That mirrorless wasn’t a huge success in US and Europe as in Asia is known. And two articles at The New York Times (Click here) and USA Today (Click here) analyzed the situation. I cite three parts of their articles:
1) Nikon manager Okamato said “In Europe and the U.S. the ratio of mirrorless to SLRs hasn’t grown at all, unlike in Asia, where it’s quite popular with women because it’s light. We had higher expectations for other regions. But people who like cameras tend to just go for SLRs, even though they’re very heavy.”
2) Olympus Corp said on Thursday that its sales of its signature mirrorless model, the PEN, had fallen 12 percent in the first quarter, below its expectations.
3) Panasonic manager Darrin Pepple said “In the U.S. at least, [DSLRs are] still what they know and what they understand. We’re continuing to innovate in the way of lenses, size, form factors, trying to find the magic bullet.” Panasonic has found that DSLR-style feature sets are more attractive to Americans, and simpler mirrorless models failed to find an audience.
Mirrorless growth now stucks in US and Europe. I personally have the feeling that it’s only a matter of time until mirrorless will grow again. But I have to admit, this is just a feeling not based on real facts.
227 Responses
How will mirrorless becomes popular if its very expensive, even more expensive than a dslr? For a normal consumer, they would rather choose a dslr if they see that the price is almost the same.
m43 is super cheap if you don’t buy the last generation. How about an epl3 nowadays?
price is not the problem, there is mirrorless for every wallet. Perception is. it’s the perception that DSLR are the real stuff that prevent mirrorless to step up in Europe and the USA
I think it´s a combination of both:
Why buy a plastic and p&s looking E-PL5 without vf for 600 euros when you can get a D3100, 1100D or even 600D for much less?! And that regarding your grandfather always said, buy an slr for best quality!
well, I guess you have to compare this canon and nikon camera to the n-1 generation of m43 or nex.
A Pana G5 or GX1 does quite well in comparison in term in price/performance.
But I don’t even think that the people buying a DSLR and the kit zoom are really comparing them to let say an epl5/G6/gf6.
I think the difference is somewhere else: the better the smartphone get, the more difficult is going to be for the general public to see the difference between shots from smartphone and cameras’ with bigger sensor. Not everyone knows about DOF, etc, even in people buying DSLR nowadays. So you have to seel something that says right from the bow: I am better than you’re little phone.
it’s easier done with a DSLR camera…
For the moment, at least in USA and Europe, the mirrorless market is limited to people already owning a DSLR, and wanting something smaller without too much compromize on IQ or funcionality.
Seems there is one issue with CSC’s that hasn’t been well addressed: sports. the archetypal “soccer mum” (I’m a rugby dad), wants and asks for a camera that can take focused pictures of their kids at sports.
Because they haven’t been able to do this well, a CSC hasn’t been the answer to this question. I was an early adopter of m43, with the E-PL1 when it was released, moving up from a “bridge” camera. Frankly, I should have bought a DSLR then. My landscapes would have been much the same, my portraits might have been better (could have had a shallower DOF with available telephoto zoom lenses), and I would definitely have had better results with my kids sports.
Hopefully the next major leap in m43 will be effective PDAF for sports, otherwise my faith will have been unjustified, and I’ll probably buy a used DSLR package.
I would suggest that an analysis of buying decisions will show that buyers are usually informed well, and buy a DSLR over CSC because the focusing system is more appropriate for their sports photography needs. The buying trends probably mirrors the demographic: parents in the US, UK and Europe probably have a higher need for sports photography than those in many Asian countries, where the need is more for still life and social images.
Most parents aren’t stupid, despite the opinions commonly expressed on these pages. A good parent makes a careful buying decision with limited funds, based on careful research.
The AF issue is why I personally consider all improvements made to m43 so far to be iterative rather than revolutionary, for me. A reliable PDAF system will persuade me to upgrade to a new camera body and compatible lenses. Otherwise the E-PL1 will be retained for travel, and a DSLR will arrive for sports and wildlife.
EP-5, Expensive and will not sell. And now they want to drop a $1500.00 body only OMD?
Yeah, okay. What a way to get brought out, olympus.
Scoop up all the branded olympus stuff up, because soon, it’ll say “Sony”.
Following your logic then why buy an ep3 when you can get a rebel from the same year at much less.
That’s the problem, m43 capitalized on their fanboys and now that they have their toys not many people are left with that much money for a smaller system with a smaller sensor and less performance than equivalent slr offering.
I am one of those who chose portability and vast lens compatibility over performance but we aren’t the norm. Most people will happily carry a heavy camera if it means better IQ, support and less money.
Weight is not THAT much of an incentive. Smaller system should mean smaller price. If you take less material and if you have less parts than your competitors the price should follow. M43 has small cameras, small lenses, don’t have mirrors and the fine mechanism that come with them, no optical TTL viewfinder and the prism that comes with them and yet they cost more than their dslr counterpart. It takes a fanboy to compare an e-m5 with a D800 when a nikon5200 (7100 even) or pentax k5II cost less and has better performance.
I guess the Leica M should cost $400 – no TTL or prism, no autofocus, no mirror. What gives?
Rangefinder mechanism precise enough to indicate lens focus with almost perfect accuracy with an extremelly high refresh rate > ttl viewfinder AND mirror mechanism
Full frame
Leica overprices everything because they have the waiting list that let them do that, it’s retarded, sad and expectable.
it’s R&D cost your are paying.
The development of mirror box is done, not much to do here, so I don’t believe it cost a lot. New modules are first develop for expensive models before being trickeld done into lower level cams, after having pais the R&D.
On the other hand, Pana, Oly, Fuji and Sony have a lot of R&D costs to bring the level of mirrorless to the level of DSLR, developing their lens line up, EVF, AF, miniaturization, etc…. And there is little expensive models in which you can charge heavy amount for the R&D.
On top of that, there is less volume sold, so it get more expensive per unit.
based on my needs, an m43 make much more sens than a rebel. you know when you get a m43 that you’re making a small compromize on IQ Vs same generation aps-c sensors, but you gain on size (body and lenses).
That’s basically the m43 deal no?
thats why i’m gonna ditch my d7000 for a m4/3 cam.
Yes! Information to the consumers, read comersials, is needed big time! People only know of the (d)slr or p&s cameras. The advantage of the mft system must be explained!
There is no logic that mft bodies should be cheaper than an APS body. The advantage is the lens. Size and price/quality ratio.
It’s weird, because just right now the M4/3 world live the best moments, with better lenses and excellent cameras as the OM-D, the GH3 and GX7. Maybe the lack of improvements on the Sony Nex front, the uninspired Canon EOS-M and Nikon 1 has something to do with the lack of interest on the mirrorles market too.
I guess, that pricing 1000 dollars / euros the Ep5 (30% more than the Ep3, and almost on pair with the Nikon 7100) in a time of global crisis has nothing to do with its demise…
PINPOINT!
exactly. Good cheaper options exist. Volume sales are not made with the ep5/GX7. Volume sales are made buy selling epmXX, eplXX. gfxx and gxx. It’s these cameras that are not selling in the expected volumes right now.
May be the fact that they don’t look like substancially bigger/advanced than your average compact is for something in it.
