# November CIPA Sales Numbers Are In, Year-Over-Year Slightly Up



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 7, 2018)

```
<a href="http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html">CIPA sales numbers for November 2017</a> have been released, and show another decline in shipments when compared to 2015 and 2016.</p>
<p>The marketshare for mirrorless cameras remains at about 35% of total ILC segment. This number hasn’t moved all that much over the last year or so. While Sony continues to develop and release cutting edge mirrorless cameras, they don’t seem to be taking sales away from DSLRs.</p>


<p><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales.jpg"><img class="aligncenter size-large wp-image-32823" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-728x152.jpg" alt="" width="728" height="152" srcset="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-728x152.jpg 728w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-768x160.jpg 768w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-225x47.jpg 225w, http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/cipanov17sales-610x127.jpg 610w" sizes="(max-width: 728px) 100vw, 728px" /></a></p>
<p>The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space.</p>
<p>Total ILC shipments as of November 2017 show a very slight bump up of a few hundred thousand shipments over 2016, we’ll have to wait for the December 2017 numbers to see if 2017 continues to show an increase in sales over 2016.</p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The marketshare for mirrorless cameras remains at about 35% of total ILC segment. This number hasn’t moved all that much over the last year or so. While Sony continues to develop and release cutting edge mirrorless cameras, they don’t seem to be taking sales away from DSLRs.



But...but...mirrorless is taking over and the dSLR is dead. The Sony fanbois have made that perfectly clear. Don't you read your own forum?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 7, 2018)

There are always huge sales at Christmas to clear inventory. Canon's Fiscal Year ended December 31, so they sell as much as they can to make their stock report look good. I believe that Sony's year end comes around the end of April. They had a huge discount on high end cameras last ~January - February.

Every business tries to clear out stock before the end of the FY.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space...



I'm a bit skeptical. What is the ratio of APS-C to full-frame DSLRs? Is there any reason to believe that full frame mirrorless will have a significant impact on overall sales numbers? It sure feels like a niche market to me.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 7, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > The mirorrless marketshare likely won’t see much movement until Nikon and Canon enter the prosumer full frame mirrorless space...
> ...



I've never seen a breakdown of APS-C vs FF, but you might be right. I think Canon is likely going to be #2 in mirrorless sales and ahead of Sony when the dust settles on 2017 with some great APS-C mirrorless cameras (where is the range of primes?!).

Canon has always said that the decline in DSLR sales has hit the Rebel segment the hardest, and that prosumer and professional cameras continue to sell well. I have a hard time believing pros are going to move to a mirrorless camera if EF lenses don't work without an adaptor. I know that would be a non-starter for me (I'm not a pro).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 7, 2018)

Nikon has reported in the past that the ratio is between 5:1 and 6:1, so Canon also likely sells ~20% FF or a bit less. Overall though, some manufacturers only produce APS-C, and there is micro 4/3 and now the G1X MK III, so overall about 10-12% FF.

https://www.pointsinfocus.com/blog/2017/05/assessment-us-full-frame-camera-market-prompted-sonys-press-release/


----------



## unfocused (Jan 7, 2018)

Canon Rumors said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Agree with your assessment. It does appear that full-frame is gaining as an overall percentage of DSLR sales, just based on the Amazon rankings today vs. a few years ago when the 6D was the only full frame ever hitting the top 10. 

I definitely believe that Canon will make sure their full-frame mirrorless, when and if it comes, will offer a native EF mount.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 7, 2018)

I would have thought 2017 could have been a relatively strong year for Canon full-frame, given the 5DIV was released only a few months before the end of 2016 (so most purchases into 2017?) and the 6D II came during 2017 - so maybe an extra boost for Canon's full frame ratio over the other "interval" years?

I also agree that the full-frame mirrorless, when it comes will offer native EF-mount - why would you risk giving away potentially your greatest customer tie-in? I also reckon it should be pretty good when it comes, given the time Canon have had to develop it (as opposed to having rushed it to market!).


----------



## goldenhusky (Jan 8, 2018)

I am guessing December shipments may be high because of Canon 6D2 and 5D4 were selling at historically lower prices with extras after MIR + a7r3 pre-order shipments + D850 pre-order shipments. That is just a wild guess. Anyone know if the Canon refurbished sales are counted in these figures? If so they might boost numbers as well


----------



## dolina (Jan 8, 2018)

Go out and shoot guys. ;D

Looking forward to Lensvid's take on this year's sales.


