# The Mirrorless Movement: Sony Boasts Record Growth in Expanding Mirrorless Digital Camera Market



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 4, 2015)

```
<strong>SAN DIEGO, Jun. 3, 2015 –</strong> Sony Electronics – an overall leader in digital imaging and the world’s largest image sensor manufacturer – is experiencing record growth in sales of mirrorless cameras, a rapidly expanding segment of the interchangeable lens camera (ILC) business.</p>
<p>According to The NPD Group, overall mirrorless camera revenue has grown 16.5% over the past 12 months, with DSLR sales declining approximately 15% over the same period.  During this time, Sony has experienced a robust 66% boost in their company’s mirrorless camera sales, strengthening their dominant position as the #1 overall mirrorless brand, a position they have held for 4 consecutive years.<span class="green">*1</span></p>
<p>“Growth in the mirrorless segment shows this new technology and form factor are resonating with consumers,” said Ben Arnold, executive director, The NPD group. “Going forward, mirrorless will continue to command a greater share of the interchangeable lens camera category.”</p>
<p>On top of the sales momentum, InfoTrends’ customer surveys demonstrate how strong innovation in the mirrorless space is continuing to attract a younger and more photo active ILC customer.  The latest data shows that over 61% of first time ILC buyers are under the age of 35, up from 54% approximately two years ago.  Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family.</p>
<p>“First time buyers in today’s ILC market will play an integral part in future growth of the segment, especially considering the increasingly younger customers that are buying into new systems,” said Ed Lee, group director of the Consumer and Professional Imaging group at InfoTrends.</p>
<p>This news comes on the heels of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) decision to recognize “Mirrorless” as the official term for interchangeable lens cameras that do not include a mirror mechanism.</p>
<p>“This information shines a spotlight on where the mirrorless market has been, where it is today, and the bright future it presents,” said Neal Manowitz, director of the still image business at Sony Electronics.  “Our business continues to thrive based on strong innovation and the unique value propositions we are delivering with products like the α7 series and the α6000.  Their impressive imaging credentials allow photo enthusiasts, hobbyist and professionals to capture content in ways they never before thought possible.”</p>
<p class="green"><em>*1 Monthly NPD data, Amount, 12 months ending April 2015</em></p>
```


----------



## FreshPicsUK (Jun 4, 2015)

It's just completely ridiculous that a company the size of Canon haven't grabbed the mirrorless market and overtaken everybody else. They've got lenses that are easily adaptable as they are to fit the format, they have the sensors, they have the manufacturing capability, but they seem to think that they don't need to join in the party. Even Nikon had the balls to launch the DF (not mirrorless, I realise this!), Samsung has a range, Fuji are the market leaders in the segment and Sony are making great leaps, despite the fact that you can count the number of lenses they have for their system on two hands. 

Come on Canon-I'm fairly certain we'd all buy a mirrorless camera that we could fit EF or EFS lenses to and had a great sensor and decent autofocussing.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 4, 2015)

Their mirrorless strategy is dumbfounding. I like to think people smarter than me have some grand plan when business decisions don't make sense to an outsider.... but I'm having a really hard time thinking this is the case for Canon & mirrorless.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family



Undemanding snapshots that you can do with _any_ camera (or phone), then - hardly pushing the boundaries of camera performance.

_Sounds about right..._

Why would Canon invest significant effort and resource to take market share in a space that phones _will_ wipe out any time now?


----------



## FreshPicsUK (Jun 4, 2015)

Undemanding snapshots? Like the 'snapshots' that thousands of professional wedding photographers are taking every day with their Fuji X-Series kit?  There IS a market for mirrorless, as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus has all proven. Some of these companies don't even make a traditional DSLR any more (in the Canikon sense).


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 4, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family
> ...



I'm still waiting for crop or 35mm sensor in that smartphone :


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 4, 2015)

Cross-posting my reply in Dilbert's forum thread.

Summary: this appears to be a *PRESS RELEASE WITHOUT SUPPORTING DATA*



Orangutan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/press-sony-boasts-record-growth-in-expanding-mirrorless-digital-camera-market/
> ...


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Their mirrorless strategy is dumbfounding. I like to think people smarter than me have some grand plan when business decisions don't make sense to an outsider.... but I'm having a really hard time thinking this is the case for Canon & mirrorless.



Channeling Neuro here: Just look at market position and long-term profits. Canon is trying to figure out where the profit is. It makes perfect sense if you accept the fact that Canon knows more about the market than we do, as evidenced by their consistent profit. I'm dumbfounded that this is such a revelation.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 4, 2015)

Mirrorless will eventually arrive (and Canon is clearly behind / waiting very long to make their move), but data is so hard to get in this market. How do we know this company is independent and not partnered with Sony? 

- A


----------



## meywd (Jun 4, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



While technology advances costs go down, and that means phones will get 1" sensors and bigger, however optics manufacturing need to be better for better small lenses, also with better sensors you may not need crop and 35mm to get quality photos, remember that phones will not be used to shoot billboard ads, for family snapshots you don't need that much image quality, I know that some of us do, and that's most of us here, but were are a minority among the population.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 4, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family
> ...


Yeah...I see a massively successful future for Canon as they focus more on the rapidly growing non-travel and non-family photography segments.

I'll happily agree that DSLRs are better than mirrorless cameras, but these days they are only bought by professionals, avid amateur sports and wildlife photographers or people buying their first serious cameras and think that means a DSLR. Everyone else who just wants to take nice photos in generally undemanding situations are all jumping to mirrorless and Canon are losing that middle ground.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> This news comes on the heels of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) decision to recognize “Mirrorless” as the official term for interchangeable lens cameras that do not include a mirror mechanism.


Whatever happened to "EVIL"? At least that sounded cool. Mirrorless sounds like you're missing a mirror.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 4, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Their mirrorless strategy is dumbfounding. I like to think people smarter than me have some grand plan when business decisions don't make sense to an outsider.... but I'm having a really hard time thinking this is the case for Canon & mirrorless.
> ...



You forgot to add the word "declining" before "consistent profit".


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Isn't it true that they've been the most consistently profitable camera company over the last 10 years? Also, Canon does sell mirrorless in Japan, and they've done OK with it.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 4, 2015)

I still think that they can keep the EF mount and just make a really small body with no mirror.
I just wish they would try a full frame SL type body, but more than that I can't help but look at the huge EF mount and think that they could make the most compact Medium Format body on the market just by removing the mirror.
Medium Format is probably the thing that could benefit most from removing the mirror.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 4, 2015)

From what I see in the numbers over the past years, mirrorless has been doing well Asia while DSLR's were doing well in the USA, Canada, and Europe.

Now, we see sales in Asia growing while they are falling in America and Europe. 

I'd like a practical mirrorless camera just because the mirror makes for lower reliability. Unfortunately, its a trade off, a EVF also reduces reliability. I like the size of a traditional DSLR because I have big hands, and so do many Americans / Europeans.

