The Age of the Mass Market DSLR Camera is about to Dawn

Discussion in '35mm Cameras' started by deryck lant, Aug 18, 2003.

  1. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    I thought Pentax with their huge resources would launch the
    onslaught of low cost models with the digital ist, but they are
    remaining conservative with their initial pricing. That will
    soon change.

    Warning: The following is rumour.

    Canon are to have a large launch of new equipment this week, and this
    will include digital cameras. The word on Japanese and Korean digital
    camera forums is that there will be a 6 Meg DSLR based on the Rebel.
    The DSLR will be priced at 140,000 YEN, 1179 USD for a kit including
    2 lenses. The lenses are 18-55mm and 55-200mm. With the multiplying
    factor they will cover 29-320mm.

    The lenses are similar to the Nikon DX series in that the image circle
    will only cover APS size sensors. The mount has two dots, one white for
    the new lens mount and one red for the EF mount.

    End of rumour.

    What is sure is that Nikon at next years PMA show in March will release
    a mass market camera competitive with Canon. Fuji will probably release
    lower cost models in the 4/3 System.

    End of rant.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Aug 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. snip...


    Darn right. I heard someone call the Canon D30 a disposable...

    jim h


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca

    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes, a bit of humour...
     
    Jim Hutchison, Aug 19, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. deryck  lant

    Mark M Guest

    You just keep hanging on to that, OK? :)

    I still like film and my numerous film bodies, but what you "heard someone
    call the D30" it is just stupidity talking.
    I've got well over 20,000 images from my "old" D30...many of which are
    hanging on my wall next to my film enlargements. Guess which images get the
    most compliments...
    ....And no--that you could tell the difference under a loupe is irrelevant
    here.
    The images are beautifully rendered and pleasing (except for the shots that
    are deliberately shocking or likewise displeasing).
    Isn't that what this craft is all about?
    If so... Digital fares quite well, and has a bright future.
    In fact...Digital delivers complete control back to a public that has been
    distanced from the enlargement/printing portion of photography. I actually
    think it is FILM that has dumbed down public image-making, since people can
    shoot crap exposures--yet have them magically come out from tweaks done
    secretly (from the snap-shooter's perspective) by the processing labs.
     
    Mark M, Aug 19, 2003
    #3
  4. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    Agreed. That is the MSRP including 2 lenses. Later when the
    kit is unbundled the camera body could sell for half that.

    Assuming it is true!

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Aug 19, 2003
    #4
  5. deryck  lant

    Mark Roberts Guest

    I'll bet the lenses are so cheaply built that taking them out of the
    packaged kit only takes about $200 off the price! :O
     
    Mark Roberts, Aug 19, 2003
    #5
  6. deryck  lant

    Peter Chant Guest

    Why not go the whole hog and make a new mount sized to match the sensor?
    If you buy lenses that will only cover APS sized sensors they will not
    be any use on a 35mm film sized sensor.
     
    Peter Chant, Aug 19, 2003
    #6
  7. deryck  lant

    Pierre L Guest

    Holy Cow! Talk about getting it in reverse. Digital images are tremendously
    tweaked by the camera itself, not to mention all the tweaking in Photoshop
    afterwards.
    Pierre


    [snip] I actually
     
    Pierre L, Aug 19, 2003
    #7
  8. deryck  lant

    Mark Roberts Guest

    They will if the full-frame camera can detect the small-image-circle
    lens and set itself to use only the center portion of its CCD (or CMOS
    sensor). In other words, a 10+ megapixel full-frame camera could
    automatically turn itself into a 6 megapixel "APS" digital when one of
    these special lenses is mounted. Not difficult to do electronically and
    you'd have the best of both worlds in one camera. (Well, you wouldn't
    get the best of the "price" worlds of both, but I suppose you can't have
    everything!)

    Of course, these special lenses wouldn't be much use on film cameras.
     
    Mark Roberts, Aug 19, 2003
    #8
  9. Geeze, a little sensitive, are we?


    I heard that comment from a few places, so it's not just irrelevant
    hearsay - it's the mentality of the photographic community and the
    manufacturers that are taken up with upgrade-fever, leaving older
    technologies eventually unsupported.

    But - at 20,000 images, you really got your money's worth. Not
    everyone shoots that much, so for many people like myself, the
    investment into a D30 when it first came out would have been a
    financial mistake, as I MAY go through 30 to 50 rolls a year at most.

    Reagarding your comment on film holding us back... I beg to differ.
    Digital ENCOURAGES one to snap away with no regard for film and
    processing cost. This INCREASES the crappy picture quotient...






    jim h


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    http://www.jamesphotography.ca

    More than photographs: free downloads, prizes, a bit of humour...
     
    Jim Hutchison, Aug 19, 2003
    #9
  10. deryck  lant

    Peter Chant Guest

    What I am saying is they are a bodge. If the lenses are designed for
    a smaller sensor why not start with a clean sheet of paper? In fact
    why not ditch the mirror and rely on a viewfinder and really decent LCD
    for macro and telephoto. That would simplify things a lot.
     
    Peter Chant, Aug 20, 2003
    #10
  11. deryck  lant

    Mark M Guest

    I understand your reaction, since my comment seems illogical at first
    glance.
    I should have been more specific... Read on to understand why I commented
    so...

