Vitaly from Personal View made this nice graph based on the shipped camera data shared by japanese companies. The graph on top shows how mirrorless system camera shipments are constantly growing in Asia while they remain weak in EU and North America. And the graph below shows how compact camera shipments are always on the same level. The truth is system cameras shipment decreased over the last two years.
And as you can see mirrorless system cameras do sell well in Asia:
I will leave any comment up to the experts visiting this site 🙂
134 Responses
Admin, you should fix your headline as it is very important to remember that shipments are NOT the same thing as sales. I suggest everyone pay a visit to http://www.bythom.com to see some alternative professional analysis on the camera industry.
@Hal Knowles
“Professional” means he is getting paid or makes his living analysing… me thinks he doesn’t. He just offers his opinions with articles that don’t allow commenting.
@YouDidntDidYou Whatever you may think of Thom he at least gives evidence, whereas you fail to back up your constant criticisms when challenged.
he makes his money off affiliates, Nikon manuals and Safaris
I fail to see how that is relevant to a) your unwillingness to back up certain statements and b) to the quality of his analysis. He could make his money from selling ice cream for all I care if is analysis is good.
Maybe your irritation with Hal’s comment comes from his use of the word “professional”. This is usually taken to mean that some does something as part of his profession but it can also mean that it is of a quality that would be good enough to be professional; I read Hal’s comment in the latter sense whereas it seems you took it in the sense of Thom being a professional business analyst. We can probably waste a lot of time arguing whether he qualifies for that or not but again I am more interested in his arguments than in defining how to classify his business activities.
You can’t really make too much about the mirrorless 5 year figures unless you know exactly what impact the Nikon 1 and Canon EOS M fails had on the late 2011-2012 figures ie knowing how much they shipped and sold. If they pushed out 1-1.5 million units between them they would of skewed/impacted the graph quite dramatically….
And you, with lots of opinions scattered through this thread and no stats, research or long form analysis to back them up are what, exactly?
But I am nearly always right 🙂
Shipments are caused by sales and therefore a sound indicator. The shipments are too distributors who are responding to retail demand. The companies cannot track sales as that would require literally thousands of retailers to provide their sales data (wont happen) vs just having the manufacturers provide shipping numbers. Your point is not at all valid.
Sales can take place 2+ after shipments and might be sold at 90% discount on the list price http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53012840
+10
Exactly.
Shipments and sales are two entirely different statistics.
Microsoft, for instance, hid all sorts of poor sales figures (Surface tablets for one) by publishing only shipment numbers.
That guy makes some ugly-ass charts! Woof!
cant see what the problem is
its a fair assumption that shipped cameras will be sold
possibly already booked against the retail outlet anyway
in 2013 the DSLR shipment decreased from 627943316 to 556509244 ( 85% units, 89% price ) and the mirrorless shipment decreased from 3956602 to 3305798 ( 84% units, 97% price )
at the end of 2012 the mirrorless share was: 19.6% units, 16.6% price
at the end of 2013 the mirrorless share was: 19.3% units, 18.0% price
@GS1
Yes so mirrorless continues to gain world market share from DSLRs.
no, actually the mirrorless market share got a small decrease from 19.6% to 19.3%, but the unit price is now nearly on par with the DSLRs
price per units 2012:
DSLR: 39k Yen
Mirrorless: 32k Yen
price per units 2013:
DSLR: 40k Yen
Mirrorless: 37k Yen
Average selling price times units shipped equals….
You’d have to back in SG&A costs to get an accurate portrayal. My sense is that the mirrorless cameras are generating more back end costs that get disguised in the results than DSLRs, though both are doing it to some degree.
What we really need is better global retail sales reports. I can say that in the US mirrorless has tended to have decreased unit volume and dollars taken in during the past year, but the average selling price has gone up. With DSLRs, all the numbers are down slightly (volume, dollars, average).
Well, GFK does seem to collect data on worldwide camera sales, and various Dutch, Belgium and German news sources suggest there are conflicting trends when looking at ILCs (with and without mirror)
– approx 30% drop in Europe as a whole in 2013.
– strong growth in northern Europe, especially Germany.
Together, this seems to suggest that the ILC market in Europe is suffering from slow economic recovery more then from structural market problems (seeing how the economic downturn and slow recovery especially hurts many of the southern countries, and hurts a lot less in Germany and other northern countries). Reports from Dutch camera retailers suggest a similar trend, where volumes (compact + ILC together) dropped sharply, revenue is up due to more expensive cameras being sold.
A few years of data doesn’t really say much. It would be more interesting to see 10 years of data.
Oh really? Mirrorless was launched 5 years ago. You go with the data you have now and follow the trend.
There’s no hope in hell that micro 4 thirds around for 10 years. You better switch to Sony, lol!
> It would be more interesting to see 10 years of data.
10 years ago people still debated the merits of going digital.
Scroll to bottom of this page – http://www.dpreview.com/reviews – and marvel at the pace of the progress.
I think when people see these mirrorless cameras with integrated EVFs around $499, the DSLR will be in a lot of trouble. Right now, they are still a bit pricey at $699 and $799. DSLRs didn’t really take off until we saw them come down in clearance prices to around $500 with kit lenses. We are maybe 2 years away from hitting those low prices.
Here we go again, calling for the death of DSLRs, just as we have been for the last five years, and even in the face of the fact that mirrorless sales are hitting a ceiling, and selling good only in limited markets.
