The DSLR camera market has truly been struggling with the growing popularity of mirrorless cameras. They may not be dead entirely, but the ones you have are getting hit even worse.
For the past couple of years, due to the emergence of faster and higher-resolution mirrorless cameras, along with the exponential growth of lens lineups for most major brands, people have been anticipating the death of the DSLR. But what are the parameters to be able to pronounce it dead? More importantly, who pronounces it dead? The truth is that no one can really tell until we all realized that it truly has died. It is most likely that we all only begin to realize it’s death when we notice that no new DSLR camera model has been released in the past few years. But for now, we know that it is still alive, but we have to think of our longevity as photographers with this camera format.
Signs of Life
We know that camera manufacturers still have not entirely given up on the line because of the development of the Canon 90D, the Canon 1D X Mark III, the Nikon D780, and the D6. But we should admit that about six years ago, the rate at which new DSLR models were released was at least three times faster. You would expect that by now, we should have at least the Canon 5D Mark V or VI or something similar. We must also acknowledge the fact that lens development for DSLR cameras has gravely declined. Canon and Nikon may have already established their DSLR lens lineups by now, so that is acceptable, but if we look at the third-party lens manufacturers previously aggressive in the DSLR game, namely Tamron, Sigma, and Tokina, we know that they could have developed more lenses (like a more affordable tilt-shift lens, for example) but got sidetracked by the rapid growth of demand in mirrorless camera lenses. In the past year alone, they have barely released anything for the DSLR system, and for the one brand that did, it was a mere update of a really old lens variant.
There was a time that I stood by my last few DSLR cameras, because it's what I thought fit my hands best. But recently, for economical purposes, I have had to let them go before their value gets any lower.
Is Yours a Dying Investment?
Because of the so-called "mirrorless revolution" that boosted the demand for the newer cameras, demand for DSLR cameras rapidly declined. Since people were more interested in the lighter and more compact cameras, there are consequently fewer people interested in used DSLR gear as well. Because of that, the used market for DSLR cameras and lenses suffered as well. Depreciation of value for such cameras and lenses accelerated. With a random search for used gear on B&H, Amazon, and even Craigslist, you would see that most high-value DSLR gear released in the last three years and in good condition is, at best, 40-60% of their original price. That means that if you have gear that is about five years old and up, its value has definitely gone down very quickly, with the exception, of course, of not-so-common pieces of gear.
Is It Time to Adapt?
If you are a DSLR user who still hasn’t gotten one foot through the door into the mirrorless ecosystem, you have quite a limited number of choices on what actions to take in response to this. First, you can shift now. Get that new mirrorless camera body and its native lenses. That way, they don’t depreciate as fast, and your money’s worth won’t go down as quickly. Doing so would also allow you to sell your current gear. That may not give you any significant profit and won’t really decrease your expenses since prices for used gear have gone down, but at this point, you can, at least, prevent any further losses rather than waiting for what you have to lose even more value.
Another option, of course, is to upgrade to a new-old DSLR camera or lens that was much more expensive a couple of years ago. This way, you can actually take advantage of what is happening and upgrade to something that you may have been wanting for a couple of years now. Of course, if you’re going to get it cheap, keep in mind that it’s only going to get cheaper in the future. Don’t expect to sell it for a good price in the future.
Making economical decisions for your gear are usually debates over being sentimental and being smart about financial decisions. This was the camera that I used the longest and the camera that I started my professional career with. It was hard to let it go, but the depreciation was just too fast.
Lastly, of course, you can opt to stick to what you have right now and let your gear live out its life. Especially if you don’t do photography professionally or if your line of work doesn’t really require so much on the technical aspects, then, of course, you can survive the rest of your life without having to upgrade. It is just important to realize early on that if you ever do upgrade, selling or trading your current gear for an upgrade can be quite helpful in decreasing the amount of money that you spend on your next camera. Older cameras are obviously also less likely to be accepted for such deals.
Planning Long-Term for Your Gear
Let’s face it. After everything discussed, the reality is that 99% of us can survive life without an upgrade. If your gear has delivered the images that you’ve needed in the past few years, the chances are that it can still deliver what you need in the next three years. Camera models turn over pretty quickly, but this is not in any way due to a certain need or requirement for most of us but is instead simply driven by the desire for new gear.
