# CIPA Global Camera Sales Numbers for March 2018 Released



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 1, 2018)

```
<p><a href="http://www.cipa.jp/stats/dc_e.html">CIPA has released</a> the camera shipment numbers for March 2018 today and there are some interesting things going on with ILC’s.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.canonnews.com/cipa-march-2018-a-new-hope-for-ilcs">Canon News</a> has done their usual great breakdown of the numbers, so I don’t really need to do the same thing.</p>
<p><strong>From Canon News:</strong></p>
<blockquote><p>….With the Kumamoto earthquake finally in the past, we see that the shipments overall for this month is almost that of the year past and maintain a little consistency from month to month at around 95% of last year’s March shipments. Japan for the first time ever has shipped more Mirrorless than DSLR’s which is an interesting notable that will have to be watched in the coming months ahead.</p>
<p>….DSLR’s continue to ship less, thereby raising the mirrorless market share.  This month instead of looking at percentages, we’re going to look at units, where it shows a far more startling trend for DSLR’s over the last 4 or so years than it does if you looked at percentages of market.</p>
<p>….In summary, for this month we are seeing a more consistent picture of shipments, marginal increases to mirrorless and the continued slow decline in DSLR shipments.  The interesting takeaway is that when you see a camera released, and you are puzzled to why on earth the company released it, imagine how it may fit into the different markets, whether it be for DSLR’s or for Mirrorless.</p></blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.canonnews.com/cipa-march-2018-a-new-hope-for-ilcs">Head on over to Canon News</a> for a lot more analysis and pretty graphs.</p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## Diltiazem (May 1, 2018)

Here is Japan market in March. 

https://www.bcnretail.com/research/ranking/monthly/list/contents_type=101


----------



## unfocused (May 1, 2018)

Looking at the trend lines, it appears that mirrorless will overtake DSLRs -- in about 20-30 years.


----------



## fullstop (May 2, 2018)

> Japan for the first time ever has shipped more Mirrorless than DSLR’s which is an interesting notable that will have to be watched in the coming months ahead.



"20-30 years"

ROFL


----------



## Mikehit (May 2, 2018)

> Looking at this data, I feel that the mirrorless disruption isn’t as much as how mirrorless will change the industry, but more how it will change how the industry looks at markets and creates products for them.
> 
> This may be the longer learning curve for both Canon and Nikon than simply creating products.
> 
> Canon in this regard, seems to have a higher understanding, with it’s product mix maybe missing the marks for mirrorless in the more enthusiast friendly realm of Europe and USA, however, perhaps not missing the mark as much in the newer, larger economic zone of Asia.



An interesting summary. Not-so-stupid Canon.


----------



## LDS (May 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> > Japan for the first time ever has shipped more Mirrorless than DSLR’s which is an interesting notable that will have to be watched in the coming months ahead.
> 
> 
> "20-30 years"
> ROFL



The Japanese market is not always representative of other markets. There have been products very popular in Japan but not in US or Europe. And vice versa.

Big companies are aware of such differences, and have to plan accordingly.


----------



## fullstop (May 2, 2018)

LDS said:


> The Japanese market is not always representative of other markets. There have been products very popular in Japan but not in US or Europe. And vice versa.
> Big companies are aware of such differences, and have to plan accordingly.



20-30 years for full transition to MILCs is still laughable.


----------



## stevelee (May 2, 2018)

unfocused said:


> Looking at the trend lines, it appears that mirrorless will overtake DSLRs -- in about 20-30 years.



I might be ready for one by then. That is if I'm still interested in photography when I'm over 91 years old.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2018)

stevelee said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Looking at the trend lines, it appears that mirrorless will overtake DSLRs -- in about 20-30 years.
> ...



Same here.



fullstop said:


> 20-30 years for full transition to MILCs is still laughable.



I don't know why it is so laughable that it might take that long for mirrorless to take over (if ever).

So far, the trend lines show DSLRs and mirrorless pretty much running in parallel with one another, with maybe a slight narrowing of the gap. I'm looking at years, not a single month. The chart can be interpreted as showing that mirrorless is on an eventual path to overtake DSLRs, but it also can be legitimately interpreted as showing that mirrorless demand has not matured, while DSLR demand reflects a mature market. 

The problem is that technology geeks find the shiny new object appealing and assume that others do as well, when we simply don't know that yet. I'm pretty confident that DLSRs will outlive me, even if I eventually opt for a mirrorless as a backup or special purpose body.


----------



## fullstop (May 2, 2018)

DSLRs sales are going down, rapidly. For years now. Mirrorless has not taken off yet, due to lack of suitable supply - no Nikon, only limited Canon offering. 

2019 will be the crossing year for sure. After that it will be accelerated downhill for DSLRs. 3 years and they are done, relegated to the same status that "former flagship" analog film SLRs held for a number of years.

Only reason why mirrorless has not already fully taken over 3 years ago was lack of supply, not lack of demand.


----------



## unfocused (May 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ...2019 will be the crossing year for sure. After that it will be accelerated downhill for DSLRs. 3 years and they are done...



Well, I appreciate your bold prediction. Let's bookmark this post and see. I'm skeptical.


----------



## canonnews (May 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> DSLRs sales are going down, rapidly. For years now. Mirrorless has not taken off yet, due to lack of suitable supply - no Nikon, only limited Canon offering.