What is it with the mirrorless world that they feel constantly compelled to call for the death of DSLRs? The DSLR forums do nothing of the sort for mirrorless.
You can already buy a DSLR with kit lens, superior viewing, faster performance, for $499. The market for all of this is shrinking across the board. People will keep the DSLRs they already have for longer and longer.
What is their motivation for dumping their DSLR in two years to buy another luxury toy in an overall market where everyone is losing interest in standalone cameras? What is the indication that the manufacturers of mirrorless cameras (other than say Canon, Nikon, possibly Sony) can be viable in that time?
It would be nice, but these constant predictions of look out in 2 years we will be on top are getting kind of old.
ronin: you are wrongly translate the sentence “DSLR will be in a lot of trouble”
> What is it with the mirrorless world that they feel constantly compelled to call for the death of DSLRs?
I am mirrorless user, but I don’t care about DSLR death: I don’t care about DSLR’s at all.
(only about sensor improvements, because they can be used in mirrorless too)
The only ones which fear of DSLR death are DSLR users, who understand that mirrorless is already better (more usable) and has potential to be even better in the future.
> The DSLR forums do nothing of the sort for mirrorless.
those forums don’t know, that mirrorless exists, yet
> those forums don’t know, that mirrorless exists, yet
… and most of the “DSLR is dead” shouts come precisely from the fresh DSLR converts and system jumpers.
The reason why DSLRs sales are good is because a good mirrorless with an EVF is still a few hundred more than they are willing to pay for. Consumers on the lower end are very price conscious, where the bulk of DSLR sales are made. If a camera like the EM10 with a kit lens can be sold for $499 in 2 years, it would seem silly to buy a DSLR that has a smaller viewfinder, less customizability, crippled functionality, more bulky, slower to spot focus. Focus tracking is better with DSLR, but 90% of people with DSLR don’t even know how to use it.
And then, Canon will take their Rebel, remove the OVF and insert the EVF. A simple swap.
Accessory compatibility remains. Lens compatibility remains. Upgrade paths remain.
GG WP NO RE
It will just innovate (and probably surpass mirrorless), and WILL ALWAYS cost cheaper, both in bodies, and lenses.
The only way mirrorless will surge in consumer consciousness… ARE CHEAPER LENSES with the same or better quality, than its DSLR counterparts.
Portability???? Irrelevant to consumers whose smartphones grab decent enough pictures for online sticker-on-the-fly.
DSLR is not the enemy for mirrorless. IT’S THE SMARTPHONE INDUSTRY.
…”WILL ALWAYS cost cheaper, both in bodies, and lenses.”…
I just saw a recently released FF mirrorless that’s the cheapest FF body to buy today, but maybe that was in another world than the one you live in.
It’s always cheaper to make a camera without the complexity of the mirror box and viewfinder optics. The vast majority of cameras made today are mirrorless, and they are almost all cheaper than a DSLR. There is demonstrably no rule or reason why a DSLR would always be cheaper than a camera without the mirror and optical viewfinder.
I agree that DSLRs are here to stay, some people will always prefer the advantages of a mirrored viewfinder over the disadvantages of larger size and complexity, but I also believe that mirrorless cameras are here to stay and that some of the people who were previously using DSLRs have or will switch to using a mirrorless camera for the majority of the work.
I see no reason to believe that the innovations in the world of DSLRs are going to “probably” surpass those in the mirrorless camp. I believe they are going to be extremely similar, and that technology and design are going to be shared between the two approaches. The idea that major innovations are going to depend on the mirror box mechanism or optics in the viewfinder is, in my opinion, unlikely.
I agree that smartphones have taken a huge chunk of the camera market, and that for many people, the phones are good enough for what they want, which is to watch their photos on their tv or computer screen. But I don’t agree that that makes the question of portability moot. If you have to lug your gear around, portability still matters.
@Macx
Smartphones only take market share from cheap point and shoots, DSLRs are losing sales due to a lack of innovation…
DSlRs are in terminal decline like film is, DSLR’s best days are behind them
DSLRs in TERMINA DECLINE? God, that’s hilarious!
No, DSLRs are in constant innovation… wow… I’m very excited, can’t wait to see what next iteration will bring to the market. Maybe in-cam wi-fi… can you imagine that??
I’m not arguing about nonexistent innovation in DSLRs, but stating that they are in terminal decline is ridiculous! And I’m not a troll, I’m a very happy mirrorless user.
Smartphones don’t have usability in most real world situations…
They do, actually, since 99% of the “real world situations” are selfies and food photos.
I can hear you saying this a couple of decades ago….
NO WAY, sooner or later the mirrorbox will become VINTAGE STUFF. It’s 70’s technology we don’t need it anymore. Try the E-M1’s EVF and then come back to tell us. Let me tell you one little secret, do you know why canikon didn’t jump on the boat yet? Because THEY ARE SELLING their old crap tech. They don’t even need R&D anymore, as nothing new is developed, just the same of the same. Average consumer still believe a DSLR is better (mainly in us and europe), but we know it isn’t (well at this point I believe you know that). Do you know why a canon 50 1.8 sells for $150 and the new Olympus 25 is more than double? Simple, cause the canon was designed in (and is on the shelf since) 1980~. It’s more than paid.
Yes, mirrorless TV viewing is cheaper to manufacture than DSLR, yet savings are not passed to the consumer. Consumers are not stupid. Why give up superior reflex viewing for EVFs that even in this date are just not yet there, and pay more for it? This is the weakness of mirrorless right now; pricing.
