# DSLR ? - thinking out loud ....



## Clayton (Jul 12, 2014)

According to the Wall Street Journal DSLR sales fell in fiscal 2013 by 10%. Pocket size point and shoot cameras by even more and DSLM (mirror-less) cameras by only about 3%.

All of this is in part due to smart phone cameras of course. In the case of DSLM’s a 3% drop could easily be the economy, but a 10% drop in the case of DSLR’s is more representative of a market trend. Canon of course is only one player in the market but its one of the biggest players. The 10% represents every manufacture of DSLRs world wide.

Still the question is, what does it mean? It depends, if the 10% slides down to 11-13% then the DSLR market is not dead, but likely dying. 

SONY’s full frame mirror-less camera A7s is being closely watched by the camera market. A recent announcement by SONY regarding a new CMOS sensor (yet unreleased) is going to use faster readouts and thereby a significant reduction in issues with rolling shutter distortions. 

I predict that Canon may take the whole rebel line to mirror-less design. Or a major product line re-alignment of come kind. Either way I think the clock is ticking on DSLR cameras not sure when that might start to happen. The cameras and lens’s are now (as compared to other technology) to heavy and bulky for many and the purely professional market alone is just not large enough to sustain that market. What of all that DSLR glass? Thats a pretty heavy investment for sure. It might be the 5D and 1DC may be all that survives of that stuff.
SONY an Panasonic has already proved there are plenty of compelling choices for interchangeable lens cameras without DSLR technology.

I still think that if the DSLR market slides even two percentage points Canon will have to make a move.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2014)

It doesn't mean anything. The last thing I want to do is attaching my 85 f1.2, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 IS or 400mm on that tiny mirrorless. Don't get me wrong, it's nice size for 35mm and 55mm, everything else seem to be unbalance.

As owner of a7r + FE 55mm, I'm just speaking at loud


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2014)

mirrorless does not mean tiny bodies.... there is no reason Canon can not make an APS-C mirorless camera identical in size to the 7D or a FF mirrorless the same size as a 5D3... and they can also choose to continue with the EF mount so all those lenses will continue to be valid.

Technology can make things smaller, but ergonomics tells us that the 5D3/6D/7D are at the sweet spot of design size... make it too big or too small and it does not feel right and the controls do not properly fit the hands...


----------



## Clayton (Jul 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mirrorless does not mean tiny bodies.... there is no reason Canon can not make an APS-C mirorless camera identical in size to the 7D or a FF mirrorless the same size as a 5D3... and they can also choose to continue with the EF mount so all those lenses will continue to be valid.
> 
> Technology can make things smaller, but ergonomics tells us that the 5D3/6D/7D are at the sweet spot of design size... make it too big or too small and it does not feel right and the controls do not properly fit the hands...



Thats a good point and its also a very individuall thing. My hands need more room, another photographer I know is just the opposite. Your point about lens's is good and that might work. In the end however the market will vote with their wallets of course. Its a very exciting time and the market is moving very fast. Canon is iconic but they still have to be very careful there is much at stake.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2014)

The actual figures are available for everyone to see. You can quote the statistics to show two totally different things, so pick and choose. Use the actual numbers rather than a Wall Street article written by someone trying to slant things his way.


For example:


DSLR Production in 2013 was 13,635,101 cameras valued at 398,781,791,000 Yen


Mirrorless production in 2013 was 3,182,694 cameras valued at 81,889,562,000 yen, or about 20% of DSLR Sales.


This was a drop in production of 9.1% for DSLR's and 7.4% for Mirrorless.


Cameras Actually shipped to Dealers tell a different story.  there were cameras piling up in warehouses, so the cameras shipped (presumably ordered by Dealers to sell) indicates the level of sales, or at least dealer stocking.


Shipments of DSLR's dropped by 14.7% while Mirrorless dropped by 16.4%


See what I mean? I'd say that shipments are most akin to sales, and that manufacturers shipped 16.4% fewer mirrorless and 14.7 fewer DSLR's in 2013.


That tells a different story.


http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> mirrorless does not mean tiny bodies.... there is no reason Canon can not make an APS-C mirorless camera identical in size to the 7D or a FF mirrorless the same size as a 5D3... and they can also choose to continue with the EF mount so all those lenses will continue to be valid.
> 
> Technology can make things smaller, but ergonomics tells us that the 5D3/6D/7D are at the sweet spot of design size... make it too big or too small and it does not feel right and the controls do not properly fit the hands...



Smaller and lighter body are the primary keys to sell mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > mirrorless does not mean tiny bodies.... there is no reason Canon can not make an APS-C mirorless camera identical in size to the 7D or a FF mirrorless the same size as a 5D3... and they can also choose to continue with the EF mount so all those lenses will continue to be valid.
> ...




Which is why they are selling poorly in the USA and Europe. They are small, and buyers see them as poor quality because of this. For whatever reason, buyers in USA and Europe prefer large cameras, perhaps they want to look professional with their big rig, and believe they get better pictures, or maybe they can't operate tiny cameras with their large hands. Thats why Canon stopped selling new models of the "M" in the USA. No Sale.


Large bodied mirrorless cameras might sell better in the USA and Europe, but, so far, Canon and Nikon are not betting their $$$ on it.


----------



## Zv (Jul 12, 2014)

People need different sized and spec'd cameras for different things. For some smaller and lighter means more freedom but for others it's just an inconvenience. Just going by my own feelings I have whittled my gear down to two systems - one full frame and one small mirrorless APS-C. I find that this combo offers the best of both worlds. I can't justify an APS-C DSLR anymore unless I was doing things like birds in flight or field sports and needed the reach and ergonomics. 

I'm intrigued by the Sony offerings but then I think that there wouldn't be a whole lot of weight saving and it's not worth the hassle of buying into a whole new system of lenses and accessories. If I was starting out then maybe it would make sense. Ergonomically I find it nowhere near the comfort and ease of a 5DIII or a 7D. The A7 series is kind of in the middle in terms of size, not quite compact but not huge. You'll still need a bag for it, can't pocket it. (EOS M & 22mm is just about pocketable IMO). 