> 
> 2019 will be the crossing year for sure. After that it will be accelerated downhill for DSLRs. 3 years and they are done, relegated to the same status that "former flagship" analog film SLRs held for a number of years.
> 
> Only reason why mirrorless has not already fully taken over 3 years ago was lack of supply, not lack of demand.



If mirrorless does ship more in 2019 (which is highly debatable, because for that to happen, Canon and Nikon would have to ship almost as many mirrorless full frame units than ALL their DSLR units combined which is highly unlikely to happen in 2019 or even really 2020). For your prediction to come true, both Canon and Nikon would have to "switch fully" to mirrorless cameras and dump their existing camera lines.

Canon will probably use the same strategy as they are now. They don't care what camera you buy as long as it's a Canon camera. they will happily sell you an EOS-M5 or happily sell you an 80D. It's very unlikely for them to stop some of the most popular camera lines over the last decade just because they came out with a mirrorless product.

As far as supply not hitting demand, I would love to see some details on that. The only supply issue in the last three years was the earthquake which disrupted 50% of the industry in Nikon and mirrorless companies both. however that effect is well over, you could argue that it's completely gone as of a year ago as all vendors have caught up on shipments around the first couple of months in 2017. it's debatable that mirrorless if canon or nikon seriously got into it three years ago would have had any more growth than we have already seen. Those in mirrorless have upgraded more often and quicker than those of DSLR's because of product maturity. as Mirrorless gets more mature, it will face the same slow decline, however it's much closer to the bottom than with DSLSR's.

Then on top of that you have the challenge in mirrorless of the market variations that you don't see with DSLR's, making any real prediction even more crazy  

The major decline in DSLR's was actually written about, where we specifically mention some reasons for the decline in DLSR's not being the DSLR's themselves by really external influences that make comparing them a challenge.


----------



## Mikehit (May 2, 2018)

fullstop said:


> DSLRs sales are going down, rapidly. For years now. Mirrorless has not taken off yet, due to lack of suitable supply - no Nikon, only limited Canon offering.
> 
> 2019 will be the crossing year for sure. After that it will be accelerated downhill for DSLRs. 3 years and they are done, relegated to the same status that "former flagship" analog film SLRs held for a number of years.
> 
> Only reason why mirrorless has not already fully taken over 3 years ago was lack of supply, not lack of demand.



I don't believe that is the case.
Mirrorless is not taking over because the supposed benefits that the more vocal proponents claim do not matter to the mass market. 
FF mirrorless smaller? Not really when you put a lens on it
FF mirrorless cheaper? Not looking like it - cost of a mirrorbox vs cost of a EVF
FF mirrorless more acurate focussing? Yes, but not so that it would make a difference to most people
FF mirrorless faster frame rate? Yes but most people wanting 20+ fps are probably more interested in video anyway
FF mirrorless AF tracking - inferior to DSLR. 

All the internet ballyhoo is from people with very specific requirements, and most of that is the video crows.
If you want a high quality genuinely smaller mirrorless then go micro 4/3. 

The reaoson mirrorless are lagging is not supply, but the need for supply is not there because demand is not that because people are happy with a small APS-C DSLR from a trusted and known manufacturer with a very long history of quality roducts. 
if the mass market were clamouring for mirrorless then I am pretty sure Canon would be further than they are.


----------



## Talys (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> 2019 will be the crossing year for sure. After that it will be accelerated downhill for DSLRs. 3 years and they are done, relegated to the same status that "former flagship" analog film SLRs held for a number of years.
> 
> Only reason why mirrorless has not already fully taken over 3 years ago was lack of supply, not lack of demand.



This is crazy talk.

You're forgetting that, by a wide margin, most of Canon's sales of ILC's are NOT full frame. They're APSC, and Canon has a fine range of mirrorless products. Yet Canon's APSC DSLRs are still where tons and tons of Canon's sales are. Do you think that if Nikon had an enthusiast APSC (a la M5), people would stop buying Nikon APSC DSLRs?

It's not like if tomorrow there were a Canon A7iii, all of the sudden, people who were going to buy 77D, 80D, Rebels, M100, M50, M6, M5, M100, are going to say, OMG, awesome $2,000 FF mirrorless -- now I'm going to spend three times more on my body and five times more on my lenses!!!

There is one reason why Mirrorless takes up a growing percentage of sales. They're _new_ and people don't own one, or the one that they have has been eclipsed by a new, better one. Once they mature -- which won't be that long from now, if you look at where A7R3 and M50 are -- pepole will stop buying new mirrorless cameras, because the one they something they're pretty happy with.

Does that sound familiar? That's exactly where we're at with DSLRs. People out in the wild aren't suddenly hating their DSLRs and not using them. It's just that there isn't a really compelling reason to go buy the next one, unless there's some very specific feature that you're after.

So eventually, we'll all have choices, and maybe as enthusiasts, a lot of us will own both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, which might each excel at different things. And then the camera sales will continue to collapse as non-enthusiast, every-day picture-taking gets increasing handled with smartphones.


----------



## Woody (May 3, 2018)

> Japan for the first time ever has shipped more Mirrorless than DSLR’s which is an interesting notable that will have to be watched in the coming months ahead.





Diltiazem said:


> Here is Japan market in March.
> 
> https://www.bcnretail.com/research/ranking/monthly/list/contents_type=101



For Mar 2018, BCN data shows 10 MILC models and 10 DSLRs in the top 20 positions. While this is significant, I have noticed similar spikes in MILC popularity. So far, they have been sporadic and not necessarily indicative of a persistent trend.