Assuming there have been any real image making advances in the last two years- and no, I’m not talking about minor feature changes, I’m talking about image- and that is somewhat questionable- the superstition that DSLR formats will stay the same but mirrorless format quality will equal and surpass, is questionable.
Because is we claim the micro 4/3 will surpass APC, why can’t we just as well claim that Nikon 1 wil surpass micro 4/3? Does technology only benefit one tiny segment, or all?
Incidentally, the claim that micro 4/3 will surpass APC is also getting long in the tooth. There haven’t been real image making advances in micro 4/3 (and other formats) in a couple years now. What’s gong on here?
If pricing was the only point, $400+ DSLR wouldn’t sell…
My belief is that cheap DSLR will be supplanted by smartphone as compact did. Because ppl buying them only has basic needs and will realize that a smartphone (connectivity, software, size&weight etc) is more convenient to their use.
Lol, for shure not.
There will be a time where cameras not only have no mirror, but they will not have a mechanical shutter either…
But I think there will still be this big FF bodies, just without a mirror. But who cares.
This is a lot like all those tablets which have shipped but aren’t being used by anyone.
Saying that they’re in the channel is easy. Saying that they’ve been sold to end users is difficult.
@bousozoku
Olympus and Panasonic are running much tighter inventories and bringing out new models more often so it is likely their inventories are turning over faster…so their market share might be even higher than the shipped figures suggest.
Anything is possible, until we see the actual sales figures.
Everything I’ve been seeing suggests that Sony is selling the majority, but that doesn’t make sense to me, given their poor lens coverage.
Olympus was running a very close 4th to Sony’s 3rd in Japan for 2013 and could well overtake Sony in Japanese market position in 2014.
For 2013 I think Olympus was strongest except for North America, both Panasonic and Sony pulled back their mirrorless marketing with Sony also pulling back their releases but I expect both to have a stronger 2014…
“For 2013 I think Olympus was strongest except for North America, both Panasonic and Sony pulled back their mirrorless marketing with Sony a”
That’s cool, please share your numbers and a link. Where do Canon and Nikon and Fuji come on that official list?
@ronin
somehow how I do not think Canon and Nikon were strong in mirrorless in 2013 however Fuji likely was…
OK, so you can’t show any numbers or links for your claims. So you are pulling these figures out of where, exactly?
His a$$
I know where.. Same place he always pulls them out from,.but I can’t print that here as admin would have to then moderate my comment. 🙂
Ha ha. The only reason to keep lower inventory is because lower sales are anticipated. And the fact that a statement is made that inventories will be lowered does by no means make it a probability that sales are somehow increased.
Just because we stocked inventory last year and didn’t sell much doesn’t mean we won’t miss the mark yet again this year. We have a better track record of maintaining too much inventory than not; therefore, the mere statement that I declare to sharedolders my intention to reduce inventory by no means implies that increased sales automatically happened, and we cannot infer that.
Besides, these reports are on items *shipped*. That means they are out of the manufacturer’s inventory. They are now in the inventory of some retailer or subsidiary or distributor, and are no longer part of the manufacturer’s inventory. But still not yet sold.
@ronin
rate of turn RELATIVE to sales of inventory is the most important fact affecting profitability…suggest you read some books on running a business.
Since you are the business expert and have read books and are making conclusions, please let us know inventory turn actuals as well as sales actuals (not mere channel shipments) for the companies in question.
I can see those insecure DSLR people coming over soon and troll all over this place.
Price is not so important when they are justified by features, quality and/or convenience (size and weight). Real-time data on the EVF, high fps, silent operation (no flapping mirrors), huge view in the EVFs, excellent but small lenses, weatherproofing, …
Pity those who still drive big V-8 that do not actually perform on the road. Sure they are cheap compared to the MWs etc, pound for pound and dollar for dollar. For me, a camera is for enjoyment and not getting the kids to school. It will take time for the uneducated and under-privileged to get it though. Maybe another 5 years.
Not really sure where my D5300 fits in then. It is modern, small and cheap but it has a mirror. Am I an old fashioned idiot who knows nothing, who pays for old tech and drives a V8 car? Or did I buy a great camera for a great price that I can use with a massive selection of lenses? I think my D5300 is a VW Polo! M43 is overpriced in the uk (at the very least).
so you bought a mirrored camera cause mirrorless are still high priced…. hmmm… I can see an evolution here…
It’s not just the price, it’s a price / quality or value issue. The DSLR / SLR market is so much larger, older and more mature that it is more cost effective for the consumer. As has been repeated time and time again the m43 dream was for smaller and cheaper gear but that just isn’t the case. It is just smaller. It may well be well and attractively built but the final output can’t compete with FF bodies yet (ever) so m43 isn’t top end its just expensive and smaller.
For a ‘not so big’ camera with decent stills, video and a large selection of lenses the D5300 seems perfect and I don’t see a m43 competitor? In fact here’s my setup – D5300, Sigma 17-50 2.8 OS, Tamron 90 2.8 VC macro and Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 VC. I challenge anyone to come up with a comparable m43 setup for anywhere near UK prices.
@overthefence
The GX7 in the United Kingdom enough said…
No! You are the one going on about running a business aren’t you? GX7 is £690 and D5300 is £630 at Amazon uk. The GX is significantly more expensive.
What about the lenses?
m43 does not compete don’t make out like it does just because you have a m43 camera.
