# Benefits of a mirrorless FF?



## J.R. (Oct 21, 2013)

Hi,

I do photography for a hobby and am not too updated on the technical aspects of the latest lineup of cameras these days. 

I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF? The only benefit to my mind is a shaving off of approximately 600-800 grams from the bodyweight. And yes, maybe with a dedicated lens lineup, a bit more. 

Thoughts? 

Cheers ... J.R.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 21, 2013)

One benefit would be is that there would be no slapping mirror. This makes the camera more stabilized and well, smaller. Another thing would be a smaller lens or at least you'll be able to use FD lenses on it and possibly Leica lenses and other older lenses. ;D The only disadvantage I can think of is the lack of OVF generally (so far). I still find OVF to be a lot preferable to an EVF. While Leica got an OVF, it doesn't have AF. As for ergonomics, this is very subjective. Besides, there are 3rd party custom grips that are made available already for some mirrorless cameras.


----------



## Ricku (Oct 21, 2013)

^ I prefer EVFs. And I'm saying that as a 5D3-owner who have been shooting OVF since year 2000. 

The latest EVFs are great. I love to be able to see what my exposure looks like, together with a live histogram. I'm also very fond of features like focus peaking, focus magnify e.t.c. 

After trying EVF on the Fuji X100s, the OVF on my 5D3 felt pretty naked and crippled. It was almost hard to go back.

Just my 2 cents.


----------



## Grumbaki (Oct 21, 2013)

Ricku said:


> the OVF on my 5D3 felt pretty naked



turn on the option to show all AF points. Should solve it


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 21, 2013)

Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 21, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?



They were able to do it on a smaller sensor, EOS-M with 11-22 and 22mm F2. It'll be easier for an FF version.


----------



## RLPhoto (Oct 21, 2013)

Small primes + FF mirror less + set of Lee filters = ultimate landscape camera. Less weight in your backpack.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 21, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?
> ...



As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).


----------



## Sporgon (Oct 21, 2013)

The camera body should be cheaper to construct. The design allows shorter lens to sensor distance. Does this really improve IQ ? Don't know. The detrimental effect of the moving mirror is a pretty weak argument as it only effects certain speeds and there are numerous work arounds. 

The OVF vs EVF will continue for ever IMO. There will always be those who _want_ to see through the lens. OVF have as much chance of disappearing altogether as watch faces with hands. 

I guess the biggest benefit of mirrorless FF will be to the manufacturers. They're hoping to sell bodies and systems to people who otherwise wouldn't have made a purchase.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 21, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Small primes + FF mirror less + set of Lee filters = ultimate landscape camera. Less weight in your backpack.



+1 with RLPhoto in this case ;D

*Size and weight *  are primary advantages of mirrorless. 

I feel if you got into mirrorless system, pls buy some native lenses with it. I'm not trying to open another debate, but I just don't see the point buying mirrorless system + L lenses. I clearly understood the points using as backup, not get into another set of lenses etc...but mirrorless + L lenses will take away the purpose of mirrorless. I rather get another DSLR as a backup if that is the case.

My philosophy is quite simple, "Use the right tool for the right job". I see a lot of people using flat screw driver on phillip screw head :-\

As an owner of RX1 and 5D III, it's day and night diff. holding 5D III + 50L compared to Sony RX1.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).



True. Also, the wider the aperture, the more issues there are with the oblique light angles not being collected by the microlenses, and that issue worsens as the pixel pitch gets smaller. Current cameras lose up to a full stop of light int he f/1.2-f/1.4 range, and some cameras clandestinely boost the ISO of fast primes by up to half a stop to compensate.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).
> ...


For this reason alone discourages me buying mirrorless fullframe. I think most intelligent one mirrorless APS-C truly small, including lenses. Considering the same distance between lens mount and sensor, APS-C should be less oblique angle to fullframe, and less vignetting. When size is not an issue, I prefer DSLR.


