Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

What so nice about Manual with entry level DSLRs is the quick feedback loop. It beats film where you have relatively few exposures and a long time from snap to print. On the other hand, because of the expense and the time spread with film, you studied and prepared more knowing each frame mattered.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yes in a way. But with new users being generally younger immediate feedback is the norm. Heck with waiting.
Think on line shopping immediate purchase, Amazon Prime and never leave your mothers basement.

srt101fan

Don't let smart aleck posters drive you from this forum. You have as much of a right to be here as they do....

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

You did say no one would agree with you, so you opened yourself up to comments. While you suggestion is an interesting approach to teaching photography it is probably highly unrealistic and not one in a thousand newbies today would find it an acceptable approach.

To become a good driver one does not need to drive a 40 year old car with 40 year old technology to become proficient. You don't need to learn to drive a manual transmission with no power breaks or power steering. I did not learn to drive a manual transmission until I served in the army several years after I got my drivers license. Some people enjoy driving old cars, but its not a necessity to become a proficient driver.

Its the same with cameras. Some people enjoy shooting older film cameras and get superb results from them, but its not a necessary step to becoming a proficient photographer. Modern cameras have several shooting modes, including manual, and you see your results instantly and get immediate feedback on the impact of your settings. I used a manual Pentax K1000 for a few years back in the day. When I went digital my previous experience did not gave me any advantage. Photography is much more than knowing which button to push anyway. Its about understanding good composition, understanding light, and knowing how to use both effectively. If you were a new young shooter I highly doubt you would take your own advice.

Bill P

The "entry level" market is shrinking fast.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Retina - I phrased this in order to create spontaneous responses - regarding DISCUSSION on the validity of "Beginner" or "Entry-Level" DSLR cameras - most of which now, with the lone exception of Canon's T7 and SL2/SL3 series, and Pentax's K-70, seem to've fallen by the wayside. Now, with Nikon's announcement - those three - seem to be the lone survivors in this somewhat competitive field. However, as you can see - the thread has gone in many different directions, already. Look - when I jumped (added, really) from my 12MP Canon EOS Rebel T3 in 2012 to Nikon's 24MP D3200 - I doubled my Res (2x) - so if another UHH'er went from 6MP to 24MP - that constitutes a 4x jump - does it not?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Exactly, Bill ... so, the consternation which drove this concept - is more than simple perception ...

rcarol

Going from a 6MP camera to a 24MP camera indeed is a 2X increase in resolution not a 4X increase as many people believe. Let's suppose a 6MP camera has a resolution of 3000 X 2000 pixel. 3,000 X 2,000 = 6,000,000 pixels. So if wanted to double the total resolution of the sensor we would have to double the resolution in each axis. Thus we would have to have a sensor with dimensions of 6,000 pixels X 4,000 pixels. Multiplying those two together yields 6,000 X 4,000 = 24,000,000 pixels. Thus a 24MP sensor has twice the resolution of a 6MP sensor.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

So, then, R … what would you consider going from a camera with a 12MP sensor to one with a 24MP sensor?

foggypreacher Loc: Dickinson, Texas

My budget when considering my first DSLR and first camera in over 30 years was a Nikon D3400. It has been just enough of a challenge for me to learn more than I knew before. I will upgrade in a few years, but will probably stay with the DX as I am in it most for the fun of it.

If the new middle of the road DX cameras are gone, I'll just buy a refurbished or used as I have for most of my lenses. The only reason I would need a "better" quality camera is if I came into a windfall or started to make good money from my photos.

Retina Loc: Near Charleston,SC

Yes, it is 4x the number of pixels. The only reason I mention it is since is about entry level cameras and since pixel count is such a big deal to some, I wanted to mention that 4x the pixel count does not mean 4 times the ability to resolve details. I look to be corrected, but I am thinking of lines per mm with a capable lens and comparing sensors. Of course there is a correlation between pixel count and resolution, but the way the units are used in advertising and specifications, it can be a little misleading. I just wanted clarify a point in passing and certainly didn't mean to criticize.

The main point about the apparent passing of the entry level SLR is good news to me--it means there could be some real bargains in the near future. I expect there will always be great entry level cameras of some type. I doubt new customers will care whether they are buying mirrorless or reflex.

rcarol

The short answer without going through all of the math is that going from 12MP to 24MP is a 1.4 increase in resolution.

rcarol

When you went from 12MP to 24MP you double the number of pixels but you did not double your resolution. You increased your resolution by 1.4 times.

nikonnate Loc: Woodbury MN

I wanna see your professor's math:


1976 to 2019: 43 years

365 days per year

10 photos per day

(43 x 365 x 10) + (4 x 11 leap years x 10) = about 157,000.

By that, my D850 is gonna last me a LONG time. I'm just about to its 1 yr old point and it's only at 3500 actuations.

(21 million photos in those years is around 500,000 a year, or about 1350 photos per day. That's 100/ hour for most folks' normal waking hours sans eating and shower breaks.)