six of one and half a dozen of another

[JR1]

Is it me or are all cameras these days the same ?

Ok I know they are not but think about it.

When I started out there was a clear distinction between amcams, hobbyist cameras and pro cameras, for example, you had the "Praktica" range, such as the Super TL which I had, a great entry level SLR, then you had the Pentax Spotmatic, advanced users camera, then the Nikon F's, pro cameras, yes I am not being 100% accurate in times or range but you get the idea.

There was a large "gap" between the 1-1/500th fixed back Prakticas and the Nikon F interchangeable screen/back/drive cameras.

However these days one is hard pushed to even really finds a difference. I know there are subtle ones, but most DSLRs from the likes of Pentax, Nikon and Canon offer exceedingly close specs on shutter speeds, and features. Take the Nikon D3200,3500, 7000, 7100 (or similar in Canon, apart from the extra odd FPS, focus points etc there is NO massive leap between the cameras, perhaps now, we have as someone said, reached the top of the mountain, and other than throw more and more MPs at the customer there is little more to do.

I was going to buy a D4s, I still may for the FF, but as I shoot mainly sports, I bought a 7100 to add to my two 7000s, and to be honest, I find little to justify the additional £4200 the D4s costs, when you see the ability of the so called "prosumer" models now, no wonder amateurs and newbys are confused.

[PhotomanJohn]

I agree with you from the point of view of picture quality, there is little difference. The differences are in other performance areas like frame rates, durability, weather and dust sealing, ease of making setting changes and the like.

The large cost differences is not surprising and associated with the law of diminishing returns. Years ago when I was into bicycles you had to double the price to get a significantly better bike. Then double the price again to get to the next level of bike and so on. This is true for many things including photography.

For the type of photography I do I would see no advantage to go beyond the D7000 and D800. If I was a Canon shooter it would be a 7D and 5DmkIII. If I was a sports photographer or traveled the world's deserts, oceans and mountains, then one of the higher end cameras would be a better fit.

And yes, it is a tough decision for the new buyer to sort out which Nikon to buy from their ever growing selection of cameras.

John

[Shadowman]

One thing I've noticed with the models listed, at least with the Nikon models, is that the presets change from model to model. Sometimes it's the way the presets (selective color, silhouettes, panorama,etc.) is accessed, sometimes it's the number of presets included. Also, the in-camera editing functions change from model to model, so if you are a jpeg only shooter, not very comfortable with manual settings, each new model has something for the new user and sometimes they throw in a little something extra for advanced shooters.

[Manfred M]

The problem of SKU (StockKeeping Units) proliferation is that some marketing guru has come up with a plan to nicely segment the market in the name of sales growth.

A long time ago, I worked for a company that had 60 distinct products; when I left 5 years later, they were running just over 200 distinct products. The total number of items sold was roughly the same.

I think that the camera manufacturers have gotten into the same game; and are wasting valuable engineering and manufacturing resources cranking out goods with insignificant difference / advantages. I personally like the way that the cosmetics company Avon works; the marketing group can only add a new product if they drop an existing one. If camera manufacturers did the same; we would be looking at perhaps three or four DSLRs to cover the entire range from entry level to pro.

[Shadowman]

The problem of SKU (StockKeeping Units) proliferation is that some marketing guru has come up with a plan to nicely segment the market in the name of sales growth.

A long time ago, I worked for a company that had 60 distinct products; when I left 5 years later, they were running just over distinct products. The total number of items sold was roughly the same.

I think that the camera manufacturers have gotten into the same game; and are wasting valuable engineering and manufacturing resources cranking out goods with insignificant difference / advantages. I personally like the way that the cosmetics company Avon works; the marketing group can only add a new product if they drop an existing one. If camera manufacturers did the same; we would be looking at perhaps three or four DSLRs to cover the entire range from entry level to pro.

I don't like when a model I just purchased ends up on the discontinued list within years of my purchase. This happened to my Nikon D60, it appeared on the discontinued list, then it was removed, however I haven't had any issues with the camera so I don't know what the ramifications of the model being discontinued are as yet.