Perhaps mirrorless rebels will be the next big thing but who knows. Seems people are quite happy to shoot with a rebel and a kit lens. In some ways the small EOS M perhaps doesn't give potential consumers the impression that it delivers IQ like a DSLR. People that don't understand about sensors will just think it's a compact camera with interchangeable lenses and bypass it for a rebel or Nikon xxxx (which is a professional looking camera for dirt cheap). 

When I first bought my rebel t2i it took me a little while to realize that it was smaller in size than the higher up models like 60D / 7D as I bought it online. I got serious "claw" hand syndrome when shooting 1000+ shots in a day. Then I got a 7D and it finally made sense! So this is a real camera then? Hello friend!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



I agree, making mirrorless bigger will not help the sale in US and Asia.

To exchange for smaller and lighter mirrorless bodies, people already sacrificed DSLR AF speed and AI servo tracking.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Smaller and lighter body are the primary keys to sell mirrorless cameras.



Perhaps the keys to sell mirrorless to *you*. I want the feature set of a mirrorless in an APS-C sized body. I want a brilliant EVF, with live histogram, zebras and focus peaking. I want to pick my AF pattern. I want a three-sensor (color separated) imaging system so we can dump the Bayer filter and double our light collection per unit area.

I'll bet you that right his minute, all the major manufacturers have legions of crones casting chicken bones to figure out what magic combination of size, ergonomics and features will make mirrorless a huge hit.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Smaller and lighter body are the primary keys to sell mirrorless cameras.
> ...



Once again, those are features that *you* want in mirrorless. Others are looking for small, light and easy to carry around.

I strongly believe I'm one of fews have bought and used higher-end mirrorless cameras more than any CR members here: rx1, rx100 II, x100s, EOS-M and a7r. Compact and high IQ is what people going for mirrorless. The features you mentioned are just features.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The actual figures are available for everyone to see. You can quote the statistics to show two totally different things, so pick and choose. Use the actual numbers rather than a Wall Street article written by someone trying to slant things his way.
> 
> 
> For example:
> ...



+1 for actual data. WSJ, like most media outlets (looking at you, Fox!), puts their own 'spin' on the data. 

Worldwide, MILC sales are a small fraction of dSLR sales, and MILC sales seem to be declining faster , with the possible exception of 'high end' MILC (Sony a7 series, for example). MILC sales show no sign of 'the death of the dSLR'.


----------



## Vossie (Jul 12, 2014)

I could imagine that eventually dSLRs will fade out, in the sense that dSLR style bodies would no longer be equipped with a mirror. With technologies improving, I think that eventually EVFs will have an unobservable lag time and resolution instistinguishable from an optical VF. By that time, EVFs may be preferred over OVFs because they can offer extra features such as focus peaking, "live view", histogram overlays , etc etc. and without the mirror, higher fps rates should be achievable. (Who on CR would not welcome an 1DM with 24 fps?)

Many may think that OVF will always be superior to EVFs because they are today, but a decade ago, many also thought that film would always be superior to digital.

I do not think this is driven by declining sales figures as in the OP, but more by ever advancing tech.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 12, 2014)

I'm hoping Canon drops the Eos-M and pulls out of the mirrorless market entirely. That way, they can focus their R&D activities on improving and enhancing their DSLRs, camera features, sensors and lenses.

Why? We, as camera users, all benefit. We have the likes of Sony, Fuji, Olympus and Panasonic all developing interesting cameras with new features hoping to entice us over to their side. In the medium to long term, to keep its dominant share of serious camera users, Canon will need to fight back with their new camera improvements - whether that be better connectivity, improved sensors, better AF, better build quality, more affordable sports and wildlife lenses etc etc, it is all good.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Hillsilly said:


> I'm hoping Canon drops the Eos-M and pulls out of the mirrorless market entirely. That way, they can focus their R&D activities on improving and enhancing their DSLRs, camera features, sensors and lenses.



I'd have to disagree. I really like my EOS M, in it's own right, but also as a small/light backup body that integrates with my Canon system.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2014)

Vossie said:


> I could imagine that eventually dSLRs will fade out, in the sense that dSLR style bodies would no longer be equipped with a mirror. With technologies improving, I think that eventually EVFs will have an unobservable lag time and resolution instistinguishable from an optical VF. By that time, EVFs may be preferred over OVFs because they can offer extra features such as focus peaking, "live view", histogram overlays , etc etc. and without the mirror, higher fps rates should be achievable. (Who on CR would not welcome an 1DM with 24 fps?)
> 
> Many may think that OVF will always be superior to EVFs because they are today, but a decade ago, many also thought that film would always be superior to digital.
> 
> I do not think this is driven by declining sales figures as in the OP, but more by ever advancing tech.


+1


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 12, 2014)

The thing about Canon (and many consumers) is that they are conservative. When the day comes that mirrorless cameras offer better performance than DSLRs, and right now it is the AF and EVF that are lacking, the day of the DSLR will end. When they can make a better camera and sell it for less, where do you think the consumer will go?

I am particularly interested in what happens with the 7D2.... DPAF has the potential for superior autofocus to existing DSLRs.... and EVFs are getting close. There is a real possibility that this camera will be the tipping point.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 12, 2014)

The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF. How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?

EVFs suck power like crazy. You're going to need a battery breakthrough to replace OVFs as well, or an enormous battery that more than makes up for the size difference of removing the prism and mirror.


----------



## aclectasis (Jul 12, 2014)

Comment Removed by Moderator


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 12, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



And I said as much. The question is not what I want, or what you want, but what will make it profitable, hence viable.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 12, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF. How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?


The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag. I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.

As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.



> EVFs suck power like crazy. You're going to need a battery breakthrough to replace OVFs as well, or an enormous battery that more than makes up for the size difference of removing the prism and mirror.


Yup, this one is still a real problem for event/action photographers. For landscape/studio not so much.


----------



## RLPhoto (Jul 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF. How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?
> ...