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 8, 2018)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Nikon has reported in the past that the ratio is between 5:1 and 6:1, so Canon also likely sells ~20% FF or a bit less. Overall though, some manufacturers only produce APS-C, and there is micro 4/3 and now the G1X MK III, so overall about 10-12% FF.
> 
> https://www.pointsinfocus.com/blog/2017/05/assessment-us-full-frame-camera-market-prompted-sonys-press-release/



I found that a fascinating article - thank you for posting.

It certainly shows the complications in drawing any hard conclusions and was interested to read their comment that "there’s not a real clear appreciation for just how small the camera market is. " and how small shifts can change ranking in market share.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 8, 2018)

We need to remind ourselves CIPA reports either production or shipments, not sales. Units targeted for US holiday/end of year sales were likely shipped in Oct. or Nov. The Americas still lag all other markets in shift to ML. In Japan 45% of ILC shipments are ML, in Americas it is only 22%. BCN rankings for Japan show Olympus as #1 in ML with Canon #2 and Sony #3. BCN has Canon as #1 overall and #1 in dSLR with a 63% share (double that of #2 Nikon (32%) while Ricoh/Pentax hangs on as #3 with 5% share). The dollar value (actually Yen value) of ML shipments continues to rise faster than the unit value indicating ML units being shipped are moving to higher end units.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> I definitely believe that Canon will make sure their full-frame mirrorless, when and if it comes, will offer a native EF mount.



I agree it's possible, but what makes you so sure? To my knowledge, the only folks who have pitched the mirror but retained the full mirrorbox-depth were Sigma's SD Quattro offerings and Swiss company Alpa kitting together some components in the Medium Format space. *Everyone* else to date (CX, m43, APS-C, FF, etc.) has chosen 'thin' + adaptor.

I'm fully aware of the rationale of _why_ you'd go full mount, but what read of the market data, its customers, etc. does Canon have that the rest of the market doesn't? Are they all off-target on this, or is this just something only Canon can do because of its market share?

(^^^ Not meant as I an attack / 'I don't believe you' nearly so much as a curiosity. ^^^ I don't think anyone _knows_ what it will be, so I'm curious where your conviction on this is coming from.)

- A


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 8, 2018)

Ahsanford,

In the spirit of conversation (also not looking to attack):

I can't answer for unfocussed, but from my point of view, while not "certain" it would be EF-mount, my thoughts would stem from Canon wanting to retain that huge customer base of existing lens holders - how many have they sold so far...120M and counting? Might others have chosen a thin+adaptor because they have fewer existing lens owners to lose?

And I can't think of a better way to ensure your mirrorless FF gets off to a huge start, than by encouraging existing customers that they don't need to invest in another range of lenses, but can take the mew camera and launch straight into old their lovely glass. [Of course profit-wise, Canon might like the idea of a new range of lenses to be purchased...]

Having said that, I'm an interested observer/customer, not anyone with any special insight.

Cheers


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

StoicalEtcher said:


> I can't answer for unfocussed, but from my point of view, while not "certain" it would be EF-mount, my thoughts would stem from Canon wanting to retain that huge customer base of existing lens holders - how many have they sold so far...120M and counting? Might others have chosen a thin+adaptor because they have fewer existing lens owners to lose?



Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too'), or do they just want 1 in 10 of their current Canon users to buy one as an additional body? If it's the latter, going big / full EF mount makes perfect sense.

I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others, i.e. Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount, and enthusiasts will likely yawn and move on to something svelter/sexier/smaller that Sony (or eventually Nikon) ends up offering.

The thin mount FF scratches other market itches -- the need to be small, the coveted 1%-er with bags of discretionary money market, the desire to tinker with older / competitive lenses on adaptors, the 'perception of newness / slickness' (more about the mirrorless tech in truth, but in perception the size identifies the advance of technology to some), etc.

Another thought: if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless _and_ a full mount mirrorless offering.

- A


----------



## Mikehit (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I definitely believe that Canon will make sure their full-frame mirrorless, when and if it comes, will offer a native EF mount.
> ...



As I see it, Sony (like Olympus) has a design ethos of 'it is mirrorless so we have to make it smaller' - it has become a USP for them. However in both MFT and Sony, the premium cameras are getting slightly larger (and many say the A9 would have been just as successful even larger, but the design ethos overrode that).

