maybe.. the K70 comes in bigger and also much heavier. it's really not in the same class either as it's launch price was also around $100 more than the SL2.

even the D5600 is around 150 more than this camera at launch body only.

the SL2 as the lightest and smallest or one of the smallest DSLR's.. kind of sits alone it doesn't match up well against many others.

The launch price of the Nikon D3400 was $650, so it's pretty close to the launch price of the Canon SL2.

How does it work?

How can any camera be earthshattering? Just about any camera nowadays takes pretty good images so this sort of manic shouting techno hyperbole just seems show a sense of desperation in the industry to flog stuff and users to get any useful improvement to match expenditure when everyone's existing kit works fine.

These cheapo bodies are the bread and butter of camera companies. They sell these by the dozens for every enthusiast body sold, and probably by the hundreds for every professional camera sold. Their production costs are low due to low-end materials and economies of scale, and their R&D costs are low because their tech is mostly trickle-down from yesteryear's high-end models. Even at fairly low profit margins per unit, these entry-level cameras pay for the R&D of the tech that goes into the next generation of higher-end models.

Also, most ILC owners never buy a lens besides the kit lens. If SoCaNikon didn't have the entry-level market to subvent their high-level R&D, their prices would be at the Zeiss/Leica level.

@KeepCalm Just about any camera nowadays takes "pretty good images?"

Talk about an understatement. . . Even these "cheapo" entry-level DSLRs are capable of making terrific images. Cameras have become like PCs: Digital cameras have way more power and features than most photographers need or will ever use.

And yet the photo gearheads clamor for more pixels, more dynamic range, more FPS, moremoremore. And the camera companies are happy to feed the upgrade mania. Photography gear has become the latest consumer buying fad. For many "photographers" it has little to do with actual photography.

It is an extremely slight advantage though...

1.5 versus 1.6 isn't that much of a difference. you won't even notice it under 99.999% of conditions.

not to mention many recent sony sensors have been 1.54 to 1.55 in actuality.

if you think 1/4 to 1/3 EV will make a noticable difference, then I just don't know.

Quote "if you think 1/4 to 1/3 EV will make a noticable difference, then I just don't know."
Tell that to people who pay very high prices for fast lenses and tell camera reviewers, who for years have saluted Nikon cameras for having an advantage in low light photography, that it doesn't matter. You will not be listened to I think.

@The Collector
Tell this Leica M Edition 60 Users - i'd love to get one, *if* i could afford it, but it'll cost a kidney with just 2-3 Lenses. ;)

marc petzold, Leica M is not a mainstream camera.

Ruekon, using a smart phone as a screen is not convenient.

Collector: Anyone does know that, but it seems you just want to be right into that term. It's just about that this statement of you is nonsense.

Quote: "DSLR without back screen?
Digital camera without back screen is pretty much useless."

And it is not. And who cares - about this second Argument, if it's being mainstream or not. The M 60 Edition is a very nice piece of a Camera.

I can also argue, i don't wear mainstream clothes, i am not listening to mainstream music - never, i dislike trends, or whats hot or not. Who cares? Nobody. The same with your statement. Horses for Courses. :-)

Good Light !
Marc

Getting ready and pairing a smartphone every time when I need my camera for any reason ( not just shooting), would be very inconvenient for me.
Also, built-in screens are generally more reliable than external ones, especially those with wireless connection. They tend to give up in the heat of action.

"If I was Nikon, I would build an entry level DSLR without any back screen. Give it a better SnapBridge and WiFi instead -- and some means to snap on an articulating smart phone."

a) More advanced cameras can be used all day long without even glancing at the rear screen. That's because more advanced cameras are covered in buttons and knobs. Not only is that probably more expensive, it's not advantageous to new photographers.
b) a decent smartphone costs way more than these entry-level cameras.
c) I'm awaiting a time when cameras have ~real~ connectivity. Uploading direct from the camera to Facebook, for instance, completely removing the need for additional devices and doing away with smartbridge-type gimmicky glitchy workarounds.

Apart from the sensor... Lol.

Download the raw samples and see how much you have to push a photo to see any difference. I'll guess it will be 4 to 5 stops. Then go look at the last 1000 photos you took and see how many you pushed even past 2 stops. This worse dynamic range mantra Dpreview continues to spread has to stop.

For budget prime lenses for both Cankon users they rely also on 3rd party makers. The 35mm f/1.8 Nikon is a killer, but Canon also have some stellar pancake lenses that Nikon doesn't have, they can't really laugh at each other for the narrow selections of prime glasses for crop sensors.

Canon has that nice 35mm 2.8 macro with a ring flash that also has IS. Also affordable so tell your friend to get that. He could always get the old 35/2 as well.

How well are you going to do in a photography course without a camera?

Who cares about the look of a camera
The caracteristiks are what count
No?