Until you take that evf into very low light. Then It shutters and flops around like a fish out of water. (With the a7 anyway.)


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 12, 2014)

RLPhoto said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



For now, but it's not an intractable problem. I'm not saying mirrorless replaces OVF completely right now, but it's definitely heading that way.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 12, 2014)

Vossie said:


> Many may think that OVF will always be superior to EVFs because they are today, but a decade ago, many also thought that film would always be superior to digital.



Nobody with a clue thought that.





Orangutan said:


> As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.



Not really. The dynamic range and color gamut of any display technology is very limited compared with the range of the sensor and your eye. The difference becomes readily apparent when shooting at night. Maybe in twenty years, EVFs will be able to replace OVFs, but I thought that twenty years ago, and they just haven't gotten much better in all that time, except in resolution, so I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 12, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.



So you want a better idea of what the in-camera JPG conversion will look like, if displayed on an uncalibrated monitor with low resolution and a poor color gamut? Sounds like a big minus for EVF to me, particularly for anyone who shoots RAW...


----------



## rrcphoto (Jul 12, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.
> ...



mmm exactly my feel on this too - I can visualize my postprocessing without the camera showing it's default constrast and color of the scene.


----------



## Clayton (Jul 12, 2014)

These are all good points. The wild card is the one that may be hard (even by Canon) to track.
The 5DMII created a whole new customer base that did not exist before…. the video people. Spread across both the Rebel line and above. After that the large sensor video camera market exploded across the whole spectrum and its proving to be both big and profitable. My guess is that whatever marketing numbers are floating around don’t differentiate between the customers who use their DSLR for video primarily and those who are legitimate still photographers and those in between. The cash-flow from new video customers has not been insignificant. The Canon Cinema line is a good one but it prices users at the T5i-70D price point out of that market. 

For still photo guys the following wont matter much so you can skip this part …. but, speaking of video now, the Panasonic GH4 and SONY A7s and Black Magic will eat into Canons market share for sure. How far Canon can respond without compromising their high end C-line will also be a challenge for them. In the end perhaps it’s ok for them to get back more to their still picture roots but as I may have already said, its a vastly more complicated and competitive market now that it was back in the day.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 13, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The problem is, you can never beat some aspects of an OVF with an EVF. How are you going to improve on zero lag, zero power use, virtually infinite dynamic range and color gamut?
> ...



If they are the same, then the EVF is doubling the system lag.



> As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.



Sorry, EVFs don't show that, they show the in-camera JPEG conversion, which is way, way smaller than what the sensor can see. I post this example often:


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.
> ...



I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...


Human vision lag is, if I remember correctly, about 100ms. Current best EVF lag is, if I recall correctly, about 30ms. That could easily come down to 10ms in the next few years, and I doubt you could distinguish a 10% increase from OVF.



> > As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, EVFs don't show that, they show the in-camera JPEG conversion, which is way, way smaller than what the sensor can see. I post this example often:


The fact that they don't currently doesn't mean they can't very soon. Do you ever use Live View? I'm still unpersuaded that, aside from battery life, there are any serious problems with EVF that can't be overcome in a very few years. And, when that happens, EVF will be indisputably superior to OVF.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, EVFs don't show that, they show the in-camera JPEG conversion, which is way, way smaller than what the sensor can see. I post this example often:
> ...


I have a pair of the Olympus "tough" waterproof cameras... One is about 4 years old and the other is last years model. A friend just bought the latest version. On the 4 year old one, lag is very noticeable and the viewfinder sucks in poor light. On the one year old one, lag is not noticeable and the viewfinder is noisy in poor light. On the new one, there is no noticeable lag and the viewfinder is close to what the eye sees in poor light.

This is the march of progress. Just using this as an example, four years ago I would have said that EVFs are a long way off, but today I would say that they are close..... and this is with a cheap P/S camera. The viewfinder in the OMD EM-1 is superior to this EVF... and what is coming down the pipes? What do Canon/Nikon/Sony have planned for the future?

Ever use liveview on your DSLR? Ever zoom in 10X to check the focus? This is a trivial problem for an EVF, yet impossible for an OVF.... you have the option to switch between what the sensor sees and processed views....

And now lets travel back in time to the origins of the SLR camera... it was an ingenious design that allowed the eye to see the light that would be presented to the film. A DSLR with an OVF is the same, it allows your eye to see the light that is presented to the sensor. An EVF goes one step further and allows you to see the light as viewed by the sensor.

New cameras have ten times or more computing power than those of just a couple years ago... they can do complex noise correction on the fly.... the on-the-screen jpg of four years ago is not the same as it is today. You can not use the inadequacies of the past to justify the future.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 13, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Human visual lag cannot be characterized by a single number, and recent experiments have shown that it is at least faster than 16ms.

No, I never use live view.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 13, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> I'm surprised, you don't usually make bad arguments. You have invoked the "it is thus and ever shall be" argument. I'm saying I want an improved Live View through the viewfinder, and I believe it's achievable in the next few years. I'm not saying current EVF is adequate.



It might get there eventually, but IMO we'll need *much* better display tech than currently is available. The real problem is that the needs of cameras go way beyond the needs of TV sets, where overly bright blacks and compromised color accuracy are acceptable compromises in the name of increased dynamic range. Unfortunately, the market for EVFs is also miniscule compared with the market for TVs, so most of the research is going towards improving TVs, rather than improving niche products like EVFs. This means we're likely to have to wait until TVs exceed the requirements for EVFs so the technology can bubble down. I could be wrong, but I'd expect a very long wait.


----------



## 9VIII (Jul 13, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



All this example shows is that you don't know how to use a camera.

In one of the A7R launch interviews the photographer was giving examples of low light pictures where the camera was picking up details he couldn't see (people in the background).


----------



## Clayton (Jul 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



Excellent comments. It really comes down to technology in the end. Just because a thing does not exist now does not mean it won't exist soon enough. What is an EVF? Its a name for a feature on a camera. A feature which can be comprised of any technology with any specifications. The problems people here have with current EVFs only have relevance to existing technology but not to what they'll be shipping in a few years.


