Why DSLRS still sell better than Mirrorless systems

tylerknight

http://petapixel.com/2014/02/27/a-look-into-why-dslrs-still-sell-better-than-mirrorless-camera-systems/

Vitaliy_Kiselev

Proper original link is http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/540427/compact-system-camera-sales-crash-special-report-with-video

Part of the problem, suggests Nikon, is consumers not regarding CSCs as a separate category in the way manufacturers do - leading them to plump for a DSLR instead.

Also, link only topics are prohibited on PV. Always provide core facts.

karl

A friend of mine, who has seen a lot of pictures and videos I have done in the past, which he obviously liked, recently bought a new camera, a Canon DSLR. He told me about this in an email, also stating that what he had bought was "probably not as upmarket as the equipment that I use to buy".

I had to respond him that actually, the Canon camera he bought was significantly more expensive than the GH2 he had seen the results of from me.

I've experienced similar situations already in the past, people do like the results of CSCs when they see them, but when they go shopping at some photo store, they seem easy to convince that they really need to buy an expensive DSLR.

JOFO

Exactly.. some people thinks, that buying a pro gear like 5DMkIII will make them pro, but in the end their shots are by far worse than my GH2 shots :) I always told them, that gear not makes them Pro, but the work itself. It's true that better gear could make better looking shots, but skill is the core of everything. I'm not calling myself a "Pro", just enthusiast. But many people seen my work and told me that it's better than what they got before from other "Pros" which cost them also much more than my work :) But many people are easy convinceable and will pay for something they actually don't need.. just buying it because it's expensive and thus it's superior and making great looking photos without any skill needed :)

tylerknight

I agree. I had a canon 60d which technically speaking was a better photography camera than my gh1 and gh2 and I ended up selling it due to the weight, size, and lens availability. I ended up getting a gh3 and was much more happy with that upgrade.

JOFO

GH2 is not bad still camera compared to Canon HDSLRs. Even FF 6D isn't worth 1000EUR price difference.. It's less noisy at very high ISOs but that's not woth the huge price diff. I use very rare ISOs above 3200 so that's not relevant for me.. And below 3200 GH2 can produce very good stills. You just need to shoot in RAW and do some post if you want more eyecatching result.. Here is small example I shot with GH2 and everybody stares at it with open jaws :)

ghkqn

The vast majority of consumers cannot tell mirrorless from DSLR. They only know Canon and Nikon. They probably have not heard about Olympus (a niche player since the 1980s) and will not associate Panasonic or Sony with DSLR.

edwardm

@ghkqn - Your explanation is likely correct. Sony, Panasonic and Samsung are seen as consumer electronics, not camera companies. And most consumers have not heard of Olympus, Pentax or Leica. That leaves Canon and Nikon as the major brands for cameras, even though many others make great cameras too. And then there are smart phone brands...

IronFilm

@karl, I get compliments on the pictures I take with my tiny Fujifilm XF1 and they think it is taken with a "serious camera" and not a mere point and shoot!

Most cameras out there are overkill for the average joe. Other factors should matter more instead, such as size and portability. Which is another reason why Micro Four Thirds wins!

AdamT

Not sure how it is in other countries, but in the US, brick and mortar camera stores simply don't stock much in the way of mirrorless cameras. What we tend to see is a bunch of DSLRs (mostly canikon) and then compact digicams.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

Tags in Topic

Top Posters