I remember when the Sony Walkman came out, its small size put a lot of US buyers off, but it was popular in Japan. Then, suddenly sales took off around the world, and the small size was suddenly a asset.

I expect the same will happen with mirrorless. 

Canon is not unaware of this, but they have become slow and ponderous, it takes them 4 years to design and build a new camera, but once they get it right, then we will see yearly minor upgrades.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 4, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> From what I see in the numbers over the past years, mirrorless has been doing well Asia while DSLR's were doing well in the USA, Canada, and Europe.
> 
> Now, we see sales in Asia growing while they are falling in America and Europe.
> 
> ...



I think Canon's waiting for that tipping point, and then the mirrorless products will come.

I see them ever-so-slowly ramping into the market in this fashion:

1) Offer a limited feature-set camera body platform + a very sparse selection of lenses + an adapter to EF. (Hint: this is EOS-M, and Canon has shown little desire to leave this position on the list.)

2) Offer a proper enthusiast/semi-pro EF-M rig with a feature set perhaps like the 7D2 or more reasonably the 70D --> an integral viewfinder, DPAF, more AF points, higher burst, top LCD (might be cramped on a thinner rig), a beefier default grip, etc. Also start sneaking in some more premium EF-M native glass.

3) Do an assload of market research -- a ton of it. Because the fate of the business will ride on what comes next.

4) Be brave and make the multi-billion dollar call: *which mount lives and which mount dies*. What size of sensor (and corresponding mount) will Canon build its mirrorless future around? It will be EF-M, EF-[Full Frame Mirrorless] or possibly both. (I really think they need to choose one or the other as EF / EF-S are not disappearing overnight and Canon has shown a poor track record at serving three mounts as it is.) Once that call is made, the high quality native-mount mirrorless lenses will finally come. 

- A

P.S. I am not implying #4 is just around the corner. It isn't. But seeing #2 happen might imply Canon is already thinking about #3 and #4.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 4, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> Isn't it true that they've been the most consistently profitable camera company over the last 10 years? Also, Canon does sell mirrorless in Japan, and they've done OK with it.



Not to refute anything you posted, but just my musings on the topic:

People seem to think that Canon should produce cameras like Sony or Fuji, but Canon's greatest advantage (lens selection) hinders that. The best strategy for Sony may not be the best strategy for Canon/Nikon. Sony's cameras have gotten bigger and heavier. It's also not a surprise that the first lenses they made available for that platform are slow (i.e. f/4 zoom or 35 f/2.8). Now the faster lenses are coming out, and they're comparable to L lenses in size and weight (i.e. Zeiss's FE 35 f/1.4 is heavier than 35L). So now the size advantage is decreasing, and you still have the poor battery performance for MILCs.

I'd like to see comparisons for how the FE Ziess 35 f/1.4 compares to the EF Ziess and EF Sigma. Can the FE match the others. I've read that it's harder when the flange distance is smaller to get corner sharpness, but I'd like to see the data. 

I have the M. I like the M. It works as a portable system. I can see the EF and EF-S bodies transitioning from having a mirror to not having one, but keeping the same flange distance to maintain compatibility with the lens ecosystem. They could make it as small as the SL1 or as large as a 1Dx once the technology is there.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 4, 2015)

If we accept that more and more people these days are introduced to photography via their cell phone, What would be the logical next step when these people want to move up to a dedicated camera

DSLR?
Mirrorless?

I think that if you are going from a cell phone that the next step would be a mirrorless camera. Afterall a mirrorless camera is just big cell phone that can't make phone calls. ;D

I think it is a tougher sell to convince a cell phone picture-taker to buy a DSLR these days. Especially since the customer is already familiar and probably willing to accept an EVF. 

There will be a niche where DSLRs will be advantageous e.g., sports, wildlife, low light, ... but how many of the millions of people taking photographs are into this niche?

I don't think the DSLR will die next week. But I would not be surprised that it drastically diminishes in the few years of my remaining life. 

I can't guarantee that the next camera system I buy will be a DSLR. Not ready to switch......yet.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 4, 2015)

Canon Rumors said:


> Their mirrorless strategy is dumbfounding. I like to think people smarter than me have some grand plan when business decisions don't make sense to an outsider.... but I'm having a really hard time thinking this is the case for Canon & mirrorless.



Perhaps not. All of these camera companies have many patents covering all sorts of system innovations. Cameras are complex tools that infringe hundreds of different patents. Usually in industry these sorts of things are covered by cross licensing deals where companies agree to exchange IP rights in exchange for royalties, but with conditions. What may be happening is that Canon have a restricted license to Sony IP, but only for DSLRs, while Sony has a similar license for Canon IP, but only for MILCs. They each have their own "turf", and the licenses don't extend beyond that. That would explain why Canon's mirrorless offerings are so dismal - their license deals don't allow them to implement all they could. And the same argument would apply to Sony, but in reverse. Other companies likely have similar deals in place with each other. 

By having these deals in place, they could continue to compete effectively. If they didn't they would all end up in a complex war of IP based law suits, much like what goes on in the phone industry in many cases (there are lots of cross licensing deals in place there as well - the best known of course being that between Apple and Microsoft).


----------



## Tugela (Jun 4, 2015)

It is interesting that the chief demographic buying into MILCs are the digital generation, who by and large are more comfortable with the digital than analog.


----------



## TeT (Jun 4, 2015)

FreshPicsUK said:


> Undemanding snapshots? Like the 'snapshots' that thousands of professional wedding photographers are taking every day with their Fuji X-Series kit?  There IS a market for mirrorless, as Fuji, Sony, Panasonic and Olympus has all proven. Some of these companies don't even make a traditional DSLR any more (in the Canikon sense).



But Sony cannot feed itself and its employees from the wedding photogs.

Its all the other sales that pay the bills... IF the camera Phone wipes out the majority of the other non Pro sales.. then mirrorless is a bust.

I have no idea if the mirrorless goes the way of the dodo; ppl still use point and shoots..

Just have to remember what the mirrorless bread and butter is and is not...


----------



## old-pr-pix (Jun 4, 2015)

I always go to CIPA for "real" data. Latest (April '15) summary shows that P&S sales are certainly in decline, yet they are still being shipped at an annualized rate of 20 million units per year. Likewise, DSLR's are shipping at a rate of 8.8 million per year (thru April). Mirrorless (actually non-reflex in CIPA data) is running 2.6 million per year.

Interesting is that 36% of interchangeable lens cameras shipped to Japan are mirrorless, 63% are DSLR's. While in the Americas only 15% are mirrorless. Yet, mirrorless is actually growing 21% Y-on-Y vs. DSLR's in the Americas. (Mirrorless % declined slightly in Japan)

So, while there is a "trend" toward mirrorless, there are still huge numbers of other units being sold. Likely NPD was contracted by Sony to do some market research. It does not appear NPD has a track record of observing the camera industry. [edited to correct % - I shouldn't do math before coffee!]


----------



## unfocused (Jun 4, 2015)

My two cents:

I think a lot of people confuse the target audience for mirrorless with the DSLR target audience.

