Did a "DSLR KILLER" ever arrive?

D

dtjohns1

Well-known member
I remember there was a time right before the AF-100 dropped that people kept dropping the word "dslr killer" around and there were huge discussions over it. Now that pretty much every major camera dealer has unveiled a proper interchangable lens camera have dslr's been "killed"?
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
No, largely because of price.
Click to expand...

IMO , the Af100, Fs100, F3 etc. all produce an overall nicer image than any dslr. Problem is like noted is their price. While those cameras are excellent, they can cost 5x as much and are not that fast/easy to operate as a dslr. Someone using a dslr with proper lighting in a controlled environment can produce some nice footage, problem is many budgets are being cut and the cost of using more expensive cameras in relation to a dslr is sometimes not warranted.

Yes, there are better cameras than a dslr, but NO mainly due to price factor is the reason why Dslrs will always live. Furthermore there is nothing wrong with a Dslr as I feel it is a very good entry level camera where you can learn a lot

peace
 
No, and there are three big reasons and a few smaller ones: (1) Price (2) Price (3) Price (4) Size - many people appreciate the smaller size of DSLRs (5) VDSLRs are not a sitting target, they too keep getting better - look at Panasonic: GH1 < GH2; and let's see what Canon comes up with in 2012... when they announced the C300, they also hinted at a much more video capable DSLR coming out.

I think in some way, while price is the main reason today as to why DSLRs are not dead, that last reason (5) has to be taken into account as the key to the future. You keep getting more value for the money as DSLRs evolve. The option to keep protecting their higher price video-dedicated cameras is really disappearing. All the manufacturers have to step up to the plate. The Panasonic GHx series came after the Canons 7D 5D etc., and if Canon doesn't deliver improvements in this space, more and more people are going to go with the Panasonic DSLRs - look what happened to Nikon who originally started the VDSLR craze with the D90, but then dropped the ball in a big way and allowed Canon and then Panasonic to eat their lunch in this space... even Sony has woken up to the potential of VDSLRs with the NEX series.

I think the future in DSLRs is in the $1K and below price range. Panasonic, Sony, and I think the smaller Canons will keep adding to the capacity of these. I actually am not that excited by the super high end of DSLRs like the 1Dx, because at that price range, I would drift on over to whatever comes after the FS100 - it's no longer competitive on price. I think - and people are gonna freak - that even the highly anticipated 5Dmkiii is not the future, because it's going to be substantially over $2K, at which point stepping up a bit more gets you a dedicated video camera, since you still have to add money to the mkiii to make it shine (like a pro audio solution) which will bring it to parity price-wise with a video camera that already has all that, so what's the point. So again - the future is in $1K and under DSLRs getting better and better - I'm really looking forward to whatever comes after the GH2, though with the hacks now the GH2 is offering plenty as it is for way under $1K. Soon, you are going to reach as situation where there will be very little reason to spend more on a dedicated video camera if you are just a small indie guy, since the DSLRs will be quite enough - some say we're already there with the hacked GH2... many people are skipping the AF100 in favor of the GH2 (or even selling their AF100!). Seriously, I give it 3 years and game over for the little guy - DSLRs not only are not dead, but will be the ultimate survivors in the small/no budget indie world. DSLRs FTW!
 
I think form factor is a key reason for some people and I like the two cameras in one thing as I can shoot very nice video or nice stills on the fly.


I'm pretty sure DSLR's are here to stay.
 
For me the only camera that had the potential to be a 'DSLR killer' in the sub $4k price range was the Sony VG20. Sadly it seems that the image quality coming out of their $600 NEX 5n is actually superior. I base this on the review from EOSHD: Here

I was really excited about this camera when I heard about it coming out because I'm not a big fan of the DSLR form factor, it's hard to form an opinion about it because there seem to be a lack of reviews online which is weird. Here is a rather annoying video review on Youtube

It seems like there are quite a few issues with the camera, personally I decided not to risk the extra cash and went for a Canon T3i instead but maybe someone else can tell us their experience of working with the VG20?
 
The mid range or old "prosumer" market is what's in trouble. For sub $2K I can get a very capable DSLR. It doesn't make a lot of sense to step up to the $8K to $15K mid range for modest improvement. If I'm going to step up I want to step up all the way to a 4K camera.
 
Despite a GH2 not having a mirror I would still put it in the category of a DSLR. It's funny because I remember people saying in the past "just watch the AF-100 is going to be the new b-cam for major features" but even with them having the budgets I don't even see them using middle ground interchangable lens cams. I feel like its either high end (35mm film, red one/epic/scarlet) or low end (dslrs for shots with no permit or speciality shots you can't get with the form factor) with very few using shades in between. Even tv shows and music videos seem this way with not a lot of attention paid to the in between. I wonder the reasoning for this and just how many AF-100, Sony FS-100 units were actually sold.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
Um.... yup:

http://philipbloom.net/2011/12/28/christmas-shootout/
Click to expand...