Another interesting data is the position of the Canon 6D MarkII. While Nikon FF DSLRs tend to attract a lot of buyers in the few months of their release, their popularity almost always plunges after ~ half to one year. Canon FF DSLR models, on the other hand, tend to remain on bestselling charts for a much longer period of time...


----------



## Woody (May 3, 2018)

Talys said:


> So eventually, we'll all have choices, and maybe as enthusiasts, a lot of us will own both DSLRs and mirrorless cameras, which might each excel at different things. And then the camera sales will continue to collapse as non-enthusiast, every-day picture-taking gets increasing handled with smartphones.



I currently own a DSLR (77D) and a MILC (M5). And I have no plans to use my awful smartphone camera for important photos. ;D


----------



## Ozarker (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> DSLRs sales are going down, rapidly. For years now. Mirrorless has not taken off yet, due to lack of suitable supply - no Nikon, only limited Canon offering.
> 
> 2019 will be the crossing year for sure. After that it will be accelerated downhill for DSLRs. 3 years and they are done, relegated to the same status that "former flagship" analog film SLRs held for a number of years.
> 
> Only reason why mirrorless has not already fully taken over 3 years ago was lack of supply, not lack of demand.



Not true.

Oh brother!

Economics and market watching: Not your strong points.

Supply: Canon, Sony, Panasonic, Pentax, Olympus, Fuji, etc. Those are mirrorless camera makers, most of which are struggling... because of huge demand? BTW: Canon? Not struggling at all.


----------



## fullstop (May 3, 2018)

@Canonfanboy 
short answer: *boy oh boy, fan boy! *

long answer: 
I really wonder, who is not able to understand the market. Even if you don't believe any of Thom Hogan's projections for 2018 onwards, the CIPA numbers until and including 2017 are undisputable facts. DSLR shipments (sales) are and have been going down rapidly for a good number of years now. 





http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/2018-mirrorless-camera/jan-mar-2018-mirrorless/when-does-mirrorless-suppla.html

MILC system supply: 
was and is lacking in several major regards. By brand: 
* Canon - EOS M: APS-C only. Really decent camera bodies only since late 2016, 2017 - M5/M6. Still lacking usable 4k video. Even on latest EOS M50 4k is still not satisfactory. "No 4k" is a major problem in market place, especially when targetting younger customers - "first entry into proprietary brand world". Reason why Canon is selling EOS M fairly well: size and price. Bodies and lenses are very compact for APS-C and generally very affordable. 

* Sony: wrong mount parameters resulted in lenses too long, too big, too complex and way too expensive. Plus first 2 generations of A7 cameras ridden by user interface issues and other "teething problems". APS-C lineup - E-mount held back by high prices for bodies (eg Sony A6500 vs. Canon EOS M5) and lack of "decent and affordable" lenses. 

* Fuji: "nice" but too expensive. "crop gear at FF prices" sums it up. Bodies and lenses. Plus retro-styling and retro UI. Minority program. Will not likely get more than single digit market share ever.

* Olympus, Panasonic and mFT gear: "ridden" with dwarf sensor. Diffraction sets in at f/4, low-light performance not all that much better than best smartphone cameras. Somewhat attractive only to video-centric buyers (Panasonic GH series). Olympus? "Quarter sensor at FF prices". 2 grand for an mFT sensored "enthusiast" camera? lol. Market share: low single digit, if at all. 

* Ricoh/Pentax - no MILC offering since their ill-fated K-01 with "native K-mount nozzle" (pig's snout). Exactly what some Canon fan boys are asking Canon for. Market share prediction: zero. 

Conclusion: until supply meets pent-up (!) demand and decent, compact MILC systems for APS-C and FF imaging circle are available from all 3 dominant players (Ca, Ni, So), camera and lens market will continue to shrink. Some n00bs are still buying "rebel" DSLRS. Smart buyers refrain from buying new, marginally improved DSLRs - now that the end is near. They use what they got for now, sit back and wait for "really right" decent MILC systems. Overall, customers are not stupid. Companies sometimes are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I really wonder, who is not able to understand the market. Even if you don't believe any of Thom Hogan's projections for 2018 onwards, the CIPA numbers until and including 2017 are undisputable facts.



Ahh, yes...indisputable facts. There are facts about MILC shipments in 2012 that are also indisputable, but you and Thom Hogan are ignoring them (ignoring salient facts is what you do when you form a conclusion, then subsequently need to find data to support that conclusion). The fact is that 2012 MILC shipments were higher than 2016, meaning the trendline for MILCs when you consider all the available data is actually flat. 




fullstop said:


> MILC system supply:
> was and is lacking in several major regards. By brand:
> ...
> Conclusion: until supply meets pent-up (!) demand



Supply. You keep using that word, I do not think it means, what you think it means. You're saying 'if only manufacturrrs made better/cheaper/[insert personal value/desire here] them more people would buy them'. That's not 'supply', that's an assumption on your part that there are no data available to support. 

But big ASSumptions are your modus operandi, AvTvM.


----------



## Mikehit (May 3, 2018)

Thing about that graph is that it excludes 2012 - why? Because including 2012 show a basically flat progression and does not suit the selective data-picking that mirrorless fans like.

What evidence do you have that lack of 4K, even among the 'younger customers' is a genuine problem for Canon? My guess it is all internet chatter from a very vocal minority.

