# ILC Camera Sales Slightly Down from Last Year



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 6, 2015)

```
Interchangeable lens camera shipments remain slightly down from last year, according to the latest data. DSLRs remain the bread and butter of the industry, as the perceived mirrorless shift still hasn’t taken hold when looking at the raw numbers, especially in North America. Could that be because the two biggest DSLR manufacturers don’t appear to have taken mirrorless seriously for the advanced amateur/professional, like Fuji, Olympus and Sony have?</p>
<p>As for Canon’s place in the mirrorless segment, it’s the same old story, is Canon not serious about mirrorless because the market isn’t growing, or is the market not growing because Canon doesn’t appear serious about it?</p>
<p><a href="http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/12720/camera-sales-february-2015-data-quiet-corpse" target="_blank">See more charts and sales data at PV</a></p>
```


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Apr 6, 2015)

I'm not seeing on there what data sources were used.


----------



## sanj (Apr 6, 2015)

I expected this. I think market is getting saturated. Perhaps. Don't pounce on me!!!


----------



## Maiaibing (Apr 6, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Interchangeable lens camera shipments remain slightly down


Always interesting to see sales numbers etc. Thanks. 

"Slightly down"? I wonder if we are looking at the same charts? The poster says the charts for the last years resemble a Seneca Cliff scenario (= collapse, the word I would use to describe whats happening in the DSLR market).

Canon's wording looking at 2014 was that: "Demand for interchangeable-lens digital cameras continued to face harsh conditions due to the economic slowdown." That's not "slightly down".

In addition we could use some source clarification.


----------



## sanj (Apr 6, 2015)

I also feel that there has not been any super technology breakthroughs which will tempt many to buy new gear. So market and technology saturation seems to be the cause. IMHO.


----------



## SwnSng (Apr 6, 2015)

Seems to me the downturn on the DSL market has to do with that the market is saturated with customers that are happy with current camera and therefore not upgrading to something more compelling.


----------



## Fatfaso (Apr 6, 2015)

There are things I need to purchase first (house renovations), but as soon as I have the disposable cash, I'm going to buy a Sony A7RII, a Canon fd 50 1.2L and an fd 24 1.4L. The main reason I want this stuff is for casual "fun" shooting (which I need to do more often) and travel. Until native lens selections in the mirrorless world improve, as does AF, my Canon DSLR and EF lenses will remain my bread and butter moneymakers, but there is definitely an appeal to a low-weight high quality kit.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 6, 2015)

I thought US would be higher in DSLR ???


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 6, 2015)

Fatfaso said:


> There are things I need to purchase first (house renovations), but as soon as I have the disposable cash, I'm going to buy a Sony A7RII, a Canon fd 50 1.2L and an fd 24 1.4L. The main reason I want this stuff is for casual "fun" shooting (which I need to do more often) and travel. Until native lens selections in the mirrorless world improve, as does AF, my Canon DSLR and EF lenses will remain my bread and butter moneymakers, but there is definitely an appeal to a low-weight high quality kit.



Now that Sony is starting to come out with faster FE glass, it'll be easier to compare whether or not a mirrorless kit will be lighter. The new Sony FE 35 f/1.4 is 4.5x3.1 in and weighs 22.3 oz. The 35L is 3.4x3.1 in and weighs 20.5 oz. The body may be smaller/lighter, but if the lenses end up being of comparable size, then it's appeal is reduced.


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 6, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I thought US would be higher in DSLR ???



I'm also curious what fraction the US is out of the Americas slice.


----------



## 9VIII (Apr 6, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Could that be because the two biggest DSLR manufacturers don’t appear to have taken mirrorless seriously for the advanced amateur/professional, like Fuji, Olympus and Sony have?



I think you could just as easily reverse that question and ask why Fuji and Olympus don't have Full Frame bodies.
Sony has them but still for more money, and then there's lenses.
That said I am going to take a serious look at the Fuji 400mm zoom lens when it comes out, but you still have a lot of performance gaps between the different systems.