Basically, the Sony press release indicates the target market is the same market segment as the high end point and shoot and low end DSLR's (Rebels, etc.) As others have said, there are a lot of reasons why Canon and Nikon may be moving slowly in this market. A few thoughts:

These are not camera "system" buyers. Most will buy a camera with a kit lens and never buy another lens. That means the opportunity for after-market sales is limited. It also means that the customers are not invested in a "system." If Nikon or Canon enters the market in a big way, they will have the ability to capture market share as customers drop their old models for the latest thing. So, neither company is "missing the boat" they may be just waiting for the waves to settle down before they launch.

Customers who are interested in a system are still better served by a DSLR and the cost of entry into DSLR systems remains less than mirrorless. Canon's SL model/models are really much more innovative and they have no competition in the sub-compact DSLR market. 

Canon seems to also be experimenting with fixed lens, higher-end cameras, which basically meet the same niche as mirrorless, when you consider that most people will never buy another lens or take the one that "comes with the camera" off the body. 

Sony is a niche marketer. This demonstrates that. They are in the mirrorless market because they can't compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market. I would not be surprised to see Sony exit the DSLR market entirely.

Sony is making a big play in the mirrorless market because they have nowhere else to play. It would be a mistake to read this as a strength, when really it is a weakness. They can't compete against Nikon and Canon for the much more lucrative and larger DSLR market, so they are going where the opportunity lies. In the end, it may prove to be a smart move on their part, but it is way, way too early in the game to predict that. 

I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years. Sony is gambling that the demographic they are going after will become enthusiasts that invest heavily in mirrorless. But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).

Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate. Then we will have a revolution on our hands that makes digital seem tame in comparison.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 4, 2015)

unfocused said:


> My two cents:


Mostly agree.



> I think a lot of people confuse the target audience for mirrorless with the DSLR target audience.


At least for now. At some point mirrorless will catch up with the benefits of SLR. I've been wrong about the timeline before, but progress is being made.



> I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse


I doubt this: it will just go through a period of Darwinian variation and selection as manufacturers look for the features needed to extract money from bank accounts.



> But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).


My track record on this prediction is pretty bad, but I think mirrorless AF will come close in 5 years. 



> Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate.


Not unless it's very different tech from what we have now. As far as I know, current tech LF cameras have poor resolution per sensor area. I can see LF cameras becoming popular as the new P&S, or even for some video applications. At the enthusiast/pro photographer level, there needs to be a major improvement on resolution in the still image.


----------



## TeT (Jun 5, 2015)

the shortcomings of mirrorless compared to DSLR will probably be fixed eventually; whether we will or will not be using them is up in the air...

The light field camera is in the same boat and improving rapidly as well...

has anyone used one of these? The first Gen Lytos is available on amazon for $80 right now...
The potential is there...


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 5, 2015)

Maybe this increase in mirrorless sales are all the $199 A7's they sold recently?


----------



## Gnocchi (Jun 5, 2015)

Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate. Then we will have a revolution on our hands that makes digital seem tame in comparison. 
[/quote]
These light-field cameras are very interesting! Fun times ahead ;-)


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 5, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years. Sony is gambling that the demographic they are going after will become enthusiasts that invest heavily in mirrorless. But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).


I'm not entirely convinced. I hear a lot of people switching to Fuji and Sony. You don't hear of many coming back.



unfocused said:


> Ultimately, this is all going to be moot. As I've said many times before, the disruptive technology on the horizon is light-field cameras. When and if that technology is perfected, suddenly the need for costly and sophisticated autofocusing systems evaporate. Then we will have a revolution on our hands that makes digital seem tame in comparison.


Once people recognise that digital imaging is a fad, they'll also realise that the real disruptive technology is Fuji Instax.


----------



## gobucks (Jun 5, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family
> ...



As a travel photographer, I definitely disagree that it is undemanding. Shooting in non-ideal light (often where flash and tripods are prohibited), being ready for the moment you didn't see coming, and getting a fast enough shutter speed to stop motion for street subjects that aren't posing for you all present challenges. My photos with a 6D are much better than my old T3 from a couple years ago, and worlds better than what my girlfriend can get on her iphone (why am I so dark, and the sky so white?!?!?! LOL)

I have a 6D, Canon's most obvious high end travel camera, and I love it, but I would love it even more if it were shrunk down to something like the A7II, which I'd consider if not for Sony's lens lineup (really? $995 is your cheapest normal prime, and it's F/1.8?). An A7II competitor from Canon with EF lens compatibility would sell like hotcakes, and considering the 6D is cheaper than most variants of the A7, I don't think it would undercut their pricing at all.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.



Disagree, respectfully. 

Once a mirrorless rig becomes 90-95% as good as an SLR, manufacturers* will push them over SLRs as they are cheaper to make (no mirror box, less material, etc.) and therefore represent higher profit margins.

* the whopping exception are Canon and Nikon, who strategically are holding off a robust entry into mirrorless _not to protect DSLR sales_ so much as to avoid a billion dollar plus obsolescence of their staggering FF SLR lens portfolios.

Now the wild card above is _"once mirrorless is almost as good as an SLR"_, which will happen at different times depending on how highly performing a specific SLR is today or how demanding its users are. 

Consider: For your *entry-level Rebel crowd*, mirrorless is not far off from SLR performance. In that price point, the IQ is effectively the same, but the responsiveness, AF, battery life (and to a lesser degree) ergonomics are clearly a step behind. That gap between the two will get smaller with time. In a few years there really will be no incentive to keep selling entry level SLRs and some manufacturers (without huge stables of FF SLR lenses) might just give up mirrors altogether in that market segment.

...and when you consider the % of users in the entry level SLR market (i.e. most of the market!), it's not a major leap to see an A6000 Mk II or III leap frog a future Rebel T8i or T9i in sales someday. That time is not that far away.

So, _no_. I don't see mirrorless going away. Quite the opposite. In X years time (might be 10-15 years), I expect new SLR offerings to be limited to only products that just can't be matched performance-wise -- sports/wildlife/action rigs like the 1DX.

- A


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 5, 2015)

At the entry level, I'd venture to say that mirrorless IQ is better than Canon DSLR. Just look at the DxOmark.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 5, 2015)

Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.

Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves. 

Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.
> 
> Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.
> 
> Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.



My 2cents: *WHEN* Zeiss releases Batis 135mm f2 with IS and/or 200mm f2.8(f2) IS, the rate of switching from DSLR to mirrorless will be higher. For many, FL from 24mm to 200mm would be enough in everyday photos. 

Smaller and lighter combos motivate shooters to bring camera more often


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 5, 2015)

Phone cameras are getting there... If this is around 1/2 or 2/3 of its price, I'd really get this one. 1" sensor + raw + phone? That's a no-brainer for almost all photographers (well, except the price...).

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/panasonic_lumix_dmc_cm1_review/image_quality/


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 5, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.
> ...



Those are big lenses, almost DSLR lens size... and expensive...