----------



## Pi (Oct 21, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?


It seems that retrofocus lenses (typical wide lenses for dSLRs) have some advantages: less vignetting and less oblique rays hitting the sensor. The latter means less problems with lens micro-vignetting as well. This makes them better candidates for fast WA lenses. They are harder to correct for distortions but software distortion correction is not a big problem. There are many other differences as well.

Here is a link http://toothwalker.org/optics/vignetting.html that illustrates the first part of what I said but this needs more digging.


----------



## ugly_bokeh (Oct 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF?



One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter. (Admittedly, you can do this on APS-C as well, but now your hyperfocal marks would all be accurate!)

There won't be any mirror clearance issues with the SLR lenses (like there can be when using such lenses on a DSLR), and there shouldn't be any problems with the various pins, levers, etc., protruding from the backs of those old lenses (due the greater flange distance).

With an EVF, you'd be seeing true DOF without having to swap a focus screen and/or work in Liveview.

Also, these lenses wouldn't suffer from the recently-discussed vignetting/sensor proximity issue that might be a problem for wide or ultra-wide native-mount lenses.

To be sure, a lot of old lenses aren't worth mounting, and others might have problems with color shift and such, but even so....

As a bonus, you could still use all your EF lenses...with EXIF data, aperture control, and autofocus.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 21, 2013)

ugly_bokeh said:


> One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter...



This seems like the classic example of "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should." 

Are there really that many people out there clamoring to use old FD mount lenses, especially with a modern full frame sensor that will emphasize every flaw in those old lenses? 

Is there a really a mass market for manual focus lenses? After using manual focus lenses for decades, I can guarantee you I have no nostalgia for manual lenses. 

And what incentive would Canon have to produce a body that gives new life to the secondary market of used FD lenses?


----------



## SwampYankee (Oct 21, 2013)

Well if you go with the new Sony you will save a ton on lens......because there aren't any.


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 21, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF?



You have to take focus readings from the image sensor, which eliminates a few sources of error - and without fallback to the traditional AF you make it better work. Highly resolved framewide blur is a rare use case after all. Using data overlays in the viewfinder would have its appeal as well. (Although giving those to the rear display would be a nice first step...)


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 21, 2013)

Though I have never used one, I always wonder how is the dust issue on mirrorless
since there is no shutter/mirror to seal it when changing lenses


----------



## ugly_bokeh (Oct 21, 2013)

unfocused said:


> ugly_bokeh said:
> 
> 
> > One of the most appealing aspects of the full-frame mirrorless (as far as I have read, anyhow) is that you can essentially use any manual full-frame lens ever produced, SLR or rangefinder, via adapter...
> ...



Sorry if my comment sounded like I was talking about the market in general. I meant that this is an appealing aspect of full-frame mirrorless _to me_.

After using them for decades, I don't mind manual focus lenses (I even prefer them, at times), and I hope there isn't a mass market for the old stuff. In fact, I wish people were less interested in it...especially C/Y Zeiss.

I don't think I ever used any FD lenses. M42 on the other hand....


----------



## Eldar (Oct 21, 2013)

I don´t like skinny women. I prefer something to both look at and hold. Same thing with cameras. 

A mirrorless camera, maybe with an LCD viewer on the back, hooked to my 600 with an extender ... Little less of a problem with an EVF, but still the size imbalance will be a problem. 

Then you can add a grip, to make it more holdable and then ... you have the size of a SLR. 

But you don´t have the issue of the flopping mirror ... But I have been using SLRs for close to 40 years and never ones have a mirror failed me, so can´t say that worries me much. 

But I hate dust on my sensor and, unless there is something I totally miss, that must be a major issue with mirrorless bodies when changing lenses.