@overthefence
Panasonic is doing £100 cash back at the moment
Furthermore the d5300 and gx7 aren’t really comparable. I know dxo mark isnt perfect but:
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5300-versus-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7___919_901
You pay more for less? How is that comparable?
@overthefence
I would shoot against any Nikon DSLR with a GX7
I bet I would have:
better exposure – no overblown shots
better white balance
more shots in focus
better video
better in camera black and white
better natural reactions when shooting people and pets
Well used, a Nikon 5300 will run rings around any M43; but you haven’t got those “difficult” pictures in your website, more like decent candids, so an inferior format is probably good enough for you.
I don’t get the silly prices vs slightly better portability, but that’s just me. To each their own.
Yeah, because the sigma 17-50/2.8 is about as large and heavy as my e-m5 with 12-35/2.8 mounted, you still need to add a body.
The difference becomes larger when adding more lenses.
That size matters less to you, cool, but saying you only get a little bit of size reduction is simply wrong.
First of all the current Amazon.co.uk price for a D5300 with kit lens is £619.95 – compared to a GX7 that sells for £749, so even with a rebate it is more expensive. Which one you prefer is partly a matter of personal taste but also of shooting style. The Nikon clearly has the better sensor, although by how much may depend on the use case. So I think overthfence still has a point with regards to the price – and even more so if you take the D5200 that costs $489.99 with kit lens. I think it is fair to say that mirrorless currently cannot compete on price, at least not in general.
Now, GX7 vs Nikon. As it happens I shot both Nikon and the GX7. The Nikon (D600 but to a lesser extent also D7000) has less noise, gives more dynamic range to work with, generally exposes better (GX7 in darker environments tends to underexpose) and also nails focus more often in the context I shoot. The Nikon “portrait” profile in Lightroom as well as the one that comes with the camera for JPG gives what to me is looks better for shooting people. I also find the viewfinder in the D600 better for framing precisely – the GX7 one is not so good with glasses. Battery lasts about 5x as long too and the camera supports Auto-ISO also in manual mode, which is important to me. The Nikon also allows adjusting the minimum shutter speed and you can configure Auto-ISO to adjust to different focal lengths when zooming. And not to forget: the Nikons I shoot have some level of weather-sealing and two card slots. Then of course there is the 24MP sensor that also delivers more detail than the GX7.
What the GX7 offers is the ability to transport it in my coat pocket (in fact my winter coat allows me to carry my four prime lenses too), tiltable screen and viewfinder (which can be very helpful), a great touch screen, quiet operation (within the limits of the electronic shutter of course) and the ability to see the exposure in the viewfinder. Having a wider AF area can also be very useful. I don’t use video but I would assume that if you can make do without plugging in a microphone you may very well be better served with the GX7. The phone app also comes in handy on occasion.
To sum up, I get more keepers and with better image quality with the Nikons but I also value the GX7 for what it can offer me. This may differ for others of course and you are welcome to demonstrate that using the GX7 you can always deliver better photos than possible with any Nikon camera. Good luck printing large against a D800e or shooting low light sports against a D4… In fact, even the cheaper D5300 may very well outperform the GX7 when shooting action.
A D600… FX camera with large viewfinder versus D5300 with tiny viewfinder, and a rather different price. Somehow I don’t think that is a vefy good example, as the D5300 vf compares rather badly to it.
Btw, agree with what you say about the d600 and gx7 viewfinders and being glasses friendly, the d600 vf is unusually good for this whereas the gx7 is pretty bad. This is however not the rule for EVFs.
But beyond that, the 5300 has iirc 1 control dial and 95% coverage viewfinder among other typical ‘entry level features’, so in real world use it may not compare very well to either D7x00, D600, or GX7.
One could of course also buy an e-pm2 with lens for around $500, lots cheaper then that D5300…
Bart… Bart… Again with those pills?
Certainly Bollox, those pills are why I think an FX format D600 doesn’t really compare to a DX format D5300, and hence isn’t really going to tell you how a D5300 compares to some other camera either. Its also causing that hallucination that makes the D600 viewfinder look bigger and more usable.
Its also those pills that make me come up with that totally ridiculous idea that if price is an issue, you may try looking at existing cheaper models.
But maybe you should take some as well, you may end up being a bit less bollox.
You are right the the D600 plays in another league to the GX7 in terms of price; I only mentioned it because YouDidntDidYou said he’d shoot the GX7 against *any* Nikon DSLR and as the D600 is the one I am most familiar with I gave my view on how these two compare. You are right that the D5300 may not compare well with regards to all features, but I’d argue that depending on what features you want either may be the “better” camera. However, even the D7000 is cheaper in the UK than the GX7 and between these two I know which one I’d pick as I have shot the D7000 for over a year.
Again, people have different preferences but the original argument started about price and I still think that mirrorless system are overall not the cheaper choice (although they should be as they are cheaper to manufacture and service). Your point about the EPM2 is valid, but then if you compare that against the D3200 we are in a similar price range and the Olympus has no viewfinder and not exactly better controls.
> You are right the the D600 plays in another league to the GX7 in terms of price; I only mentioned it because YouDidntDidYou said he’d shoot the GX7 against *any* Nikon DSLR
Maybe it can compete also in low light (in this case with bright lens and short reach): it has (in-body) stabilisation, which D600 lenses without zoom does not have 🙂
@TR
Ok, I see where you came from with the D600 comments, fair enough.