----------



## verysimplejason (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.
> ...



Mirrorless camera's success is almost entirely hinged on EVF development. As soon as EVF is comparable to OVF then you will begin to see a lot of people jumping ship.


----------



## Luds34 (Jun 5, 2015)

verysimplejason said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Which is why I don't see full frame mirrorless as having quit the advantage that it enjoys on a smaller sensor. I like the idea of a smaller kit. I just think though, that once you are dealing with a FF sensor, that size is going to dictate pretty decent size lenses, even sticking with shorter FL primes. Now drop that sensor size down to crop and we start to get some smaller glass. Look at those micro 4/3 systems, they get down right tiny sitting next to a DSLR (FF or crop).

Personally I feel like a mirrorless system with a crop size sensor might just be the sweet spot of compact size (travel kit) while still capable of good IQ, bokeh (when desired), low light performance (when needed).

If/when Canon wants to go full frame mirrorless, they don't have to abandon the EF mount. The latest Sony A7II isn't even all that small of a camera body, pushing DSLR size. Mount some good glass and the size advantage has essentially disappeared. 

For now, I'd just like to see Canon embrace the EF-M system and compete with a nice compact, mirrorless kit for travel, casual use, out with the family, etc. I can bust out the 6D/70D when I want to feel like a pro.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> verysimplejason said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...



I agree with both. Still, these FL are needed in FF mirrorless system.

I have never hand-on 4/3 system before. I do not how small and light weight they are. Having to shoot with a7, a7r and a7s I don't know if Sony or other companies can go any smaller or lighter for 35mm sensor. Their current native FE 28mm, 35mm and 55mm are great from size to weight.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 5, 2015)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > Key motivating factors for their photography include travel and family
> ...



While shooting with my A7s + FE55mm @ f1.8, with ISO12800ish at Talent Show, I do see other parents shooting with their smartphones and tiny P&S. What a wonderful tool for "Undemanding snapshots" :

I can see smartphone replacing tiny sensor P&S, not crop or FF mirrorless.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Personally I feel like a mirrorless system with a crop size sensor might just be the sweet spot of compact size (travel kit) while still capable of good IQ, bokeh (when desired), low light performance (when needed).
> 
> If/when Canon wants to go full frame mirrorless, they don't have to abandon the EF mount. The latest Sony A7II isn't even all that small of a camera body, pushing DSLR size. Mount some good glass and the size advantage has essentially disappeared.
> 
> For now, I'd just like to see Canon embrace the EF-M system and compete with a nice compact, mirrorless kit for travel, casual use, out with the family, etc. I can bust out the 6D/70D when I want to feel like a pro.



All good points.

This is the quandary of mirrorless -- there's a crushing tradeoff w.r.t. sensor size. 

Smaller sensors with native glass that is optimized for the smaller flange distance leads to a compact rig which is attractive to a larger market of users. 

Larger sensors have stellar IQ, but once you climb out of (say) 50mm FL or longer, any thinner-than-SLR upside you get from mirrorless becomes hard to appreciate -- the lenses are still about the size of SLR FF glass. See picture for what I mean. Such products are clearly only for professionals and well-heeled enthusiasts. 

So if a company believes the sole opportunity mirrorless offers is to take pictures as well as an SLR in a smaller package, they should probably not go larger than APS-C and aim to defeat the feature-equivalent consumer SLR they are up against (the T6i, the D5500, etc.).

But if a company wants to take over the SLR market, you kind of need to roll up your sleeves and start building an epic portfolio of lenses to start to rival the EF and FX glass that's out there. Because now you are up against Canon and Nikon's strongest turf and you can't swing pros with only a handful of lenses.

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.
> 
> Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.
> 
> Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.


I am not sure if it is a good idea to turn 6D into MILC. 6d is best selling Camera after Canon/Nikon rebels even in Japan market where lot of interest in MILC. If you look at this list, there are only 2 MILC cameras in japan top 10 list, which are cheaper even compared to rebels. 

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all


----------



## sanj (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.
> ...



Agree. Respectfully.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 5, 2015)

sanj said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...


This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.

http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.
> 
> http://www.dslrphoto.com/dslr/space.php?do=jranking&view=all



Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life. 

But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? _It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price._ Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.

The question is: when is mirrorless going to catch up in those performance areas it trails SLRs? In APS-C, I could honestly see that happening in 1-2 product generations, so 2-4 years perhaps. The market will not flip to mirrorless then by any stretch, but by that time the only hold-ups someone will have to buy one will just be batteries. The market should start to shift then.

FF is another animal, as I said before. With APS-C and standard FLs, you sell mirrorless as a smaller but equal product. But in FF, Sony has so much more to do to convince a pro that:


It won't slow you down.
It won't let you down.
Yes, we have that accessory / lens / feature that your FF SLR has.

The first two is a slow ramp of improving tech and earning trust. The last one is a buckler that will take them well over a decade to pull off.

- A


----------



## Tugela (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I think the odds are at least 50/50 that the mirrorless market will stagnate or even collapse within a few years.
> ...



Mirrorless is *already* better than the Rebel cameras. The only reason Canon/Nikon can keep selling cameras like that is because of brand name recognition and the fact that they have shelf space whereas most other brands do not. It isn't because of any technical superiority of some sort.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 5, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Canon could and should immediately replace all APS-C DSLRs (except 7D II) with a fully competitive EOS M system. 2 bodies would suffice, lower end would be M3 without built-in EVf, plus a higher end "M Pro" with EVF and DPAF system that finally delivers up to the hype around it. EF adapter included with every body. Plus a few more EF-lenses.
> 
> Canon could and should immediately replace the 6D with an FF-sensored MILC system, fully competitive with sony A7 II, body priced relly attractively (like 999,- including EF-adapter). Plus clever start of a new native short flange-back lens lineup with "EF-X" mount, which over time will fully replace EF mount. At the beginning some decent and highly affordable lenses - FF capable equivalent to the EF-M lenses and EF-50/1.8 STM, 40/2.8 pancake etc. Then followed by higher end "L" glass for FF mirrorless. So basically the other way round than Sony, who choose to bring super expensive Zeiss glass first, thus stifling sales of their A7 range themselves.
> 
> Anyways, Canon and even more so Nikon are paying the price for their refusal to bring competitive MILCs with APS-C and Ff sensors. Every further delay to replace their outdated mirrorslappers with highly compact abd highly competent MILCs will hurt CaNikon even more. A lot of potential market share being lost to Sony and Fuji.



As I mentioned before, the impediment is probably not because they don't want to or don't take it seriously, but rather that there are IP issues involved that prevent them from producing a truly competitive MILC.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 5, 2015)

ritholtz said:


> sanj said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Since some of those items are changing rank position by 100 places or more, I think it is fair to say that it is probably based off a small sample size and not particularly relevant.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.
> ...



I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

Tugela said:


> I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.



The NX1 is a formidable rig on the spec sheet. Resolution/burst/AF are all super high end for APS-C. I'm surprised more folks aren't talking about it. Perhaps Samsung isn't taken as seriously as Fuji and Sony in mirrorless. 