As it is said in the article, people get a mirrorless becaus eyou want a mirrorless. Not because you get into a shop and stumble on one
m43 actually has a much better selection of native lenses (except for fast telephoto) than either Nikon or Canon on APS-C DSLR. APS-C has had to use FF lens to try and fill the gap and still there are gaps. DSLR still have an advantage with AF-C but that could disappear next year when on sensor PDAF becomes the norm. Sports and Wildlife Pros will still prefer DSLR but for the average consumer they no longer need DSLRs.
The biggest issue going forward will be marketing and changing consumer preconceptions.
cos most of them are junk , i mean there’s a lot of mirrorless camera out in the market. but looking back, until now, i vote only for gf1, omd-5, and maybe are few more 2 models around there.. but all are very similar and not quite worth to spend money on them… so to big companies : stop marketing bullshit and provide good cameras from time to time… with real improved sensors, design and DR or iso quality .
The GH serie is the one that made me consider m43 and is the reason I started suggesting it to my employers/clients, there is just not a single offering put there that betters its combination of versatility and quality, buy one rathers cheap camera and cover quite a huge amount of imaging needs at a very high quality level.
The problem is: how can you balance a good tele* with a pen or another mirrorless?
*…If you can find one!
I don’t think the average customer cares about balancing a tele all too much… look at all the people on holiday running around with DSLRs and kit lenses.
I am pretty sure 90% of the problem for mirrorless companies is really just the image: “good camera big DSLR”.
Yes mirrorless is for skall lens, and i in person use not zoom on my Pen`s too.
You don’t. Pens are urban cameras. American who still have real cameras in addition to smartphones are after Walden’s dream of uncorrupted nature. Not the Asians, or the Europeans – they now better.
Also Americans are unlearning photography while Asians are leaning it. Light will come from the East.
Yes, sure, the East.
Have you ever asked a Japanese young person (20-30 y.o.) to take a picture of you and your wife in front of a monument? They know NOTHING about composition, light, and all the very basic aspects of photography. And (mind) they go around with expensive cameras.
They know nothing about photography: they tend to buy the latest and greatest camera “just because”.
how many people did you ask taking a picture of you, to come to this conclusion? Or was it part of huge investigation where you had to ask multiple people nationwide? lol
+1
hundred, and hundred, over the years. Enough to have a clear idea of what to expect from now on…
“hundred, and hundred, over the years” ????
They can’t take a photo, but you can speak English? Sure…
You crap on the Japanese for not being good at photography (in your opinion), I do the same to you based on your grammar (fact).
Living in Japan and taking notice of the photography that is being taken here, I disagree with you.
I also notice you don’t provide links to your shots.
You are not very intelligent, unfortunately
Why not ask amalric the same question, since his supposition is just as unsupported and ridiculous?
thats because i have a weak spot for Japan…
Do you speak to him in japanese? maybe he was just a Thai tourist.
Well, I generalise. Fact is however that some of the best photogs. I found at flickr are Asian, and Chinese. Three of the best reviewers of m4/3 too.
Don’t forget that the Japanese and Chinese have some of the best and most ancient landscape art and painting in the World.
Chinese collected Russian and East German glass and cameras, made in old Zeiss factories and yet very inexpensive, so photography never really died there.
Strangely consumerism has been more lethal than Communism to skills. One learns better by restrictions.
Amalric, first I would not confuse Japanese and Chinese people: the quality of photo books in China (both PRC and Taiwan) is incredibly superior to those printed in Japan. But in general there is not real connection between these books and traditional landscape painting, whose aesthetic is very different from the rules applied to photo composition. It would be enough to remember how long are traditional landscape paintings (painted on endless rolls) compared to our pre-set formats (3:2, 16:9, etc.), which would have been completely despised by old Chinese masters.
The best Chinese (and Japanese, and in general Asian) landscape pics I have seen adopt the Western aestetics in toto, and any reference to the tradition is merely a quote, or, well, a reference
Look at Japanese woodblock prints, like Hiroshige or Hokusai.
Or watch just about any Japanese film from the 50s or 60s and study their compositions! Kurosawa, Inagaki, Ozu, Okamoto, Shinoda, Teshigahara, etc..
I was mostly thinking about Chinese paintings, not Japanese ones. Woodblock prints are a different matter, especially if we consider that, although officially during the Edo period Japan was isolated, in fact there is a strong influence of Western woodblock prints (especially Dutch) on Japanese ones. Recently there was an exhibition on Kuniyoshi in Roppongi demonstrating exactly this.
And, well, I don’t want to bash Japanese (or Chinese) tradition, as I like it very much, in fact. But, 1) West has elaborated landscape art through the centuries, independently from the East, and our modern rules of compositions (e.g. the rule of thirds) derive from this tradition, not from the Eastern one (and this was mostly my first point);
2) whatever the tradition, there is no doubt that in Japan many cameras circulate, but not many people know how to use them. This was my other point. In other countries there are not many people able to use cameras properly either, but the number of cameras you can actually see around is much lower.
Back in the early ’90s I collected alot of japanese magazines and books about japanese female idols, scanned them and was active in the scanner scene with well known names like Bluebird,Royo,Yellowbubble. Normally, if you scan photos from both mags or books at 300 dpi, you quickly have to deal with the suddenly clearly visible raster patterns from the scanned prints. At this stage scanners realize that many many model magazines and photobooks in japan are printed at 270-300 dpi. I scanned Chinese/Taiwanese mags and books too, but those are always printed in much lower in dpi as you see the rasterized photos already when just lookin in the mags or books. Maybe they are better now, but dont believe your claim that they are superior to the japanese printing.
They are definitively better now.
I went to the Book Fair in Odaiba in July, and the difference in quality between the Japan stand and the Taiwan stand was incredible. It looks like Japanese interest in photos is becoming more and more focused on mobile devices, while in China there is a recent trend of luxurious books that is very interesting. Not only photo-books. I saw many art-books (e.g. Chinese classics illustrated by old or new painters), printed on rise pocket-paper, in very high quality, which have no equivalent in Japan.
Yes you are right about the differences in format. This Summer I am studying classical Japanese art and gardens, so I am really learning again in my older age.
However you are wrong to think that there is no interchange with Modern Art and Western Art. The Luminous Landscape made a fine article on Oriental perspective and how to compose with it.
I myself shot 2 Japanese Gardens and that article was v. helpful. Also one of my Contacts at flickr is a Chinese village dweller operating a Rollei 6×6 in B&W and I find his atmospheric landscapes fascinating, very close to Japanese scrolls of the XVI century, which were heavily influenced by Chinese art.
So I learn from him too. Another realm of experience is Street Shooters from South Asia and China.
They are really naturals at it, and therefore I said that m4/3 are good urban cameras, They were probably the first to put it to good use.
I know that you will hate me for saying so, but if you want to have an idea of how is shooting in the streets of HK or Singapore, Just watch Kai, and how natural he is. Robin and Ming Thein for Kuala Lumpur and Singapore, even Tokyo
Asian photogs are really onto something in visual communication, and m4/3 is part of it. Therefore there is a virtuous circle that is still missing in the West.