With regards to the D7000 vs GX7, agree, purely because of the viewfinder, otherwise the GX7 is *for me* the better camera, but thats quite personal, and I can totally understand why it wouldn’t be for others. Btw, I’ve used one as well, and nowadays use a D7100 every so often. Very nice cameras to work with really.
The ‘issue’ I have with the whole price/feature comparison at the low-end of the market is that its all based on a rather random acceptance of which features a camera does and doesn’t have.
To me personally, lacking a second dial is often a bigger ‘issue’ then lacking a viewfinder, but not always, and then, thats just me, I’m pretty sure there are many who see this the other way around.
Anyway, I totally agree that ‘best camera’ is rather based on individual preferences, priorities, use cases etc.
@Ganec
> Maybe it can compete also in low light (in this case with bright
> lens and short reach): it has (in-body) stabilisation, which D600
> lenses without zoom does not have 🙂
It depends what you shoot, I guess. I do some street photography at night, so I cannot drop the shutter speed too much. For those shots I find the bigger D600 actually sits more stable in my hands. Even slower shutter speeds I am not sure the GX7 would come out better as it seems to me – but I haven’t looked at this systematically – that what I gain in lower shutter speed on the GX7 the D600 makes up with the better sensor. However, the GX7 can be much more stealthy, so it all depends on what I shoot and how. To me the two cameras are quite different beasts, which is exactly why I bought the GX7.
@Bart It is refreshing to see cameras being discussed here in a pragmatic way that focuses on usage as opposed to the fake DSLR vs mirrorless debates that some people here seem to love. I fully agree that depending on what you as a photographer value different features can be more important, which can make a standard feature comparison almost pointless.
For instance, I would find it hard to shoot without two dials, but I am quite happy with my EPL5 for infrared use – as I do mostly landscapes at day I set the lens to f5 and then I don’t have to touch any setting. However, I’d love to have a viewfinder as the screen is not ideal for precise composition in bright sunlight, and I really miss a virtual horizon too. On the GX7 the screen is so good I don’t use the viewfinder as often as I would have thought, but I really miss having Auto-ISO in M mode for night street photography. These are all valid points, but they may be more or less relevant for others, depending on how they shoot.
Anyway, enjoy the D7100 and the GX7, both are fantastic tools for a great hobby (or business indeed).
Dunno why I am writing this, the penny should have dropped by now…
Anybody who can carry a wee bit more (eg anybody reasonably healthy), and picks any M43 (yes, even the “pro” one) over a 5300, probably does not need a camera at all. There are phones you know? And you can also play with them.
This leaves out cripples and poor sods who inherited a lot of M43 “glass”. So, we have identified a target market now…
PS When I really want small, I have the superfast Nikon 1, the G16 etc. Those do fit in the pocket, and come with me climbing and skiing.
Want to expand the M43 market? Tell this to your bosses:
1) Cut those prices by 30 to 50%
2) Make a 125/250 mm zoom, reasonably fast
3) Make a 100 mm macro
4) Fix up those menus, I have no time to play with them.
Take some of those pills Bollox, it will help you understand all those things you can’t seem to figure out right now, and it may even help you dealing with this obsession for posting nonsense to a forum about things you don’t understand and don’t use.
I took photos in Las Vegas last week using a GX7 & 20mm f1.7 II while my son captured the same event with the D600 & 35mm f 1.4. I can show results which tell quite a different story especially concerning dynamic range and sharpness; (not to mention the oil spots from the Nikon shutter (already factory reconditioned once).
Same results from the Bellagio Hotel Fountains, and the Dam Helicopter ride. I am talking about several thousand photos. I can scarcely believe the results myself. Everything isn’t as cut and dried as some pixel peepers or fanboys might suggest . . . especially FF vs m4/3. . . . . and did I mention video?
Well, I shoot the GX7 with the 20mm f1.7 and the D600 with the (Sigma) 35mm f1.4 and both are good combinations. However, the Nikon clearly has better dynamic range and less noise – whatever else you may think of them DXO Mark tests do allow to make some comparison – and the faster lens makes the low light advantage even more obvious. However, that doesn’t say that you cannot create outstanding images with the Panasonic combination; in fact I’d argue that if you cannot take great photos with any current mid-range camera and prime lens then the fault is usually with the photographer and not the gear. So maybe it is just that your technique is better than your son’s? Especially him having issues with sharpness may suggest that the shutter speeds are too low or that he could improve his technique. I am not saying that to criticise him but simply to point out that comparing what two different people do with different cameras is comparing the photographers and not really the cameras.
@YouDidntDidYou +1 about preferring to shoot with the GX7 9,(stick to your guns). Except for sports photography, I would MUCH prefer to use the GX7. (I am not even minimally qualified to speak of sports or wildlife photography).
However, to have one camera with me capable of shooting just about any “ordinary” photography and video I will use the GX7.
Love it with the 20mm f1.7 for street and video.
For street photography I’d probably also pick the GX7 over the Nikon. Smaller, more discreet and the 20mm is, while not super fast to focus, still a good choice for street photography; Nikon sadly has a gap in its DX lens range and if the 35mm 1.8 doesn’t do the trick for you there isn’t much in terms of DX primes. Here m43 has a clear advantage over Nikon DX and also the Canon crop sensor cameras. Pentax do seem to get it though, their range of primes is much better. Anyway, pretty much all current cameras are very good tools, so it is just about picking the one that suits your application and style.