But in fairness, the NX1's price point and specs put it up against the _7D2_ and not a 4 year old Rebel. :

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Mirrorless is *already* better than the Rebel cameras.



As judged by..... You? DxOMark? Bob? Yuki? DPReview? Sven? Mr. Ever Y. One? He's always right...but by the numbers, he hasn't chosen mirrorless.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > I was trying out the new lens firmware updates for my NX1 last night, and the camera was getting focus instantly in most cases under all light conditions, so IMO responsiveness is already here. It totally kicks the stuffing out of my old T3i in all departments, that camera has absolutely no advantages at all over the NX1.
> ...



In all fairness a zero year old Rebel is not all that different from a four year old one, and since that is what is being discussed, I think it is reasonable. Having mirrors in Rebels does not make any sense since you will get a better camera with an EVF. It is not going to be long before Rebels in their current form are relegated to the bargain bins.

As far as Canons are concerned, I think the issue is not so much OVF/EVF, but more their lack of resources when it comes to development of the electronics. Now days the power of a camera is very dependent on the computer inside the camera, and that is where Canon (and many other traditional manufacturers) are hobbled. In the long run they are not going to be able to compete with the likes of Samsung and Sony, which can leverage processor/sensor development off of their cell phone businesses. To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one. This is a critical area where most of the future development is going to be happening at a high rate of progress and it is also an area where they are not equipped to compete.

I think Canon have a big problem and as time goes by it is going to become increasingly obvious, initially with their lower end products but later in the high end as well.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > This following link tracks sales rankings in Japan. You can see how far down a6000 compared to others. There is no way it is going to replace rebels from Canon and Nikon anytime in foreseeable future.
> ...


I agree with the progress Sony is making with A6000 series. But you are not considering progress rebels are making. Latest rebels are almost similar to 70D in terms of features. They also have much improved on sensor AF which is closing the gap with mirrorless experience. In 2-3 generations, rebel is going to have 7d2 focusing system and it is going to be as good as live view experience like mirrorless. Canon and Nikon just needs to figure out way to show evf info on OVF. That will make rebels best of both the worlds.

I am also not sure even mirrorless competes with cell phones in terms of size and convenience. M4/3 which are even smaller than sony mirrorless and developed good set of lens are also struggling. Sony is already abandoned developing competitive lens for E mount. How they are going to overtake DSLR without developing lens and not even providing same kit lens quality for the starters.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2015)

Tugela said:


> To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one.



Does Samsung's high performance single CPU deliver the full bit depth with continuous shooting?


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 5, 2015)

Tugela said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


If you compare latest rebel with older rebels (t2i, t3i), they made lot of progress in terms of convention PDAF and on sensor AF. Latest rebels are almost close to 70D capabilities. Canon even developed STM lens to take advantage of progress they are making in rebels. Rebels do everything mirrorless can do using live view. May be their on sensor PDAF is not as fast as A6000. 

If you look at m4/3, they are smaller than even Sony a6000 and they have better on sensor AF than Sony a6000. They are also struggling. How Sony is going to take over by not even releasing single E mount lens. When Canon and Nikon keep on upgrading their kit lens and improving it with each iteration.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless is *already* better than the Rebel cameras.
> ...



This is the part I struggle with.

I've said many times that mirrorless will eventually be the camera everyone uses save for really high-end rigs for sports and wildlife. That said, I'm no mirrorless fanboy. I love my OVF and the industry can take it from my cold, dead hands.

But the worldview on mirrorless' progress is comically fragmented. There are people in this very forum who believe:


Mirrorless is a fad that will go away.
Mirrorless will never get off the ground because of cell phones.
Mirrorless will never surpass same-priced SLRs for performance.
Mirrorless _has already_ surpassed same-priced SLRs for performance.
Mirrorless isn't coming -- *it's already here* and the few remaining SLR believers are clinging to our mirror boxes like the people who used to hug their Amigas and snuggle with them in bed each night.
Mirrorless will be steamrolled by Lightfield cameras before they take over the market.

...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.

But few are backing up their arguments with data. Third parties offer charts like the attached and harp on year over year change in the mirrorless/SLR ratio. Mirrorless haters pick on what they don't like about mirrorless (battery life, poor AF, responsiveness, etc.) but that's changing the subject.

Does anyone really know how much mirrorless makes up of the overall ILC market?

- A


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.
> 
> But what happens when the A6000 Mk III or Mk IV (or EOS-M6) is only 3-5% less responsive and has similar AF performance to a Canon Rebel or Nikon D5XXX? _It will be a smaller camera that does the same quality job for the same price._ Most consumer electronics history has shown us that combination will win in the marketplace, especially for soccer moms and hockey dads that make up the bulk of the units in camera sales.
> 
> ...



That's a reasonable question, but do we know for sure that the three areas you list explain the huge disparity in sales between mirrorless and dslrs? Do they matter to the people who buy most exchangeable-lens-cameras? They do to many who participate in forums such as this, but the herons-catching-fish segment is rather disproportionately represented here, I suspect. (Besides, would a soccer parent notice an improvement in AF performance switching from a Sony a6000 or Olympus OM-D to a Canon Rebel?) The reasons may be quite unrelated so such considerations (I have no idea; I'm certainly not saying you're wrong).

This is unrelated to the who-should-do-what-to-boost/maintain-sales arguments, but in terms of catching up I feel tempted to note that regardless of when mirrorless can catch up with dslrs, there are areas where dslrs may never catch up with mirrorless, such as avoiding the need for AFMA, the advantages of EVFs (e.g. making it easier to get exposure correct and, thanks to magnification and focus peaking, vastly easier to focus manually), and the ability – for those willing to focus and expose manually (easy, thanks to EVFs) – to use just about any lens regardless of who made it, which makes photography more interesting and fun (and sometimes very cheap) if you’re so inclined. These are advantages that have nothing to do with size, of course.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> ...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.
> 
> But few are backing up their arguments with data.



Well, it's foolish to back up your arguments with data if those data refute your arguments. :


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 5, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > ...and a good number of them speak in absolute terms like it is so.
> ...



I just want the following questions answered:

1) Industry-wide, what percentage of total ILC sales (units) are mirrorless in APS-C?
2) Industry wide, what percentage of total ILC sales (units) are mirrorless in FF?

And then we keep asking that question periodically to see how it's tracking. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 5, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



Unfortunately, CIPA doesn't break down their data by sensor size.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 5, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> I have never hand-on 4/3 system before. I do not how small and light weight they are. Having to shoot with a7, a7r and a7s I don't know if Sony or other companies can go any smaller or lighter for 35mm sensor. Their current native FE 28mm, 35mm and 55mm are great from size to weight.