But again I detect their use of atmospheric perspective, that was abandoned in Italian painting by the time of the Renaissance, when linear perspective took over, giving birth BTW to the Camera Obscura.
LL explains very well how to compose in the Oriental way, which is different from linear perspective, but that can be used in a camera too.
It’s interesting to read what you say. I don’t agree on everything (e.g.: atmospheric perspective was perfected by Leonardo, and then passed to the late Renaissance and Baroque masters; linear perspective was invented by Brunelleschi one century before Leonardo, and then passed to all Renaissance masters, including Leonardo, and almost abandoned by the late Baroque masters).
But I certainly agree that there was interchange between Western and Eastern art. I would argue that the basic rules of composition we use (2/3rds etc) are those first written down by Leonardo, and then perfected by the Dutch and Flemish masters. Our “modern” taste for landscapes was actually born in Holland, XVIIth century.
But, sure, once you master the basic techniques it is always nice to introduce other “points of view”. Japanese art, in particular the art deriving from Zen paintings, is certainly fascinating. I personally am not very much into street photography, so I cannot comment on that, and I guess I would need to read those articles in LL. Besides, I imagine HK to be more interesting than Tokyo for street photogs…
wow Amalric, nice to see a few coherent paragraphs that do not involve Neonazism, NSA and the like, and are just generally positive thinking.
“there is hope for the future of photography, it is far from dead in the east”
in my opinion, photography, just like art, is a personal endeavor.
Photography is about individuals capturing their fascination with the world around them – and as such I am sure it has a future in all over the world.
That future lies with the actual use of cameras (in any form) and sharing of the resulting images – and it has nothing to do with mass consumerism, sales figures, technology,…
These say as little about actual photography as DXO marks and highISO comparisons. As with so many things, the web is transforming photography. It is no longer living in art galleries, clubs and art books – it is much more omnipresent online – but with huge amounts of individuals producing endless amounts of photos with the unending line of short lived gadgets that cameras have become – there is bound to be a lot of garbage.
But the worthwhile stuff exists as well, and it exists in all parts of the world – no matter what the sales trends of the major camera manufacturers tell us.
+10000000!
Nice comment. Who’s it from? Thank you anyway, Anonymous.
Well, I have been living in Japan for two years, I can speak (some) Japanese, and I can distinguish Thai ppl from Japanese ppl very well.
In my trips through Japan I noticed that YOUNG people are completely unaware of anything related to composition rules. Older people tend to be better.
The most incredible thing is that people who buy expensive cameras usually are not those who are aware of how to compose a picture.
I have also noticed that, although there are uncountable clubs of photography (where I live, in Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, there are thousands), the quality of the photos of the paying members are very low.
I think more and more that here photography (or better: photo-gear) is a social hobby much more than an artistic one…
Whatever. The existence of those clubs is very important to keep the flame.
Just understand the awareness of a company like Olympus towards photography:
http://www.biofos.com/esystem/mft_trans.html
Artist will always be few in comparison, but they will be if the background is fertile.
What I contend is that photog. as art has been killed by commercial photography in the West, and had to go underground, like street shooting.
Mh, I can see your point of view, but I can’t share it.
From this point of view Japan is part of the West. Commercial photos in Japan are as important as in the West (don’t believe the “mystic” of Japan: Japan is meditative and zen as much as Las Vegas is).
I must confess that I like very much Japanese artistic photography, but the reason why I prefer it to Western photography is a bit more complicated to explain.
First, maybe, the number of museums dedicated to this art (e.g. the very important one in Ebisu, Tokyo).
Second, and more important, the lack of a real abstract painting in Western sense, which helped the artistic minds to focus their attention on actual shapes, much more than on abstract concepts (as in Western painting, with the consequence of a substantial diseducation to images per se).
But this is just an opinion, and I can’t really back it.
Anyhow, as soon as it comes to photo books, China rocks (while Japan doesn’t)…
photograpy as a hobby, especially joined events, are BIG in asian countries, I lived 2 years in Indonesia, a country where the majority is poor and anly a small part can permit a hobyy such as photography.I was blown away by the obsession of the photographer scene there, I made contacts and joined some sessions with groups of other shooters(mostly outdoors)and became myself obsessed with model photography too.
Indonesian photogrpahers are in general very talented, but they keep close to styles by the book. Other then that I can only say that make great photos in any genre. Hearing your stories, I cant imagine Japanese photographer clubs scene scene being lesser then the Indonesian.
Well, there is at least one very enjoyable aspect of this hobby tradition in Japan: if you get stuck because you want to take a pic, you are going to be respected for that. Not exactly this way in Europe…
I don’t think this is really anything new. When I started in photography, back in the late 60s /early 70s, my friends and I described the typical “Instamatic” user this way “Push the button and look.” In other words, they didn’t really know what they had captured until the prints came back from the lab, sometimes weeks or months later. People with heads cut off, crooked shots, the important part of the scene halfway out of the picture were things we loved to laugh at.
The “average” person taking pictures isn’t a photographer, no matter what gear they use. They just take snapshots to capture the memory of where they were or what was happening. The only real difference today is that they can take a lot more pictures, a lot faster, and share them more easily.
Sure. I don’t think that today is an exception to yesterday (so to say).
Nor I think Japan is an exception to the rest of the world, as far as we talk about the average ability of people.
The big difference is in the quantity and quality of equipment being bought. Nikon or m43, the fact that there are so many cameras circulating here does not really demonstrate a better attitude to quality photography.
But, sure, there are great photogs as well (as the museums demonstrate)…
How many people anywhere, if you just ask them to take a picture of you, will know anything about composition, lighting, etc. That is a common issue everywhere. Just look at all the junk that is posted on facebook, flickr, etc. This is a global issue. Not everyone is a photographer or model. There are no regional boundaries to this.
As to the mirrorless issue and even DSLRS or other high end cameras, one of the major impacting factors is the prevalence of smartphones with cameras, which is impacting the entire photographic spectrum even though most of it is junk. More an more people say, “I don’t need a camera. My smartphone has one.” And then they use all the available apps to enhance their images and feel satisfied. Mirrorless will survive just fine. It is in fact the future. But it still has some growing up to to do.
In the US, the sales of DSLR’s has more to do with prestige then photography. Buy what is biggest and what the sales people say is best, so you can talk about it and show it off. Got a brother like that. Lots of money in DSLR with big lenses. But he doesn’t know how to use it so takes 98% of his photos with a little panasonic pocket camera cause he doesn’t know how to use the DSLR. But when he talks about his photos, he talks about his DSLR. Yes there are some serious DSLR users who understand about sensor sizes, lens/image quality, etc., but then they are “real photographers” who can pick up almost any camera and get a good photo with it.
Yes, sure, I agree with that. In general I would not handle my camera for a pic to someone who is using a camera-phone.
Still, the high quantity of wrong pics taken by ppl who sports a nice camera (DSLR or mirrorless) hints at not judging a photographer from his / her camera…
Don’t u know how to take ur own selfies?? If “everyone is so bad why don’t u bring a tripod???
Answer is obvious: I don’t ask people if I have a tripod with me. But if I don’t have a tripod, or I can’t use it (e.g.: many important temple gardens in Kyoto forbids the tripod) then I have to ask.