----------



## Arkarch (Apr 6, 2015)

Forget the Mirrorless vs DSLR comparison - all I see is the decline in overall sales.

Could be saturation as people find their current cameras do a good job of family-routine needs (vacations, etc).

As a student of cycles, I also see it as a indication that the current do-it-yourself peak has been reached.


----------



## Eldar (Apr 6, 2015)

In a situation where the market seems to collapse (slightly down is quite an understatement, considering the development over some time now), it becomes very difficult to understand how Canon, being the market leader in ILC, only dash out minor improvements on very traditional platforms, at a very slow pace. That is something you can do when you have growth and you are top of the heap. 

In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them. I see a market leader, stuck in the strategies of yesterday, failing to see new trends, failing to attract new customers, failing to offer enough new exciting options to existing customers.

I know some will tell me that these are strategic decisions, based on very thorough market research, has nothing to do with lack of capability and they are still the greatest etc. etc. and I am only a peripheral customer, with way off requirements to main stream. Well, I have bought lots of Canon gear in the past, so I was not so peripheral then, and I am willing to buy more, if they provide what I want. Now they don´t, so I may as well sit with what I have. And main stream, who ever they are, they are abandoning ILC. So simply summed up, Their strategy sucks ... big time ...


----------



## JumboShrimp (Apr 6, 2015)

IMHO: There is nothing serious about mirrorless cameras ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2015)

Eldar said:


> In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.



It's been argued that Sony is doing that – Exmor sensors, FF mirrorless. They're likely spending significant R&D resources to do so. Is it helping the market? Is it helping Sony?


----------



## tiger82 (Apr 6, 2015)

The peaks seem to coincide with major new DSLR camera releases.


----------



## pj1974 (Apr 7, 2015)

dilbert said:


> tiger82 said:
> 
> 
> > The peaks seem to coincide with major new DSLR camera releases.
> ...



+1

My background is in business management & marketing, so details about Canon’s selling strategies and information about the camera / photography market is very interesting to me. (I currently work as a manager in the Australian federal government… but that’s another story)

I find the information presented here quite interesting – at a macro scale. However I wish there was more detailed information available (entry level, mid level, enthusiast, brand, APS-C vs FF, 1st, 2nd, 3rd camera, etc). I realise there are many sources for this information, but I wonder where the most comprehensive information is (and how do they work out if a camera purchase is a 1st, 2nd, 3rd body).

Then what about lenses and other photography / camera components and accessories…

Yes, as you can see I’m hungry for more information / data. However what I enjoy much more is actually taking photos and sharing with friends and those who appreciate images. Cheers everyone!

Paul 8)


----------



## tiger82 (Apr 7, 2015)

The peaks do coincide with the releases of the 6D, 70D, and 7D2


----------



## expatinasia (Apr 7, 2015)

When you look at the geographical distribution of DSLRs it may explain why it is so much easier to find lenses here in Asia than in the Americas. At least going by what some people have been reporting with regards to not being able to find some of the newer lenses.

Makes sense for Canon to put more lenses where the majority of DSLRs are sold.


----------



## riker (Apr 7, 2015)

Of course the mirrorless market is not growing when the two biggest manufacturers don't make it grow.

I'm a Canon user and have been waiting for 2 years now to be able to purchase a mirrorless SYSTEM.
The Sony a6000 and available lenses are still far better ((
I do NOT want to buy other brands, having a gear set with a mix of different incompatible stuff, different handling, etc, is stupid.

I would also add, that Canon cameras are not supported in special fields!!! I'm dreaming of an M line camera that I can use for travel, underwater and aerial. Still not really possible  The M line is barely supported for underwater, and not at all supported for aerial. Sony is way ahead in this matter too.