However, Canon has the increasingly specced M series to take care of the 'small is wonderful' end of things so they can afford to come from the opposite direction in making cameras with the ergonomic advantages of size (real estate, button size and switches), coupled with the advantages of mirrorless (focussing, focus peaking for manual focussing, maybe no-blackout tracking AF etc). They then have the advantage of gradually shrinking their premium cameras to develop the best balance of size and functionality, something that Sony won't address. 

Maybe while Sony drives Canon to develop the mirrorless functionality, Canon will erode Sony's technological advantages to the point Sony says 'the only thing left to do is improve ergonomics'. Then we will have a really interesting race.


----------



## StoicalEtcher (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too'), or do they just want 1 in 10 of their current Canon users to buy one as an additional body? If it's the latter, going big / full EF mount makes perfect sense.
> 
> I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others, i.e. Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount, and enthusiasts will likely yawn and move on to something svelter/sexier/smaller that Sony (or eventually Nikon) ends up offering.
> 
> ...



Yep: can't disagree with your train of thought and logic - all valid points.

Would certainly be happy to see one of each


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Yep, that's the $64,000 question: does Canon want to gobble up brand-agnostic enthusiasts who don't mind using multiple systems (does Canon want them to know 'yes, we offer one, too'), or do they just want 1 in 10 of their current Canon users to buy one as an additional body? If it's the latter, going big / full EF mount makes perfect sense.



I suspect it's more than 1 in 10. Mirrorless is ~35% of the ILC market, and perhaps an even larger segment of the FF ILC market...and that's without a Canon FF MILC offering.




ahsanford said:


> I say that because the full mount decision overwhelmingly rewards big-glass wielding (don't care about size) Canon FF users and sets up some pricey/painful barriers for entry for others, i.e. Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount, and enthusiasts will likely yawn and move on to something svelter/sexier/smaller that Sony (or eventually Nikon) ends up offering.



A 'vapor slice'? I wonder how many people have bought a FF MILC from Sony and use adapted Canon lenses? Consider that there are far more EF lenses out there than any other class/brand. Other makers likely had a market-driven need to offer compatibility with Canon (and Nikon) lenses. Canon has no real need to offer compatibility with anyone but Canon. OTOH, if they go thin mount, that connotes a line of native FF MILC lenses, and current Canon FF shooters will likely perceive that as a barrier to adoption. 




ahsanford said:


> The thin mount FF scratches other market itches -- the need to be small, the coveted 1%-er with bags of discretionary money market, the desire to tinker with older / competitive lenses on adaptors, the 'perception of newness / slickness' (more about the mirrorless tech in truth, but in perception the size identifies the advance of technology to some), etc.



Consider smarthones. For a while, they got smaller and smaller. But after a while, that trend reversed and bigger is now the trend. Consider the Sony a7R series – in two generations, it's gotten 27 mm thicker (a 57% increase in volume) and 192 g heavier (a 41% increase in weight). Canon has stated that sales of the EOS M5 are strong, and it's substiantially larger than the earlier M models. 




ahsanford said:


> Another thought: if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless _and_ a full mount mirrorless offering.



Canon certainly _could_ do that. I suspect they're going to pick one to start. My guess would be a FF MILC with a full EF mount will be the priority. Down the line, they're release a smaller FF MILC with a thin mount that's aimed at the 'smaller is better' crowd, and the native lenses will mirror (pun intended) the EF-M lineup – narrow, variable apertures that will minimize the size of the lenses, and STM motors (partly just to piss you off  ).


----------



## unfocused (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> StoicalEtcher said:
> 
> 
> > I can't answer for unfocussed, but from my point of view, while not "certain" it would be EF-mount, my thoughts would stem from Canon wanting to retain that huge customer base of existing lens holders - how many have they sold so far...120M and counting? Might others have chosen a thin+adaptor because they have fewer existing lens owners to lose?
> ...



My perspective is similar to that of StoicalEtcher. In addtion, Neuro raises several good points which I also agree with. 

Note that I said Canon would *offer* a native EF mount version. It's possible they could offer two versions, but I'm willing to bet that native EF will definitely be the first option.

Not offering a native EF mount version suddenly cuts loose all those loyal Canon users with EF lenses. The value of the existing customer base is far greater than the value of any new customers that might be attracted to a full-frame Canon product and who are not already Canon users and owners.