    I am talking specifically about print film...
    I believe that film labs' ability to counter-act (adjust for) people's
    ingnorance of exposure has given the general public a sense that photography
    is somehow divorced from any knowledge of even the basics of exposure.
    While it is true that processing of various kinds is applied to digital
    images in-camera, the truth is that people are often far more likely to
    actually SEE that they have under/over exposed when they shoot digital,
    since there is no person to tweak it for them at the photolab.

    With DSLRs, if you expose poorly, you will soon know it--see your errors,
    and hopefully figure out that you need to adjust your technique--if not on
    the LCD, on the screen/print later. It will only be after YOU apply changes
    to it that you can have an acceptable print, whereas with negative
    film--most people never know (or care in the least) that they've
    under/overexposed their shots, since the lab quietly compensates up to three
    full stops (or even more), and then magically hands them decent
    prints...ensuring that they remain ignorant of their mistakes.

    This is not true with slide film, of course, or black & white (where people
    are developing, etc.).

    Even people who rutinely rely on things like "auto adjust" on digital images
    will soon learn that there is really no substitute for a properly exposed
    and focused shot.
     
    Mark M, Aug 20, 2003
    #11
  12. deryck  lant

    Mark M Guest

    Geeze, a little sensitive, are we?

    No... I just was using, perhaps, too direct a writing style there.
    Sorry.
    I'm not referring to that aspect (machine-gun-style shooting).
    Here's my explanation that I gave in another post.
    ....
    I understand your reaction, since my comment seems illogical at first
    glance.
    I should have been more specific... Read on to understand why I commented
    so...

    I am talking specifically about print film...
    I believe that film labs' ability to counter-act (adjust for) people's
    ingnorance of exposure has given the general public a sense that photography
    is somehow divorced from any knowledge of even the basics of exposure.
    While it is true that processing of various kinds is applied to digital
    images in-camera, the truth is that people are often far more likely to
    actually SEE that they have under/over exposed when they shoot digital,
    since there is no person to tweak it for them at the photolab.

    With DSLRs, if you expose poorly, you will soon know it--see your errors,
    and hopefully figure out that you need to adjust your technique--if not on
    the LCD, on the screen/print later. It will only be after YOU apply changes
    to it that you can have an acceptable print, whereas with negative
    film--most people never know (or care in the least) that they've
    under/overexposed their shots, since the lab quietly compensates up to three
    full stops (or even more), and then magically hands them decent
    prints...ensuring that they remain ignorant of their mistakes.

    This is not true with slide film, of course, or black & white (where people
    are developing, etc.).

    Even people who rutinely rely on things like "auto adjust" on digital images
    will soon learn that there is really no substitute for a properly exposed
    and focused shot.
     
    Mark M, Aug 20, 2003
    #12
  13. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    deryck lant, Aug 20, 2003
    #13
  14. deryck  lant

    jim Guest

    Memory restrictions are only an issue for travelers, or at least
    someone without access to a PC or laptop.
     
    jim, Aug 20, 2003
    #14
  15. Well, this is all relative to the DSLR market. But I think we're in for
    a new round of digicam chaos, as company after company struggles to
    outwit Canon with a lowball digital SLR of their own, compromising
    system compatibility as they go along. Then again, in the corner of my
    mind's eye, on a bad day, I see more-powerful multipurpose devices
    (phone/PDA-cams) progressively eroding the "snapshooter" end of the
    photography market on the one hand, and high-definition "prosumer"
    camcorders (JVC recently hit the market with the industry's first
    consumer-grade, HDTV camcorder) with clean still-image options wiping
    the floor with the "hobby/amatuer" market, and probably take over in PJ
    work as well. (Hardly a cheerleader for this, BTW - I'm grinding my
    teeth more often at the thought of it).
     
    Barrett Benton, Aug 21, 2003
    #15
  16. This is where Olympus, with their 3/4 system, *might* have a possible
    advantage by started with the proverbial clean sheet of paper, bulding
    their system from the ground up (which is how they did it with their OM
    System). It's a digital-based system from the word Go, with no
    film-based standards looming like hangnails to hinder things. But it's
    really way too early to tell how (or when) things will settle.

    Of course, silly me, I tend to root for the product-driven solution,
    which usually gets overrun by the market-driven one.
     
    Barrett Benton, Aug 21, 2003
    #16
  17. deryck  lant

    Mxsmanic Guest

    In any case, it would still not be mass-market. Mass-market would be
    around $150, total.
     
    Mxsmanic, Aug 21, 2003
    #17
  18. deryck  lant

    deryck lant Guest

    The message <>
    Initial production of the 300D is 70,000 units a month, and rising. I would
    have thought that approaching 1 million cameras a year could be called mass
    market. MSRP of 900USD for body will soon fall.

    Deryck
     
    deryck lant, Aug 21, 2003
    #18
  19. By that definition, there are no mass market SLRs.
     
    Skip Middleton, Aug 22, 2003
    #19
  20. The OM system essentially had a 30-year run, its high point being the
    early 1980s to early 1990s, predictably declining as AF SLRs improved
    technologically and gained in popularity. In short, it was reasonably
    successful in the marketplace.

    Whether Olympus can pull this off again with their 3/4 system is an open
    question. But, other than an old OM-2n given to me by a friend earlier
    this year, I work mostly with rangefinders now.
     
    Barrett Benton, Aug 23, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.