And, well, actually I am not very fond of pics with “me in front of something”. I don’t really consider them quality pics. But heck, if I am somewhere with friends (or my wife), I’d like at least a memory of it. And here comes the inability of other people to take pics with a decent composition…
What incredible anal discharge. You are very good at it.
Thank you for making it better.
yeah…discharge is the operative word there. This guy is a TOTAL idiot and just likes to hear himself type.
Like your comments!!! “American who still have real cameras in addition to smartphones are after Walden’s dream of uncorrupted nature.” …and legalize fracking on any private ground and in any natural reservation.
Sounds like dissociative personality disorder. No DSLM marketing can win here.
Oh I agree. Self image and reality can be v. different. The British celebrate J. Austen all the time, and yet they will start fracking in W. Sussex.
Dickens who knew well his culprits spoke of ‘Dark Satanic Mills’.
“Sounds like dissociative personality disorder.”
That’s what what happened when one is using a camera geared for the opposite sex without a collection of high end lenses. One must have a collection of at least 5 lenses costing more than $1000 to address the imbalance.
Yes, PENs are urban cameras, which puts them up against camera phones and compact cameras. I have always thought that the strength of mirrorless is the high-end cameras like the OMD and GH3. I like what Fuji is doing by limiting their bodies to a few X bodies. I always that the numerous Pana and PEN bodies was duplicative and confusing for the consumer. Oly and Pana seem to be trying sell to everyone from the P&S to Pro level while not defining the market.
In fact I can’t understand why this m43 cameras would be only urban cameras. They are small but theoretically capable of excellent results. What’s better during a long trip or a mountain hike? That would be MY first use for a mirrorless. For architectural photography (church interiors, house façades, etc.) I would still pick-up a DSLR…
Dude you have a very serious problem! Your pathetic to use camera sales to fuel and spew your hatred for anotber country!
You need to vet that noggin checked out because you have serious issues? Are you mad because Americans have more hair than you do??
The crappy EOS-M was a clever move by Canon for sure.
For Canon it’s easy in US. It’s same with Apple. They hardly know anything else because of a long and huge marketing massage that says how cool it is and people want to be cool there. That’s why Amazon rankings are occupied mostly by Canon followed by Nikon. It’s about money for marketing in US. And minority of knowledged people don’t make a big hole in statistics.
In Europe it’s better I think, so it’s just a matter of time. With latest GX7 I’m back more optimistic than pesimistic.
It’s probably the “biggest is best’ mentality that continues there. When you see some ads from there it can be ‘We are number 1 & we have the biggest & best’.
That’s why Panasonic is trying to make GH3(+grip)and G6 bigger than the previous G and GH series
we just wait and see the results…
The article says it already: The problem is the user/consumer. They want a traditional camera, like the Pros have one. Ich has to look like a professional tool and not like a underdog. Only experienced users take a DLSM and more and more professional fotografers. Almost in their spare time.
Oly, please make E-7, E-40 and E-700(710) – DSLRs are what people really want. Panasonic, you can move on with L2 and L20.
Or make mirrorless camera suitable for pros (hope E-M1 will be such a thing).
Mirrorless cameras are too fiddly and too expensive. Oly and Pana need to offer cheap bodies with easy to use controls, a built in flash and a built in viewfinder. Forget tilt screens, add on flashes and add on viewfinders.
All the add ons add up. Why would anyone wanting a better camera than their phone or point and shoot pick a mirrorless camera that they have to buy all these add ons for when they can get a smallish DSLR like a Nikon D3200 which has everything included for much less?
Right, they are expensive, but portable computers that are powerful and lightweight are also more expensive than the bulky ones. So miniaturization has its prize. You should know that before purchasing anything.
Only the ones with fruit on them are 😉
Well, these are special. Ten years ago you bought that stuff because it was cool and paid the prize. Today you buy it because you have heard it might be cool, but obviously the coolness has been reduced to the fact that this stuff works even if you have no idea what a computer might be 🙂
I agree. Still think they need the high end (GX7) but a basic model like this at the right price would bring more people into the system.
What are these add-ons you are talking about and how is everything “included” in a D3200? IBIS? Crappy OVF?
Imagine I want to upgrade my point and shoot camera. Like most people I want better image quality, a better flash and a viewfinder to aid composition in sunlight.
I go to Amazon.co.uk and look at the current models.
A Nikon D3200 with kit lens has all that I want for £359.
An Olympus EPM2 with kit lens costs £399 but has no viewfinder. An add on viewfinder is an extra £129.
A Panasonic G6 has all that I want but is £579 with a kit lens. Even if I compromise and go for the outgoing G5 it is still more than the Nikon costing £449.
I could go on with NEX etc. but there would be no point because the Nikon D3200 always costs less. It has a bigger sensor than m43 and there are more lenses available for it. Regardless of what you think about OVFs and IBIS most people will pick an entry level DSLR over a mirrorless camera because it represents better value for money.
The sales figures show that mirrorless cameras are not selling well. Why do you think this is?
Well put. Add to your analysis: If the buyer asks the question of an informed adviser “Will a DSLR be better for my kids sports”, the answer still has to be “Yes!”.
And most parents recognise that their cellphone/compact is crappy for kids sports, it’s often the ONLY reason they want to upgrade in the first place.
Nikon is all Doom and Gloom about Mirrorless cameras based on their own line of over-priced and under performing Mirrorless cameras. These Nikon cameras have a sensor that is too small for higher performance, when they probably should have built their cameras around the APS-C format like Sony did.
As for Olympus sales being down, they did not have any NEW cameras or lenses until recently, so likely the next quarter will tell a different story. ( same goes for Panasonic with the new G6 and GX7 cameras )
I wouldn’t be too nervous. Three months ago everybody was suer that mirrorless was the future. Now somehow the market is weak and everybody fears the end of mirrorless. We have seen a lot of innovation dynamics in the camera industry, now it is slowing down a bit, so what? The concept of mirrorless cameras is good but it might to take some time for a broad diffusion. I remember a story from my home town. A new street was build, an additional link between to major streets which was really useful. But, in the beginning nearly nobody used the new street and the administration was accused of burning tax money. It took a year or two before people realised the advantage of the new street. Today nobody wants to miss that street anymore. In the end one or another mirrorless system might vanish, but I belive the concept will stay. So be patient and enjoy your nice little cameras!
One of the big problems is that Panasonic and Olympus are TERRIBLE at marketing and bringing product to the market in the U.S. It took roughly a year after announcement for the GH2 to be available, a year for the OMD to be available, and for both cameras, you couldn’t get spare batteries or standard accessories for an even longer time.
And how many commercials or ads have you seen for Micro Four Thirds? Most people don’t even know the system exists. We need a douche like Aston Kutcher to sell cameras! 🙂
And when I see reports like “Panasonic will release a black GX7 in the U.S. if there is enough desire for it” or “Olympus didn’t make enough batteries because they had no idea that the OMD would be a hit”, I cringe. Really? How are you going to determine if there is a market for it when you don’t make or ship enough? And by the time you determine there is a market, people have already given up and moved on.
I’d say it’s because of the initial bad sensor performance.