Sony - wrong mount parameters. How much smaller will a lens be if they 'got it right'? Pro-grade f2.8 lenses are the size they are because of physics. And what price do you think the A6500 should be? Do you have any knowledge of how much it costs to make them? 

Olympus/Panasonic - so 'ridden' with problems of a small sensor that mahy pros are using them and even sold their FF gear to do so. market share low singloe digit? They outsell Sony mirrorless.....Your comments here alone make your whole statement one of prejudice and drivel.


----------



## BillB (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> The pent-up demand notion has a certain wacky elegance. People are not buying more cameras because the cameras are not good enough or cheap enough. When cameras are good enough and cheap enough, then people will buy a lot more cameras.
> 
> But what people actually buy is the capability to make images. So it comes down to what image-making capability do people want to buy and how much do they want to pay for it. It may be true that DSLR designs are pretty much maxed out and that mirrorless manufacturers have never really gotten their act together, but that doesn't go to the question of how much image making capability people want to buy and what they are willing to pay for it. I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2018)

BillB said:


> I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.



That's where you're wrong. If someone builds his perfect camera tailor-made to his specific needs, sales will increase by the one camera AvTvM will buy. If you want to, you could also count the millions of people who live in his imagination that will buy one, but I wouldn't recommend it.


----------



## abel89er (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> * Sony: wrong mount parameters resulted in lenses too long, too big, too complex and way too expensive. Plus first 2 generations of A7 cameras ridden by user interface issues and other "teething problems". APS-C lineup - E-mount held back by high prices for bodies (eg Sony A6500 vs. Canon EOS M5) and lack of "decent and affordable" lenses.



That is, IMO wrong. Sony knew from the start that they would make a FF mirrorless. First of all, the first full frame sensor e mount camera is the VG900. A camcorder, released in 2012, 2 years after the release of the mount but one before the release of the A7 line. And this camcorder was planned for sure before the release of the mount. E mount size was made as a compromise to allow FF sensors but the smallest they could to not make E mount APSC cameras too much big


----------



## fullstop (May 3, 2018)

there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems. Many people have stopped buying DSLRs. Many have not been using them for quite some time. Too big, too clunky, too cumbersome to carry along most of the time. I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer. But many of these people would still like to have better IQ than tiny sensored smartphones. As soon as Canon and Nikon - the brands they prefer - also make compelling mirrorless cameras - APS-C and FF - people will buy them and shun DSLRs. Not all of them. But most amateurs/enthusiasts. Maybe not the minority of folks who regularly use large (tele) lenses. But most others.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems.



Well, we know you _personally_ are pent up and demanding. The rest of your post is pure assumption.


----------



## Mikehit (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems. Many people have stopped buying DSLRs. Many have not been using them for quite some time. Too big, too clunky, too cumbersome to carry along most of the time. I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer. But many of these people would still like to have better IQ than tiny sensored smartphones. As soon as Canon and Nikon - the brands they prefer - also make compelling mirrorless cameras - APS-C and FF - people will buy them and shun DSLRs. Not all of them. But most amateurs/enthusiasts. Maybe not the minority of folks who regularly use large (tele) lenses. But most others.



So people have their DSLRs in their drawer. These are likely Canon xxxD and xxxxD models which are not huge. Why do they not carry them? Firstly because DSLR is not pocketable so they need a small bag to carry them or they need to sling them over their shoulder and it rolls around as they walk or bend over. Second they have a phone that has a camera that suits their purposes and fits in their pocket. Now explain why a Sony mirrorless with its lens is so stupendously smaller that it overcomes both of those obstacles. 
Telling them 'it is smaller' will be met with a roll of the eyes and their credit card staying in their wallet.

Your lack of logic really is amazing for someone who makes out they understand the market from either a customer POV or a manufacturers POV.


----------



## BillB (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems. Many people have stopped buying DSLRs. Many have not been using them for quite some time. Too big, too clunky, too cumbersome to carry along most of the time. I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer. But many of these people would still like to have better IQ than tiny sensored smartphones. As soon as Canon and Nikon - the brands they prefer - also make compelling mirrorless cameras - APS-C and FF - people will buy them and shun DSLRs. Not all of them. But most amateurs/enthusiasts. Maybe not the minority of folks who regularly use large (tele) lenses. But most others.



And how many people who have stopped buying/using DSLR's are going to be convinced to put down serious money for a mirrorless camera system rather than make do with their phone? Interest in photography--marginal. Advantages of mirrorless over DSLR--marginal. Cost of buying new mirrorless system--considerable.


----------



## canonnews (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems.



there is zero evidence of this. if this was the case m43's would sell far better than it has. It's been basically flat-lining for the last 4+ years now.


----------



## Talys (May 3, 2018)

@fullstop - you're confusing Supply with the perfect camera. Just because the perfect mirrorless camera doesn't exist doesn't mean that there aren't mirrorless cameras. In the same way the perfect DSLR is also don't exist but you don't say that there is an insufficient supply of those.

If you want to use this context and conflate the two issues I'll add a new one for you... if only there were a supply of $200 full frame mirrorless cameras they would fly off the shelf!

What insufficient Supply actually means, is that there are more people who want to buy the products that are manufactured then there is capacity to manufacture them which is not the case today. If you want to buy a full frame mirrorless camera, you can. More broadly if you want to buy a mirrorless camera there are many many options.

The facts are that today, people, given a choice between mirrorless and DSLR, do more often than not choose DSLR.


----------



## unfocused (May 3, 2018)

fullstop said:


> there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems...