And image quality, for that matter. I own m4/3 as well as an a7r and a7s (and a couple of Canon dslrs, FF & APS-C) and yes, m4/3 is definitely lighter and smaller, especially when you compare lenses with similar angles of view as lenses get longer (compare, say, the Olympus 45mm 1.8 to any 85-100mm prime, or, especially the Olympus 60mm macro to any 100mm macro (does anyone make a 120mm macro?). (There are ways to get small FF lenses, but you end up in vintage MF territory here, and they often end up weighing proportionately more since they're usually (beautifully made) metal.) But of course you end up having to compare more than just angle of view since the crop factor affects everything else, so as often as not there's no direct comparison to be made; trying to chase shallow focus, for instance, and you end up paying a lot for f0.95 lenses that are usually heavy and MF and still not as fast, in FF terms, as f1.4. And for all that m4/3 are impressive given their sensor size, I would be rather surprised if you thought any m4/3 gave you comparable results to what you can get from your a7s in just about any light. Since acquiring my a7r and a7s I've stopped using my m4/3 equipment; I should sell it....


----------



## Hector1970 (Jun 6, 2015)

I'm sure it will still take a few years for mirrorless to surpass mirrored in terms of quality but it makes sense for manufacturers to go that direction. It's not where cameras sales are now it's where they will be in a few years. There will be a tipping point. Mirrorless is a less complex set up and opens up options for fast FPS for the masses.
Its the sound of inevitability
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odIEhkLBH4Y


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 6, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> If we accept that more and more people these days are introduced to photography via their cell phone, What would be the logical next step when these people want to move up to a dedicated camera
> 
> DSLR?
> Mirrorless?
> ...



It depends on the culture again. US and many European buyers see the large DSLR's as being higher quality cameras, and the small mirrorless cameras look similar to $100 point and shoot cameras. Canon was surprised when the "M" sales flopped so badly in the US and Europe, and did a lot of asking buyers for their opinions. They admitted this in some interviews, the answers they received were basically that buyers wanted large cameras because they took higher quality pictures. Many buyers are wary of Sony and their history of dropping a line on a moments notice.

Most US buyers rely on the experts at Best Buy or the like, so who knows what they may be told or sold. Our local Costco stores put the mirrorless cameras in with the P&S, and the large DSLR's get prominent spots, its subtle but influences sales.

In Asia, small cameras are popular, users tend to have smaller hands and fingers, and probably word of mouth is influencing sales, and camera store experts are pushing the smaller bodies.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

Tugela said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > unfocused said:
> ...



My belief. Exactly.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Mirrorless is *already* better than the Rebel cameras.
> ...



Numbers don't represent 'better'. When Canon/Nikon start making mirror less (which they WILL) the numbers will change rapidly. When Canon does something the public buys. Such is the power of brand name.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



What _does_ represent 'better'? Who decides? 

Brand name? I suspect Sony is a much more widely recognized name than Canon, in general. You'd think once they entered the ILC camera market, they'd clobber CaNikon. Hasn't happened yet.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


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



As usual, you are taking things out of context. Which seems to be a favorite trait of yours.

This was in connection with the point that Canon and Nikon can afford to take their time and watch to see how the market develops. Because most mirrorless camera buyers are not investing in a system, it will be easier for Nikon and Canon to entice them to switch to a better system. 



unfocused said:


> Customers who are interested in a system are still better served by a DSLR and the cost of entry into DSLR systems remains less than mirrorless.





dilbert said:


> These customers represent the minority of people buying cameras.
> 
> If you were Canon, would you be happy making cameras that trends were suggesting would in the future only be bought by a minority of customers?



That's a non-sequitur, that has nothing to do with my statement. Try to pay attention: I said *customers* who are interested in a system, are better off with DSLRs. I said nothing about the interests of Nikon or Canon. Try to stay on topic. 

But, since you ask. Nikon and Canon are interested in making a profit and in the current market the best way to make a profit is to focus on the enthusiast segment, which has more disposable income and is more willing to part with their dollars. 



unfocused said:


> Sony is a niche marketer. This demonstrates that. They are in the mirrorless market because they can't compete against Nikon and Canon in the DSLR market.





dilbert said:


> I don't recall who created the mirrorless market but it is a natural thing to do (to create a new segment of a market.) And in this, Sony is no more a niche player than is Canon.



It's like you are just stringing random words together. In case you don't understand what a niche player is, it is an entity that doesn't dominate the overall market, but instead focuses on generating sales by going after a subset of the market. Canon and Nikon are not niche marketers. Sony is. 

And, for your information, I suppose George Eastman could be considered the originator of the mirrorless market ("You push the button, we do the rest") For professionals, I guess one could say Leica invented the mirrorless market 



unfocused said:


> But, there is much to be said for these same customers moving to "real" cameras (DSLRs) as they move into specific sub-categories of photography (sports, birds, wildlife, etc.).





dilbert said:


> This is snobbery, plain and simple. No one camera is more or less real than any other camera. They're all real cameras. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because you've spent more or yours is bigger that you can say "that's not a camera, THIS is a camera." The best camera in the world is no good if it is too big to keep with you when you see that million dollar moment.



No. It was (mostly) sarcasm. But, again, you seem to like stringing words together without comprehending what anyone else writes. Since I was referring to specific subcategories such as sports, wildlife and birds, the limiting factor is the reach of the lens and in these subcategories, the lens will always dwarf the camera, so the camera is not going to be "too big" to keep with you.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 6, 2015)

sdsr said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I have never hand-on 4/3 system before. I do not how small and light weight they are. Having to shoot with a7, a7r and a7s I don't know if Sony or other companies can go any smaller or lighter for 35mm sensor. Their current native FE 28mm, 35mm and 55mm are great from size to weight.
> ...


Good info on the 4/3 system sdsr.

At this time in my life, I don't think I would buy another small or 4/3 system. My recent attempt with 7D II will be my last crop sensor body. There is something about FF image quality that I can't describe. I enjoy shooting my 1Dx + 85L II + 200f2 + 400mm f2.8 IS II. At the same time, my a7s and native lenses are working great with my DSLR setup. I know this setup could be hard for many to adapt to. These are completely different systems. The cost is higher due to lens compatibility. 

Will I commit 100% to DSLR or 100% to mirrorless? Time will tell


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 6, 2015)

sanj said:


> My belief. Exactly.





sanj said:


> Numbers don't represent 'better'. When Canon/Nikon start making mirror less (which they WILL) the numbers will change rapidly. When Canon does something the public buys. *Such is the power of brand name*.



_And there is it..._

I'm so sick of this crap - the unsubtle, patronising inference that those who choose DSLR of mirrorless (or Canon over Sony) do so _only_ because we're gullible, ignorant, easily-duped vicitms of advertising and/or naive brand loyalty, rather than being informed, knowledgeable photographers who make intelligent choices based on knowing exactly what we want to achieve, and exactly what we need in order to achieve it.

"The numbers" are _everything_. 

For God's sake, this thread is _about_ Sony boasting about "the numbers" - and no doubt they do have the edge in this niche, given that Canon is understanbdably not interested in it...


----------



## Tugela (Jun 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > To get a high performance camera Canon have to stuff at least three CPUs into their bodies, whereas Sony and Samsung only need one.
> ...



