DSLR Craze?

[lidarman]

Has the low prices of the Canon and Nikon prosumer cameras created a photo craze similiar to the iPod craze?

I mean a good film SLR cameras were always way cheaper than even the current DSLR but I didn't see people running around with them like I do the DSLRs these days. Especially on bikes. mtbr has so many people who have a Rebel XT or a D80. Back in the mid nineties, I rode just as much, but nobody carried a SLR film camera around like we are doing with the DSLRs.

I would have expected most people to want a compact camera and that is an expected craze. But the demand for DSLRs indicates people want quality in their photos, not just snapshots.

[Franglais]

Now that DSLR's are approaching the $500 barrier people may be buying more of them. I had the impression up till now that there were less SLR's being bought than back in the film days. A lot of people that I know have gone from a film SLR to a digital point-and-shoot or bridge. They are small, easy to use and give good results - though not as good as a DSLR.

If there is a craze today it's for telephones that take pictures. You see people taking pictures all over the place with their telephones. Nobody seems to object, as though people know that the results are going to be trash.

[Tyson L. Sparks]

Everyone seems to be buying DSLR cameras. When I go shoot football games there are parents with better DSLR set ups than me and I work for the news paper. Freelance work around here is going away because people send thier pictures to the papers so they don,t need me anymore.That hurts.

[Frog]

Freelance work around here is going away because people send thier pictures to the papers so they don,t need me anymore.That hurts.

The television stations ask for pictures and news tips here all the time and people send them in thinking its a big deal to get their name and pic on the news. Supply and demand, I guess. With that many cameras someone is bound to get a decent shot.

[MrEastSide]

I was recently out and about at a few big events. And I did see a lot of people with cameras. But, SLRs were still in the minority. I'd bet I saw them every 1 in 10 people. I don't think that's all that many. Plus, a lot of people buy the lower end 400-500 dollar kits. I don't see too many people running around with 30-40Ds, or D80+ cameras. Most of the stuff I seem to see are D40s, D50, RebelXTs, some of the cheaper Evolt packages etc... I don't think there is that much of a craze going. I just feel like I notice it more when someone has a SLR since I have one. It's kind of like when you buy a new car. You'd never notice that car when you drive around, in fact, you probably think you haven't even seen the car all that much on the road. As soon as you buy it though you see them everywhere and notice them everywhere.

[Loupey]

I think so. Possibly due to:

1) dSLR's can be purchased more readily (Best Buy, Circuit City, in-person, on-line, etc.)
2) current consumer mentality that things must be upgraded regularly and just as easily disposed
3) lower prices than film SLR's*

...I mean a good film SLR cameras were always way cheaper than even the current DSLR ...

*NOTE: when you take into account inflation, the cost of many current entry dSLR's are a lot less expensive than 35mm SLR's from at least my generation - and that's before you factor in the cost of film over a camera's lifetime. If memory serves me correctly (and believe me it is quite hazy right now ), I bought my Canon A-1 SLR in 1984-ish for about $300-ish. And I seem to recall that the AE-1 was around $200 and the AE-1 program about right in the middle. Assuming that inflation averages 3% a year, $300 twenty-three years ago would cost $592 now. So things are on par.


I have noticed a lot of new buyers at stores in general. More so than I remember people just walking in to a store and buying film SLR's.

[OBie]

Another factor may be that DSLR's have virtually no lag time in the shutter. All of those people you see taking photos of their kids playing sports most likely got frustrated with their point and shoot's lag time and always missing the shot. That plus it seems like these days everybody wants the latest and best, and the money to get it.

[freygr]

Another factor may be that DSLR's have virtually no lag time in the shutter. All of those people you see taking photos of their kids playing sports most likely got frustrated with their point and shoot's lag time and always missing the shot. That plus it seems like these days everybody wants the latest and best, and the money to get it.

Do you go in debt to get the lastest and greatest????

[RP Racing]

. If memory serves me correctly (and believe me it is quite hazy right now ), I bought my Canon A-1 SLR in 1984-ish for about $300-ish. And I seem to recall that the AE-1 was around $200 and the AE-1 program about right in the middle. Assuming that inflation averages 3% a year, $300 twenty-three years ago would cost $592 now. So things are on par.

My AE-1 Program was $500 for the body in 81-82 when my grandma bought it new.



Honestly I dont think theres a craze for dslr's. And most people who get the entry dslr's just buy the basic 'kit' lens or 2.

[mjs1973]

I don't know if there is a DSLR craze. I do think there are a lot of people out there that think they are profesional photographers because they have a DSLR.

I work with a woman who took a job as a photographer, without even having a camera! She went out and bought a D40 AFTER she took this job as a photographer for a real estate agent. This woman is now calling herself a photographer, and making money taking pictures, even though she has no clue what she's doing. The agent that hired her had to set up her tripod for her... I haven't seen any of her work so I can't comment on that. It's just a guess, but based on what I know about her, I would be willing to bet she doesn't have a clue how to use her camera, other than in the fully auto mode. Not that there is anything wrong with shooting in full auto mode. I just think that if you're going to call yourself a photographer, you should at least have a clue about the basics of photography such as aperture, shutterspeed and exposure.

I thought it was pretty funny yesterday when she told me how much WORK it is, and said that all the time she has to put into it isn't worth what she makes! Who knew there was more to being a photographer than taking pictures?

Another funny thing she said this week... The head she had to have the agent put on her tripod is a panoramic head, that only shoots with the camera in the veriticle position. She has to take some family pictures this weekend and wants to do them horizontally, but she's afraid to adjust her tripod because she thinks she might not be able to get it back to verticle. So she's planning on shooting them verticclely and cropping them...