As for the Sony A7 series, as much as I love the innovative approach and would love Canon to do something similar, since you end up using the same heavy lenses, all together, even a small travel set (let's say body + 3 lenses) does not become much smaller and lighter.

I think one reason for why Canon is terribly slow in the mirrorless filed is that they are affraid of sacrificing the APS-C DSRL market. Let's admit, you have (or can easily have) the quality and performance of an APS-C body + EF-S lens in a compact size mirrorless setup. With a proper mirrorless system, the whole APS-C DSLR technology/idea becomes obsolate...while they have most of their income in that market.
And at the same time, there are LOTS of people who do not need a DSLR, but they buy one instead of a compact (often with just a kit lens), just because it looks more professional. Would they buy mirrorless which has the same performance?

What is "funny" though, that is the most natural thing that we always want things smaller and lighter and Japan was the country which made it possible for all of us, not just in photography but in the whole electronics field. Now they seem to forget that most basic drive.

The whole camera design and concept is obsolate as is, having the same size, weight and design of professional cameras for decades. Canon's last innovation in this matter that is worth mentioning was the 100D, even though it's not real innovation, just a step, a decision....they made it. It could have been made anytime.
In my dreamland, even professionals are using EOS M size bodies, with the possibility of addons for better grip, more battery and processing power, memory, etc. A modular camera design, where the user can choose the size, weight and performance of the camera and configure it for the situation the camera is needed for. I keep it small and light for travel but can make 2-3X size for studio, sports, whatever.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 7, 2015)

I'm surprised film cameras aren't listed. Fuji must be selling a lot of instax cameras. And if you look at Amazon's best sellers in cameras (http://www.amazon.com/best-sellers-camera-photo/zgbs/photo#1), you have: -

1. Instax Film
3. Instax Film
7. Instax Mini 8 (Pink)
9. Instax Mini 8 (Blue)
16 Impossible Polaroid Film
17 Instax Mini 8 (White)
21 Instax Film
22 Impossible Polaroid Film
24 Instax Mini 8 (Yellow)
25 Instax Film
27 Instax Film
28 Instant Film
30 Instax 210

The only DSLR in the top 30 is the Canon T5 (which comes in at number 23).

I think the whole decline in DSLR sales is interesting. But not as interesting as the resurgence in Polaroid and Instax photography (and film photography as a whole).


----------



## Eldar (Apr 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.
> ...


I'm not sure Exmor sensors actually helped. It did help Sony to build a position they didn't have and it probably helped Nikon to sell cameras they wouldn't have sold, if it wasn't for the sensor and it sold quite a few Zeiss lenses. But it probably stalled sales for Canon. A lot of people are sitting on the fence, waiting for Canon's response. I hoped the 5DS would be a proper response, but it is not, so I am still on the fence, buying nothing.

If Canon had provided the Exmor sensor I believe the situation could have been different. If the market was offered a 5DIV, 36MP, 14-15 stop DR etc. a year ago, Canon would have sold a lot to their existing customer base and they would have stopped the leakage to Sony and Nikon and in the high resolution/low ISO end of the market. Add to that new L-primes (24, 35, 50, 85, 135) to counter the new offerings from Sigma and Zeiss. Add to that 4k video, interchangable focusing screens, wifi, remote control for flash, GPS and a few more, which are all available and proven, they would have sold more cameras. 

I do not know what the business case looks like, if they had done this. But a lot of this is just to include something they already have, with very limited industrialization work. Others are more fundamental, but should be doable. But I do know that the conclusions in a business case for a continously declining market is either milk what is left to be milked and then get out or invest to create growth.

If the A7/A7R had been Canon products, with Canon ergonomics and EF lens compatibility, I believe they would have been more successful and sold better. Innovation from the market leader has a lot more value than when it comes from the more peripheral suppliers.