----------



## msm (Jul 13, 2014)

Lee Jay said:


> > As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, EVFs don't show that, they show the in-camera JPEG conversion, which is way, way smaller than what the sensor can see. I post this example often:



Here is a tip for you, if you got an A7 type of camera what you do is turn on DRO and then what you see through the EVF is pretty much comparable to your final image, and the raw's are unaffected by this setting.


----------



## e17paul (Jul 13, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Excellent comments. It really comes down to technology in the end. Just because a thing does not exist now does not mean it won't exist soon enough. What is an EVF? Its a name for a feature on a camera. A feature which can be comprised of any technology with any specifications. The problems people here have with current EVFs only have relevance to existing technology but not to what they'll be shipping in a few years.



Wise words. It seems that Canon are holding back until the technology is to their satisfaction. That's an approach also taken by Apple.

The current Eos M is just a toe in the water. The increasing range of lenses show that they are serious about the format, the current M is a valuable part of their development, and there is now an EVF for the G1 X, which could conceivably be built into a future model to eventually replace the Rebel series cameras. The SL1 is impressive, but will be outclassed by EF-M cameras as the march of electronic EVF (and sensor) progress surges forward in accordance with Moore's law.

I'm looking forward to it, but sticking with my full frame and pentaprism 6D for now. I would like to also own a smaller alternative for everyday - an Eos M with built in grip and EVF could win Canon my money.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 13, 2014)

It seems some comments are coming from people who haven't used a MILC with a decent EVF.

Higher end mirrorless and EVFs are at the point NOW where they are comparable to many consumer/prosumer DSLRs in performance in most conditions, including low light. Give them another year or 2 and they will likely be on par with their mirror-flapping counterparts. .. And then they'll exceed them.

The EVFs in current Olympus and Fuji cameras are impressive and I'm sure Sony's are comparable as well.
They're OLED, so have very good dynamic range and color gamut. Lag exists but in some of them, like the Fuji XT1, it's quite minimal in decent light and not bad in low light either. 

I attended an event last nite, turned out to be a dim and poorly lit club. I wanted a compact but reasonably capable camera with me. So I grabbed an old Fuji XE1 over a Pentax Q because I wanted an EVF. Unfortunately, I grabbed one I'd just bought used so I had not yet set it up the way I liked. As it is, I barely use the XE1 enough to be partly atuned to it so there were plenty of shots I could have done better using more familiar gear. It didn't matter, this was not a job.
I used the 27mm f/2.8 pancake prime on it; very light, small and discreet compared to any sort of DSLR.

The XE1 is slightly older tech already, and it still performed better than I expected and certainly was no worse to use than a small pentamirror OVF in a consumer DSLR. Actually, it was no problem framing and composing images in low light where I had to use iso 3200 or 6400 at 1/15s and f/4.

AF performance was not great but it was still possible to do a good manual focus using the magnified live view in the EVF fairly quickly when needed. I don't think many consumer grade DSLRs would have had much better AF performance on the dark and low contrast targets I shot anyway but they may have been a bit quicker for focus and recompose or some of the moving targets.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 13, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



You said more than merely 'improved live view', you said you want the EVF to allow you to, "...compose using what the sensor can see," in terms of color and DR. 

RAW data is 14-bit, displays and EVFs are generally 8-bit - that's a significant gap in color and DR. The highest-end professional video editing displays and EVFs support 10-bit color, and I suppose you are suggesting that displays will catch up...but high-end cameras (I have some in the lab) use 16-bit ADCs, and those will also show up in mainstream consumer imaging down the line. 

You are apparently assuming display technology will improve while image capture technology remains stagnant...sorry, but _that's_ the bad argument here. Both are improving (and will likely continue to) in parallel, and given the already large lead that image capture has in terms of bit depth, it's highly unlikely that you'll ever be able to look through an EVF and 'see what the sensor sees'.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


I thought it was obvious what Orangutan meant.... guess I was wrong....


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



So did I, and thanks for the validation.


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 13, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



You're being a bit too literalistic. If you read the context of my post, it was in response to the statement that EVF is inferior because it cannot show what the human eye sees. The intent of my response was to say that such a position is irrelevant because the human eye can't see which parts of a scene will be clipped, or which parts of a scene will be in focus, etc. An important reason for Live View (and EVF) is to have the sensor give you helpful information to capture the data you will need for post-processing. Beyond that, it need only be "true" enough to allow the creative aspects of composition.

As a side note: you are correct that sensor tech will continue to improve; however, there's no reason a high-end EVF can't have a couple of dials to spin through the range of what it sees. As an analogy consider flight simulators: for those who don't have surround monitor sets, there are controls to "turn your head" and look out the side windows. An EVF may not present all data at once, but can still present it.


----------



## Aglet (Jul 13, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


+1
there are no significant shortcomings on today's better EVFs to prevent them from allowing composition control in most circumstances while also being able to provide a great deal of extra information simultaneously that current OVF systems do not.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 13, 2014)

9VIII said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



Baloney. The upper one is NOT underexposed. In fact, there are blown pixels in the raw data. Making the exposure hotter would have resulted in more blown pixels. The way I shot it, I used the absolute maximum available dynamic range of the camera in raw mode.


----------



## Clayton (Jul 13, 2014)

My gut tells me the lions share of R&D money will go in the direction of whatever will in the end cost less to make, service and support. Therefore its in the best interests of Canon, Nikon etc. to develop products that will satisfy the majority of customers with designs that have no moving parts. Im not saying they wont continue to refine DSLR designs for a while with more sophisticated computer technologies and better sensors, but as soon as they can (maybe several years yet) retire that mechanical stuff they will. 

You don’t have to like the idea, but the digital kids of today who live on their smart phones are the professionals of tomorrow. Both using the gear and designing it. So enjoy that decades old mechanical DSLR designs while you can. The generational / technical / digital clock is ticking.