If mirrorless would have started as DSLR-equivalent in terms of IQ this would probably have been different. Vendors would always tell you (rightly) that a mft has worse IQ than a DSLR. Back when I considered my first mirrorless I went to a local shop and got some files from a GF3. The quality was way behind what similar priced DSLRs would deliver. And that’s just been one year ago. Things have changed now but this bad image has been around for several years until the OMD was released, so it’s gonna stay for some years at least.
Added to that, Nikon continues to spread this bad image with their One series. An average consumer might think, “if even Nikon can’t produce mirrorless with DSLR-like IQ, why should an electronics company like Panasonic or Sony be able to”.
Olympus and Panasonic should just have started with APS-C and all of this ‘only nearly as good as’-image would never have been created in the first place. NEX/ NX/ Fuji still offer considerable weight/size advantage over DSLRs.
Olympus/Panasonic don’t promote their products that well in North America. I am from Canada and I am quite surprised as to how many people ask about my PEN camera because they have never seen/heard of one before. When I walk into Best Buy and related big box stores (which I think Olympus/Panasonic should really be targeting), There would only be the lonely PM2 in a corner of the camera section, and I never see any Panasonic models at all.
However, a couple days ago I walked into Best Buy and I saw that Olympus has put more models in: PM2, PL5 and to my surprise OMD on display. I was actually quite shocked that Best Buy had the OMD, as I have only seen it at specialty camera stores behind glass walls. There were actually two families looking at it and trying it out, while no other camera was being looked at.
Maybe this push of Olympus products into these bigger box stores will help them out.
I agree 100%. If Panasonic/Olympus wants to sell more Lumix in the US, they need to get into the big box stores in a big way. The average Best Buy has a few Canon SLR’s, a few Nikon SLR’s and a handful of lenses for each system; they also have at least one Sony NEX and a few lenses. What sells in the US? The same cameras.
People who are already into photography read websites and preorder from Amazon/B&H/Adorama. People who just want a “good” camera go into a store and want to hold one in their hand.
With the slow death of the chain camera stores, the smartest thing Panasonic/Olympus could do would be to put mini-store-within-stores in Best Buy / Target / Fry’s / etc. that displayed 2-3 cameras from each maker, 2-3 lenses from each maker and emphasized the breadth and depth of the whole system, superior size, etc.
I think that the main problem with mirrorless cameras has less to do with mirrorless than with DSLRs.
Why?
DSLRs have become very inexpensive and good value for money.
CaNikon have been able to take lower margins per unit with cost cutting and volume.
Because Olympus and Panasonic can not get its sales volumes up, they need higher profit per unit sold than CaNikon.
Also Olympus and Panasonic does not have the balance sheet to take on CaNikon…
– Miniaturization is expensive.
– Global sales and marketing is expensive.
With the new announced GX7 and EP5 at 900 for body only and to be announced successor OM-D at 1’500 for body
I do not see any improvement in the near term.
“DSLRs have become very inexpensive and good value for money.”
I agree. Unless you have specific requirement like having a good movie capability, there is not much of a reason to buy m4/3 if it is more expensive and there are less third party support (Tamron, Tokina, and a slew of companies making accessory products come to mind).
Additionally, CaNikon releases entry level APS DSLR from CaNikon much smaller today than for example the original Digital Rebel, a conscious effort to address the size disadvantage.
And, a DSLR is better for sports. Kids sports. Which is why they are purchased as a family camera.
I assume you say DSLRs are better for kids sports because of PDAF, but that’s really not true any more. The C-AF of entry level DSLRs is pretty mediocre. Today’s best m43 cameras (OM-D, G6, GH3) are, I think, better. Mid-range and high-end DSLRs are probably better, but that’s not what the typical soccer mom is using.
In fact, the G6 appears to be better than quite a few mid-range DSLRS: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51955665
And here’s another test showing the best CDAF systems are as good as PDAF
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51957330
Micro 4/3 are always late in sensor’s battle…the real front.
They also need more camera build in viewfinder like OM5 and GX7…I believe in olympus since my first EP-1 and i’m very happy with my EP-5 and my wife’s E-Pm2(ibis is so great).
Now i want a hight end OM7,more fast prime(1.2)and quality zoom weather sealed.
Not so surprised for nikon…and IMHO m4/3 seems to reached their peak of product life cycle.
Go to the big box stores and see what is being sold to the general public. There is very little micro 4/3 product on the shelves. Ask your friends what they think they should buy if they want to upgrade from a point and shoot. They will automatically say they want a DSLR. They say that because the micro 4/3 products are not being marketed properly and they lack a presence in the consumer electronics stores. They don’t sell Panasonic or Olympus cameras at Best Buy or Costco. But you can buy the D3200 kit with two lenses at Costco for $899! Somebody said it before – The micro 4/3 cameras are not packaged and priced for the general public. If panasonic packaged the G6 with a 14-35mm and a 35-150 kit lens and sold the package for $899 and put them into Costcos across the US, they would sell millions. Would I buy that kit? No. Would I recommend it to my friend? Sure.
i think miroless cameras are very very good products, but clearly overprices… especialy compare with entry-lever DSLR… they should be cheaper, they are often more expensive.
I am big m43 fan and mirorrles overall(eg fuji 100)…
just dont have enough money to buy all the stuff I want
… as I need to pay the flat, childrens(and wife too), other hobbies etc… so dont expect the people will buy new camera every year…specialy for such ridiculous price tag as EP5 …make the bodies affordable and lenses just a bit affordable and you get more sold
The main problem isn’t mirror less but canon and Nikon doing such horrible jobs. If one of them would adopt the m43 format and pull off a om-d or gx7, there would be a huge movement away from dslr sub 1,000.
Canon simply messed up or purposes did so in the mirror less and Nikon tried with 1 but really it should have been aps sized not 1 inch.
Canon and Nikon are never going to join a standard that includes a common lens mount.
Couple that with olympus and Panasonic not doing an effective job of promoting the huge gains made in tech the last year. I remember the great commercial “this commercial was shot with this camera”….they need more of that.
A commercial of a guy holding a huge dslr with 300m prime falling over, looking like an idiot etc. and a guy with an omd strolling along, at a wedding as a pro, at a kids ball game etc snapping away….
And get the product into the stores…
Don’t care I’m asian
I think the mirrorless manufacturers have done a pretty poor job of promoting their products and educating the buyers. Most of their advertising seems to emphasize small size, with little or no mention of advantages such as focusing accuracy, video integration, live view or the advantages of EVF viewing. Here in the US I would guess that only a tiny percentage of camera buyers even know what mirrorless is. I don’t think I have ever seen an Olympus or Panasonic mirrorless television ad, and the Nikon 1 system ads never mention mirrorless.(To be fair, buyers don’t know what DSLR means either, just that someone told them that’s what they want.)
One hopes this will change with Sony’s major commitment to mirrorless. We will have to wait and see.
my guess would be that consumers want a sharp pancake 12mm for $300-400 instead of $800 with f4.0 because most people don’t cream themselves over “creamy bokeh” and don’t care about whether a lens is metal or plastic since both materials are recycled every single day all around the world for pennies
or… maybe they really want expensive pro stuff so that they can keep themselves entertained while they are unemployed during this recession
In Asia you can see,find and try micro 4/3 in store…new product and good lenses are in stock.