While I can’t dispute your assertion that perhaps my son’s technique may not be quite professional, (his pictures are generally the best in the family), we are talking about a couple thousand photos wherein I used GX7 & GH3 on the same photos as he used the D600.
I am NOT saying the GX7 is “superior” to the D600, only that I am surprised at the direct comparison photos. The following video was taken with the GX7 & 20mm lens . . . while my son shot a hundred photos with the D600, which I can show but you won’t like the comparison.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfSCPMadQ1E
Video unfortunately is an area I don’t have much experience with, so I cannot really comment on how the two cameras compare. If I’d be okay without using an external microphone I would probably use the GX7 because of the better display but it is not an area I can say much about. With regards to still photos I was just surprised that you had issues with the D600 dynamic range, which really should be excellent, and with sharpness – as you are using a great lens the only reasons for the latter I could think of would be technique, including shutter speed, and AF – maybe you need to fine tune the AF of the camera to that lens? If that was the issue that would highlight a clear advantage of the AF systems of mirrorless cameras as there is no front or back focus with contrast detect AF. Alternatively, it may just be that the D600 and your son don’t “match” – for instance, I like the Fuji cameras based on specs but they don’t feel comfortable in my hands.
Anyway, most important thing is that you enjoy the GX7 and it gives you want you want. Whatever camera comparisons say based on “objective” specs is irrelevant in that context.
@TR . . . because you are a reasonable and knowledgeable person, I will post a few comparison photos taken with the Nikon D600 35mm f1.4 vs the GH3 and GX7 and will leave you a link. I WOULD appreciate any insights you might have about using the D600.
@dollybunn – happy to take a look, and thanks for the kind words.
not exactly small, try not so big… (top view is also interesting:)…. omg, we’ll have to put a lens on it… http://j.mp/MVYe17
The D5300 is a nice camera. I almost got it, or to be more precise the D5200. But than I decided I want something smaller and bought an E-M5.
It was a bit more expensive than the D5200 but I don’t regret it, because I have it always with me. I don’t know if that would have been the same if I took the D5200.
I had the EM-5 before the D5300! And you are right on about the size (and feel). I wanted the EM-5 with me all the time!
But for me, I like shooting video and lack of frame rate options was a deal breaker. Such a shame as the EM-5 is great. I also prefer the autofocus of the D5300.
The lenses were too expensive though! Decent lenses but when you start getting a few they really add up. And the lens hoods. Etc, etc.
Funny. DSLR owners are insecure. That’s why they are always going around declaring the death of mirrorless. Oh wait, they aren’t.
This doesn’t even explain the fact that many consumers own both, because they see advantages in both.
For viewing quality, image quality, speed, performance, and most of all cheapness: DSLR
For lightness and smallness: mirrorless.
Features are a toss up. The differences in size and weight are kind of overblown, unless we get down to say the nikon 1 + lenses level. Don’t take my word for it- consumers are voting everyday with their wallets.
“Funny. DSLR owners are insecure. That’s why they are always going around declaring the death of mirrorless. Oh wait, they aren’t.”
Oh yes that’s exactly what many of them do. How many times have we read here that Oly will be gone and forgotten in two years. Do a search.
Actually, all serious camera owners are insecure at the moment. There are a lot of unanswered questions at every camera maker these days. How things will play out is very much in the air.
Personally, I don’t think of it as a mirrorless versus DSLR market. They’re both interchangeable lens cameras with much more in common than differences. And the market for interchangeable lens cameras is down, not up. Sure, there’s been channel stuffing going on in Asia with mirrorless that looks like growth, but I think everyone’s kidding themselves if they think that interchangeable lens camera sales are destined for 10% and higher market growth again any time soon, if ever. A lot of highly competent cameras have been made and the market is fairly saturated. It’s one reason why all the camera makers raced for emerging markets: the search for new customers.
What the market for interchangeable lens cameras looks like today: no growth, two dominant players who’d like to stay dominant, and a lot of smaller players who’d like to take market share, which would be growth TO THEM but would not necessarily indicate market growth. Thus, when they stop taking market share, they won’t grow, either.
It really doesn’t matter if you’re a m4/3, NEX (excuse me Alpha), X, Nikon DSLR, or Canon DSLR supporter. These companies are going to hash it out against one another. There will be winners and losers. It is extremely unclear who those will eventually be. You can root for a winner, but I don’t think we’ve seen anything yet that indicates who the eventual winners and losers will be.
The good news is that this is a form of competition, and competition makes products better, which is good for us users. Every company has upped their game (and don’t say the Nikon DSLRs aren’t better: the lineup of 24mp DX cameras is strong in terms of performance, and the D800 is still the best overall camera I know of on the market). Likewise, the Olympus m4/3 cameras have improved incredibly. I happen to very much like my E-M1. Panasonic, too, has upped their game.
The bottom line is that we all want these companies to compete. It makes for better products. Choose amongst those as you wish, but don’t wish for anyone to go away, because the moment we start losing players the winners will all get complacent.
“unless we get down to say the nikon 1 + lenses level.”
Gee, try a size and weight comparison between say a D7100 + 17-50/2.8 to say an E-M1 with 12-35/2.8. Now imagine what happens when looking at a much smaller body.
But but Canon has a much smaller APS-C DSLR body!
Certainly, and there exist MUCH MUCH smaller m4/3 bodies then an E-M1, so eh, no, doesn’t work that way.
APS-C will get you some better performance for significantly more size and weight but often somewhat lower price when trying to build otherwise similarly capable systems with similar level of handling. The size and weight thing are a matter of basic physics btw.