Are there a lot of new customers for Canon to "gobble up?" I question if there are new customers out there just waiting to be lured into the market with an expensive full frame mirrorless model. I don't see the mirrorless market as holding a lot of potential for major new customers. Instead, growth is likely to come from the existing DSLR base and since Canon already owns much of that base, their main objective should be to hold on to their customers. 

Are "brand-agnostic enthusiasts" sufficiently high value to expend a lot of resources on. These customers are fickle and expensive to retain. Many of these customers are technology chasers -- always needing to own the newest electronic precious.They may spend a lot initially, but they aren't loyal, so retaining them after their initial purchase can be costly and often futile. 

So, to summarize and meld some of my thoughts with Neuro's points: I think people on this forum greatly overestimate the potential demand for full frame mirrorless and certainly overestimate the potential for new customers. I believe the customer base if fairly flat and unlikely to grow much over the coming years, so it's more a matter of selling new bodies to existing users. If you buy my argument, then the most logical approach is to hold on to the existing base with new bodies that use existing lenses. 

Yes, a new native mount might be offered at some point. But, I expect EF mount to come first and remain the dominant focus for Canon.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> I suspect it's more than 1 in 10. Mirrorless is ~35% of the ILC market, and perhaps an even larger segment of the FF ILC market...and that's without a Canon FF MILC offering.



Sure, but if the potential mirrorless market is (just for the sake of argument) 50-50 on thin vs. full mount, whatever Canon chooses might alienate the half that didn't get what they want, so... _17.5%_ maybe? 



neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Canon will only get a vapor-level slice of competitive business if they go full mount
> ...



The barriers of entry can be read a few different ways. Do you buy a thin-mount system that can adapt nearly every mount's glass or just buy a full mount Canon offering that only takes one type of lens? Canon is the #1 brand, but you don't really care about that if all your Nikkor / Sony / whatever glass won't work on this new mirrorless rig.



neuroanatomist said:


> My guess would be a FF MILC with a full EF mount will be the priority. Down the line, they're release a smaller FF MILC with a thin mount that's aimed at the 'smaller is better' crowd, and the native lenses will mirror (pun intended) the EF-M lineup – narrow, variable apertures that will minimize the size of the lenses, and STM motors (partly just to piss you off  ).



You're right, they surely won't do both right out of the gate.

I'm just surprised the 'mirrorless is ALL about being smaller' and 'what's wrong with a new thin mount plus adaptor?' crowd haven't piped up yet. (It's a nontrivial chunk of the forum on this topic.)

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Not offering a native EF mount version suddenly cuts loose all those loyal Canon users with EF lenses.



I totally forgot how every APS-C SLR user angrily quit the Canon brand for forcing them to use an adaptor with EOS M. Oh, wait, that never happened. 

(There will be an adaptor on/near day one. There's zero reason Canon would not do that short of holding its own loyal customers hostage to buy new glass, and that _would_ drive them to the exits. Not happening.)

I believe the greatest threat to going thin for Canon FF SLR folks today would be if:


A thin mount design is part and parcel with an ergonomically _downgraded_ body that lacks all the good stuff FF SLRs have today -- the great main grip, the top LCD, the button layout, etc. In other words, one could go thin yet full-featured & chunky-gripped, or they could go all (original) EOS M with the concept and turn the FF camera into a clumsily handled/controlled point and shoot.


The adaptor is shown to be a threat to reliability / weather-sealing / AF speed / AF accuracy compared to a native mount


...but if they avoid those pitfalls, thin _could_ totally work. 

Full disclosure, I am squarely on the fence personally with which mount I'd prefer (both offer interesting possibilities). It's also possible that 'being small' is no longer a USP and it's a stone cold, day one expectation of the market. I've polled this topic before and it was a clear preference for full mount, but as I've said a jillion times, we are not the market.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Sure, but if the potential mirrorless market is (just for the sake of argument) 50-50 on thin vs. full mount, whatever Canon chooses might alienate the half that didn't get what they want, so... _17.5%_ maybe?
> 
> The barriers of entry can be read a few different ways. Do you buy a thin-mount system that can adapt nearly every mount's glass or just buy a full mount Canon offering that only takes one type of lens? Canon is the #1 brand, but you don't really care about that if all your Nikkor / Sony / whatever glass won't work on this new mirrorless rig.



A big barrier to entry that every manufacturer moving into the MILC space has faced is a inadequate/limited lineup of native lenses. Canon has a very easy way to obviate that barrier.