But most importantly, I believe the problems are all the high volume offerings they don't have, which could fund the new state of the art technologies. I will not pretend to know what they are, but camera bodies that are more or less unchanged since the T90 is obviously not it. I would guess improved interaction with social media, faster and easier sharing, modular systems adaptable to different uses, remote control, both of and from the camera, wireless interaction with computers, cell phones and pads, cameras with 3G/4G connectivity, broadcast funcitons, user friendly and compelling hardware/software combinations ... What would it take for a GoPro kid to switch to Canon? What would it take to motivate an iPhone-6 selfie photographer to put a Canon camera solution on their wish list?

But my business is air traffic management, so I'll leave the answers to Canon & Co.


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 7, 2015)

FWIW, it seems Fuji sell more instax cameras than the total of all Mirrorless cameras combined.

From an announcement dated 10/09/14 (http://www.fujifilm.eu/eu/news/article/news/fujifilm-announces-exciting-new-instax-wide-300-camera/)

"Fujifilm has sold *more than 2.3 million* units of instax mini cameras in the past year and worldwide demand continues to rise."

I think it's fair to say that the digital fad is being replaced by the instax fad.


----------



## Tugela (Apr 7, 2015)

Most people buy a camera for the label above the lens housing, not because of what sort of viewfinder it has. The vast majority of people who buy DSLRs are probably not even aware that there is a mirror in there, nor do they care even if they do know. They buy the label.

If Canon got serious about mirrorless the DSLR market would take a nose dive and be limited primarily to pros and people who want to look like they are pros. That might actually be the real reason they resist MILCs, because the sales they do to the masses subsidizes the development costs of the underlying technology in the mirror box.


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2015)

I was in Japan from during April for the National Cherry Blossom Festival and I took the effort to look at what Japanese were carrying with them to take photos with.

90% of the Japanese were using an ILC when doing photography. Even saw one fella use a Hassleblad at the Imperial Palace.

Of the Japanese nationals with a camera 90% of them was using a camera model marketed in the last 3 years.

Gaijin tourists like myself are most likely to use a smartphone for photos there.

While I avoided the place my friend visited BIC CAMERA. I am unsure if the prices is with or without sales tax.


----------



## Bennymiata (Apr 7, 2015)

People who buy DSLR's will buy them regardless of how good milc's are.
If Canon and Nikon brought out some really good milcs, I doubt it would affect their DSLR sales by any great percentage as most of those sales would come from other brands of milcs + sales to existing Canikon DSLR users as a useful novelty and addition to their gear which is compatible with their existing accessories.

I can't see milcs taking a huge piece of the ILC market regardless of how good they are.


----------



## dolina (Apr 7, 2015)

I see SLRs becoming as relevant as RangeFinders given enough time and innovation in the MILC space.

Give it a decade or two.


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Eldar said:
> 
> 
> > In a falling market, you need catalysts, to motivate your existing customer base and attract new ones. Where are Canon´s catalysts to boost more life into this? I don´t see them.
> ...



Not getting it. If it is not helping Sony (Your implication, I am clueless), Canon should not do something to pick up sales? Or you saying they should look elsewhere, and not at FF mirrors, other sensors?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 7, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Eldar said:
> ...



I'm saying they *are* looking elsewhere. Cinema, network and industrial cameras, the (rumored) drone camera, etc. The office division generates more sales revenue than the imaging division, they could also divert some resources that way. Sure, ILCs will remain a core of their business. But the whole market is shrinking, not just Canon's (although they're predicting a tiny increase in ILC unit sales for FY15) - the conservative approach is to prioritize investment in a growing/stable market over a shrinking market.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Apr 7, 2015)

Whilst a tiny snapshot comparing the first two months of 2014 to 2015 the falls if anything are small not in the region of the falls since 2011. DSLR sales went up in Europe and various dealers I know in the UK said sales were fairly brisk in March and above March 2014. The Photography Show was very well attended and the three retailers sold out of many items something they have not done over the previous two years. Canon have a number of lenses on back-order, had pre-sold 3500 EF 11-24mm f4L lenses and all this is before the 750D (T6i), 760D (T6), 5Ds and 5Ds R hit the streets. Its difficult times, the recession has coincided with the slump in camera sales and they are discretionary spend, in Europe the recession has still not abaited so the road will be bumpy for some time. 

