Prices of D-SLRs to Drop Significantly In The Near Future

[Brendan Goetz]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.com.com/Nikon+Snappy+success+for+digital+SLRs/2100-1041_3-6090562.html?tag=nefd.top' target='_blank'>http://news.com.com/Nikon+Snappy+success+for+digital+SLRs/2100-1041_3-6090562.html?tag=nefd.top</a><br /><br /></div><i>“Kimura said he expected industry prices to fall to about $500 within the next two years and then move toward the $300 mark. ‘In the film era, there were mass-market SLR models selling at $300. So there are people out there that want to take pictures with a SLR that costs about that much. I don't know when it will happen, but the next target after $500 is the $300 mark,’ he said.”</i><br /><br />That would be great. I’ve been in the market for a D-SLR for a few months now, and have had trouble pulling the trigger because of the $800-900 entry price for a D50 with a decent lens setup. $300-500 would be great because it would let people like me get into photography without spending an arm and a leg. Then, after we have mastered the basics, we could upgrade to a better quality body for more features. I’ll probably get a camera soon, but the price is a sticking point.

[Neil Enns]

Then, after we have mastered the basics, we could upgrade to a better quality body for more features.

You'll very likely find that you keep your first body for years, and when you have spare money to upgrade with it will go into lenses, not body. In the film world, the body is "just a box to capture light". Definitely not the same case in the digial world, but still... it's new lenses that generally let you expand your photographic experience, rather than a body with more bells and whistles.

My 10D lasted me for nearly three years, and over that time I built my lens collection. It was only once I had a nice compliment of lenses that I considered a new body.

Neil

[Damion Chaplin]

$300 is definitely the sweet spot. I'd consider DSLR at that price point.

Brendan, from what you've described in the past, I'm not sure you need even wait for a DSLR. I gather most of what you need to do with a camera can be accomplished with a prosumer camera that can be currently had for $300-400. I could be wrong though and you may have a specific need for DSLR...

[Gary Sheynkman]

This will definatly squizee the pro photogs again. With photography becoming more accesible via technology (easier to make a good pic) and now price...more and more amatures are posing as real pro's on craigslist and pros now have to compete with them. Kinda sad.

On the other hand....damn....I would have loved to pay 500 bucks for my 20D last year :lol:

[Tim Williamson]

I recently picked up a Canon EOS-10D with 3 different lenses, 2 extra batteries, remote bulb, external flash, 512 MB CF, and a nice carrying case for $900. It's been a while since I've been into photography (if you can even say I was ever really into it), but I thought this was a good enough deal on DSLR to justify the price. The next thing I'll be purchasing is a tripod.

Here are some of the pics I've taken with the new rig, don't make fun of me, I'm just an amateur. :oops:

http://t-willpics.blogspot.com/

P.S. The bottom picture was taken with a Kodak point-and-shoot digital.

[Neil Enns]

With photography becoming more accesible via technology (easier to make a good pic)

Meh, I don't buy this at all. I'm sure the same thing was said as film bodies dropped in price. The camera is just a tool, and you can take amazingly crappy pictures with them. Photography as an art, with images that grab your attention, is something that requires a human with talent. Megapixels are irrelevant.

And, don't get me started on how many times people ask me to recommend a digital camera so they can "take pictures like that" after seeing some of my stuff hanging up. :)

Neil