As unfocused pointed out, the biggest source of Canon FF MILC buyers is likely to be current Canon shooters. So I agree – Canon doesn’t really care if Nikkor / Sony / whatever glass won't work on this new mirrorless rig. 

Worth pointing out, as I’ve stated before, that Canon collects substantial data from product registrations, and they have their experience from the M series to guide their FF MILC strategy.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I totally forgot how every APS-C SLR user angrily quit the Canon brand for forcing them to use an adaptor with EOS M. Oh, wait, that never happened.
> 
> (There will be an adaptor on/near day one. There's zero reason Canon would not do that short of holding its own loyal customers hostage to buy new glass, and that _would_ drive them to the exits. Not happening.)



Adapters work, but they are a kludgy solution. If you visit a foreign country, you deal with pulg adapters and transformers. If you move there, you buy ‘native’ appliances. 

If Canon makes (only) a thin mount FF MILC, they are effectively committing to developing a full lineup of native lenses. Of course, in the long term that may actually mean _more_ profit for them, which may outweigh the rapid adoption benefit of releasing a FF MILC with a pre-existing complete native lens lineup.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> If Canon makes (only) a thin mount FF MILC, they are effectively committing to developing a full lineup of native lenses.



If "only" = they go thin and no adaptor is offered at all, sure. (Canon would not do this.)

If "only" = only a thin body and adaptor are offered _and no full EF mount body is offered_, I disagree. Canon could conceivably go thin + adaptor and only offer a handful of thin-mount lenses that would reward you for overall size (pancakes, 35 f/2.8, 50 f/2, perhaps a tiny/collapsible 24-70 f/slow, etc.) and point us to the EF mothership for the rest.

Remember, Sony's only proliferating the full frame E mount glass because they are courting new users, CaNikon pros, etc. so they can't similarly point to A mount and say 'we've gotcha covered' -- yet another case of a non-market-leading company having to do a lot more to win/maintain share. Those FE lenses are not cheap to design, build and commercialize.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> If "only" = they go thin and no adaptor is offered at all, sure. (Canon would not do this.)



Of course not. I didn't think that even warranted further mention.




ahsanford said:


> If "only" = only a thin body and adaptor are offered _and no full EF mount body is offered_, I disagree. Canon could conceivably go thin + adaptor and only offer a handful of thin-mount lenses that would reward you for overall size (pancakes, 35 f/2.8, 50 f/2, perhaps a tiny/collapsible 24-70 f/slow, etc.) and point us to the EF mothership for the rest.



As I said, adapters are kludgy. The M series has an adapter. But Canon released EF-M lenses effectively representing the EF-S lineup (at least, the most popular lenses) – standard zoom, telezoom, UWA zoom, fast prime, and dedicated macro. The main gaps are more wide/normal primes (probably rectified in the future) and a fast standard zoom (probably not made, because fast zooms are big). But the point is, for most popular lens categories there's an EF-M lens even though an adapted EF-S or EF lens would work. 

Now, what are the most popular full frame lenses (the ubercheap nifty fifty notwithstanding)? Relatively big f/4 zooms and even bigger f/2.8 zooms. But for those lenses, the size difference with a shorter flange focal distance is minimal. 

When I suggest that an adapter is kludgy, there are two parts to that. First, the adapter itself – how kludgy depends on the chosen flange focal distance. If it's quite short (18-24mm), the adapter will be the size of an EF25 tube, and pretty easy to use in and of itself, but in that case, the optical compromises for lenses would be substantial. If the flange distance is longer (30-35mm), the optics are better but the adapter is getting too thin for practical convenience and by then it's only a few mm away from the full EF mount spec anyway. Second, is using the adapter in 'blended' kit with some native lenses and some adapter-requiring lenses. If one has just a single adapted lens (adapter stays on lens), or no native lenses (adapter stays on camera), fine. But with at least one native and two or more adapted lenses, it becomes a juggling exercise. Kludgy...and for a professional shooter, probably a non-starter.


----------



## rrcphoto (Jan 8, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> if Canon can offer a 10+ product lines in non-Cinema ILC in 2018, there might be room for a both a skinny mount FF mirrorless _and_ a full mount mirrorless offering.
> 
> - A



while they can make cameras for multiple product lines, where this falls out of favor is the lenses, there's a pretty finite amount they can release per year - and having more than two mounts would certainly complicate their world.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Kludgy...and for a professional shooter, probably a non-starter.