Glass half empty, glass half full dont write the industry off too soon.


----------



## sanj (Apr 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sounds smart to me. If they did come up with a photography product which would take the fancy of the masses they could make a lot of money. I am sure they are trying.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> What I do know is that I'm going on vacation soon and I'm shopping for a walk around camera to take with me when I'm out and about in the city. I'm done carrying around a great big DSLR plus bag of lenses. I suppose I could liken the DSLR to a MF camera: something that you packed in the car, not something that you walked around with.
> 
> And you know what?
> 
> Canon has nothing interesting in that segment when you look at the combination of $ plus what you get for your money. There are some really cool m4/3 cameras that are perfect for this and Canon is nowhere to be seen. Sure Canon have some "large sensor" small cameras but they're all fixed lens and more expensive.



So says any Canon owner that hasn't actually use an EOS-M/2/3.................


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



You could get EOS-m 1's shipped anywhere for very cheap. With APS-C you don't need a large zoom over an M 4/3, just use the 22mm and crop. You say you want want a small walk around camera, then you say you are back to huge telephotos! Why? What does a long tele offer for a small walk around in a city?


----------



## sanj (Apr 8, 2015)

When I want a small vacation camera (which would match my demands of IQ), I find better options outside of Canon. Unfortunately.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2015)

sanj said:


> When I want a small vacation camera (which would match my demands of IQ), I find better options outside of Canon. Unfortunately.



I am a bit of an iq snob and would be interested in what you consider so much better than the EOS-M? I looked around and certainly could find anything visibly better in normal reproduction, indeed it is far and away the best small camera iq I have ever owned.

Sure there are more interesting cameras out there, but from an iq point of view it is up there with the best for the size and beats anything easily for the price, throw in the Canon integration and for many, me included, it is an impossible combination to beat. If I get any kind of windfall this year I'd take a close look at the EOS-M3 and the EVF kits out of Japan, with the new control dials, the removable EVF and that amazing 22mm f2 it makes for a very interesting camera with very high iq.


----------



## sanj (Apr 8, 2015)

I prefer built in EVF (my personal shooting style, nothing to do with IQ) and built in flash (a must for me for family dinner photos). So I like the amazing Fuji x100 (t/s) and the tiny tiny Sony RX 100 III. 

Who wants to deal with detachable VF, flash etc when not going on a work gig.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2015)

sanj said:


> I prefer built in EVF (my personal shooting style, nothing to do with IQ) and built in flash (a must for me for family dinner photos). So I like the amazing Fuji x100 (t/s) and the tiny tiny Sony RX 100 III.
> 
> Who wants to deal with detachable VF, flash etc when not going on a work gig.



I understand both of those features, but as you yourself say, neither has anything to do with iq. The EOS-M3 not only has a built in flash but it is bounce-able and an optical controller so if, at your family functions, you felt like placing a remote flash or two around the room on chairs or shelves you have vastly superior light control. The EOS-M 22mm f2 is every bit as good as the Fuji 23mm f2 as well. Indeed when I was looking for a new compact camera my choice came down to a Fuji X100S with fixed 23mm f2 at $1,200, or the EOS-M with an interchangeable 22mm f2 and 90EX flash for $299, 25% of the price!

Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.


----------



## sanj (Apr 8, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > I prefer built in EVF (my personal shooting style, nothing to do with IQ) and built in flash (a must for me for family dinner photos). So I like the amazing Fuji x100 (t/s) and the tiny tiny Sony RX 100 III.
> ...