Oh, and what are you doing here other then trying to proclaim the soon to be death of mirrorless? I can’t be bothered looking for your older posts literally doing that, but they quite exist. Trying to prove your opening statement wrong or what?
Providing some counter to blind fanboyism is one thing, quite needed actually, but the kind of ‘creative truths’ like you are writing doesn’t do a good job at that, rather the opposite actually.
This thread has proven you wrong. It’s now swarmed by DLSR users spreading their crap, as usual.
Uneducated and underprivileged? You sound like a rich, pompous d…
Mirror less sales are constant but only in certain markets. I agree with the comments that mirror less should be cheaper than DSLR’s. This was the original sales pitch behind M43. Less parts, less complexity, cheaper production costs etc. The prices are not there yet, however the G6 and OMD 10 are an indication of things to come, one hopes and with the correct pricing strategies, they could make a real impact in the camera market.
I still believe mid level zooms are needed for the mum and dad shoppers. Lenses with reasonable apertures, size benefits and sharpness to highlight the benefits of M43 as a category. Something between F2.8 – F4.0 would be ideal. One only needs to see the price of the Sigma F1.8 constant zoom for APSC bodies to realise what M43 could have if third party manufacturers really jumped on board. That time is yet to come. Hopefully one day soon.
Panasonic just announced strong profits…
“Panasonic just announced strong profits…”
Cool, what was the profit in their camera division?
Does a camera sold by a Hong Kong Ebayer to a customer in USA/Europe count as an Asian shipment or USA/Europe shipment? Given the crazy list prices being set in Europe there is no surprise in these figures
The figures are for shipments to dealers, not to customers, which is why some are questioning their usefulness. The headline is a little misleading.
the dealers pay the camera companies for product
not the end user
First of all I think mirrorless 20% of global ICL cameras is quite good. Why? The two big elephants are not yet into mirrorless in a seriuos way. Their brands are so strong and people go CaNikon unreflected as they trust it will be a great camera. (And they are not wrong.)
When will mirrorless take over? The day CaNikon whole-heartily goes mirrorless – not before.
What was the Oly – Pana – Sony – Samsung -Fuji DSLR market share before the mirrorless era? Not sure, but something 15% if I remember right..
Another thing I do not see DSLR as Devil and mirrorless as God. I own both and happily uses both – for slightly different purposes. An example: I did a week of photo in Istanbul (2000 exposures) with my lightweight mirrorless. On the way home my thought was: Nice to get home, fill my camera backpack with my nice heavy, perfect ergonomy and head for the forrest and make nice autumn photo…..
Agree. I use both for different things. Additionally, I don’t want smaller and smaller mirrorless cameras, ergonomic lacks if it’s too small for longer shooting periods.
Technology is often at the cutting edge and therefore more expensive, this surely changes with time.
Is the Sony price so low on purpose or is it Sony’s strategy to get market share.
(To be fair, right now one needs to add many spare batteries, loader, adapters to obtain a similar package/performance as a DSLR (my D610 gets around 1400 shots out, per battery).
The interesting news here is that the Americas are finally lifting off with mirrorless. It is of special meaning since these sites are English speaking, and so we’ll have to deal with less trolls, hopefully 🙂
I think that ML works as a snowball, at least till it reaches 25% of the market. If Kodak makes supercheap prices in March, perhaps we’ll see another push.
The constant thing is how Asia continues to be the spearhead and main market. If you look at ClubSnap (Singapore) you’ll see that discussions and comparisons with dSLR are entirely forgotten- it’s a Western debate only.
And think that we are talking about Japan and the Straits. India and China, still largely untouched, so there’s a giant opportunity behind the corner.
Brazil, Mexico, Russia and Indonesia too…
To ‘spearhead’ a market means that there is a clear trend for change.
After five years, any sort of trend should be very clear. Unless there isn’t one.
You can’t have a moribund market and declare, ha ha, this proves we are penetrating.
This is the sort of delusion manufacturers pull over themselves. The kind that justifies them asking ridiculously high prices for their product, with artificially short product lifecycle churn. They keep declaring the death of their foe and that they are spearheading a market, even though it’s clear to everyone else they are doing nothing of the sort.
The graphs show that most of the market for mirrorless is right in Japan. It does not show the proportion of volumes of mirrorless in Japan. They do show the manufacturers, five years in, are having real trouble penetrating international markets. This late in, they may have even lost the initiative. If they can’t maintain some momentum and penetration internationally, they may have already peaked in market share. Not yet calling Peak Mirrorless- they have one more year, but their chances for a home run are shrinking rapidly.
@ronin
I’m pretty sure Micro Four Thirds is still achieving growth in all markets unlike DSLRs…
Please supply us with figures and links supporting your assertion that micro 4/3 is attaining growth in advance of that of DSLRs and other mirrorless formats.
Pretty sure? Can’t argue against such strong evidence. LOL.
This is only shiopments of the Japanase comapnies:
– only Japanese companies sells DSLR’s
– there is also Samsung, which is not Japanese company
=> mirrorless result may be a little better 😉
I think the only places Samsung mirrorless is having impact is South Korea and the USA
The good news is that Samsung is also building a very nice system around the new NX30. The new 16-50 f2-2.8 and the future 50-140 f2.8 S lenses (S stands for premium in Samsung lineup) will have a great impact in Samsung’s future sales.
http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/535302/samsung-to-out-sell-canon-and-nikon-by-2015
🙂
It won’t be the case in 2015 but I’m sure that in 8 to 10 years from now, mirrorless cameras will account for 80% of the sales in every category (entry, mid, prosumer, pro). MFT, Sony and Fuji will have the best market percentages.