----------



## jebrady03 (Jul 13, 2014)

Clayton said:


> According to the Wall Street Journal DSLR sales fell in fiscal 2013 by 10%. Pocket size point and shoot cameras by even more and DSLM (mirror-less) cameras by only about 3%.
> 
> _*All of this is in part due to smart phone cameras of course.*_


*emphasis mine

Other aspect of the article have already been shown to be false. I wanted to address this.

1) Prove it. And...
2) I think not.

Let's put our thinking caps on here... how many people think a smartphone is a substitute for a DSLR or capable MILC?

I'm not going to wait for the vote tally to come in, I'll answer the poll. NO ONE.

This conclusion of yours is GARBAGE.

Where you got it mostly right is where you said "in part due" because there are multiple factors involved in the lack of sustainability in the DSLR market. Saturation is possibly the main culprit.


----------



## unfocused (Jul 13, 2014)

jebrady03 said:


> Clayton said:
> 
> 
> > According to the Wall Street Journal DSLR sales fell in fiscal 2013 by 10%. Pocket size point and shoot cameras by even more and DSLM (mirror-less) cameras by only about 3%.
> ...



Yes!

The OP plays the classic game of having a pre-conceived notion and then trying to make (partial and misleading) statistics "prove" the conclusion. 

I would agree that saturation plays a much larger role in any decline in DSLR sales than either cell-phone or mirrorless cameras (including both fixed-lens and interchangeable lenses.)

Over the last decade, digital technology followed a classic pattern. It was a disruptive technology that made everything that went before it (film) obsolete. The worldwide conversion to digital drove DSLR sales more than anything else. And, because it was an immature technology, the pace of development and resultant obsolescence (either perceived or real) meant that buyers were replacing their cameras at a much more frequent pace than historical market trends. (A film SLR was good for a minimum of 10 years, often much longer).

Now, the initial pent-up demand for digital technology has been satisfied and the pace of development is slowing. It's a natural cycle and, while early adopters and gearheads will be disappointed, most consumers are likely to settle back into the pattern of replacing their DSLRs much less frequently – just as they did with SLRs.

I doubt if any of this comes as a surprise to Canon and Nikon – both long time leaders in the marketplace and no doubt well-positioned for the long haul. This is one reason why I personally would never consider any of their competitors for a primary system investment. (I would consider Fuji for a secondary system, but would not be buying into the system to the extent I have Canon or would do with Nikon).

Being more familiar with Canon than Nikon, I think I see the company developing and experimenting with strategies to retain its profitability despite a shrinking marketplace. 

They have developed a mirrorless interchangeable lens system in the most established DSLR format -- APS-C;
They are offering a traditional DSLR in a size that is competitive with mirrorless;
They produce two top-selling full frame cameras racking up sales that far exceed their competitors;
They set an industry standard for high-end APS-C with their 7D and are likely to unveil the next generation soon, giving us a very good idea of where they see that market headed;
The are rapidly re-purposing their point-and-shoot models to focus on smaller, but more stable, niche markets;
They are using their market position and expertise to capture a growing segment of the video market up and down the line from entrance level to multimillion dollar Hollywood productions;
They are making major plays for other rapidly growing markets, such as security;
And, the list goes on and on.

The jury is still out on the future of mirrorless. Right now, it has been a bust in Europe and the Americas (not just Canon but all manufacturers). Some people believe that the relative success of mirrorless in Asia is a sign of the future. But, it's entirely possible that the opposite is true. Is the Asian market on the cutting edge and showing the way of the future? Or, will the initial fascination in Asia fade and consumers there fall into the same pattern as European and American enthusiasts -- ultimately deciding that the compromises required of mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras are too great and turn instead to DSLRs?

Interesting that on this forum, there is such an intense debate over what is really an insignificant point -- whether the future lies in optical or electronic viewfinders. Really, who cares? If electronic viewfinders reach a point where they offer more than optical viewfinders, the technology will transition. If they don't, then optical viewfinders are likely to remain the industry standard. Other than a fascination for technology that borders on being a fetish, there is no logical reason to care.


----------



## dak723 (Jul 14, 2014)

I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs. They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them. I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job. I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera. They are cameras, that's all! 

The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones. For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures. So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet. When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else. Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR. That's what my crystal ball says!


----------



## emko (Jul 14, 2014)

people suggesting that people buy a big dslr to show off is so dumb, i really don't like taking it out in public make people think i am a pro or something but i try not to care as i just love the way it fits in my hand's even the 550d i had felt good but once i got the 5diii its so much better. Maybe we will get some kind of hybrid view finder with both evf and ovf for dslrs. I have yet to try those smaller mirrorless FF cameras but then whats the point if you put on a 24-70mm and it will feel very unbalanced.

its just horrible i want small camera for ease to carry around and a dslr for how nice it fits in my hands.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2014)

dak723 said:


> I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs. They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them. I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job. I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera. They are cameras, that's all!
> 
> The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones. For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures. So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet. When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else. Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR. That's what my crystal ball says!


+1000000


----------



## Orangutan (Jul 14, 2014)

Since we're speculating...

7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)



(*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 14, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> Since we're speculating...
> 
> 7 years down the road your pro/semi-pro camera will not only be mirrorless, but will have no built-in display and limited controls. Instead, it will have a dock for your smartphone, which will serve as the control panel and view screen.(*)
> 
> (*) Not an actual prediction, for entertainment purposes only.


actually..... I would love it if I could use the Wi-Fi on the camera to connect to a smartphone or tablet and have the device act identically to the screen on the camera, or in the case of a tablet, have all the controls at your fingertips...


----------



## Dylan777 (Jul 14, 2014)

dak723 said:


> I think a few years down the road, that there will be no discussion or competition between mirrorless and DSLRs. They are so close already in ability to take professional photos that I think people will barely differentiate between them. I own both a Canon 6D and an Olympus EM-1 and they both do an excellent job. I never refer or think about them as one DSLR and one mirrorless camera. They are cameras, that's all!
> 
> The competition will be between cameras and cell/smart phones. For the average person, their smartphone will do everything they need in terms of taking pictures. So camera sales will continue to decline and eventually plummet. When the current generation of kids reaches adulthood, smartphones will be so far advanced from where they are now, the vast majority will feel no need to use anything else. Older folks may continue to buy cameras - and, of course, professionals and serious amateurs, but the only arguments will be smartphone or camera? - not mirrorless or DSLR. That's what my crystal ball says!