In my country,France it’s hard to find the latest micro 4/3 product in store and the seller always try to sell a Canikon.
Well exactly, sites around the Malaccan Straits, thrive with m4/3. Singapore, Malaysia even Indonesia. Then you have South Korea.
Actually you can find m4/3 cameras and accessories in… gasp! Brick and Mortar Shops. And they have commercials about them.
Olympus at least opened marketing units in China and India: that is surely the future. It is one of the reasons why I don’t believe in the demise of m4/3. Although I am pretty sure that they must have lower prices if they want a victory there.
I live in a small town (100 000 ppl) and in May I wanted to try out the E-PL5 in person. Although there are many shops with electronic goods and only one photo shop there they had only TWO E-PL3 and ONE E-PM1 for the whole town! The photo shop sells Nikons and the owner still thinks that mirrorless are inferior to DLSRs. He claims this but in reality he doesnt want to hear/confess that – let say – E-PL5 deliveres enough IQ for BFU. In the end he said that doesnt understand one customer who bought D7000 and shoots with kit lens and edits his photos on cheap netbook!
I couldn’t care less about what Nikon says. They never made a mirrorless camera, they only made a compact camera with interchangeable lenses, and very few lenses. It was destined to fail. Actually, someone even said that Nikon did this by purpose, to “prove” to they loyal customers that mirrorless doesn’t worth it. Who knows…
I teach photography here in Brasil and gave some classes to a girl who was working on the i am nikon campaign at the time. Nikon had just released their 1 system at the time and i ask her why? why this sensor and all…i told her dsrl users wont buy that…she respond to me: Nikon is only filling a gap, they care very little for mirroless..i guess she was right.
It’s a marketing and availability problem. The general public in the US doesn’t know about Olympus, Panasonic or Fuji interchangeable lens cameras. You can’t even find their cameras in stores (only the point and shoots). Best Buy has some old Olympus PEN models with maybe one lens. Frankly I wouldn’t buy those either.
Moms and dads know about Canon and Nikon. Maybe Sony. That’s what the other moms and dads have, so that’s what they’ll buy.
Don, you are right, but there’s more to the decision making than availability. DSLR’s are better for sports than CSC’s, because a DSLR uses PDAF. And most parents want to shoot sports. Frankly, a CSC is a worse choice for a family including sports photography in their “basket of needs”.
Not really. Entry level DSLRs (like Rebels) actually have pretty mediocre C-AF, and mirrorless (at least m43) keeps getting better. See:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51955665
And here’s another test showing the best CDAF systems are as good as PDAF
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51957330
Mirrorless is clearly the future. Will it be m43? I don’t know. It could be other systems, but they will be mirrorless. (The market will support a range of sensor sizes but within limits.)
Size-wise m43 is the sweet spot for me. I’ve owned APS-C and the overall kit was too large. If I wanted more than one lens, it meant a heavy bag for walking. One-inch sensors may have a future, but the tech is not there yet.
As for DSLR owners, I suspect there are 2 types. There is a small segment of enthusiasts and professionals that use them all the time and with good reason. Weight and size are not so important if your job is to take pictures or are happy to lug a huge backpack of gear around to get a particular shot.
The other group of DSLR users, and I suspect the majority, rarely ever use their cameras. They get them for that one big trip to Africa or where ever (or for the dream of that trip someday) and then rarely ever use the cameras. Its like 4-wheel trucks driven around the mall parking lot. “Hey maybe someday I’ll need it when I maybe someday go camping or hunting or something (still need to get that tent!)”. More and more of these users are figuring out they can just use their phones; I will not be surprised to see this segment drop as well.
First of all, nikon is far from an example. The worst mirrorless out there. Second, price is a big problem. A D5200 is cheaper than a just released oly or panasonic…and the biggest problem is that people still dont realize the advantages of mirrorless..that samsung commercial is a GREAT way to get people to understand a new market and its advantages…i still bet on the mirrorless market..its the way to go…
There are a couple of other factors. One is the “debt overhang” in the U.S. Consumer spending is affected by this, and also consider that if you have a D3000/Rebel/D90, what innovations in the past few years warrant an upgrade for the vast majority of soccer moms/dads? Pixelpeepers will see the value in upgrading to a D7100/D600/6D/etc., but if you’re using the kit lens and taking pics of your kids or trip to Disney, I don’t see a reason for people to upgrade from earlier models.
Bingo. Definitely a factor.
The other is competition among segments of the electronic industry. When must-have devices like phones get more expensive, then people have less to spend on eg cameras.
I wish oly think the bigger picture, sell the flagship model and budget version with reasonable pricing. EP5 for 600 usd and EPM2 for 300 usd (both packaged with kit lens 14-42mm) and go for much bigger volumes instead of raking insane profits. If they are smart, start selling bundles for larger lens volumes: EP5 with 17 1.8 and 45 1.8 for 1200 usd or EPM2 with 17 1.8 for 500 usd + 100 usd coupons for old VF2.
They use less material than DSLR, smaller sensor, yet charging crazy prices on PEN cams. I mean, businness is all about profit, but at least they have keep it real 🙂
“People go for SLRs because they’re heavy” – *NO*, they go for SLRs because they are big enough. They can be gripped, they have buttons that you cannot press by accident, they handle well, they have a solid set of lenses, they have long battery life.
Logical solution: make normal DSLR-sized mirrorless bodies and enjoy rolling in cash.
m4/3 “logic”: Let’s produce diminutive shiny dreck and cater to the camera joshi (which seems to have worked…), or in other words produce fashion accessories.
Awesome.
m4/3 is dead the moment Canikon gets proper PDAF on sensor. Dead, entirely.
Most people shoot their DSLRs in auto mode. They couldn’t care less about the buttons or the grip.
Perhaps, u havent tried the m4/3 before
This was a ridiculous analisys. Buy your dslr, be happy and stop dreaming about m4/3. “Big enough”… pathetic….
Americans don’t buy mirrorless because they don’t know it. Period.
Products are not advertised, salesmen at big stores are not trained, strangely PanaOly don’t invest in marketing in the Americas. Wierd for me is that they don’t understand why they don’t sell. Jackson (below) said it all. Companies should make sales/marketing actions, let people try products, print images, etc… and spend money on advertisement. They are far behind on this department.
exactly
Marketing. Get products into shops (on consignment); start a “Micro-4/3 Ambassador” project; offer trade-ins on DSLR’s and P&S cameras (of own and other brands); design a rugged “foreign assignment” camera; make a 400mm prime (“oooh, that’s 800mm full-frame equivalent!”); include pouch, hood and UV-filter with every lens; etc.
People are strange animals….
I recently came back from Taiwan/Malaysia and observed the following:
1. Lots of people carry mirrorless in Taiwan and Malaysia
2. Mirrorless advertisements in subways, billboard and TV commercials. However, in the US I haven’t seen a single mirrorless commercials and or advertisement in newspaper. Granted I don’t have cable but definitely I haven’t seen any mirrorless commercials.
Don’t know for whole Europe, but in France you won’t see any ads, and you’ll barely find a mirrorless cam in a store (it’s worse for lenses).