...and also the risk you leave the adaptor at home and only have EF lenses in your bag at the time. Yeah, I hear you. Adaptors surely have takeaways.

I think this all boils down to whom Canon is aiming this platform. If it's the 6D-level crowd, I think it will be a much smaller percentage of pros than the 5D crowd, and it has a greater likelihood of being thin + adaptor. Think of it as the enthusiast camera for those with money and photography experience.

But if they want pros, it'll be a full mount.

- A


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 8, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As I see it, Sony (like Olympus) has a design ethos of 'it is mirrorless so we have to make it smaller' - it has become a USP for them. However in both MFT and Sony, the premium cameras are getting slightly larger...


Olympus has always been inclined to push the compact size envelope - witness the original half-frame Pen-F. Oly knows how to make a smallish camera feel right and provides excellent add-on grips. Panasonic also seems to have gotten the ergonomics right with the new G-9; but, Sony isn't there. The real size advantage with Oly & Pana is in the lenses (due to smaller sensor). Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight. If you need/want FF a few mm in body size due to ML isn't going to make much difference. If you can compromise on the sensor size then yes you can get a much smaller package.


----------



## ahsanford (Jan 8, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> As I see it, Sony (like Olympus) has a design ethos of 'it is mirrorless so we have to make it smaller' - it has become a USP for them. However in both MFT and Sony, the premium cameras are getting slightly larger...



Sure... but they are just _barely_ creeping up in size, presumably for more room for internals, cooling, etc. -- they are not fundamentally scaling up the ergonomics for the big GM lenses at all. See comparison below (I believe the A7R3 is in line with the A9, but I haven't compared them yet), where it's clear they may be monkeying around with grip depth in views out of plane but the grip is still Rebel-ish and waaaaay too close to the mount.



old-pr-pix said:


> Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight.



While you're at it, just compare the resulting DOF as well.  That Olympus is a 600mm f/8 lens in DOF terms for FF, isn't it? That _ought_ to be a whole lot smaller!

- A


----------



## Talys (Jan 8, 2018)

I think the smart money is on a full EF mount mirrorless to start, while concurrently improving APSC performance and lens portfolio on M.

I'm guessing there are at least as many people who want a full frame mirroless that is ergonomically fit to larger, professional lenses as there are rich tech buyers who want a Canon A7RIII. Besides, the latter are fickle, jump onto other spending priorities quickly (and therefore don't end up with large lens and accessories collections, where the long term money is), and are generally not in it for the long haul.

Pros and semi-pros probably spend as much on accessories like flashes and camera batteries than rich tech buyers do on camera bodies.

Long term? One possible strategy would be to:

1. Reduce future EFS development to just the most popular FL's. Focus on M's for the entire range APSC, and xxD and 7D for high end, special purpose crop DSLRs that mostly use EF lenses anyways.

2. Professionally minded FF MILCs and DSLRs that natively use the full range of EF Lenses. Nothing is going to unseat that library any time soon.

3. Develop a smaller FF Mirrorless that uses new mount, with smaller and generally more expensive lenses without an adapter, or EF lenses with an adapter.


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jan 9, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> old-pr-pix said:
> 
> 
> > Just compare a 300mm f4 Oly with the focal length equal 600L f4 for size and weight.
> ...



The Oly is 600 mm equivalent focal length and true f4 in terms of light gathering. For long telephoto I'll typically take all the extra DOF I can get. In this case f8 equivalent is a significant advantage. Now if we were talking about shorter focal length and portraits I would concede to your point!


----------



## Talys (Jan 9, 2018)

old-pr-pix said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > old-pr-pix said:
> ...



I don't really understand why you would compare an MFT 300 f/4 with a FF 600 f/4 for size/weight.

Going by that reasoning, why not compare it to a Canon 400mm on an APSC? Or, to take it to an extreme, to an SX, which is teenie tiny and gives an effective 1200mm. 

The answer, of course is the same as for the question, "Why would anyone ever buy a camera with a bigger sensor if what you care about is telephoto reach?".


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 9, 2018)

Talys said:


> The answer, of course is the same as for the question, "Why would anyone ever buy a camera with a bigger sensor if what you care about is telephoto reach?".



Why, indeed? Well, I have my reasons.


----------