There was an article I saw 3-4yrs ago. It said "DSLR will die within 5yrs" :


----------



## moreorless (Jul 14, 2014)

unfocused said:


> I doubt if any of this comes as a surprise to Canon and Nikon – both long time leaders in the marketplace and no doubt well-positioned for the long haul. This is one reason why I personally would never consider any of their competitors for a primary system investment. (I would consider Fuji for a secondary system, but would not be buying into the system to the extent I have Canon or would do with Nikon).



I suspect theres a lot of truth in this, what many view as resting on their laurels is infact a decision not to over invest in a market that's inevitably going to contract.

Personally I still feel that a lot of mirrorless systems sales are exploiting a gap in the market that other products could target. Most obviously I think that fixed lens compacts have a lot of room to grow, for years they stayed with 1/1.7' sensors but now are rapidly advancing and provide real benefits over systems cameras when it comes to size saving. Equally I think both Canon and Nikon could look to market smaller but high quality DSLR bodies, something the size of the SL1 but with controls and build aimed at a higher end market.


----------



## Lee Jay (Jul 14, 2014)

Dylan777 said:


> There was an article I saw 3-4yrs ago. It said "DSLR will die within 5yrs" :



http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/1456578

Make sure you look at the date.


----------



## mkabi (Jul 14, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Since we're speculating...
> ...



Im sure you can already do that...
Check 6D plus EOS app on your smart phone... 
Of course it isn't perfect but it can do what you want...


----------



## Clayton (Jul 15, 2014)

“2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in a long long time (maybe even decades). After the official numbers have been published by CIPA (the Camera & Imaging Products Association)”

http://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2013/

I truly believe that VIDEO has kept DSLR sales more robust then they might otherwise have been up till now.

Of course a smart phone is not an equal replacement for a DSLR. Not sure who would think that. But thats not the point. The point is that enough customers feel that smart phones are good enough. That has clearly effected digital cameras sales across the board. Oh and Apple and Samsung will keep improving their technology which will result in even more erosion of dedicated camera sales.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 15, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...


That's the first "kick at the cat".... I expect future versions to be better and we will probably see this on all the new DSLRs and mirrorless cameras from this time on....


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 15, 2014)

mkabi said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



You have been able to access Live View on a phone or tablet since the 1D MkIV and the 5D MkII, 2009-2008 via a Canon WFT. You have been able to control the camera and view and download the images since at least 2002 with the 1Ds and the WFT. Not to mention various third party work arounds.


----------



## moreorless (Jul 15, 2014)

Clayton said:


> “2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in a long long time (maybe even decades). After the official numbers have been published by CIPA (the Camera & Imaging Products Association)”
> 
> http://lensvid.com/gear/lensvid-exclusive-what-happened-to-the-photography-industry-in-2013/
> 
> ...



I'd argue this is probably the reason why Canon and Nikon have been investing more in their FF DSLR products over the last 2-3 years as there the area least likely to feel the pitch from improved phone cameras. Indeed I'd say mirrorless along with compacts is the area most likely to feel the pitch.


----------



## emko (Jul 15, 2014)

you can only sell certain amount of cameras to people that want them, now what happens do they upgrade to the next version? well last few years we have not had that much improvement as we did in the years before so maybe people are just holding on longer to older cameras then before? cant that be a possibility or is cell phone just good enough for people these days? 

Can this problem cause R&D to slow down? as they are making less profit? has massive amount of camera sales made cameras improve at a faster rate? I really hope we don't end up at a point where the cameras get more expensive and less improvements happen.

Also what happens when we hit the limit of IQ? we can only add so many MP at one point we will hit a limit on that as well. Sounds scary hope everything turns out fine and we continue to have great cameras at a reasonable price.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jul 15, 2014)

In the longer term (at least, for Nikon ), the answer to increasing camera sales is 300cm 8k tvs. With 33.2mp resolution, I'd suspect you'll start seeing some IQ differences between phones and cameras and there'll be another surge in camera purchases.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Jul 15, 2014)

Said it before and will say it again, DSLR's won't be leaving anytime soon, and it won't be mirrorless that kills them. Low end DSLR's may be gutted because the market for them is much less than it used to be because of the advances in cell phone cameras - where you used to need to get the better camera to get decent shots, cell phones keep getting better and in the eyes of the consumer - quality matters less and less as most want instant social network gratification. In the eyes of many, a superior picture matters less than instant sharing. 

that's the bottleneck right now, the IQ on low end SLR's is kind of wasted on the majority of the low end, and no matter how small you make it, unless the camera is your phone there is a large segment of folks that want one device. You go out for the night with your friends, your phone fits in your pocket, your camera does not!


----------



## Clayton (Jul 17, 2014)

Nothing like crapy smart phone pictures ............

http://conversations.nokia.com/2013/08/29/15-stunning-collage-photos-taken-on-a-nokia-smartphone/

http://www.businessinsider.com/best-smartphone-photos-2014-5?op=1

what will smart phones be capable of in 3-5 years? Good question. Probably not worse then they look today.


----------



## Clayton (Jul 17, 2014)

moreorless said:


> Clayton said:
> 
> 
> > “2013 was the worst year for the photography industry in a long long time (maybe even decades). After the official numbers have been published by CIPA (the Camera & Imaging Products Association)”
> ...




Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers. Economics of scale and all of that. Im a DSLR guy myself. DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only. How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment? I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.

I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do. Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 17, 2014)

Clayton said:


> I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do. Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.



I did just shy of thirteen there myself. The thing is, AFAIK, Apple hasn't ever actually designed an image sensor. They buy the parts from vendors like Sony. Even the QuickTake cameras used sensors by Kodak and Fujifilm. In some cases, they might request some custom changes to the part (probably not for cameras), and they might even do their own lenses (not sure), but not sensors. And many of the same advancements that improve the images from cell phone sensors also have practical applications for larger sensors. So the DSLRs get a free economy-of-scale boost from those Apple cell phones. 