Very funny. This is what is wrong with Geek forums. There is pent up demand, but it isn't for slightly smaller cameras, which will never compete with the smaller and light and excellent cell phone. And yes, the quality these days is really excellent.

The pent up demand is for connectivity. Something that no manufacturer can get through their thick skulls, even after they squandered the point and shoot market.

Point in case -- my wife has turned into an excellent photographer. Even to the point of forcing me to buy a second 100-400 because she appropriated mine. She's also developed quite a following among her fellow birders on twitter. 

What would make her really want to trade in her 80D? If the 90D had a user interface that allowed her to select a picture while in the field, do some quick editing and cropping and post it to Twitter from her camera so she could ask her fellow birders, "Hey, is this a Greater or a Lesser Yellowleg?"

I've got a student intern that produces incredible videos with nothing but her iPhone, including editing, titles, effects, etc., all with the app on her phone. The quality is great and frankly, I'm not sure why anyone posting videos to social media would trade that experience for the laborious process that confronts users of mirrorless and mirrored cameras. 

Yes, size matters somewhat, but what people really want are the same photo editing and video editing and photo and video posting apps on their phones to be seamlessly integrated into their cameras. But, the manufactures are such dinosaurs in this regard that it's only been in the most recent generation that they've brought touch screens to the higher end bodies.


----------



## fullstop (May 3, 2018)

canonnews said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > there is a lot of pent up demand for smaller & lighter, yet capable and affordable mirrorless camera systems.
> ...



not surprisingly. Because there were only MILC offerings for limited market niches up to now - all limited and only "partly attractive". 

* Sony: lenses first not good, then too big and way too expensive. Plus "teething problems", UI, battery charge etc. = market share nowhere near were it could be, neither for APS-C (E-mount) nor for FF (FE) 

* Olympus: cheap Pens sell well in Japan. Higher end gear is too big for the small sensor and too expensive given the severe crop = market share low single digit 

* Panasonic: mFT sensor only. mainly good for some video stuff = market share low single digits 

* Fuji: APS-C at FF prices. market share = single digit

* Nikon: Nikon 1 / CX = dwarf sensor, market share non existent 

* Canon: only APS-C, original pricing way too high for limited capability crop gear, recent models selling very well, thanks to brand name and COMPACT SIZE cameras and decent COMPACT lenses for APS-C, now with acceptable performance and at affordable prices. M50 will likely do very well, especially once pricing comes down into "lower Rebel territory". 

Of course it is all anecdotal but i know enough folks who already switched from (more often Nikon than Canon) DSLRs to Sony (FF) or Fuji (accepting crop for smaller sized gear). And I know many more people who are loathe to switch and chose to sit tight and wait until "really good" MILC systems are offered by the respective maker they have used for many years, the UI they are familiar with - be it Canon or Nikon. All of them would like to have more compact gear, but don't necessarily want to be relegated to crop sensor only. Especially since Sony has demonstrated how compact FF MILCs can be built - e.g. A7 first gen. 

"Pro" market segment possible different. But that's not "where the numbers are", as people here are pointing out all the time.


----------



## Ozarker (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> I know of so many households with DSLRs and 2 or 3 lenses collecting dust in some drawer.



Firstly, I won't even ask how you know what so many people have in their drawers. Take that in any sense you like. 

I raise my grandson, living in my daughter's house. I have no earthly idea what is in her dresser drawers. No idea.



fullstop said:


> Of course it is all anecdotal but i know enough folks who already switched from (more often Nikon than Canon) DSLRs to Sony (FF) or Fuji (accepting crop for smaller sized gear). And I know many more people who are loathe to switch and chose to sit tight and wait until "really good" MILC systems are offered by the respective maker they have used for many years, the UI they are familiar with - be it Canon or Nikon. All of them would like to have more compact gear, but don't necessarily want to be relegated to crop sensor only.



This whole line sounds just like the guys who say they know dozens of disgruntled Canon users that say they'll switch to Sony if Canon doesn't get its act together soon. :

Please. You folks have just got to stop making crap up and stick to facts. Every last one of you ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Make your arguments. Quit making up stories to support your arguments. It is embarrassing.


----------



## Talys (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> not surprisingly. Because there were only MILC offerings for limited market niches up to now - all limited and only "partly attractive".



You're such a glass half empty sort of fella. Why not look at it as -- "There are many great camera options for various market niches where each offering has some very attractive strengths."

Instead of seeing it as Canon having a vast lens offering, some with great value, you jump on Sony for their price (among other things). 

Instead of seeing the Panasonic as being an enthusiast videographer favourite, you pan them for being limited to that segment. 

Instead of recognizing that Oly makes great cameras that produce fine images that are perfect for many photographers in a package that is quite a bit smaller, you attack them for not producing a larger sensor camera.

Instead of recognizing that Nikon having a great DSLR in the D850 and D500, you attack them for their weaker offerings. 

Instead of seeing that Canon has a great APSC MILC, you attack them for "only" having APSC in mirrorless.

What you want is for a company to come in and launch a do-it-all camera that has with all the best aspects of every brand shrunk to a tiny size and sold for such a great price, supported by cheap, awesome, tiny lenses -- in which case a discussion on what camera would best suit a potential buyer becomes irrelevant, and all competitors should pack up and go home.