----------



## Lawliet (Oct 21, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> since there is no shutter/mirror to seal it when changing lenses



Most of them have a shutter, just no mirror.
In the case of the A7r an annoyingly slow one. :'(


----------



## bholliman (Oct 21, 2013)

While I'm a big fan of smaller and lighter camera systems, I'm not sure mirrorless FF will have much if any advantage over a DSLR. The camera body will be somewhat lighter, but the lenses for the system will be as large or nearly as large as those for DSLR's. So, the overall weight savings will be small percentage-wise, especially when using longer telephoto lenses.

Others mentioned not having to deal with mirror slap, but that is very minor issue and can be easily handled via mirror lock-up for shots where it causes problems. Also, the mirror helps protect the sensor from dust. 

I strongly prefer OVF's over the latest EVF's (I've tried the latest Sony and Leica ones). At some point EVF's may evolve to where they are as good or better than OVF's, but they are not that close yet.


----------



## ecka (Oct 21, 2013)

FF mirrorless advantages:
great lens adaptability (including rangefinder optics);
EVF (yes it does have many advantages over OVF);
manual focus (EVF + focus peaking);
easier sensor cleaning procedure;
no mirror - less vibration, longer life;
size and weight;
lower price (than FF DSLR);
perfect for landscape, portrait, macro, astro and video.


----------



## xvnm (Oct 21, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> One benefit would be is that there would be no slapping mirror. This makes the camera more stabilized and well, smaller.



You can achieve the same on a DSLR by shooting live view (even though I fail to see what would be the point a DSLR to only shoot LV  )


----------



## xvnm (Oct 21, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?



Not really. You can always make the flange distance as long as you want: just make the rear end of a lens longer. As stupid as it may sound, this is exactly what Samyang is doing with their lenses for the new Sonys: http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/10/16/samyang-announces-five-full-frame-e-mount-lenses


----------



## SiliconVoid (Oct 21, 2013)

Whether or not it is a cropped sensor or 35mm format does not matter in regard to 'benefits' of a mirrorless camera.

List of mirrorless benefits:
Access to mount/use just about any lens ever made.
-End of list:


Just about everything else involved with mirrorless cameras is a work around or detriment, sorry..


----------



## deleteme (Oct 21, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > As far as I understand, it's the other way around - the farther the pixels from the optical axis & the shorter the flange distance, the obtuser the angle the light hits the pixel, causing vignetting. As far as I gather, this is already an issue on current FF cameras with fast and/or wide lenses, e.g. the 24mm f/1.4 L II has >3 stops of vignetting when wide open (translation: corner pixels record ~1/10th the amount of light center pixels record).
> ...



I will add that this is precisely the argument Olympus used in the development of the 4/3 system. They argued that by creating a lens system tailored to the unique properties of a sensor that IQ could be maximized. Thus the 4/3 lenses were not too much smaller that we may have been led to believe.
I also suspect that a number of FE lenses may be old formulas in new barrels to save time and money in getting lenses to market.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 22, 2013)

xvnm said:


> Ellen Schmidtee said:
> 
> 
> > Doesn't the short flange distance make it harder to produce wide and/or fast lenses?
> ...



It's like using the EF-EOS M adapter, which defeats the point of having smaller camera - whatever you save on body depth you lose on camera length.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 22, 2013)

SwampYankee said:


> Well if you go with the new Sony you will save a ton on lens......because there aren't any.



Actually Zeiss got some good lenses for Sony mount. You just have to use adapters as currently there's still not much native mount lenses. But for this usage, I can imagine how many lenses would you actually expect. Personally, I would just love prime lenses for this kind of camera.


----------



## verysimplejason (Oct 22, 2013)

xvnm said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > One benefit would be is that there would be no slapping mirror. This makes the camera more stabilized and well, smaller.
> ...



And AF is much slower in live view. The 70D just made it decent enough but it's still a slowpoke compared to non-LV AF.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 22, 2013)

J.R. said:


> Hi,
> 
> I do photography for a hobby and am not too updated on the technical aspects of the latest lineup of cameras these days.
> 
> ...