Clayton said:


> Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers. Economics of scale and all of that. Im a DSLR guy myself. DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only. How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment? I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.




Most people who buy DSLRs do so because they want much, much better photos than they will ever be able to get from any cell phone camera, no matter how advanced. Even if they add an optical zoom and reach 100% quantum efficiency, there's only so far you can go with a sensor that's only 6mm across diagonally before the camera becomes infeasibly thick to use as part of a phone.

I mean, yes, there might occasionally be people who get in over their heads with DSLRs and end up using them like point-and-shoots without zooming. Some of those folks might decide to go back to using a cell phone, but... I'd expect those sales to make up a small enough percentage of sales to get lost in the noise.

Thus, although I could certainly be wrong, I don't see the DSLR market shrinking very much unless it is due to market saturation, which can only be combatted by updating the hardware sufficiently to make people want to upgrade. Then again, I also don't expect to see it growing by leaps and bounds.


----------



## Clayton (Jul 17, 2014)

Good points dagatwood ----

One thing also keeps popping into my head, we keep concentrating on "stills" but the DSLR video revolution (launched 6 years ago) was responsible for a certain percentage of DSLR sales a figure no one really has. What percentage of Canon sales in full frame and APS sensor cameras over the last 6 years were not “primarily” for high quality stills at all.
To what degree has the video market helped keep the DSLR platform relevant? No one really knows.

One thing is for sure many video geeks have found stills using their DSLRs a new and wonderful thing and thats helped for sure. But just like in the RED camera world there are large single sensor video / cinema cameras that can produce commercial grade still images used in advertising. The lines are getting fuzzy. That market (Video using large single sensor cameras) is shifting somewhat now. I feel the jury is still out on what the numbers will be going forward. One thing is guaranteed, Its a pretty exciting time to be a camera geek for sure. 8)


----------



## moreorless (Jul 17, 2014)

Clayton said:


> Pretty good point but of course it all comes down to numbers. Economics of scale and all of that. Im a DSLR guy myself. DSLR for Video and stills and have a BMCC as well for video only. How large a market will FF have in 3-5 years and will it be large enough to merit continued investment? I like your point and Im thinking that we might see a much smaller product line down the road if the demand shrinks more.
> 
> I worked for Apple for 15 years and I'm well aware of what technology can do and how focused companies like Apple are. Apple with a market cap 10x that of Canon and Nikon put together has no intention to pull back on developing what small mobile products can do. Of course a smart phone is not a FF camera "Duh" ... but its all about market economics pure and simple.



Personally my view is that Canon have probably taken the right decision in trying to target video more with there very high end professional releases. For the amateur market I suspect that phones are "good enough" for more people than they are with stills simply because your looking at lower resolution output.

To me its looked like Canons tactics in recent years have generally been to target the high end markets with quality and the low end markets with price whilst tending to focus less attension on the middle. Honestly I cans ee the logic behind that too I think the "gadget" market is a very tough one to go after, you have consumers with limited amounts of money to spend who also demand constant advances.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.
> ...



+1 Ditto!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jul 17, 2014)

As I read through the back and forth of this thread, I'll just say that we are witnessing a lot of trends that are swinging back and forth as the entire market, both lay person consumers and professionals buy all kinds of technology, try to figure it all out and how it fits their needs. Not only is the pendulum swinging, but there are many pendulums swinging within multiple spaces simultaneously. This is why it is so hard to see the future of photography gear as well as other tech devices. Many of the traditional device tech spaces are becoming blurred together.

IMHO, there still exists a market that values convenience, small size and simplicity (Camera Phones and P&S). Another market that values high quality and performance (DSLR, etc.). The needs are going to exist for both for a long time. 10 years from now, I don't expect to see a major sports event sideline filled with professional camera phone shooters. And I also don't expect to see a lot of people talking and texting on hybrid DSLR phone devices. There is a need for both types of devices now and in the future. The technology inside these devices will continue to advance but the form factors will still be important for a long time to come.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jul 17, 2014)

Orangutan said:


> The human visual system already has lag, and some EVFs are getting quite close to human lag. I think lag may be one of the first impediments to fall.
> 
> As for the DR and color, that's precisely why I want an EVF: I want to compose using what the sensor can see, so I have a better idea of the final image. This is another plus for EVF.



If someone can offer me an EVF with zero distinguishable lag and a dynamic range and color gamut matching the sensor, I'd eat the battery weight. I suspect producing a 12+ stop display may be challenging, however. They may be able to do it with clever back- and side lighting, but that would jeopardize the accuracy.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 17, 2014)

This is not the first time that members try to ring the "death bell" 0f DSLR or mirroless. Personally, I cannot see any reason why either group should do that. If you look back into the film days, SLR and range finder(interchangeable lens) cameras has been co-exist since the1930's. Each type has its advantage and disadvantage. Which one to pick depends on personal choice, requirement and the pocket book. Leica, Canon, Nikon, Zeiss etc. are all in both camps. Range finder can do anything a SLR can do ( with the right attachment), may be a little bit clumsy. Until 1970's, range finder has only one company left (LEICA). SLR over-run the range finder. The range finder cannot complete with SLR is due to higher price ( complexity and precision of the view finder and range finder leads to much higher price) and versatility. Now we are in digital age. I can see the co-existance of both DSLR and the mirrorless. I do not expect one will over-run the another for a long long long time.


----------



## Camerasheik (Jul 17, 2014)

I imagine similar conversations took place in Britain in the 1960's when the first Japanese motorbikes arrived in the UK. At first they just weren't good enough, compared to Nortons and Triumphs. Early adopters were sneered at, the proud riders of Brit iron rumbled and roared into the distance (usually stopping around the corner to fix oiled plugs).

