Should we wait?

[Charlie59]

USA Today had a story on 3/12/07 that discussed the new Olympus and Nikon compact digital SLRs. The article stated that the cameras ( I think the Olympus was the E-410) were introduced at $799 to compete with the Canon Rebel but could fall by the end of the year to $299.

If this is true, are these the dream of every p&s photog who wants to advance to the SLR ranks? The size and ultimate price seem to be the perfect set-up if the cameras have housings (which they should since Olympus and Nikon).

This may be a very Merry Christmas for semi-budget minded diving photographers.

 

[RonFrank]

The article stated that the cameras ( I think the Olympus was the E-410) were introduced at $799 to compete with the Canon Rebel but could fall by the end of the year to $299.

If this is true, are these the dream of every p&s photog who wants to advance to the SLR ranks?

This may be a very Merry Christmas for semi-budget minded diving photographers.

HERE is a link to the article.

In typical journalistic style, leave it to the "experts" to inform us on news that is several months old, and present it in a way that it appears new. Nikon, and Oly have been competing with Canon's digital Rebel for years. Prices have been falling. The Nikon D40 was announced by Nikon in Nov, 2006, not last week, and you can purchase one NOW for around $500.

The speculation that the price of the low end bodies will drop to $299 by the end of the year is just that... speculation. Actually if you want a grey market version that you can order, but has no accessories, and won't ship until you order some for it, than his prediction is already true!

"This will dramatically reshape the digital camera market," Chute says. "It will give consumers a reason to jump into features they've always wanted, but didn't know they could get."

I doubt this. I think what we are seeing is the remaining film SLR holdouts are willing to spend $500~800 on an SLR body to replace their film body. I certainly have watched this happen with three co-workers who have film SLR's (and glass), but would NOT pay over $1000 for a DSLR.

Most people I know want good photo's, but are not willing to carry around a DSLR to get them. Heck a lot of them don't like it if I recommend a larger PnS, they want something the size of a credit card if possible!

This is my favorite line:

offers built-in image stabilization, which helps make shots steady for those with shaky hands.

Shaky Hands!

Yes, they are marketing IS to those with nerve disorders, and ARP members!

If you want a DSLR, buy it. They may come down in price further, but my bet is they will just gain more features at the same or slightly lower price point. Film SLR's never dropped much below $300, and there is a WHOLE lot more to designing and manufacturing a DSLR vs. a film SLR.

Thanks for posting, I found the article very amusing!

 

[bladephotog]

Ron, I think you're reading a little too much into the story. I think it was written for those who don't keep up with the digital camera market, and merely a report from PMA.

But prices have done nothing but fall since the advent of digital cameras while at the same time features are being added. Not many people wanted to spend over $1000 for image quality inferior to what they were already producing with their film cameras. This isn't the case anymore. Will these cameras reshape the market? I doubt it. But the trend of more features for less money will definately have an impact. It will surely make it easier for people to ditch their film camera and go digital. And hopefully this trend will allow people more people to enjoy photography with a DSLR.

 

[victor]

The cost of the camera is nothing compared to the lenses. That palles into insignificance against the cost of housing and strobes.

 

[RonFrank]

Ron, I think you're reading a little too much into the story. I think it was written for those who don't keep up with the digital camera market, and merely a report from PMA.

Yeah, I do that sometimes.

But I think it was a bit more than a PMA report just based on market speculation.

Will these cameras reshape the market? I doubt it. But the trend of more features for less money will definately have an impact. It will surely make it easier for people to ditch their film camera and go digital. And hopefully this trend will allow people more people to enjoy photography with a DSLR.

The SLR/DSLR is a relatively small amateur market. If people are still waiting for prices to fall, IMO they are not all that interested in photography as prices are now less than the cost of a quality SLR ever was with all but the very bottom of the market. Digital image quality in a sub $1000 DSLR (street value) surpassed 35mm film results years ago with offerings like the D70 that has been out for over three years.

In 2007 suggesting that the prices are going to fall huge is a story that is about 3 years too late. Prices really fell when they went from the $4~5K range down to sub 1K many years ago. The price reductions since have been moderate, and I think we are not going to see them fall more than $100 or $200 tops at the low end. They really have no room left to fall as with manufacturing costs, wholesale and retail markup, cutting them below $300 would leave no room for profit.

It would be interesting to know the breakdown of DSLR sales by price point. I sure have seen a lot of camera's at the D200 level in the hands of amateurs, and I would think Nikon and Canon would benefit more from the sales of the mid range models vs. sales at the bottom end. Pure unit volume is a misleading statistic as manufacture may need to sell 20 Canon Rebels to equal the profit from one 1DsMarkII.

I'm VERY happy with the direction the 35mm DSLR market has gone, and we can all thank the popularity and sales of consumer PnS digital for driving down the price and cost of technology development.

I'd sure like to see the high end come down however. Medium format remains untouchable even for many professionals.

 

[RonFrank]

The cost of the camera is nothing compared to the lenses. That palles into insignificance against the cost of housing and strobes.

I would agree, however the bulk of amateurs I know that purchase a DSLR end up with one or two lenses generally at the low end, and most consumers are not taking DSLR's underwater.

We would have to see a huge increase in the diving and DSLR user population before we would see the costs of UW equipment drop significantly. My polycarbonate ike housing and 8" dome port cost more than the D200 with a fraction of the complexity to design, manufacture and produce. I don't see that changing unless the volume of DSLR housing sales goes through the ceiling!

 

[bladephotog]

Talk about price drop Ron, the first digital camera my paper bought was over 15K and it was a b&w only camera. It was a piece of junk.

 

[DesertEagle]

victor, you said it right. Even if the camera goes down to $400 for a body, the rest is too expensive:

Housing
Ports
Gears
Arms
Strobes & cords
Case

I do 1-2 trips a year and I'm not willing to spend $5000. The only way I'm getting into a DSLR housing is to buy one used.

My wish: an inexpensive housing with USB control. It would have an adjustable mounting plate, so it could take a variety of cameras.

 

[Warren_L]

I would agree, however the bulk of amateurs I know that purchase a DSLR end up with one or two lenses generally at the low end, and most consumers are not taking DSLR's underwater.

That seems a little backwards to me, but that's just me. If I were given only the choice of getting high quality lenses and a mediocre camera body versus a high end camera body and mediocre quality lenses, I would always bias towards the lenses. But being a marketing driven industry where the typical consumer goes megapixel shopping, this is not a surprise.

 

[bladephotog]

That seems a little backwards to me, but that's just me. If I were given only the choice of getting high quality lenses and a mediocre camera body versus a high end camera body and mediocre quality lenses, I would always bias towards the lenses. But being a marketing driven industry where the typical consumer goes megapixel shopping, this is not a surprise.

I think with digital cameras the quality of the camera body and lens are pretty much equal in importance. Sensor quality, or the quality of the file a camera outputs, is very important. And you still can't discount optics.

When I was shooting film my old Nikon FM2s would gives me just as good of a photo as my F5's given that I was using the same lens, film and exposure. With digital the camera body makes a huge difference, as do quality lenses.