Does Canon's "high performance" triple CPU system do 15 fps at 28mpixels? Nope. It would choke.

Bit depth on the NX1 is reduced to 12 at 15 fps, but that is a very large amount of data being processed, far in excess of what any Canon is capable of handling.

The NX1 has many continuous shooting modes btw.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 6, 2015)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
(A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
(B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).


----------



## Tugela (Jun 6, 2015)

sdsr said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > Agree 100% with the sales numbers. But that's because SLRs are clearly still better than mirrorless in critical areas: responsiveness, AF speed/reliability, and battery life.
> ...



That is the thing, the disparity is not really all that large. And if you look at that chart and ignore the osccillations, the overall trend of DSLRs is downwards, and the overall trend of MILCs is upwards. Sooner or later they are going to cross over.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

Tugela said:


> sdsr said:
> 
> 
> > ahsanford said:
> ...



I don't wish for either to be inferior to either. Want both to progress steadily. Both serve a different purpose in my photography.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2015)

Tugela said:


> Does Canon's "high performance" triple CPU system do 15 fps at 28mpixels?



Does it need to? Should super-innovative Samsung put a 3 GHz Core i7 in the Galaxy Tab? Processing power should be matched to the needs of the system. 




Tugela said:


> That is the thing, the disparity is not really all that large. And if you look at that chart and ignore the osccillations, the overall trend of DSLRs is downwards, and the overall trend of MILCs is upwards. Sooner or later they are going to cross over.



I suggest you look more carefully at that chart. The overall trend of dSLRs is downward, the overall trend of mirrorless is basically _flat_. The still camera market is shrinking, and while it's good for MILCs that they're not trending down, they're also not trending up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> (B) makes complete sense to me. The younger generation will reject the big chunky camera and go for the smaller, funky camera and since the pics that come out of it look ok on the web (zoom at 100% is not an issue), what's the problem?
> 
> Some people saw the writing on the wall about DSLRs when mirrorless arrived but others still can't understand the message.



Yes, the people who predicted 6 years ago that MILC's would overtake dSLRs in 5 years showed a very keen understanding of reality. Almost as keen as yours, dilbert. At least they can console themselves that they'd be correct if they lived in dilbertland. 

As for seeing the writing on the wall, I'm sure Canon can read. Not only do they pay for market research, they collect demographic data every time someone registers a purchase. 

Anecdotally, plenty of Millenials using dSLRs from what I've seen, both in the US and in Europe. Walking around Luzern this week, there was a mix of dSLRs and MILCs in the hands of people of all ages, but definitely more dSLRs than MILCs. MILCs were more common in the hands of people from Asia, but even in that demographic there were more dSLRs. Of course, the smartphones and selfie-sticks outnumbered both by a wide margin.


----------



## sanj (Jun 6, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Absolutely!!!


----------



## dak723 (Jun 6, 2015)

Tugela said:


> My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
> (A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
> (B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).



Hmmm...in the past 2 years I bought a 6D (DSLR) a SL1 (DSLR) and an Olympus OM-D EM-1 (Mirrorless). What that tells me is that there is no competition between DSLR and Mirrorless. Both are essentially the same and are in competition with cell phones (now that they have taken over the P&S market). Only those endlessly debating nonsense think the two types are competing and that one will eventually "beat" the other.


----------



## AvTvM (Jun 6, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 6, 2015)

AvTvM said:


> Basicslly Sony and Fuji (plus Samsung joining in) are swinging the global camera market towards MILC all by themselves. While Nikon mucks around with their desrg-sensored 1 system and Canon does not even dare to offer their halfassed M system









Kitteh sez, "Show me(ow) the data."

Here, I'll show you some...






Last year in the largest geographic market for MILC, we see Sony on top but trending down, Olympus catching up, and Canon nearly tied with Panasonic for 3rd. Fuji is battling hard with Nikon to see who can be at the bottom of the list, and Samsung...is a no-show.


----------



## RobertG. (Jun 6, 2015)

9VIII said:


> I still think that they can keep the EF mount and just make a really small body with no mirror.
> I just wish they would try a full frame SL type body, but more than that I can't help but look at the huge EF mount and think that they could make the most compact Medium Format body on the market just by removing the mirror.
> Medium Format is probably the thing that could benefit most from removing the mirror.



Take a look here: http://www.hartblei.de/en/hartbleicam2.htm The larger image circle of the TS-E lenses works well for "medium format" sensors. It would not work that well with real 6 cm x 4.5 cm sensors.

I wish somebody finds a way to adapt the TS-E lenses to the Pentax 645D....


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> AvTvM said:
> 
> 
> > Basicslly Sony and Fuji (plus Samsung joining in) are swinging the global camera market towards MILC all by themselves. While Nikon mucks around with their desrg-sensored 1 system and Canon does not even dare to offer their halfassed M system
> ...



You must spend half your time posting at CR, and half looking for new lolcats. When do you work or sleep? ;D


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 7, 2015)

To me, the milc cameras are like the viewfinder cameras of the 60's.
Lots of people had one for carry-everwhere, including kids, yet big, clunky SLR's still sold well as did mf cameras.
I remember as a kid that it wasn't unusual to see advanced amateurs walking around with a Hasselblad or Bronica, but most photographers had an SLR around their necks.
Rangefinder cameras back then were actually easier to focus than SLR's as they had split image focussing, yet even with cameras like Leicas, the SLR was still king, and regardless of how good milcs become, they will NEVER completely replace DSLRs.

A modern milc is a very good and practical camera for 90% of people.
However, for people who really want speed, ergonomics and ultimate quality, you can't beat a DSLR.
There are also many people who would be happy with a milc, but want to look like they are serious, so the just HAVE to have a DSLR, even if it's just a low-grade Rebel.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jun 7, 2015)

Tugela said:


> (A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.



I'll inform my 18 year old niece, who just last week purchased a DSLR as one of her graduation presents, that she's an old, outdated fart who must live with a huge, clunky piece of junk . . .

And she's just an ordinary person who (   ) didn't ask her uncle for his opinion on the purchase because I would have told her that although I shoot with a 1DX, her age dictates she purchase a MILC.

 : ;D


----------



## Tugela (Jun 7, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > Does Canon's "high performance" triple CPU system do 15 fps at 28mpixels?
> ...



It looks flat because you are being fooled by the overall market. It has a slow uptick however.


----------



## Tugela (Jun 7, 2015)

IgotGASbadDude said:


> Tugela said:
> 
> 
> > (A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
> ...



That is because she is probably completely unaware that there is a mirror in there and doesn't particularly care. But, given experience with an OFV or a EFV, she would probably choose the EFV because an EFV gives much better flexibility. A DSLR is a MILC anyway, once you don't look through the viewfinder, so the camera is basically the same. You tend to have fewer options and less flexibility with the typical DSLR however. When it comes to compact systems, there are no DSLRS, only mirrorless cameras.

For the record, I didn't say ALL young/old people choose one or the other, but that is what they TEND to do. And in the long run what they tend to do is what is going to win out as the older generation dies out.