Shows that indeed it's right there with the best in a lot of areas amongst the "Still cameras with video capabilities" that we lump together as DSLR.

However it's not the be all end all replacement for the whole "DSLR" range as it has it's own weaknesses and limitations.

As I said before, ALL these cameras cut deep into the market for the Prosumer cams, and there is still nothing in that prosumer price range that's enough of an upgrade to fully justify the extra money to me. The big step up is 4K.
 
dtjohns1 said:
I feel like its either high end (35mm film, red one/epic/scarlet) or low end ... I wonder the reasoning for this and just how many AF-100, Sony FS-100 units were actually sold.
Click to expand...

The reason is that the two extremes are how the human mind works. This is one of the first things I learned in my first marketing class. Consumers understand cheap, they understand high end. If your product is somewhere in between you're setting yourself up for failure. It's too easy to think about making a slight upgrade, then realize that a slightly higher upgrade would be even better and so forth until the gap grows outside of the target product's range. It's not universal, obviously, and it depends on what people consider the cheaper entry level options versus the higher end ones, but the concept is prevalent enough that you see it make a major impact on sales. This is a good example, and it all comes down to how you market it- as a great deal or a great investment.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
The mid range or old "prosumer" market is what's in trouble. For sub $2K I can get a very capable DSLR. It doesn't make a lot of sense to step up to the $8K to $15K mid range for modest improvement. If I'm going to step up I want to step up all the way to a 4K camera.
Click to expand...

In my opinion having recently worked with Fs100 and F3 footage I must say they look a lot better than most dslr footage I have seen. Yes the Gh2 is a nice Sharp image, but the F3 footage just looks more subtle to me with a higher dynamic range.

If I had the money with no question I would upgrade to an F3, but of course Dslrs will always have their place and they are only getting better.
 
I preach this a lot, and it tends to piss off the fan boys, but no camera is perfect. As much as we would like to find the perfect camera, it's just not there yet. Including some very high end cameras. I have shot a ton of footage with the Red One, AF100, F3, and to a lesser extent FS100 and as of late the Alexa. They are all great cameras in the right hands. But, I keep 3 Canon DSLR cameras as well as a Panasonic GH1 & 2 in my kit for the areas where they shine. Every shoot is different. And sometimes it just makes more sense to use a DSLR for a particular shot. Plus try to shoot high quality stills with a Sony F3. DSLR cameras kill in this area, as well as doing very high quality time-lapse work. I personally don't think of any of these cameras as a DSLR killer. They are great for what they do at their price point, but then so are DSLR cameras. Every camera has its place.

All the Best!

Dave
 
For years, the cost of 35mm photographic film for stills was subsidized by the motion picture industry, which used many times more film. When you're manufacturing millions of feet of film, another 10% increase in production to cover the photography market won't cost you 10%.

Now the cost of video capable DSLR's and similar cameras, is subsidized by the still photography industry. The cost of R&D and manufacturing for image processors, sensors, camera bodies, lenses etc, is mostly being paid for by the other 90% of camera buyers who don't use the video feature. That's why, for what they can do, DSLR's for video are actually considerably under-priced, and any "DSLR killer" won't touch it on price.
 
Cassius said:
The reason is that the two extremes are how the human mind works. This is one of the first things I learned in my first marketing class. Consumers understand cheap, they understand high end. If your product is somewhere in between you're setting yourself up for failure. It's too easy to think about making a slight upgrade, then realize that a slightly higher upgrade would be even better and so forth until the gap grows outside of the target product's range. It's not universal, obviously, and it depends on what people consider the cheaper entry level options versus the higher end ones, but the concept is prevalent enough that you see it make a major impact on sales. This is a good example, and it all comes down to how you market it- as a great deal or a great investment.
Click to expand...

Great post. I own the FS100 and I feel uncomfortable sometimes that it's not "cheap" like the GH2 or "professional" to the same level as the F3 w/slog or the Scarlett. But it's actually pretty perfect for me.
 
DMcG said:
someone else can tell us their experience of working with the VG20?
Click to expand...

I had one from Sony shortly before release, it was a nightmare on every level. Awkward control placements, ridiculous menus that made no sense, awful build quality and Im not going to mention the pain in the arse file formats that Sony insist on using. FCP hates them Premier hated them, it was just a pain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top