe me, I'd definitely buy a 12MP camera with clean ISO 6400 (I'd want video, but nothing fancy like 1080p60 or something). However, Canon's not going to cannibalize their 6D, and to some extent, the 5D3, so it's not going to happen .

 

[MiG31_Foxhound]

I'm always surprised by how detached some people on here become from the "common" market, where entry level is king.

...

But to say that the "average" person with an iphone wouldn't get better IQ from an entry level DSLR is simply ludicrous.

...

Finally, as a reminder: not everybody has $3000+ for a DSLR. And I'm sorry, for the VAST majority of images even seasoned photographers take the T3 would "work" well enough. The quality of image you get from even an entry level APS-C camera these days is astonishing.

Registered (long overdue) just to agree with this sentiment. My mother loves photography. I was pleasantly surprised when she (nearly 70, by the way, but highly technologically-inclined for her age) noticed a vast gulf in quality between what her P&S (stand-in for "phone" in this context) produced at my graduation, and the shots taken with my T1i + 17-55/2.8 IS. Within about a month or so, she had bought herself a T3. Now, she checks in with me before she goes on vacation and borrows either my 70-200/4L IS or 24-105/4L IS.

I know not everyone has access to L-series optics, but the point is that the bodies are very capable, regardless of what optics are mounted to them. Speaking of vacations, I was in Walt Disney World about a month ago and you would not believe the amount of xxxD bodies I saw. Every time I hear esoteric tirades about declining SLR sales, I chuckle on the inside. Go to a motor race, or a high-end resort, or an airshow and keep an eye out for what's around peoples' necks and you'll very quickly understand why Canon's SLR range is so bottom-heavy. There's an enormous market out there composed of people who just "want better images" and Canon (not to mention Nikon, et al. - I'm just a Canon-user) gives them plenty of choices.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I rahter suspect most people currently buying an entry level dSLR already have a camera phone (and in the US, odds are it's a smartphone with a decent camera), and are buying a dSLR because the camera phone isn't meeting their needs.

Do you a lesson on the effect of sensor size on image quality? Maybe I'll let Phil Schiller school you…

iPhone 5s has 'bigger and better' pixels that are 1.5 µm in size. The T3 has 'biggerer and betterer' pixels that are ~3.5 times larger, in a sensor with an 18 times larger area. Bigger sensor = better picture.

Sure, you can use a good processor and apply gobs of noise reduction. Unfortunately, it isn't free - it comes at the expense of lost detail.

Darn, those clues are so bloody elusive…I see you still haven't found one yet. Keep looking...

Pay attention dude, we were talking about video. And how you downsample/process your pixels can have a dramatic effect on IQ. The iphone is just better at that.

I never claimed it had better low light performance in stills.

Also, the market segment you describe must be huge, of young couples with children (as you mentioned earlier) who have iphones, are tight on money, but can afford to throw away 400$ on a marginally better imaging device. :

You should apply for a job at Canon.

The point is, there isn't a profitable niche in IQ BETWEEN the iPhone (or comparable) and 100D @~$400. I'll further remind you that that's also where the Nikon 1 and Canon M live (in terms of price).

So either they release a product that cannibalizes the sales of the 100D because it's effectively just as good for less money, or they make it noticeably worse and it fails because that means it's no better than its price competitive alternatives(above phones or mirrorless cams).

 

[Ricku]

"It was also confirmed that “a lot” of lenses were coming this year" - my source has confirmed one of these lenses will be 16-35 III. IQ is Better than Nikorrr 14-24 f2.8 ;D

Are you serious or just messing with us? If serious, how trustworthy is your source?

I'd love a tack sharp 16-35 III.

I might be out of tune, but I am quite happy with my 16-35II

It is a fine lens for PJ-work, but I am quite unhappy with borderline piss-poor corners.

 

[jimenezphoto]

YES!!!!!!!!!! Thank you Canon. Yet another Rebel.

 

[Loswr]

Pay attention dude, we were talking about video.

Were we, dude? Only video?

No, most people in that position will get an iphone to save money, get almost as good a camera, and better video.

No, it seems we were talking about cameras and video. The iPhone camera is in no way 'almost as good' as a T3.

As for less noise in video, if your evidence for that is a post by Ken Rockwell, perhaps you can also provide some evidence for the honesty of politicians by citing Richard Nixon's memiors.

You should apply for a job at Canon.

The point is, there isn't a profitable niche in IQ BETWEEN the iPhone (or comparable) and 100D @~$400.

Clearly you should not, dude. If Canon does release a body that comes in under the 100D in the lineup, it will be because they are pretty damn sure there's a profitable market for it. But I'm sure that you know Canon's customer base better far better than they do, it's not like they sell many cameras or anything like that. :

 

[slclick]

Now where did I put that popcorn popper?