The past and next couple of years are quite crucial for photographers in terms of making gear choices. It may be tempting to shift to a mirrorless system of the same brand or maybe even shift to a new brand altogether. Know that every choice you make should always be 10 steps ahead of the game. Unless you have unlimited resources, you should think of how feasible your gear choices are and how quickly they might depreciate in the coming years. On the other hand, you should also know which pieces of gear you are willing to keep for the long haul. Many photographers (including myself) have one or two lenses in their lineup that are only used about 3-5% of the time, and it’s important to remember that no matter what, they will depreciate. Lastly, we are in a time of rapid development, at least for the mirrorless systems. If the need is not that compelling, then it may be prudent to wait things out and weigh your options once more of them are available.
As for the DSLR, who knows? The chances are that it won't really ever die since we've seen so many camera formats survive the advancements of technology and digital cameras. Heck, film is certainly not dead. They may be reduced to the bare minimum, but the DSLR format will always have its value.
If your shooting video you deffo want to switch to mirrorless. Mirorless just has video down pretty well. If your shooting stills only there's really not much reason to switch unless you really want a lighter weight camera.
"Use it up, wear it out, make it due, or do without". By the way, cameras are not investments. They are consumer products. And the most time I've wasted in photography, was in "researching, buying, setting up, learning new gear", instead of finding new subjects.
I still use D800 and D4 to this day as I have 400/2.8 and 300/2.8. I have D810 and will also want to get D850 one day. I have mirrorless and it has its use but DSLR really has its place in many situations especially anything to do with flash stopped down at lower light levels where mirrorless struggles because it has to stop down for live view and less light gets to the af sensor.
I continue with DSLR. Images delivered are still perfect. I have lenses that keep value cause highly sought after. I want to keep them as a long as I can. Buying into mirrorless is not urgent for me. I have big hands, a reason more.
Having the sharpest couple "sensor/lens" in the market is not a priority for me.
Also, image quality wise, It makes no sense to me buying what everyone buys, because it is a new hype or trend.
Searching for own expression and image signature is more important to my eyes. That can be achieved by the concept. It's all about your goal in photography. Some guy's goal is to have the most recent camera and the sharpest lens, some others will dream about mastering their art.
Something is being pretty obvious with more experience is that when you put your tech frustrations aside, it's the moment when you start standing out from the "Mesa Arch" photo crowd.
There will be tons of very good quality DSLR for less and less money. IMHO its perfect time to get top of the line DSLRs second hand - you've been covered for next 5 years. In 5 years you can just get a phone with multiple lenses, it is going to be as good as today's mirrorless. You've saved on the whole mirrorless hype (you'll thank me later) LOL
"Unless you have unlimited resources, you should think of how feasible your gear choices are and how quickly they might depreciate in the coming years."
I have been doing this a long time and can't think of one time when I was buying equipment that I worried how much value it lost over time or when I would sell it. I was more concerned about how much it cost.
I am not a day trader in camera gear I am a photographer. I buy what I need and probably run the wheels off it then buy something else. Some people have convinced themselves that cameras are investments...well almost all of them end up something like "might as well keep this 1Ds because I can't sell it on Craiglist for $250" value so there's a lousy "investment", monetarily speaking.
Why it's always one vs another. Both systems can live together. I have a DSLR for my wedding shoots, a small mirrorless for everyday and a analog point and shoot for travel.
No.
This is silly. The value of professional equipment is determined by how much you get paid for the work it enables you to produce, not the price it would fetch on eBay. Photography equipment is no more a financial investment for a photographer than pots, pans and knives are to a chef. As long as they fit their purpose, the scrap value is meaningless.
I agree. I have often seen pros use far older equipment than most wealthy amateurs. The school photograph at our school used a very old Canon 5d mk2. But for school pictures with studio flashes, it is more than good enough. The famous Canon colours however weren't there. The colour was mostly horrible.
Capital expenditure, or CAPEX, is the term used for the money spent by businesses on physical assets. It’s an important part of understanding a company’s accounts.
Businesses use capital expenditure in the development of new business, or as a long-term investment. That can mean buying a new office, developing a new warehouse, or fixing equipment within a factory.