_Dream on._


----------



## rrcphoto (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> * Olympus: cheap Pens sell well in Japan. Higher end gear is too big for the small sensor and too expensive given the severe crop = market share low single digit
> 
> * Panasonic: mFT sensor only. mainly good for some video stuff = market share low single digits



if you want small and light these are perfectly acceptable options. m43's is less than a stop different from APS-C.
for the majority of photographic conditions, people would be hard pressed to tell the difference in the real world.

the fact remains, is that there is options if you wants small and light, there's no pent up demand, you're creating something out of thin air and seeing if it sticks.


----------



## fullstop (May 4, 2018)

mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface. that's my main issue with mft. same goes for aps-c vs. ff in many maker's offerings (eg fuji). canon eos m and ef-m lens size, weight and price bei g a notable exception. that's why it is selling reasonably well. if prices of eos m bodies come down to "rebel" dslr levels, sales will be even better. and rebel dslrs gone in no time. for ff similar. 6d / d610 type ff dslrs will be gone in an instant once compact, decent and similarly priced milcs are available.


----------



## Mikehit (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface. that's my main issue with mft. same goes for aps-c vs. ff in many maker's offerings (eg fuji). canon eos m and ef-m lens size, weight and price bei g a notable exception. that's why it is selling reasonably well. if prices of eos m bodies come down to "rebel" dslr levels, sales will be even better. and rebel dslrs gone in no time. for ff similar. 6d / d610 type ff dslrs will be gone in an instant once compact, decent and similarly priced milcs are available.



Assuming you are not AvTvM re-incarnate and you have never ventured your underlying ideas before please explain why mirrorless offers so much of a benefit to everyone. And by that I mean when you are packing and holding a camera with it lens(es). Mirrorless has its advantages but not in the way that DSLR will be 'gone in an instant'. 


And if supply is a problem, then can you show me a report of how Sony are 'out of stock' due to production shortages. 
Show me the camera newbies buying Sony in the numbers you are talking about. 




> mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface.



So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right? You clearly have never really understood ergonomics. But personally I need to attach a lens to my camera to be able to take a picture - take a DSLR and pack a 24-70, 70-200, 28mm prime, 40mm prime and see how much that weighs. Now pack the equivalents for MFT.


----------



## fullstop (May 4, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right?



nope. don't worry, I understand equivalence. we all know size of gear will not be proportional to sensor surface. That's exactly why most smart buyers [stills, not video-centric] will not even consider buying mFT. Size, weight and cost savings simply not attractive enough. People buying grossly oversized quarter-sensored mFT camera bodies [like Oly OMD EM1 / II] at prices almost equal to FF cameras or expensive f/1.2 lenses just to get equivalence to much more economical f/2.0 lenses on FF image circle do NOT qualify as *smart buyers* in my book. Your mileage and opinion may differ. No problem with that. 

Many smart buyers are however willing to buy APS-C gear as the "smallest acceptable" sensor size. IF this crop gear offers decent IQ, functionality, performance, UI *and* is significantly smaller and less expensive than FF gear. System that currently meets these requirements best is EOS + EF-M lenses. If Nikon and Sony had equally good APS-C systems they would sell a lot them too. And if Canon had come out with more compelling EOS M models right from the start, they would have sold a lot more cameras and EF-M lenses as well. And Fuji might have sold a lot less of theirs. Yes, IF. And yes, "speculation in retrospect". But not unfounded.  

Ever since its inception FF (135) sensor/image circle has offered optimal relation between imaging area, IQ, creative possibilities and size/weight of gear - relative to size of (average) human hands. Smaller image circle does not translate into much smaller gear. But any larger image circle drives up gear size (lenses!) significantly.

That's why 135 format (FF) has established itself as "holy grail format" for universal, generalist, *hand-held, portable* use. Yes, there are some specific niches where larger or smaller sensors are better suited, but those are rather small niches. That's why smart buyers don't want to be relegated to crop sensors only but want FF sensored gear if they are asked to shell out significant cash for cameras and lenses ("significant" for regular income earners and/or non-super star pro's]. 

At the same time a significant and growing portion of stills imaging gear buyers with sufficient disposable income is aging and many are less and less willing to tote around large, heavy, expensive and "suspiciously conspicuous" gear. That's why many want capable FF gear that is as compact and light and silent and least conspicuous. That's why many (of us?) have smaller MILCs [e.g. Canon EOS M + EF-M lenses] in addition to our larger DSLR setups. 

In short: there is no reason to assume a compact, fully functional Canon FF MILC at reasonable prices [eg similar to 6D II pricing] along with a lineup of decent, compact, affordable native lenses [similar to how EF-M lenses are positioned, of course somewhat larger and somewhat more costly, but by as little as possible] and full backwards compatibility to all EF glass by means of a simple adapter and full compatibility with Canon EOS flash system and other system accessories - would NOT SELL WELL. 

How quickly such an offering would bring DSLR sales to their end is speculation of course. My guess is: rather quickly. Your opinion may differ. No problem.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> ...a compact, fully functional Canon FF MILC at reasonable prices [eg similar to 6D II pricing] along with a lineup of decent, compact, affordable native lenses...
> 
> How quickly such an offering would bring DSLR sales to their end is speculation of course. My guess is: rather quickly. Your opinion may differ. No problem.



A $2000 FF MILC is going to quickly end sales of dSLRs, where the majority of sales are entry-level models that costing far less than one of your 'compact, affordable EF-X lenses'?!?

More asinine and idiotic statements have been made on these boards...but not many (and of those, quite a few were by that mode dial guy, you remember him, don't you?).


----------



## Mikehit (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > So you expect the MFT camera to be one quarter the size of the DSLR? You are joking, right?