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Were we, dude? Only video?

Yes, the person i was responding when you took my quote out of context was talking about video. Stop being lazy and read the chain of responses before you respond out of context.

Clearly you should not, dude. If Canon does release a body that comes in under the 100D in the lineup, it will be because they are pretty damn sure there's a profitable market for it. But I'm sure that you know Canon's customer base better far better than they do, it's not like they sell many cameras or anything like that. :

Yes, canon really has their thumb on the pulse of this end of the market. Like how they cut the price of the EOS M from $800 to $350 in the span of a year.

I'm sure that was their plan all along.

 

[jiphoto]

Pay attention dude, we were talking about video.

Were we, dude? Only video?

No, most people in that position will get an iphone to save money, get almost as good a camera, and better video.

No, it seems we were talking about cameras and video. The iPhone camera is in no way 'almost as good' as a T3.

As for less noise in video, if your evidence for that is a post by Ken Rockwell, perhaps you can also provide some evidence for the honesty of politicians by citing Richard Nixon's memiors.

You should apply for a job at Canon.

The point is, there isn't a profitable niche in IQ BETWEEN the iPhone (or comparable) and 100D @~$400.

Clearly you should not, dude. If Canon does release a body that comes in under the 100D in the lineup, it will be because they are pretty damn sure there's a profitable market for it. But I'm sure that you know Canon's customer base better far better than they do, it's not like they sell many cameras or anything like that. :

I'm going to try thinking like Canon's financial and marketing departments... here goes. Let's say that a reasonably priced ($250 or less) P&S camera has roughly the same quality (at the wide end of its zoom) as modern smartphones (not just the iPhone). Maybe not always true, but bear with me. Since the P&S market is declining, P&S cameras are probably seen as comparable to the phone you already have. If Canon is good at making money, which is already proven to be true, the smartest thing they could possibly do with this declining P&S market is release a dSLR that's close to a high-end P&S price. Well, they already did that with the 100D, so what's the next step? Make a cheaper version that still makes the people who wouldn't pick up a P&S "because their iPhone's camera is almost as good" think that it's worth buying. Those of us who are already in the Canon ecosystem complain about Canon releasing a cheaper 100D instead of upgrading something we want. Canon doesn't care, because when the consumer with a smartphone looks a little higher than what they'd spend on a P&S and sees a dSLR, they'll think "it looks professional, so it must take better pictures", and they buy it. Canon has just performed a little upsell, and gotten more money from that consumer than they would have spent on a P&S.

 

[Azathoth]

The iphone has a much more capable processor inside of it, which is why it does higher frame rates than the 100D, let alone t3. Apple also doesn't to worry about nerfing the IQ in order to maintain product differentiation.

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

To sum up, iPhone has better screen, better audio, and better at handling low light noise. And I'm pretty sure that was comparing to iPhone 5.

For the record. I'm not an Apple fan at all. I have a windows phone!

:

Btw where's that quote in that webpage? Yeah right, not an Apple fan at all...

 

[xps]

Pay attention dude, we were talking about video.

Were we, dude? Only video?

No, most people in that position will get an iphone to save money, get almost as good a camera, and better video.

No, it seems we were talking about cameras and video. The iPhone camera is in no way 'almost as good' as a T3.

As for less noise in video, if your evidence for that is a post by Ken Rockwell, perhaps you can also provide some evidence for the honesty of politicians by citing Richard Nixon's memiors.

You should apply for a job at Canon.

The point is, there isn't a profitable niche in IQ BETWEEN the iPhone (or comparable) and 100D @~$400.

Clearly you should not, dude. If Canon does release a body that comes in under the 100D in the lineup, it will be because they are pretty damn sure there's a profitable market for it. But I'm sure that you know Canon's customer base better far better than they do, it's not like they sell many cameras or anything like that. :

I'm going to try thinking like Canon's financial and marketing departments... here goes. Let's say that a reasonably priced ($250 or less) P&S camera has roughly the same quality (at the wide end of its zoom) as modern smartphones (not just the iPhone). Maybe not always true, but bear with me. Since the P&S market is declining, P&S cameras are probably seen as comparable to the phone you already have. If Canon is good at making money, which is already proven to be true, the smartest thing they could possibly do with this declining P&S market is release a dSLR that's close to a high-end P&S price. Well, they already did that with the 100D, so what's the next step? Make a cheaper version that still makes the people who wouldn't pick up a P&S "because their iPhone's camera is almost as good" think that it's worth buying. Those of us who are already in the Canon ecosystem complain about Canon releasing a cheaper 100D instead of upgrading something we want. Canon doesn't care, because when the consumer with a smartphone looks a little higher than what they'd spend on a P&S and sees a dSLR, they'll think "it looks professional, so it must take better pictures", and they buy it. Canon has just performed a little upsell, and gotten more money from that consumer than they would have spent on a P&S.

