DSLR:s need to be categorized by their features, not their prices

Without going off on a long rant, I just wanted to highlight the tendency to rank cameras by their price first and their functions later.

For example, the 5D was at its release stricly concidered a pro camera. Now that it's gone down in price, it's concidered more of a pro-sumer. It's still the same camera though.

Likewise, when the Digital Rebel was introduced it was concidered to be aimed for advanced enthusiasts and some professionals, while now it, and the current generation of rebels, are "entry-line" cameras.


It simply seems that as the prices are lowered, so are the expectations on said camera. If a Mark III was lowered to the $1000 mark, the community would have to concider it prosumer no-matter its professional lay-out.

It's a bit silly, isn't it?

It's a bit silly to rank cameras as "prosumer", "amateur" or "professional".

spelunker wrote in post #7436068
Without going off on a long rant, I just wanted to highlight the tendency to rank cameras by their price first and their functions later.

For example, the 5D was at its release stricly concidered a pro camera. Now that it's gone down in price, it's concidered more of a pro-sumer. It's still the same camera though.

Likewise, when the Digital Rebel was introduced it was concidered to be aimed for advanced enthusiasts and some professionals, while now it, and the current generation of rebels, are "entry-line" cameras.


It simply seems that as the prices are lowered, so are the expectations on said camera. If a Mark III was lowered to the $1000 mark, the community would have to concider it prosumer no-matter its professional lay-out.

It's a bit silly, isn't it?

I'm curious how you substantiate this comment.

You want a cite? Sorry, I have none, it's only how my memory serves. Though even if you disagree on that point, perhaps you can still recognise the overall trend that people tend to label DSLR by their price first and their functions later, and that as prices go down, so are these notions.

I don't think I agree or see where you're coming up with this.

When I want a camera I look at various models and compare features and then look at prices and buy the camera with the most features/value for the money. I don't go out looking for a $1500 camera or whatever and expect because it's $1500 it'll meet my needs. Possibly newbs do this but I can't honestly see any serious amateur or pro photogrpher do this. They get what they need. Cost may be a factor but it's not a driver.

I agree with gooble, except of course cost is a driver! In fact it's the first thing people will ask when asked for camera suggestions - a budget. I think you mean that noone will just consider cost as a sole factor without seeing what they get for that cost.

mrkgoo wrote in post #7436124
I agree with gooble, except of course cost is a driver! In fact it's the first thing people will ask when asked for camera suggestions - a budget. I think you mean that noone will just consider cost as a sole factor without seeing what they get for that cost.

I should have said it's not the main driver.

gooble wrote in post #7436116
I don't think I agree or see where you're coming up with this.

What I'm saying is that 'regular' people who might not want to spend all that much on photographic gear still experience a technologic evolution as cameras get cheaper but still better. It means that this demographic can maintain their budget constraints but still upgrade, at least over time. From yesterday's P&S to the current Rebel line and possibly the XXD line at some point down the road. Likewise, enthusiasts, who might be willing to pay more, go from Rebels to XXD to XD. And I think this 'trend' changes the common perception of what is a camera for beginners, enthusiasts, pros, etc.

This is not a discussion on making informed consumer choices though. I expect anybody to not buy something for $1000 on a whim. Sadly though, that is not always the case.

Canon have for years used the pro-sumer category to test ideas. To me a load of "features" is a thoroughly bad thing. In film days, the top of the range professional cameras were quite simple beasts, but built like battleships to take the knocks that a working tool is bound to receive.

I'll never buy a camera because its features list is longer than the rest. In fact I'd be much more likely to be looking at the one with the shortest list. I'd remove at least 50% of the features my 30D has, I certainly ignore them.

To join Canon CPS you had to have 2 Pro bodies. 1D series, 5D, 20D, 30D or 40D were all in the list....so are they all pro bodies?

Actually, Canon Inc has always maintained that the only professional bodies were the 1-Series. Canon Inc has never, ever waivered from that viewpoint. Canon Inc has always said the 5D and xxD cameras were designed for "enthusiasts" and the DRebels were designed for "casual users." One former director of the imaging division for Canon specifically said the Kiss (Rebel in the US) was designed for housewives...his term.

Canon USA and Canon Europa (as cases I know of) have marketed the 20D, 30D, 40D, 50D, and 5D as "cameras for professionals who purchase their own equipment." And specifically, they've marketed those cameras to professionals who don't depend on absolute reliability in a camera body (you've never seen a Canon USA or Canon Europa ad of a professional sports photographer with a 5D...but you will see an ad of a portrait photographer with a 5D). They've never marketed the DRebels to professionals.

So I don't think there is any confusion sown by the manufacturers over the issue, and much of the anxiety suffered from feverish forum denizens is because they aren't paying attention to what the manufacturers are saying about their own products.

RD,

Feverish Forum Fanatic would scan better. Yes, it can get a teensy bit over intense here.

Lowner wrote in post #7436247
Canon have for years used the pro-sumer category to test ideas. To me a load of "features" is a thoroughly bad thing. In film days, the top of the range professional cameras were quite simple beasts, but built like battleships to take the knocks that a working tool is bound to receive.

I'll never buy a camera because its features list is longer than the rest. In fact I'd be much more likely to be looking at the one with the shortest list. I'd remove at least 50% of the features my 30D has, I certainly ignore them.

I think that's a silly thing to say.

Noone uses 100% of their features. That's because the feature list is long to appeal to a wider audience. Some features will appeal more to one user group and another set will appeal to others.

The camera you have will not be the camera it is today without the support of all those (well most - I don't know what use the direct print button has) features you don't use. You couldn't really say that if a camera was made with JUST the features you didn't like that you'd be more likely to look at it, even those features are a shorter list. The size of the list doesn't matter, I agree, so long as the right features for me (and for each other user) are on that list. That doesn't mean they should get rid of those other features, just to make it more appealing to me.

It makes perfect sense to group by price because usually you have a price in mind that you want to spend. So grouping all the cameras in your price range together, you can compare which works.

If we group the 5D, D700, A900 and 5DII in the same category, and I only have $1500, what good is it to compare with those cameras? Instead I say, for my $1500, I could get maybe a D300 body, a 5d classic, a 50D with a lens, maybe a Sony A700, etc. And then compare and see which fits my needs.

Anyway, makes sense to me.

How about instead of categorizing cameras, we categorize photographers based on skill level ranging from megapixel point and shoot specialist to Ansel Adams II?