> ...



First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough. 
MFT is not good enough.......right. Which I suppose is why an increasing number of landscape shooters and street photographers are changing to MFT because its combination of high quality images and smaller package (camera + lenses) are ideal for their purposes. Your ignorance of the wider market is showing through in your obsession that the only thing that matters is what you want. Maybe the real problem is not the gear but peoples' prejudices about what constitutes good gear. Yourself included.


----------



## BillB (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> mft is quarter sensor. unfortunately, the difference in body and lens size, weight and price is by far not proportional to sensor size/surface. that's my main issue with mft. same goes for aps-c vs. ff in many maker's offerings (eg fuji). canon eos m and ef-m lens size, weight and price bei g a notable exception. that's why it is selling reasonably well. if prices of eos m bodies come down to "rebel" dslr levels, sales will be even better. and rebel dslrs gone in no time. for ff similar. 6d / d610 type ff dslrs will be gone in an instant once compact, decent and similarly priced milcs are available.



With mft one of the questions is how much IQ is enough, in terms of practical print size, DR, and high ISO. This is true to a somewhat lesser extent for aps-c as well. To at least some extent, the sensor size drives the tradeoffs between IQ, size and cost. Lens design is another tradeoff driver. The EF-M lenses have good IQ and relatively low cost, but the zooms (where the real action is) are quite slow.

The quality of the native lens suite is going to be an important factor in how fast mirrorless designs gain market traction. There is also a big question about how new mirrorless designs are going to be priced relative to DSLR models. With very competitive pricing, and extremely rapid introduction of very attractive native lenses, then the new mirrorless designs may do quite well. On the other hand, price premiums, or slow introduction of attractive native lenses will slow things down.


----------



## fullstop (May 4, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.



no. read what i wrote. 

i say: many people I know will accept APS-C as *minimum sensor size* for visibly and significantly better IQ than the currently best smartphones. And they are buying compact APS-C MILC systems - IF their preferred brand has them. So, Canon EOS M yes. Nikon not (yet). Many would also be willing to buy compact mirrorless FF gear in the 6D II / D610 price bracket - especially IF their preferred brand would offer them and they could use existing DSLR FF glass with a simple, fully functional adapter. 
Most of the people I know would rather not switch to Sony due to less than optimal user interface and lack of decent "affordable" FE lenses. 

re. mFT: gear is too big relative to APS-C and even FF. Just look at that OMD-EM1 / III - as large as a FF Sony A7 (1st gen) and larger than any Canon EOS M body with APS-C sensor. Additionally mFT gear is either dated and cheap like most of the "Pen" stuff or "functionally decent" but way too pricey relative to mirrorless APS-C - e.g. Canon EOS M / EF-M system. It is not only me seeing things this way, it is the market at large. See market shares for Olympus and Panasonic. 

Some "lower end", inexpensive mFT gear might possible make sense IF it was as small as 1" cameras or like Nikon 1 system (CX sensor).


----------



## Mikehit (May 4, 2018)

fullstop said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > First of all you say what your friends want is something better than their smartphone but not wanting the size of a DSLR, so you automatically say that to achieve that that have to jump straight to a 2,000$ FF and that MFT is not good enough.
> ...



How do you know they will accept APS-C as a minimum? Have they seriously investigated the use of MFT: hands on, tried them, used them and made images? 
I have FF, I have APS-C and I have MFT - for the same field of view, MFT is significantly smaller - I guess you, or they, have not used them yourself with a lens, and carried a kit in a bag all day and compared images in the intended use (FYI - pixel peeping is not 'intended use' other than for measurebators and spec sheet freaks). 

Market shares for MFT (Olympus and Panasonic) are whupping Sony. Unless you can prove otherwise. So your point is....what, exactly.


----------



## Talys (May 4, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> fullstop said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



His point is the same tiresome rubbish that keeps coming up: he wants a big sensor, little body, little lens camera with lots of little lens options and an EVF, and he wants it for a price tag that is small for a pro model but still totally out of the realm of possibility for most consumers. 

Aside from all that defying the laws of physics, it would be a bad idea commercially because it satisfies a tiny niche. It is people with this kind of thinking that believe that a7III will totally change the camera market despite the overwhelming evidence that $2000 bodies is nowhere close to the median camera body selling price. 

It basically falls into the AvTvM philosophy that "all camera manufacturers are stupid because they won't make my dream camera."


----------



## dak723 (May 4, 2018)

Talys said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > fullstop said:
> ...



Exactly right. And his comments about m4/3 are so totally bogus that he loses all credibility. I have owned FF, and currently own APS-C and M4/3. The images from M4/3 and APS-C are pretty much indistinguishable from one another. Daylight shots from all 3 formats are pretty much indistinguishable when printed at 8 x 12 or so. Yes, the Olympus E-M1 II is not small, but the lenses are top quality. When I had both the Sony A7 II and the Olympus E-M1 - and needed to return one - it was the Sony that lost out. If you actually use the cameras, then the usual internet baloney really jumps out at you. 

The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.


----------



## unfocused (May 4, 2018)

dak723 said:


> The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.



Well fortunately, in this case Fullstop/AvTvM made a concrete prediction with a very short time frame -- 2019. So, we won't have to wait long to see if his bold prediction comes true. I'm guessing that's as likely to happen as Harry's magical codec. And, I will predict that when it fails to materialize, his excuse will be just as lame as Harry's fictional tale.