+1

The same thing happens in many electronic branches every day. Just think of e.g graphic cards,... A new name, new design, one new feature.... and many of us want to own it....
Canon´s market specialist know exactly, which product will have a high potential to become an cash cow.
And if the time is right to serve an special market, they will release something that satisfies those customers

 

[Loswr]

Stop being lazy and read the chain of responses before you respond out of context.

I read them, you are simply incorrect...including about video.

Clearly you should not, dude. If Canon does release a body that comes in under the 100D in the lineup, it will be because they are pretty damn sure there's a profitable market for it. But I'm sure that you know Canon's customer base better far better than they do, it's not like they sell many cameras or anything like that. :

Yes, canon really has their thumb on the pulse of this end of the market. Like how they cut the price of the EOS M from $800 to $350 in the span of a year.

I'm sure that was their plan all along.

Speaking of taking things out of context, why are you fixating on their sole entry in the mirrorless market in the US? The SL1 is selling very well, as is the T3 - both are in the top five on Amazon's sales rank. So, you're saying that combining the small physical size of the SL1 with the price of the T3 would obviously be stupid move...and that proves just how much smarter you are compared to Canon? Right. :

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Well, they already did that with the 100D, so what's the next step? Make a cheaper version that still makes the people who wouldn't pick up a P&S "because their iPhone's camera is almost as good" think that it's worth buying. Those of us who are already in the Canon ecosystem complain about Canon releasing a cheaper 100D instead of upgrading something we want. Canon doesn't care, because when the consumer with a smartphone looks a little higher than what they'd spend on a P&S and sees a dSLR, they'll think "it looks professional, so it must take better pictures", and they buy it. Canon has just performed a little upsell, and gotten more money from that consumer than they would have spent on a P&S.

I think you are correct in that this is what they are thinking. But I also think that if they try this, they will undercut the sales of the 100D, or if the quality is appreciably worse, fail to sell completely.

But maybe they don't care. Maybe they figure that if they can get more people into EF-S lenses, they should make the cheapest entry point possible.

 

[9VIII]

Below the 100D? You mean the market segment that doesn't exist because it's IQ is indistinguishable from iPhones? Get a clue Canon.

You mean the iPhone produces the same image quality as the T3/1100D 12 MP APS-C sensor? Get a clue HurtinMinorKey.

In the hands of the people who would actually buy something on par with the T3, yes. Also, the iphone has vastly superior video.

This just seems like an attempt to kill off the EOS M (also done in by smartphone competition), and replace it with something that has a traditional mount.

I have both the T3 and 5D2, for anything other than landscapes and low-light I prefer the T3.

For size and convenience, the T3 is amazing.

When I took my first picture with the T3 in 2012 (previously using a SD780IS), I forgot to focus the image, and it looked better than anything I had seen come out of a camera to that point.

 

[Hannes]

about time, nikon's bottom end has been so much more appealing for the last few years compared to the 1100D

 

[Sporgon]

Reading the comments about an iPhone and 1100D being remotely comparable are quite pitiful. The 1100D (t3) is actually a mighty fine camera, albeit not necessarily an aesthetically pleasing one; it can do 99% of all functions that the majority of people want from their DSLR. It has virtually every control that a serious photographer might wish for with the exception of specialist features. Within the Building Panoramics 'family' we have four of them now, property of various children and wives.

The t3 is by far the best value Canon DSLR. My partner wanted to get a small Rebel as a 'holiday' camera. I told him if he was going to get a Rebel he should get the basic one, but no, being himself he had to get TOTR: the 650D at the time. Within six months it was sold and he now uses his daughter's 1100D for holiday fun.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

So, you're saying that combining the small physical size of the SL1 with the price of the T3 would obviously be stupid move...and that proves just how much smarter you are compared to Canon? Right. :

And how would this not cannibalize the SL1 sales? You might as well just cut the price if the SL1.

And so you think Canon has been killing it?

goo.gl/Zhb4PT

^S&P 500 vs Canon over past yr.

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

I have both the T3 and 5D2, for anything other than landscapes and low-light I prefer the T3.

For size and convenience, the T3 is amazing.

When I took my first picture with the T3 in 2012 (previously using a SD780IS), I forgot to focus the image, and it looked better than anything I had seen come out of a camera to that point.

By the same token, i bet there are a lot of people would say the same thing about the iphone vs. the T3: "For size and convenience, the (5S) is amazing."