Suprisingly few benefits and a lot of take-aways.

Weight- no major reduction, the lenses are as big and heavy as ever, a FF requires big lenses.

EVF - most of us hate them, but they are getting better.

Autofocus - slow and slower. Tracking - forget it.

The main benefit is the elimination of the moving mirror, but it comes with a loss of capabilities.


----------



## duydaniel (Oct 22, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Agree, I would add it is not as durable as dslr


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 22, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



I wonder :... have you guys ever hand-on or shoot with RX1 before?


----------



## ecka (Oct 22, 2013)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> xvnm said:
> 
> 
> > Ellen Schmidtee said:
> ...



I think the question is - 'What's the point of making such small APS-C mirrorless camera?'. Better grip, bigger battery and vari-angle LCD would add a lot of value to a camera.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> I feel if you got into mirrorless system, pls buy some native lenses with it. I'm not trying to open another debate, but I just don't see the point buying mirrorless system + L lenses. I clearly understood the points using as backup, not get into another set of lenses etc...but mirrorless + L lenses will take away the purpose of mirrorless. I rather get another DSLR as a backup if that is the case.



Agreed. I've been wondering how the balance would be if I were to use a 400 gm body with the 70-200 II


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

ugly_bokeh said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm just wondering as to what exactly are the benefits of a mirrorless FF?
> ...



I'm not too sure how this will work out in the long run. Adapters have their own issues which will be more apparent once you get into high MP cameras. The problem is compounded with FF cameras where corner sharpness while using an adapter suffers. 

If adapters had no downsides at all, you wouldn't find Canon users yearning for a 14-24 - they would have simply purchased the Nikon 14-24 with an adapter - I know a few who use this combination but they would still like to have a native lens because the IQ is not as good as it can be.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

unfocused said:


> And what incentive would Canon have to produce a body that gives new life to the secondary market of used FD lenses?



None whatsoever - Canon didn't even consider making an adapter (which is getting the wows from the mirrorless crowd) for the FD lenses


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

SwampYankee said:


> Well if you go with the new Sony you will save a ton on lens......because there aren't any.



They do seem to have an ambitious plan with zeiss, but the lenses are slower compared to Canon / Nikon which have multiple variants for the same FL. 

Nevertheless, there is a difference in a zeiss lens and a zeiss branded lens. Sony has been using zeiss branded lenses for a while now and I'm not too sure which one is the real outstanding one.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Though I have never used one, I always wonder how is the dust issue on mirrorless
> since there is no shutter/mirror to seal it when changing lenses



I've thought about it but don't seem to agree that there will be too much of a difference. Most of the dust which settles on the mirror gets redistributed when the mirror whacks about when the shots are taken. All depends on how good the in-built sensor mechanism would be.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

ugly_bokeh said:


> After using them for decades, I don't mind manual focus lenses (I even prefer them, at times), and I hope there isn't a mass market for the old stuff. In fact, I wish people were less interested in it...especially C/Y Zeiss.



Manual focus lenses on digital cameras are okay for landscape photos where you can shift to live-view and take your time focusing. For shooting any sort of action they make me cringe.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

bholliman said:


> Others mentioned not having to deal with mirror slap, but that is very minor issue and can be easily handled via mirror lock-up for shots where it causes problems. Also, the mirror helps protect the sensor from dust.



Agreed. With most DSLRs you can simply shift to live-view which makes the mirror slap irrelevant. 



bholliman said:


> I strongly prefer OVF's over the latest EVF's (I've tried the latest Sony and Leica ones). At some point EVF's may evolve to where they are as good or better than OVF's, but they are not that close yet.



I have never used EVFs. Do they work well when you are tracking moving subjects in changing lighting conditions?


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

ecka said:


> FF mirrorless advantages:
> great lens adaptability (including rangefinder optics);
> EVF (yes it does have many advantages over OVF);
> manual focus (EVF + focus peaking);
> ...