Reducing an argument into absolutes is a sure indication that your position has no merit.


----------



## sdsr (Jun 7, 2015)

Dylan777 said:


> At this time in my life, I don't think I would buy another small or 4/3 system. My recent attempt with 7D II will be my last crop sensor body. There is something about FF image quality that I can't describe. I enjoy shooting my 1Dx + 85L II + 200f2 + 400mm f2.8 IS II. At the same time, my a7s and native lenses are working great with my DSLR setup. I know this setup could be hard for many to adapt to. These are completely different systems. The cost is higher due to lens compatibility.



Yes, there is something about FF image quality that trumps smaller sensors; if aps-c doesn't do it for you, m43 won't either. I wouldn't want a 400mm 2.8 on my a7s/r, but I do like using an FD 85L on them!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 7, 2015)

Tugela said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Tugela said:
> ...



In fact, I can read and interpret a graph just fine. Since you seem to be challenged by this one, let's simplify it by looking at just a few numbers. According to CIPA data for mirrorless ('non-reflex') shipments:

2012: 3.96m units
2013: 3.30m units
2014: 3.29m units

Please, tell me again who is being fooled? :




Tugela said:


> Reducing an argument into absolutes is a sure indication that your position has no merit.



Being completely wrong about basic, relevant facts is an even surer indication that your position has no merit, and moreover it calls the credibility of your other statements into question.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 7, 2015)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AvTvM said:
> ...



Why do you assume he is one person 

I have it on good authority that 6 different people around the world post under his account. They each take two 2 hour shifts a day ;D

He is thinking of incorporating! Dilbert needs to form his own corporation or go Neuro (otic).


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 7, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


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



Hmmm...you may be on to something: it could be one of those franchise deals like DPR from _The Princess Bride_.


----------



## IgotGASbadDude (Jun 7, 2015)

Hypocrite? "Reducing an argument into absolutes is a sure indication that your position has no merit."



Tugela said:


> (A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years



And then there's your stereotype based on age:



Tugela said:


> For the record, I didn't say ALL young/old people choose one or the other, but that is what they TEND to do.



So your argument is that young people choose one & old people choose another, and the basis for your argument is the scientifically verified "everyone I know" statement?

I can tell you for fact if I interviewed the 1400+ teenagers I see on a daily basis I doubt 5 in the whole group would even know a mirrored from a mirrorless camera so your argument that younger people are more in tune with one technology or the other is utter rubbish.

I can promise you one thing: not ONE of them would say "I would purchase this camera because it is mirror-less and the reason it is better is . . . "


----------



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

Here is the latest CIPA data as graphed by the personal-view.com website...
These are global shipments, but obvious localized maxima occurs prior to Father's Day/Graduation/Start of summer (U.S. perspective) and prior to Christmas holiday season. The good news is that shipments of DSLR's and MILC's to the US are better than last year. 

It's interesting to me that the prior reference in this thread to the DSLRphoto.com listing of top 80 DSLR cameras in Japan includes three Olympus mirrorless cameras in the top 20 DSLR sales? How reliable is that data??? Even more interesting is that the wide majority of sales shown seems to be either body with single wide range zoom or a double zoom lens kit. That implies these are all "one shot buyers" and not people concerned about building a system. Those of us who do care about their system are clearly a small - perhaps vocal - minority.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 8, 2015)

old-pr-pix said:


> Here is the latest CIPA data as graphed by the personal-view.com website...



Thanks. It's always good to see the actual data. Although I expect people will still interpret it based on their own biases. To my eyes, it looks like the relative positions of each format are fairly stable and unlikely to change absent a major disruption in the market. 




old-pr-pix said:


> ...Even more interesting is that the wide majority of sales shown seems to be either body with single wide range zoom or a double zoom lens kit. That implies these are all "one shot buyers" and not people concerned about building a system. Those of us who do care about their system are clearly a small - perhaps vocal - minority.



No argument there.

That's one reason, why I don't think Canon and Nikon are really risking that much by taking a conservative approach to mirrorless. If the trend lines begin to change, they can jump into the market in a serious way and by virtue of their market dominance, they won't have much problem overtaking the current niche players. 

I would argue, though, that currently for that small, vocal minority it makes more sense to invest in a DSLR system. With current technology, the size advantage of mirrorless disappears once you put on a longer telephoto lens or an extreme wide-angle. So, go beyond about 28-135mm and your better off with the advantages of a DSLR. Now, whether or not those advantages (autofocus, optical view finder, etc.) shrink over time is anyone's guess. 

Overall, I find this whole debate a little pointless. If mirrorless cameras ever become better than DSLRs then customers may switch. But, with the current state of technology, most customers are still choosing DSLRs.


----------



## kphoto99 (Jun 8, 2015)

When I look at the graph the first thing that comes to mind:
DSLR sales are much more volatile then mirror-less sales.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Jun 8, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> When I look at the graph the first thing that comes to mind:
> DSLR sales are much more volatile then mirror-less sales.



That's a good observation. I wonder what happened on those dates?


----------



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

Remember, these are shipments, not sales. My guess is that in recent past there was a lot of "stocking-up" in anticipation of significant holiday sales volume and in an effort to garner any year-end rebates from manufacturers. That results in a natural "post-holiday" lull, especially if stores didn't sell all they anticipated. Given shipping times, it's natural to see a rise in Oct/Nov shipments to have product on the shelf for Dec. Same for Apr/May pre-summer/graduations/Fathers Day.

There could be a lot of other factors in play as well... manufacturer specials/rebates, new models, exchange rate fluctuations, etc.


----------



## Hillsilly (Jun 10, 2015)

Tugela said:


> My response to that would be anecdotal since I am not a market research company, but, from my personal observation:
> (A) Everyone I know who has bought a ILC in the last two years has bought a MILC. None have bought a DSLR. These are not professionals, but ordinary people.
> (B) When I walk around taking photographs or shooting video on the weekends, the people I see with DSLRs for the most part are middle aged or elderly. The ones with MILCs are almost always young adults. There is a distinct generation thing happening. The people who understand technology and grew up in the digital age are choosing the digital option, those who grew up prior to that are choosing the analog option (on average).



Bearing in mind that I live in highly urbanised country with a reputation of being early adopters of new technology, but if I go to a camera club event, where the members are generally older people and a mix of professionals and keen amateurs, it's almost 100% DSLR. If I turn up with a Fuji, luckily one of the 80 year olds will give me a kind word of advice and tell me that the easiest way to improve my photography is to buy a real camera. Usually a Canon. (No offence meant to the 80 year olds in my club, they are typically much better photographers than me!).

But out and about in the general population, I'd say its 50:50 between DSLRs and mirrorless with most of the DSLRs being older models.

Rather than sales statistics, I'd be curious to see a comparison of the number of photos taken with current model DSLRs vs current model mirrorless cameras. I also get the impression that mirrorless users are more active and visible than what the sales figures suggest.


----------