In that case a D5 also looks like a D1... They're all dSLRs, and there's not too much to change.

Some (a lot) of people like DSLRs, precisely because of the optical viewfinder. Shooting experience matters. These are two perfectly good cameras, for beginners, but also for others; it depends on what you like to shoot and what your needs are. Some will want more up-front controls, and other features; others won't.

Revenant: I think it likely has more to do with the increased interest in video.

Agree, these fragmented articles are a pain to read

it is all about page clicks, they record more page hits if you have to keep clicking "next"

Rumors say there is an efs 30 1.8 stm in the works, and it may come with IS.

Here here... come on DPR add Pentax to this article.

That would be just cruel to Canon and Nikon...

does pentax still make cameras?

Best not to confuse worth with ubiquity - there were an awful lot of Trabants around in East Germany, but that doesn't mean they were better than VW Golfs..

The K-70, if one doesn't mind the weight, wipes the floor with these two. The Pentax AF system is now competitive with the ancient 9-point module on both for most uses.

The Sony A68 with kit lens is only $20 than the Canon SL2 and kit lens.

Good point, I just made an edit to make that clearer.

Olympus, Panasonic and various third party lenses offer a wide range of FL's, and because of the short sensor to mount distance, you will find a wide range of legacy glass to fit on Oly and Panny. I'm partial to my PK lenses adapted to my EM10. My Industar 50-2 is fun to use, and returns good results.

The Olympus, Panasonic, and various third party range of lenses is ridiculous compared to the Canon and various third party range of lenses...

Smaller sensor, lower resolution, and an utter crap battery life.
I can't believe that costs as much as a DSLR!

Bigger and heavier is worth more?

Much better build quality than crapified cheap DLSR, resolution more than adequate, smaller, get there with lens not sensor, lighter, a lens for every need. More than 1,000 shots on a battery if EVF is turned off between shots. How hard is it to swap a battery? - Not.

Vastly better IS more than makes up for smaller sensor. Go to a shoot with 7 lenses and a body in half the size/weight as a 7D MKII with two lenses and get the same results. Better. You can't do it with two lenses. I have to give some images to my Canon buddy because he can't get them. No? YES!

Try hand holding a FF DSLR at 600mm and a few seconds exposure. Don't believe it? U-didn't try it, believe only what C&N can do is the limit - no. With those systems, yes. We moved on from the world of Fred Flintstone.

Suave - how's over 50 AF lenses released by Panasonic and Olympus, vs. 15 EF-S lenses by Canon? Because sure, you can use larger, more expensive, non-optimized EF lenses on a Canon, but so can you on the Olympus (and Nikon, Pentax, and a host of manual lenses). In term of dedicated, format-corrected lenses, MFT bests all other crop sensor alternatives, and actually comes pretty close to the current amount of G/E Nikkors.

"The Olympus E-M10II is a much better camera in almost all respects, and costs the same as the Canon kit."

Really? Where? An EM10-II with the not so good 14-42 costs ~$800
Canon SL-2 with 18-55 is ~$700
Nikon D3400 with 18-55 is ~$500, and you can get a kit with the excellent AF-P 70-300 for ~$600.

In the entry level market, $100 is huge, not to mention that the Canikon kit lenses are better here.

Suave: So, you basically admit that your claim was cow manure, and that you've nothing to say about MFT's lens selection? That's great to know :D

No, it's just that I own Canon, Nikon and Oly cameras and you bore me with your fanboi narrative.

You are a fan boy who is so bored by what you do yourself you can't stop responding. Nothing you say is believable. Its all bitter and bias. Your just malcontented.

Except that the E-M10 III has pretty abysmal AF that's still only contrast based. Reviews demonstrate this weakness. Forget about getting anything moving in low light. No mic jac despite 4k and video AF is useless. What's the point in having a stylish small ILC if it can't do the one thing you pay for in a modern camera- auto focus!

This is why Canon is and will continue to wipe the floor with it's old outdated designs over Olympus. They focus on exactly what people need and no one complains. Now here we have a camera with dual pixel shift that gives great AF in video mode. Not to mention most people aren't viewing 4k footage anyway.

Here in Montreal, Canada, the SL2 is $899 while the D3400 sells for $649. While I consider the SL2 a good camera, I would not spend a thousand dollars on it. I'd buy an E-M10 mk 2 with 2 kit lenses. Maybe in a year or two when the SL2 will sell for $600, I'd fetch it.

I'd say for the audience this camera is targeted at mention lens line-ups is a moot point. The majority of those buying one of these will at most purchase one additional lens outside of the kit lens (or lenses if they got a kit tele-zoom). If they decide to do that it will most likely be a cheap fast prime (35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.8, 28mm 2.8, etc).

If those buying these cameras really get into photography they will most likely upgrade to a better body before they start buying lenses.