If Apple had taken the approach that the smartphone should be a clamshell form-factor, would they have been successful?
It’s not about looks (although perception has played it’s role); it’s about a total package (form-factor, ease of use, features and capabilities, and of course marketing).
Mirrorless is getting what it has earned so far.
Yes the is to much mess by mirrorless camera producer.
When I was in Hong Kong, you seen MFT adverts in a lot of places. In the malls, there were MFT cameras front and center.
Here in NYC theres Canon and NIkon ads on billboards, magazines and commercials on TV, NO MFT ads anywhere.
The majority of camera purchasers don’t know what a MFT camera is, so if it’s anyones fault, blame Olympus/Panasonic.
That J camera was so totally unappealing you have to wonder if it wasn’t all just a plan by Nikon to kill the mirrorless market.
I think the key is the EVF technology. When EVF resolution reaches 6 megadot, it will be able to compete with optical viewfinders. DSLRs did not take off until the digital rebel came out with a 6 megadot sensor and a price tag under $1000.
Absolute, if folk not can use a camera, can them look in an OVF or EVF see difference self.
That’s an interesting approach, however it doesn’t apply to me. When using and OVF I was always aware that my brain was making predictions about how the sensor would render the scene. The rendering is indeed very different from what your eyes see, and then I became aware of how an EVF can help for EV correction and proper WB, BEFORE the shutter is clicked.
So you might be right but only in the sense that people, even Pros are not aware of how an EVF helps. This would never cross the mind of a videographer. After all you have two eyes: one to reconnoitre the scene, and the other one to predict what the sensor would see. And you wouldn’t?
One can imagine a scene with a dSLR but one cannot really see it.Photography and eye vision must necessarily be translated by a device anyway.
Indeed, an EVF helps in ways that are difficult to grasp for many until they have some real experience with it, which as you say most videographers do have.
A while ago I was reading some blog post from a photographer/videographer struggling with this aspect. It was kinda fun in that he actually knew because of his video experience, yet he had a hard time convincing himself that it would work for photography until he had actually used it. Its too bad but when something gets repeated over and over people will often believe it even if they do in fact know better.
you dont need 6 mp for a viewfinder. Maybe if your EVF would be 6 inch size ok…buteven 2,5 mp is already close to overkill(but prob is a plus when you use magnify mode for critical manual focusing). EVF is WYSIWYG while OVF is WYSINWYG 🙂
Very true. In fact the EVF gives some visual cues so that you can correct the settings of the camera beforehand. One needs information about the scene, one does not need complete reproduction.
I remember that when I began film B&W I was constantly adjusting my predictions through trial and error. In fact even today I do the same. I make predictions about exposure, colour, etc. In difficult light one can be fooled, and the EVF helps considerably. But if needed I can also shoot blind.
These days users rely too much on auto features. The camera has an expert system, but it is not fool proof. It doesn’t have a soul. You must provide the reasoning.
It’s just a question of spreading knowledge and changing habits.
Why do American car drivers prefer automatic gearshift and European manual gearboxes? Why do Amercan drivers call diesel engines old-fashioned while European drivers call them efficient.
A lot of my friends are mechanical and electrical designers, but they don’t know what a mirrorless camera is. So how should a “non-technical” person know about this new concept which offers best picture quality in small bodies with interchangeable lenses?!?
But there also is a huge crowd of professional photographers who understand the new concept. I think a lot of them would even like the picture quality of modern mirrorless cameras, but they fear to get a toy instead of a tool. Because of that ergonomic camera bodies and excellent viewfinders should be offered with high-end camera targets in order to convice these people, too.
Yes, but only look on Olympus the go four year to Pen come by two realy dial wheel, and an realy spec, of course to an high price, but anyway.
I think it is as simple as Americans equate bigger with better. Carrying a DSLR makes you a prosumer, carrying less makes you a consumer.
certo, a me sembra ovvio se per acquistare una buona 4/3 ci vogliono 1000 euro (e a volte nn bastano) come pretendono che queste macchine battano la concorrenza di un nikon canon che costano 3-400€
oggi si guarda anche a cosa ha l’amico per scambiarsi le ottiche….
se nn abbassano i prezzi caleranno ancora e nn di molto
I think marketing has been very poor with very low penetration. I don’t think very many people have heard of m43 (and therefore don’t know the pros/cons of m43 cameras).
I suspect that DSLR sales at the low-end are doing best as people look to get something better than their camera phones.
That’d be models like Canon’s 600D at £500 with 18-55mm and 75-300mm (currys.co.uk).
With little distinctive marketing m43 is left to compete on price. £500 for a 2-kit lenses set-up… there’s not much on offer from the m43 stable.
m43 was only announced 5 years ago so there’s more future than past here. Better EVFs will arrive, good enough CAF eventually. Perhaps the winning formula will be to convert more professionals to the system and watch the trickle down effect attract photographic novices.
IMO the market is simply overcrowded with products at the moment. Yet, no real groundbreaking change occurred and as such there is no foundation for the drastic change from DSLR to mirrorless.
Needless to mention that current generation of mirrorless cams still have their own problems (tracking AF and digital blackout being IMO the top two).
And the larger problem is not with the mirrorless per se, but with the fact that many users are simply satisfied with the cameras of their smartphones. And if they bounce back (due to poor IQ or AF) they are more likely to bounce to something tried and proven – like DSLRs – than to something else new like mirrorless.
Two questions:
1) When was the last time you saw an Olympus commercial? Advertisement? Etc.?
2) Does the average person, therefore, even know/think m43 is an option?
I am deep in the photo and cinematography world and know about all the gear available but I can’t a single example of a time when someone said, “What camera is that,” referring to my EM5. I reply, “This is an Olympus EM5. It is a mirrorless camera/m43 camera.” They have no idea what I’m talking about. “Like a DSLR?”
But, everyone who I’ve shown the camera or let them use it are, “Wow. This is an awesome little camera.”
The lens are ok , but hardly take advantage of the smaller sensor. the fastest lens is (will be) an 85mm equivalent 1.2 but dof (equivalent) of 2.4, thats ok but hardly lightening, and at what price. Next best is the 50mm equivalent 1.4, dof of 2.8 (equivalent) and its pricey, three or four times as much as DSLR 50mm which are much faster.
The list get worse but dof is definitely an issue as is the availability of affordable wide angle lens which suffer due to the smaller sensor.
M43 should capitalise and be producing affordable lenses of f 0.9 or 1 which the smaller sensor allows, this would be a unique advantage
However, I have no doubt that marketing failure is the cause of mirrorless’ present plight in the US, culturally it seems the US and , to an extent Europe, is unduly attached to the DSLR (that inevitably end up gathering dust), its a shame because photography is a great hobby as long as you have your camera with you, but I wouldnt worry about q on q results, they are always volatile. Maybe Last year Olympus were getting large preorders for the omd etc, NEX was recovering lost output from the Thai floods etc. If the y on y figures are down by anything like 10% it would be cause for concern. For now the trailing trend for mirrorless is still strongly up, tho there has been some loss of momentum (possible failure in the US) the mirrorless market is probably mature enough to stand on its own two feet by now
In my view, some of these problems are not related to a) market issues or b) mirror superiority or even c) bad public reception and d) misinterpretation of the bigger=better principle (one that – as market reports above suggest – at least Asian women seem not to fall for 😉 ).