----------



## BillB (May 4, 2018)

unfocused said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > The problems often is - when someone has an idea that just doesn't stand up to any scrutiny (like mirrorless hasn't taken off because there aren't enough good mirrorless cams) the you have to come up with even more ridiculous arguments to try and prove your originally incorrect idea is correct. Rather than admit you were wrong, you just dig yourself deeper into ridiculousness.
> ...



His prediction is contingent on the availability of the right camera(s) at the right price. If DSLR's are not wiped out, we can expect repeated explanations of how stupid Canon produced the wrong camera and/or lenses at too high a price. Either that, or everything will just disappear into a memory hole.


----------



## Talys (May 4, 2018)

dak723 said:


> Talys said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



re- MFT - No kidding. I had an Olympus MFT system for a couple of years and I was very happy with it; the main reason I ended up trading it with a friend for some other stuff was that from a maintenance standpoint, it's easier to share LPE6 batteries (and of slightly lesser importance, lenses) between Canon bodies. It's just nice to be able to have a bag full of charged LPE6's that 3 of my cameras use. I can go through them, then charge a whole bunch of them at the same time once every couple of months.

In my mind, the two main reasons to go full frame are if you need high ISOs (driven by high shutter speeds, for bird photos in my case), or if you need to shoot very wide, because practically, nothing has as wide a field of view as a full frame camera if you're willing to pay the big bucks for the ultrawide full frame lenses.


----------



## Ozarker (May 10, 2018)

Talys said:


> dak723 said:
> 
> 
> > Talys said:
> ...



Well guys, I just took delivery today of the Olympus OM-D 5 II and their 12-40 pro lens. It's an upgrade for my wife who's been using our Canon XSi since 2008. It is small. Very small to me. I'm 6'2" and have catcher's mitts for hands. I cannot imagine it being any smaller and I wouldn't have it for myself. My wife is 4'11". It is fine for her as she's about the size of a 12 year old.

It seems very well built (magnesium body), has a cool retro look, and is weather sealed. So is the lens with an impressively machined body. No rubber on the lens. Beautiful, really. 

However, there is absolutely no way this size camera is going to replace a regular crop sensor size Canon DSLR, let alone FF body. The ergonomics just aren't there. The price? $300 off which made it $799 for a tiny sensored camera that was released in 2015.

We'll be keeping it, but the argument that a tiny camera will replace something the size of a Canon crop sensor camera or ff camera for comfort alone is BS. Yes, even if it had a FF sensor. Not gonna happen. I don't think the OP has ever tried one of these little things.

Probably, around Christmas, I'll get their 70-200 equivalent zoom. That'll just make things worse ergonomically.


----------



## Mikehit (May 10, 2018)

CanonFanBoy said:


> Well guys, I just took delivery today of the Olympus OM-D 5 II and their 12-40 pro lens. It's an upgrade for my wife who's been using our Canon XSi since 2008. It is small. Very small to me. I'm 6'2" and have catcher's mitts for hands. I cannot imagine it being any smaller and I wouldn't have it for myself. My wife is 4'11". It is fine for her as she's about the size of a 12 year old.
> 
> It seems very well built (magnesium body), has a cool retro look, and is weather sealed. So is the lens with an impressively machined body. No rubber on the lens. Beautiful, really.
> 
> ...



I am not sure if I am the 'OP' you refer to but I have three MFT cameras and printing to A4 (A3 in some cases) it is often very difficult to tell in isolation if an image was taken with the MFT or APS-C or FF. 
If, however, your criteria include size of the body then that is a personal choice rather than capability of the camera: many (myself included) prefer the larger body of my DSLR, but when mooching around I am far more likely to have my MFT with me because of the kit size.


----------



## scyrene (May 10, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> BillB said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see much reason to think that improvements in mirrorless design are going to lead to increased sales.
> ...



Why is he using a sockpuppet account?


----------



## Ozarker (May 10, 2018)

Mikehit said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > Well guys, I just took delivery today of the Olympus OM-D 5 II and their 12-40 pro lens. It's an upgrade for my wife who's been using our Canon XSi since 2008. It is small. Very small to me. I'm 6'2" and have catcher's mitts for hands. I cannot imagine it being any smaller and I wouldn't have it for myself. My wife is 4'11". It is fine for her as she's about the size of a 12 year old.
> ...



Sorry Mike. You aren't the guy. I get a little lost sometimes. I meant avtvm's alter ego, fullstop. And yes, ergonomics and size are a personal choice. My choice wouldn't be this type regardless of the capabilities and I think that was part of his argument; size. In addition, it just seems laggy in some respects. Never got that sense with a mirrored camera.

I am happy with the articulated screen, something I have missed since getting rid of my 70D. This thing is supposed to be weather sealed. I don't know if anyone has tested that independently. I do remember people saying this could not be accomplished with an articulated screen, an argument I always thought was silly. The doubters have gone silent in their opposition to an articulated screen when it comes to Canon.


----------



## unfocused (May 10, 2018)

scyrene said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > BillB said:
> ...



He got banned under the old name. So he started a new account.


----------



## scyrene (May 10, 2018)

unfocused said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Oh wow, I missed that! Thanks for the info. I wonder what finally tipped him over the line?


----------



## Ozarker (May 10, 2018)

scyrene said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > scyrene said:
> ...



Sometimes people just snap. I heard he's a postal worker.


----------