Good points. I must check on internet but how does it compare with Sony 100 iii on size and does it have IS? But it does not have EVF so my choice would be The Sony. Trust me, I would buy cheaper and stay with Canon if I got IS, pocketable (with comparable sensor size), built in EVF and flash, easy access to control, fast auto focus and not much noise at 3200 ISO.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.
> ...



Does anybody make one? I can see the Olympus 40mm-150mm f4-f5.6 which is a ff 80-300 f8-f11, which isn't a lens I'd be interested in using at any size. Or the Olympus 40-150 f2.8, a ff equivalent of 80-300 f5.6 for $1,499.

It might be small, but it is slow and very expensive as far as I am concerned, stick that on your $1,100 Olympus, or the $1,497.99 GH4 and we are hardly looking at the same thing, besides, my original comment was questioning the honesty of the idea that Canon don't make anything in the size with the IQ, which is false, they do.

Sure other cameras offer different specs and might be more suitable for any individual and their uses, but saying Canon don't do something when they do is wrong.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2015)

dilbert said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Like I say, I can understand people preferring a different feature set in a small camera than the EOS-M delivers, but the IQ argument is, in my experience, completely bogus, as is the 'huge telephoto' one.
> ...



Gee, dilbert, you're so right. It's not like there's an EF-M 55-200mm (88-320mm FFeqFL compared to the m4/3 40-150mm which is 80-300 FFeqFL), right? The EF-M 55-200mm lens is a whole 3mm longer than the 40-150. Or...do you think something 3.3" long is *huge*?? :-X

Oh, and if you meant an actual m4/3 70-300mm, the Canon IS non-L is close enough (0.5" longer, and I'd certainly prefer in-lens IS over IBIS at 300mm).


----------



## Albi86 (Apr 8, 2015)

Not sure if anyone has noticed that in the overall camera shipment graphs, while compact and dslr are rapidly falling, the mirrorless segment is pretty stable. Overall, in percentage, mirrorless sales are growing. 

And yes, I think Sony's aggressive strategy has helped them quite a bit. They're back to profit after a few years of heavy losses. 

By the way, this is the way Canon ascended to be the market leader back in the 80-90's. Sony is today what Canon was 30 years ago.


----------



## photonius (Apr 8, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> Fatfaso said:
> 
> 
> > There are things I need to purchase first (house renovations), but as soon as I have the disposable cash, I'm going to buy a Sony A7RII, a Canon fd 50 1.2L and an fd 24 1.4L. The main reason I want this stuff is for casual "fun" shooting (which I need to do more often) and travel. Until native lens selections in the mirrorless world improve, as does AF, my Canon DSLR and EF lenses will remain my bread and butter moneymakers, but there is definitely an appeal to a low-weight high quality kit.
> ...



Well, there is no way around the optics. Anything from about 40mm upwards is going to be about the same size/weight whether mirrorless or with mirror. Both have to cover the FF sensor, and the flange distance dictates how you can design the lens. For wide angle/ ultra wide angle lenses (e.g. 20mm), you need to do retrofocus designs (which make the lens bigger again) because the lens is further away from the sensor (e.g. flange mount distance 42mm) than the focal length you want to have (e.g. 20mm). So, the mirrorless has an advantage in the (about) 20mm to 40mm range, because in theory it does not need a retrofocus design then. However, there is a big problem, if you have a fast lens (like f1.4) and you design it to sit very close to the sensor (e.g. 20mm) then the angle at the edges is so steep, it will not be detected at the edge of the frame. So, all your efforts are useless, since the lens won't work with the digital sensors (film would work). To some degree this can be overcome with curved sensors, or angled photo sites, I think Sony is working with such sensors.
But, overall the lenses on mirrorless have to moved somewhat away from the sensor to properly image. So, the only advantage you may have is some slow pancake lenses (20-40 mm range) on FF mirrorless, compared to dSLR. 
The only way to go really smaller is to use smaller sensors, with all the drawbacks, see Nikon 24-2000mm (equiv.) all in one... ;-) But even with smaller sensors, a 400mm f5.6 lens is a 400mm f5.6 lens, it will be pretty much the same on all sensors, because the size is dictated by front element and focal length. And once the pixel density becomes limiting, the smaller sensor don't even give you much of an advantage anymore (apart from the smaller body). 
If the FF sensor and the m3/4 sensor both are 20Mp, a 400mm lens will have a longer reach than the FF sensor.
But if you take a 50MP FF sensor, and a 16Mp m3/4 sensor, and put a 400mm lens on both, there is very little advantage of the smaller sensor, you simply can crop the FF image more.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Apr 8, 2015)