[travis4567]

Jeremy, I own a $2000 canon 6d & a $450 SL1. For most photo situations there is no difference in quality of images, however, if I need to change settings quickly the 6d has quick setting adjustments that I have to dig through the menu settings on the sl1.
Also the full frame of the 6d allows me to raise iso to shoot in lower light and come up with a better image, also the ability to crop smaller and still maintain quality. Is this worth a $1600 difference in price. For me it is, I guess it's just the type of photography you do and what one's individual needs are.

[JR1]

Absolutely, could not agree more, same as compacts, so much alike and a new one every day, what is the point. In times gone by you knew that a new camera would come out in a few years with a large leap forward and you had a reason for change, now I believe in the race to stay in front manufacturers have shot themselves in the foot, which is why rightly or wrongly the Df is doing well, people are "looking back" at the retro style that has offered something a little different

as with photomanjohn I shoot a number of D7000s and & 7100s, the build quality is superb on the 7000 and believe me my cameras take a beating when I shoot motocross etc, take the d7100, it now has high level gaskets for water and dust, good build, high MP and not a bad frame rate that five years ago was a dream, I could get a D4s, but now see NO) reason to.

[DanK]

I agree with you from the point of view of picture quality, there is little difference. The differences are in other performance areas like frame rates, durability, weather and dust sealing, ease of making setting changes and the like.

For the most part, I agree. However, this was even more true in the film days, when the camera body had no impact on image quality at all. It's not entirely true now; for example, all other things being equal, a FF sensor is likely to give you less noise in low light and a bit more detail if you print large. Still, I agree with John that the main reasons for selecting among bodies is other factors.

I've owned three Canon bodies, an XTi (Rebel), a 50D, and a 5D3. I still have the latter two. My main reason for moving to the 50D was ergonomics and controls. On that count, the 50D was a huge step forward. The images when properly shot were not that different, but it was much easier for me to get the shot right. The 5D3 was a splurge. I wanted better AF and better low-light performance, the latter because I do some night photography, and I have started to print large on rare occasions. I found once I had it that the controls were vastly improved from the 50D. Still, had the 7DII come out--that's what I was waiting for--I probably would have been almost as happy with it.

I disagree with Jeremy about the retro look. I think it has happened for exactly the same reason as the proliferation of models: marketing. I still feel nostalgic for my old FTb, which I still have, but I wouldn't consider spending money to have the equivalent of one of my digital bodies packaged in a retro body. The new bodies are far better ergonomically, and the old designs are poorly suited to the much larger number of controls on a digital body. I consider the retro bodies a marketing gimmick designed to get folks to part with their money. Personally, I think they are selling solely for their looks, not for any greater value as a tool

[JR1]

Actually I know eight people from three clubs who have bought retro style cameras for exactly that reason, nostalgia and the fact that it offers them an alternate way of shooting, I still shoot with my Bronny SQAi and Nikkormats in film I enjoy the way they handle, as do car/motorbike enthusiasts and vinyl users to list a few, and remember what was once deemed "dead" is on the return, and we can't all be wrong, look at the csc and compacts now with retro styling, aimed "at" a growing market.

[DanK]

and we can't all be wrong, look at the csc and compacts now with retro styling, aimed "at" a growing market.

I didn't say that people who buy these are 'wrong.' I was simply making the comment that the reason for retro is marketing, just as the reason for much of the rest of the proliferation of models is marketing. Sometimes, a new model offers some functional improvement or functional difference for the camera as a tool--mirrorless, for example, or a larger sensor, better dynamic range, a better AF system, image stabilization, etc. I took your original post as saying that there aren't such functional reasons for a lot of the proliferation of models. I agree. And I can't see any functional reason for retro bodies. But if people enjoy them, that's fine. It's not my concern. Most of us, I suspect, would have to admit that we have bought photo equipment simply because we want it. I certainly have.

The other part of my post is that some of the largest improvements I've had in upgrading bodies is in the controls and ergonomics. For my taste--just mine--I wouldn't give that up for a retro appearance.

[Black Pearl]

If you gave someone who had used a Praktica MTL3 for a year a Nikon F3 they wouldn't bat an eyelid.
If you gave someone who had used a Nikon D3200 for a year a Nikon D3 they would struggle to even take a picture.

If you put a roll of Velvia in the said Praktica and a roll in the F3 then with a 50mm on both you would be hard pushed to tell the results apart.
Take a shot in a D3200 and one on a D3 and they will be very different.

I would say that camera bodies are far more diverse, user orientated and performance specific than they have ever been.