Many consider EVF to be a disadvantage;
For focus peaking - look no further than ML;
The 5D3 is rated for 150,000 shutter actuations - for me (not for all) it is life enough 
size and weight - agree
lower price - agree 
depending on the lenses agree with the last statement.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

SiliconVoid said:


> Whether or not it is a cropped sensor or 35mm format does not matter in regard to 'benefits' of a mirrorless camera.
> 
> List of mirrorless benefits:
> Access to mount/use just about any lens ever made.
> ...



HaHa. 

I'm someone who doesn't agree with the use of adapters on high MP bodies given the inherent issues while using adapters so for me it is not a substantial benefit. Ok, if you have some idle glass which has compatability issues, you may be able to use it.

As I mentioned in my original post, the major benefit remains smaller form factor and weight.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

verysimplejason said:


> xvnm said:
> 
> 
> > verysimplejason said:
> ...



You could AF faster in live view using the quick mode.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 23, 2013)

Benefits of a mirrorless FF?

+ all IQ benefits of FF sensor = technically better images in any shooting situation (except Macro); more appealing pictures when shallow DOF is advantageous (e.g. often in portraiture) 
+ significantly smaller and lighter than FF DSLR = easier to take along and to travel = more pictures at interesting places 
+ significantly smaller and lighter than FF DSLR = less conspicuos = more and better images in any "non-staged" shooting situation
+ significantly cheaper to produce and service than any DSLR = = more profit for manufacturer and/or lower cost to customers
+ no mirror slap, less or no vibration = more sharp keepers, especially in tough shooting conditions/low light
+ no mirror = shorter / no viewfinder blackout possible 
+ silent operation at full speed possible (with silent shutter; unfortunately not A7R) = huge advantage in noise-sensitive shooting conditions
+ no hard-to-clean oil-debris-splatter on sensor from flapping mirror mechanism (-> Nikon D600)
+ EVF better than any OVF (soon to come) - all shooting relevant information overlayed, camera can stay on eye and image displayed exactly as it will be captured = better images, more often capture "at decisive moment"
+ shorter flange back = use of almost any previous lens via adapter possible (but not always with good results)
+ AF performance inclduing tracking moving subjects will surpass capabilities of today's best DSLRs (soon), because no mirror in lightpath = more keeper action shots 

Disadvantages:
- new lenses needed for optimal image quality and system performance, with less bulk and weight 
- operation with 600/4 lens still requires sturdy tripod for optimal results


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Hi,
> ...



Agree... It's still a work in progress at best. The mirrorless cameras need to evolve much more to replace DSLRs.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> duydaniel said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...



I have... IQ was great but the AF performance left a lot to be desired. 

Lens on the RX1 is light enough but I come to interchangeable lenses, esp zoom, they will be heavy.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

duydaniel said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Agree. What about weather sealing? Adapters + third party lenses + swivel screens


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
> 
> + all IQ benefits of FF sensor = technically better images in any shooting situation (except Macro); more appealing pictures when shallow DOF is advantageous (e.g. often in portraiture)
> + significantly smaller and lighter than FF DSLR = easier to take along and to travel = more pictures at interesting places
> ...



Agree with most of the above but what you refer to as "coming soon" is a good bit of conjecture - but who knows, technology changes faster than we expect. However, absence of exceptional AF, the limitations of EVF and a lack of dedicated ML lenses are a potential deal breaker for most (including me). For the moment, DSLRs are still more functional.

Also, I'm not convinced that when all this is made available, the price of the FF mirrorless will remain the same.


----------



## bholliman (Oct 23, 2013)

J.R. said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Benefits of a mirrorless FF?
> ...



+1. Many of these mirrorless advantages are speculation about what is possible with the system rather what is available and working now. I think eventually mirrorless will be able to achieve most of these benefits, but it might take years.