But the Japanese persisted and they got better, bit by bit. More Hondas and Kawasakis appeared and people started to actually enjoy them, their ease of use and their reliability gained supporters. The Brit manufacturers secure in the vocal support of their customers dismissed the upstarts.

As the product developed their handling improved, their performance improved - they were of course always more reliable.

Then another new generation of products arrived and suddenly they were faster, better handling and of course still more reliable and cheaper - much cheaper. Almost overnight the British bike industry disappeared, the manufacturers just couldn't grasp that people are ultimately pragmatic, often conservative but ultimately pragmatic. 

Why buy a bike that is slower, doesn't handle or brake as well and is a hassle to own and use when compared to the new stuff and much more expensive? Answer only an idiot or sentimentalist would and there just weren't enough of those about to support an industry.

I own a Canon 60d, I'm pretty happy with it, but I'm thinking of upgrading, so I await the new 7D mk2 with interest. But I wonder how good will it be? How much better for example will it be compared to a Panasonic GH4?

It will definitely be a lot more expensive, the body will likely be 20% heavier and (assuming the 7D is an APSC) all of the lenses will be much larger.
So will the new Canon's feature set and image quality be a sufficient step above the GH4 to justify the cost and weight?

Will I go from my old Triumph to a flash Norton or jump for the Kawasaki?


----------



## JohnDizzo15 (Jul 17, 2014)

Not sure if this was stated as I kind of speed read through the five pages of previous posts.

But like I've stated before, the real killer feature would be to make the viewfinder a hybrid ovf/evf like Fuji has done on the x100/s and xpro. 

This would give us the best of both worlds and the option to use whichever is best suited for the user/scenario. 

Yes, I am aware that there will then be issues with parallax. But it is a small nuisance to maintain the benefit of having access to both types of VF in the same body.

Battery life would also be prolonged which is my biggest beef with mirrorless now.

I personally would love to see a full sized (dslr shape) mirrorless offering from Canon so long as it featured the hybrid vf. The larger form factor would appeal to my ergonomic preferences and also allow for a much larger battery than what is currently used in most small mirrorless bodies.


----------



## iaind (Jul 17, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > I'm hoping Canon drops the Eos-M and pulls out of the mirrorless market entirely. That way, they can focus their R&D activities on improving and enhancing their DSLRs, camera features, sensors and lenses.
> ...


 +1


With a 100-400L attached you have a choice of 3 tripod/monopod mounts


----------



## moreorless (Jul 18, 2014)

Camerasheik said:


> I imagine similar conversations took place in Britain in the 1960's when the first Japanese motorbikes arrived in the UK. At first they just weren't good enough, compared to Nortons and Triumphs. Early adopters were sneered at, the proud riders of Brit iron rumbled and roared into the distance (usually stopping around the corner to fix oiled plugs).
> 
> But the Japanese persisted and they got better, bit by bit. More Hondas and Kawasakis appeared and people started to actually enjoy them, their ease of use and their reliability gained supporters. The Brit manufacturers secure in the vocal support of their customers dismissed the upstarts.
> 
> ...



You could of course just as easily point to many products that were talked up as likely to upset and existing market that roundly failed to do so, indeed Sony themselves have been behind two of the most famous ones in recent decades with Betamax and Minidiscs.

Where this question becomes relevant of course is whether it should inform your buying decisions today. In that reguard I have a lot more confidence that the EOS and F mounts will be well supported in 5 years than I do any current mirror less mount.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 18, 2014)

JohnDizzo15 said:


> Not sure if this was stated as I kind of speed read through the five pages of previous posts.
> 
> But like I've stated before, the real killer feature would be to make the viewfinder a hybrid ovf/evf like Fuji has done on the x100/s and xpro.
> 
> ...


And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable  reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.


----------



## Don Haines (Jul 18, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable  reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.



For comparison, 
70D, LP-E6 battery, 1000 pictures per charge
EOS-M, LP-12 battery, 230 pictures per charge

LP-E6 is 7.2V and 1800mAh
LP-E12 is 7.2V and 875mAh

If you look at in term of pictures per Ah, the 70D is 555 per Ah and the EOS-M is 265 per Ah.... so assuming the same battery capacity you are still at only half the life on the EOS-M as the 70D


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable  reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.
> ...



Of course, according to the official Canon numbers, the 70D only gets about 230 shots in live view, or 152 shots per Ah. I can't imagine why its battery life in live view mode is only half that of the EOS-M, rather than being about the same, but there you go. Either way, the point remains that active displays draw a lot of power.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...



FWIW, this past week I shot over 500 frames (and a 90 s movie) on a single fully-charged LP-E12 in my EOS M (and I could have shot more, but I swapped in a fresh battery as soon as the red-flashing indicator came on). I shot about the same number of images on my 1D X, and used less than 35% of the LP-E4N's capacity (no need for the spare battery this trip).


----------



## dgatwood (Jul 19, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Don Haines said:
> ...




The more useful statistic would be minutes with the screen lit. Taking the photo is lost in the noise by comparison. If you shoot photos relatively quickly, you'll get a lot of shots. If you take five minutes between shots, you won't get very many at all.


----------



## fragilesi (Jul 19, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > And you have hit the big problem with mirrorless.... battery life. They increase the power consumption and make the battery smaller.... and for some inexplicable  reason, battery life sucks! If they kept to LP-E6 they would last longer... or with a mirrorless in a "normal" sized camera there would be room for a larger battery.
> ...



That's pretty much spot on with my 70d too. I always take a spare battery and although I regularly do get up to a thousand shots I rarely need the spare, often just popping it in to make sure that the transfer to the PC doesn't get interrupted.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jul 19, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dgatwood said:
> ...



That's rather the point, isn't it? Previsualize the shot, turn on the camera, compose, focus and shoot. If there are people in the shot, fire off a ~3 frame burst. Don't spend a lot of time chimping. Good technique can make more effective use of battery life. The >500 shots on one battery were spread over three days of use.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 19, 2014)

This is another absolutely opposite case. With a fully charged battery, I was playing with the manu, custom function, for about 45 minutes. Then the battery died after less than 10 shots.


----------