It's not likely this forum will resolve the mirrorless v. DSLR debate nor determine at what point the decline will level off.... the market will do that. I believe the statistics used are from CIPA: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html. CIPA also does a summary/forecast of the market for presentation at CP+ each year: http://www.cipa.jp/stats/documents/common/cr1000.pdf

I like my Olympus gear because it can be small and light: 14-150 mm F4-5.6 is 280g, EM5II is 469g = 749g total, lens length 84mm; similar Canon full frame combo (in terms of FOV, exposure, not DOF and noise - I don't want to start an "equivalence" debate) 28-300 L is 1670g, 5DIII is 950g = 2620g total, lens length 184mm. Sure, this is a worst case scenario, but even if I pick the non-L 70-300 Canon instead it is 143 mm long and 630g and you give up the 28-70mm range. So, for easy travel I'll take my Olympus gear over my Canon gear most every time.

Question for neuro: I'm curious re. your comment on preferring the in-lens stabilization at 300 mm vs. IBIS. I have the referenced non-L 70-300 Canon and in comparing it to the various Olympus gear I also have, I find the IBIS on EM5 to be far superior. For me, in real world shooting, the non-L 70-300 is good for about 1-1/2 to 2 stops of IS at best. Was your comment relative to the two technologies in general at 300 mm or specific to certain hardware?


----------



## Random Orbits (Apr 8, 2015)

photonius said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > Fatfaso said:
> ...



Agreed, which is why I think it's disingenuous to claim that that the mirrorless *system* will be that much smaller/lighter than a DSLR system. The bodies have a size/mass advantage although newer versions are getting bigger and heavier, but lenses take more room than the body for most places I go to anyway. I think it was a smart strategy to start with slower/more compact lenses (55 f/1.8, 35 f/2.8, 24-70 f/4) because that is the lower limit on size. Now that people have bought into the size benefit of mirrorless, they're stuck in Sony's lens ecosystem. It will also be interesting to see a comparison between the FE 35 f/1.4 and the Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 for Canon/Nikon to see whether or not the shorter flange distance is affecting wide open performance away from the center...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> Question for neuro: I'm curious re. your comment on preferring the in-lens stabilization at 300 mm vs. IBIS. I have the referenced non-L 70-300 Canon and in comparing it to the various Olympus gear I also have, I find the IBIS on EM5 to be far superior. For me, in real world shooting, the non-L 70-300 is good for about 1-1/2 to 2 stops of IS at best. Was your comment relative to the two technologies in general at 300 mm or specific to certain hardware?



More a general comment - the 70-300 non-L is a decade old design (my 70-300L gives me a usable 3.5-4 stops of IS at 300mm). Honestly, I wouldn't put either Canon 70-300mm lens on an EOS M.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Apr 8, 2015)

Thanks, neuro. My testing with the 70-300L showed it had about 2 stops better IS than the non-L version, so consistent with what you have seen. I made a budget decision back when the L version was first introduced and elected to go non-L and put the difference into a 100L macro. I then added a 100-400 L, again with older IS. (Haven't tried out the Mark II version yet, hard to come by locally.) I'm still really impressed with the Olympus IBIS though perhaps not comparing it with the best Canon has to offer.


----------