She does have a pan tilt head she could use, but she's afraid to take the pano head off her tripod...

It makes me want to laugh & cry at the same time.

[Speed]

"Another factor may be that All of those people you see taking photos of their kids playing sports most likely got frustrated with their point and shoot's lag time and always missing the shot."

Right on Obie! I've been shooting my kids sporting events since I got my camera. I've shot track, football, basketball, baseball, cheerleading and soccer. A lot of the parents on the soccer team tried using their P&S cameras and gave up because the results were so poor. Last year a bunch of them showed up with DSLR's. They've seen my photo's and know what can be done. They also found out it isn't as easy as I made it look! Years of practice makes a difference.

[Loupey]

Perhaps it's simply that more people are buying more stuff in general.

More cars, more cameras, more phones, more GPS's, more everything (including debt ). Don't know if it requires more stuff to satisfy us now.

It's difficult to draw a comparison of what's happening now compared to a decade or two ago. But the average household "back then" didn't have TV's in multiple rooms, usually 1 maybe 2 VCRs, one good stereo system, one or two calculators, perhaps 1 gaming system, and usually one good camera

[Speed]

"D40s, D50, RebelXTs, some of the cheaper Evolt packages etc..."

That's what I'm seeing around here. D40's, Digital Rebel's, Sony @100's, the lower end stuff with the kit lens (with an occassional mid-range camera) . Some of them are getting a 70-300mm to go with it.

But I'm not seeing a lot of 40D's, 1D's, D200's, D2X's, etc. I'm also not seeing a lot of 80-200mm f2.8's or 100-400 IS lenses either!

[freygr]

clip...

But I'm not seeing a lot of 40D's, 1D's, D200's, D2X's, etc. I'm also not seeing a lot of 80-200mm f2.8's or 100-400 IS lenses either!

Hey those are items that have some cost!

[photophorous]

Another factor may be that DSLR's have virtually no lag time in the shutter. All of those people you see taking photos of their kids playing sports most likely got frustrated with their point and shoot's lag time and always missing the shot...

This is the biggest complaint I hear from average consumers about digital p&s cameras, and almost everyone who sees a DSLR for the first time wants to know, "Is it fast?"

There's also one other big difference between today's camera market and that of twenty years ago. Before digital came along, there were a lot of different types of cameras to choose from that were all very capable. With digital, practically speaking, you have two choices: point & shoot or SLR.

Paul

[another view]

Perhaps it's simply that more people are buying more stuff in general.

This is my guess. A few (say 4-5) years ago DSLR's just weren't that great compared to the amount of money they would cost. Normal people (not "us" ) got used to buying and using digital cameras and then wanted to upgrade that gadget, just like everything else. I think the appearance of DSLR's at Best Buy, etc helped that along - most of these people wouldn't really think about stepping into a camera store. Impulse purchase?

Lots of interesting perspectives here. Tyson, you're right - but the difference between an amateur and a professional is that a professional has to come back with the shot. Anybody can get lucky once in awhile, but that's not a good strategy for consistent results. And nothing against amateurs - glad to be one myself.

[another view]

I thought it was pretty funny yesterday when she told me how much WORK it is, and said that all the time she has to put into it isn't worth what she makes! Who knew there was more to being a photographer than taking pictures?

As I was reading this, I was wondering about her business plan - and my suspicions were confirmed... Truth is, image quality will probably be decent enough for most of her clients. Matrix metering and program mode can do a 90% job in this case, from what I've seen. Of course "good enough" and wanting to be truly good at something are totally different things...

[jgredline]

Another factor may be that DSLR's have virtually no lag time in the shutter. All of those people you see taking photos of their kids playing sports most likely got frustrated with their point and shoot's lag time and always missing the shot. That plus it seems like these days everybody wants the latest and best, and the money to get it.

This is what hooked me and my wife...to many missed shots of our kids. 2 years later we have 3 pentax and two Nikon DSLRS....The three point in shoots are in the garage,,

[Rivman]

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, the thirst for new technology !
When I retired my 15 year old AE1-P in favour of an HP point 'n shoot camera, I was absolutely dismayed that my new p&s was discontinued, and replaced with an improved, newer version a scant 6 months later ? . . . Huh ?
So, . . . 4 digital cameras later, in just 2 years, I am now aware of the benefits and short falls of p&s digital cameras. What with lower prices, and improved features on digital SLRs, it's almost time to bite the bullet, and move up to a DSLR !
The same applies to most other material items recently purchased !
A new car ! A new surround sound system ! A new stove 'n fridge ! A new LCD monitor for the computer ! A new Digital TV ! . . . and you get the picture ! ( - no pun intended !)
Whether we realize it, or not, it's the way we live, and new product marketing strategy.
Just gotta have the latest and the greatest ! :thumbsup:

[mn shutterbug]

I'm quite shocked too, how so many of the people that just have to have a dslr know absolutely nothing about cameras or photography. My brother inlaw, who lives in the twin cities, picked up a Canon XTI about a year ago, because he wanted something faster for his kid's hockey games. When I saw him at Thanksgiving, I asked him how the pictures were turning out. He said, "not too bad". I asked him what kinds of setting he used. You guessed it, automatic. Even though I had never even looked at a dslr, I could give him pointers rregarding iso, aperture and shutter speed. His wife suggested that take a photography course. He tried my suggestions and emailed me the results. He thought they looked pretty good. They were decent but needed some PP work. This was another thing he had never messed with. I sharpened them and adjusted the levels and saturation and emailed them back to him. He was quite happy.

This is just another example of someone with a lot of disposable income, his wife's in this case, and figure if they spend $1000 or more, they'll be able to take wall hanging photos. Yeah, right.