I do not buy the smaller/lighter/less conspicuous argument unless a pancake prime is mounted. An A7 with a zoom lens mounted is still going to be somewhat bulky.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 23, 2013)

bholliman said:


> +1. Many of these mirrorless advantages are speculation about what is possible with the system rather what is available and working now. I think eventually mirrorless will be able to achieve most of these benefits, but it might take years.
> 
> I do not buy the smaller/lighter/less conspicuous argument unless a pancake prime is mounted. An A7 with a zoom lens mounted is still going to be somewhat bulky.



Looking at the A7/R we are not quite there yet, but every well on the way. 
Starting "very soon" we can get get 2 cameras that are significantly smaller than any Canon DSLR with either a sensor (and presumably IQ) that tops anything available from Canon [36 MP - A7R] or with on-sensor hybrid CD-PD-AF which is not (yet) available from Canon on an FF sensor [A7R], WiFI (and NFC) built-in, which is only currently only available in one Canon FF DSLR (6D). And best of all, these cameras can be ordered at launch for only USD 1698 and 2199. If Canon had something comparable, it would definitely cost more than USD 4000 [A7R] and well north of USD 3000 [A7]. 

Lens availability is limited at launch, but both the SonyZeiss 35/2.8 and the 55/1.8 are very expensive but apparently very high-specced and very compact lenses. So it is possible to go "small, light and high-quality" if desired. Even with one of the two zoom lenses 28-70 kit and Sony Zeiss 24-70/4.0 the camera an A7/R will be a lot smaller, lighter and less conspicuous than even a 5D III with the EF 24-70 on it. Not to mention a 1-series body.

Yes, not all of the mirroless FF goodness is here today, but some of it is.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 23, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> bholliman said:
> 
> 
> > +1. Many of these mirrorless advantages are speculation about what is possible with the system rather what is available and working now. I think eventually mirrorless will be able to achieve most of these benefits, but it might take years.
> ...



Sony is presently using the lower prices in order to penetrate the market. I don't doubt it for a second that the introductory prices for the A7 and A7R are deliberately set lower to lure the FF crowd into their new mirrorless system. The lens path stated by them will be changed depending upon the sales. Unless these cameras start selling in great numbers, you can easily expect them to delay the lenses. 

Sony is running a loss on its electronics division and is considered an also-ran in the DSLR market. It has to resort to innovation, lower pricing and various offers simply to be able to be considered a serious player in the race. Canon on the other hand can set the prices higher because most people are much too invested in the Canon lens system. The bodies come and go but the lenses remain. People who have $ 25K invested in glass don't mind shelling out a 1K extra with a time horizon of 4 years with a body. 

In any case, cameras these days are pretty competent for a very vast majority of the crowd and it is only a small percentage of people who actually need every incremental upgrade to their camera system. 

I don't think Canon will feel any pinch for now. They didn't when Nikon came out with the extra MP + DR combo of the D800. They make too much money selling to the APS-C crowd and their moves will only be determined by the market.


----------



## AvTvM (Oct 23, 2013)

yes, Sony has priced the A7/R deliberately low, hoping to lure in buyers into their new "FE" eco-system in order to - hopefully - reach "critical mass" and market share.

However, I do not believe Sony is losing money on the A7/R evven at these prices. I rather believe they are still making a healthy profit even at these prieces. Of course, they need ot sell a certain number of units, to recoup all deveoepment costs etc.] 

While I don't care that much for Sony's financial well-being, I am thankful for their competition. They have clearly demonstrated to all of us - the entire market - that reasonably well-equipped FF-sensored mirrorless cameras cameras can be made today and be sold at "reasonable" prices, rather than north of € 4000 - which would have been and possibly may even be CaNikons future price level, once they are "willing and able" to offer similar products.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 24, 2013)

Although we might not be there quite yet on all these points, mirrorless has the potential to offer ...

accurate object recognition
accurate object tracking
seamless HDR, based on actual light readings
better exposure control, and basically everything Live-View current offers, but through an EVF



J.R. said:


> Sony is running a loss on its electronics division ...