CAPEX is defined as a physical asset that is either new or an extension of the usefulness of an existing asset. The asset being acquired or upgraded usually fits into one of three categories: property, industry (plant) or equipment.
In accounting, capital expenditures have their costs spread out over their useful lives, in a process called capitalisation: unless they are used to fix or maintain an already-held asset.
I am aware of capital expenditures. The author of this is suggesting making those expenditures for a stupid reason.
Given that you are woke, you may wish to re-draft your OP.
You spend the money to buy new things because the new things will improve the operation of you business or have a material impact on your bottom line, not because you are afraid that the bottom might fall out of the used market for you old things. Spending money on new things that do not improve your business in some way just because the used value of perfectly good equipment that does not need to be replaced might go down is stupid.
The last time I checked, my DSLR was already mirrorless - it's called Live View :). Tin hat at the ready...
I shall struggle on manfully with my DSLRs knowing full well that the mirrorless storm which I fully accept won’t diminish the efficacy of my present gear, if I was worried about the mere investment value I wouldn’t have bought any photographic gear but invested my ££££££s instead. Shiny box syndrome is for others.
As so often, for almost a decade, the DSLR replies (with a wink to Mark Twain), "Well, reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated." Seriously, when will you guys stop beating this dead horse?
Nope. Perfectly happy with mine and they will serve me and my clients well for years to come.
I will most likely replace any that need it with another DSLR, they just work for me.
I’ve shot film since buying my beloved OM2 in 1978 and my Canon 5d II is just an extension of that 35mm process. I still shoot film... at least a roll a week so I guess I agree with most of the commentary apart from mirrorless cameras have their place. My OM-D 5 MK II is my daily camera for when my iPhone is not enough and my Canon is too bulky. ALL formats have their place and the DSLR is definitely not dead. The article is only a provocation and perhaps a fact finder for some other organisation...
Wish I could justify a medium format but I... maybe I can...
i looooooooooooove that mirrorless is so popular. 1 because i can get smaller and lighter setups and 2 because all that super cool DSLR gear has gotten super cheap. on the flip side 6 months ago i spent about $1100 on a D800 and now it's resale value has dropped to around $500 lol. Oof it hurts but hey that's how the electronic cookie crumbles.
I'm so far past the "I want" part of looking at equipment. My gear are all tools. I have no emotional involvement with the gear. My passion is with the creation of the image. The gear should disappear in the process. I want the gear to get out of the way and not interfere, but simply provide the tools to help me extract the image from my mind so that I can show it to someone else. The only time my gear is apparent is when I've chosen the wrong piece for the process, or something else goes wrong. I'm a member of NPS and took a hard look at the Z6 and found nothing it offers that my D500s and D850 aren't already delivering.
Useless and pointless article. Nicco ... you should stick to what you are actually very good at ... making beautiful photographs!
I own a DSLR Sony A350 bought 9 years ago, its maybe old but it has a CCD sensor much better than the new mirrorless camera which uses a CMOS sensor , the dynamic range and color is much better. I hope they will make mirroless camera with a CCD sensor.
I'll ditch mine right away provided you pay for it. If not, pls don't offer such advices, it's my decision what to do. Moreover, the client doesn't care about what equipment or technique I use; they're concerned about image quality.
Hey, i am glad the dslr is dead. Got 2 d600s for 1100 bucks in total in almost new shape, a tamron 24-70 2.8 g1 for 500, and am hopefully about to snag a d810 for 800 bucks.
I just bought a pair of old clunkers both in excellent condition , a D3s and an eos 1Ds mk2 both are cameras i could never afford new costing over $14000 . Got both for $1200 and both work perfectly with low shutter counts and ideal for what I do.
Was astonished at low number of shots on a full battery with mirrorless cameras as i considered my next step. Have since found out it takes 5 batteries to cover a 90 minute soccer game! Glad i upgraded to D4 and D500.
I'll be sticking to my 5DMkIII for quite some time' so let the DSLR Live On
Is there any compelling reason to ditch my time-tested pro DSLRs with tons of shutter life remaining? As a hobbyist; I shoot landscape, street life and wildlife.
Transition from film to digital was kind of essential due to numerous factors that affect photography. But, now I can see the main reason to replace DSLRs with mirrorless cameras is helping the manufacturers survive in this lean phase of camera business. All the other allurements do not contain substance.