Well I do not think these lenses are completely defeating the purpose of mirrorless. They are so large, they completely dwarf the NX300. Also: NX30 with the 16-50 is as big and heavy as a D5300 with the 1-55 Sigma. Also Sony 16-50, a very good lens, weighs less and is smaller…A 50-135 mm f2.8 or somethign like that…just way too big for a mirrrless cam and it offers nothing over DSLR APS-c cams. This won’t get Samsung anthing I’d say. I agree the lenses btw are nice. But Samsung has a lot to do. They are well behind in slaes, eposure and have not gained much since they entered the market in 2010, in contrast with their expectations btw..
@ YouDidntDidYou
Nobody here cares about what you think.
People care about facts and evidence.
Please stop posting dumb commnets, or provide proof like many of us are asking for.
Perhaps in a few years the word mirrorless will be forgotten. People will argue, justly so, that smart phones too are mirroless, and will see Samsung as a pioneer.
What matters here is that photographic abilities are not lost, say the Triangle of Exposure, and all the rest following. What we call Mirrorless are therefore the inheritors in the digital age, of the cameras of the past, specialised tools for phgotography.
Mirror or not, in the future nobody will give a fig. Multiformat lenses on the same sensor will be the advantage of mirrorless, Sony showing the way. As T. Hogan argues these companies are showing a tremendous technological push. Perhaps even the Americas are beginning to notice.
Lol. Is that the tiny bit of green at the bottom of the graph, to go along with the tiny micro four thirds sensor.
No.That color is the ever-so deep green of your envy of this beautiful camera system. 🙂
@YouDidntDidYou I noticed this is a topic you like so much. Can you tell me why? I’m just curious. (Me first: I find it boring and the only interesting thing is how some readers get almost mad at it)
+100
These graphs and half figures get interpreted/spun in many different ways usually in favour of DSLRs/canikon just trying to balance things out a bit with my opinions…(Micro Four Thirds users can be a bit too passive)
Today I just happen to be on the computer a lot (doing web design).
We can tell. Go out and learn photography, nerd.
+100
Pie Charts…please..poke my eyes out!
I love charts and graphs because the better they get the better my photography gets. Sarcasm.
LOL!…yes..if the charts and graphs have to do with IQ, NR…etc….but not sales and marketing ….zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
NICE! SO if the expensive 4k Panasonic is out
the then WORTHLESS g6 goes down to 299-329 euros and i
WILL BUY g6… how simple it is….so simple…
If the G6 is so “Worthless”, why purchase it??
Fanboys….
Balancing facts with opinions? Do you ever think before you type and hit the ‘send’ button?
True shipments are not sales but then the latter would be much harder to quantify from the multiple outlets and to verify with accuracy.
What I find most revealing is the fact that 76% of all cameras are being made for the Japanese and Asia markets while only 9% for the US and 12% for Europe! So those in US or Europe should not expect the cameras being produced to be exactly to their wishes.
I think ppl need to figure out what it doesnt say rather than what it does
that compact business is disappearing, when we already knew this
~ the thing is this business isnt going to camera makers but the phone business
that this isnt about the importance of europe and asia
~ but the rising importance (to the point of neglect) of asia
This is v. wise if it makes sense. 🙂
Do you mean that Asia being the rising market, doesn’t care anymore about dSLR or mirrorless, and tends to choose the latter as more practical?
If so I think the same 🙂
yes thats exactly what I think is happening
I thought about this in terms of the car market. For the first time I can remember, import car makers are offering less cars and car options for the US than they actually make. Some brands of cars are no longer shipped there, the whole focus of manufacturing is recoiling to Asia.
I think its likely Olympus are doing the same. What ever pressures there are from retailers is what is keeping the US shipments alive, but it doesn’t seem like the US is a major objective, it necessarily follows that therefore the efforts are going elsewhere.
It is perhaps interesting that the US seems to have more entrenched views on camera types, aka slr and mirrorless, but Asia doesn’t seem to see it this way. I don’t think there is anything ostensibly different about what these markets ‘need’, nor do I believe that cameras oriented toward females actually makes much of a difference. Yet undeniably the sales results are better in Asia, so the marketing focus is centered where it is most successful and the more difficult markets are left to wither.
Maybe they know something we dont… ?
@TR As promised here is a link to some photos taken which give a direct comparison between the D600 & GX7 in the same venue. If you are truly interested I will post similar comparisons from Hoover Dam & Downtown St. Louis. Like I stated earlier, the Nikon D600 started spitting oil on the sensor during our trip so if I post the other (outdoor) photos you will have to overlook all the “dirt spots”.
http://www.screencast.com/users/dolbydunn/folders/GX7%20vs%20D600
http://www.screencast.com/users/dolbydunn/folders/GX7%20vs%20D600/media/1b7eea6c-78c3-4854-94e1-fa2d56c1deaa
http://www.screencast.com/users/dolbydunn/folders/GX7%20vs%20D600/media/8ae8780d-c703-434d-868b-b15a762ab651
Quick look at the meta data,
GX7:
f/1.7
1/60 sec.
ISO 800
Flash fired.
D600:
f/1.4
1/40 sec.
ISO 500
Flash did no fire.