I can never understand this argument. If Sony is ACTUALLY losing money, then why don't they just shut this division down?


----------



## J.R. (Oct 24, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sony is running a loss on its electronics division ...
> ...



It is not an argument - it is a fact!


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 24, 2013)

J.R. said:



> Sella174 said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



OK, then ... I can never understand nor believe this statement of fact.


----------



## J.R. (Oct 24, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Sella174 said:
> ...



Ok, then if I don't understand Japanese nor believe Japan exists ... it won't exist?    : : :

You could however, go here - 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/28/business/global/sonys-bread-and-butter-its-not-electronics.html?_r=0


----------



## bholliman (Oct 24, 2013)

AvTvM said:


> While I don't care that much for Sony's financial well-being, I am thankful for their competition. They have clearly demonstrated to all of us - the entire market - that reasonably well-equipped FF-sensored mirrorless cameras cameras can be made today and be sold at "reasonable" prices



+1

Competition is a great thing for consumers. Sony announcing these cameras will undoubtedly spur Canon and Nikon to respond, which will result in better products at reasonable prices.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 24, 2013)

J.R. said:


> You could however, go here -



Right you are. But then why (a) does Sony keep the electronics division, and (b) would anyone "invest" in Sony (electronic) products? One managerial change and - poof! - no more cameras and TV's. I simply cannot believe that Sony management can be so, well, non-businesslike. But then, cow-dung baffles brains.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Oct 24, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > You could however, go here -
> ...


Sony is a very big company to abandon a market segment for loss profit in the short term. We must remember that for decades, Sony has been hegemonic in high end video cameras (BETACAM, DVCAM) and now has competition from companies that did not threaten his position a few years ago. Even DSLR are eating the market share of high end video. For more creative products that have launched in the area of photo and video DSLR not strongly dominate the market, with the exception of NEX cameras. If losses continue in the TV line, Sony will be forced to abandon these products. Innovation does not necessarily dominate the market. The consumers do not always buy the best technically (EXMOR) but what fits your needs.


----------



## Grumbaki (Oct 25, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > You could however, go here -
> ...



I work in China where tons of companies are making losses just to be there so let me share some cases.

You suck up losses to build up brand, to be well known. Can be across product lines or even divisions. 

Can also be used to technically corner a market (think microsoft who earns its software cash on pro and servers, not consummer level stuff).

There's also a darwinian aspect, sort of a James Dean-esque chicken run. Everyone in the industry is making losses. The one(s) that will stand the longest will have the market to himself, rake up price and finally make up a profit. This works in industry where the "entry price" (i.e. build up your production capacity) is high as it will be very hard for new competitors to come in (or come back in) once the market is profitable.

And that's just for manufacturers, others sectorssuck up losses in some aspects to cash in on others. The only important point being the final balance of the company. Distribution (especially ecommerce) takes losses on sales but money on selling market space. IT suck up loss for a certain time, until you reach critical mass of users that allow you to be "bankable" when you launch paying services.

And I'm not even talking about "PR divisions", businesses taking a loss to make the evil mothership look less evil.

TLDR: In short there is a truckload of reasons to keep unprofitable divisions and even companies floating. It's just not always good that people outside of top management know why and for how long.


----------



## Sella174 (Oct 28, 2013)

Grumbaki said:


> ...



True, everything.

BUT, Sony has been in business for ages: they don't need to build a brand or corner a market. They have (and had) both. IMHO, it's just bad business, especially since they've now evolved into an insurance, movie and music company. Cut the electronics division and for great PR, give the equivalent in "losses" to charity.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Oct 29, 2013)

Sella174 said:


> Grumbaki said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Possibly they have contractual obligations to Nikon, similar to the situation between HP & Oracle.


----------