You can of course say that for a) we have or had an economic crisis, but that fails to explain growing figures of other consumer electrics and even cameras of a certain kind. Or you can say b) but then again would have to explain, why Canon and Nikon so desperately tried to jump as last participants on the mirrorless train, if there is no future in it?
c) and d) are questions advertisement campaigns and the PR departments of Panasonic and Sony and Olympus and Samsung etc. should handle really effectively, and rather soon than later, even maybe together.
But now to the homegrown problems.
Nikon and Canon only half-heartedly (and maybe surprised and even scared by sales growth of the other mirrorless brands) jumped on that said train. Maybe (and that´s a BIG maybe) Canon will earn ground with their second attempt, but surely whatever the two big companies produced so far is – pardon my french – utter crap in my eyes compared to even what Samsung has to offer. And if you take the good sensors of the NEX line and the even better lens program of micro4/3, you surely would have a self-fulfilling prophecy of taking over the market… unless you (yes, YOU, Mr. Panasonic and Mr. Olympus and Mr. Sony) ruin it yourself.
For it makes absolutely NO sense, to bring out a G5 in November and then without any really great image producing enhancements the G6 next June; or some idiotic, equally unimproving GF models every 6-8 months in a row; or (due to lack of development time and the run for the xmas shoppers) an imperfect GH3.
Or to use the same sensors on and on and on in every new Pen/E model, overcharging users willing to take a chance with Viewfinders, lens hoods and whatnot and ruining your own product line with senseless product line mix-ups.
Or to destroy your otherwise cheeky fresh camera concept with superior image quality in THAT particular field by simply NOT supporting it with proper lenses for YEARS…
Whoever reads this might disagree with some of my points dependent on personal experiences, taste, whatever – but one thing I take for sure: there ARE some homegrown reasons why customers around the world still don´t get the feeling, that mirrorless cameras are self-confident, future-proof (and I don´t mean only technology, I also mean investment!) little beasts with great pocketability, versatility and image quality.
I hope, for the sake of my micro4/3 stuff, the train goes on. But there is some thinking due regarding the product lines. And listening to consumer wishes like (so obviously) with the GX7 might be the right, bold, brave move.
Panasonic and Olympus need to turn up the marketing here in the States. Samsung could do a lot on the marketing front as well. They need to make one of their clever commercials making fun of dSLRs users with their big, heavy, bodies & lenses. Most Americans don’t even know what mirrorless is. They walk into Costco and pick up a 7D off the pallet with that giant STM lens and never think otherwise. Canikon owns the soccer mom crowd.
Don´t wait for the companies or malls to educate peoples! Do it yourself, if you have true confidence in your system and choice!
Go to forums and evaluate, what you have and why you like it! Spread the word! If you have it with you, explain friends, neighbors, people on the street, heck, even the cab driver, WHY mirrorless is better than CaNikon´s!
SPREAD
THE
WORD
YOURSELF!
I do it whenever possible.
VFs are simply too expensive.
One of the joys of photography is and always has been composing though a VF. Is that so hard to understand?
Panasonic G line does well. Because of the DSLR-shape? I don’t think so. It does well because it is the ONE AND ONLY ENTRY MIRRORLESS that actually has a VF.
Sorry was not meant as a reply to your post
One of the real joys of photography has always been composing the image on a large ground glass with a real view camera. Yes, you are forced to actually take your time, which helps quite a bit with composing.
Viewfinders? Thats for those poor sods who need to do action shooting, here is a sports finder for your nice TLR…
With all respect, what you find a real joy is your thing, but throughout the history of photography there are significant indications that the ‘always has been’ part of your claim is rather wrong. If you ever used a large format view camera, you’d probably at least appreciate why a viewfinder isn’t the end to all means, especially not when it comes to composition.
Well ok, then let’s extend the term to all kinds of composition devices that offers isolation (kinda elitist to talk about ‘poor sods’ in a time where most people use VFs but ok, that’s your thing)because that’s what all those point and shoots are lacking. Just something that isolates you and your subject from the rest of the world. And both the modern SLRs/high end mirrorless and the old view cameras offer that.
If you have your camera at arms length your eye will see all kinds of totally irrelevant stuff that will mess with your final image. It’s just the same as working in an untidy atelier, then taking your painting off the canvas setting it behind a white background to see that the colors and composition totally fell apart because they relied on some random stuff that has been lying around in your workspace.
I take back my initial wording and say that one of the joys of photography is this form of isolation. Would you still disagree?
@heinrich, sorry, I was the anonymous above, often forget to login when posting from my tablet.
Anyway, I was poking a little bit of fun of your statement, with the underlying point that it is a lot more complicated, and depends for a substantial part on personal preference and the actual photography one does.
I picked the ‘ground glass’ example specifically because while there is merit in saying it helps with good composition, its still wrong to conclude that its not possible to achieve good composition without one. It is an old photographers misconception that one needs this, but the same can be said about the classic viewfinder.
Being able to isolate yourself and your subject, some people need that more then others, similar to how some people need a tidy working environment (being it an atelier or otherwise) while others find such an environment difficult to work in due to it being too sterile.
Some people use a viewfinder and shoot ‘single eyed’, which indeed isolates you and your subject from the rest of the world, but many people shoot 2 eyed, where one eye looks through the finder while the other is used to scan the environment and see what happens just outside the frame, and this isolation would hinder their ability to compose.
There are issues with what is at times called the ‘dirty diaper’ way of holding a camera, you mention something that will be a problem for part of the people, and the inherent lower stability of the camera is another obvious issue, but put the camera on a tripod, and the later issue is completely addressed. The first issue can be addressed with the many display ‘hoods’ that exist, and you are very close to that view camera of old.
Have something like the articulating screens of the G/GH series, or the tilting only ones of some of the PENs and the E-M5, if needed stick a display hood on it, and you have something pretty close to the waistlevel finder of a TLR.
So, I think its simply a lot more complex, and there is a lot of personal preference and use in the mix. I’m totally convinced that what you say is true for you, but I’m not at all convinced the argument of isolation holds in general, as a matter of fact I can say it does not hold for me much of the time.
So the Olympus Pen is down 12% why doesn’t that surprise me! has Olympus taken views of the public what they want, or they design a camera Ep5 that the public aint all that happy with . They design a nice camera then put a carbuncle of a view finder on top. Why did they do it instead of intergrate it the camera plain and simple to maxamise profit, on body, lens, and viewfinder. When the sum of all three should be about £999.00, we are paying for Olympus losses of the past and thats never worked history. Amazon uk sell it for £1,339.99p. in London Camera Exchange in Southampton you can get Fuji XPro1 with 35mm F1.4 lens for £1,199.00 but that also includes Fuji 18mm F2.0 lens, yes I have had Pen cameras in the past but only half frame sad very sad
Maybe the problem of the m43 system is that they want it to be the system for every kind of photographer. But then it’s often too small for serious photographers used to DSLRs and still too big to fit into a pocket. Most other mirrorless systems have a clearer target customers:
– Fuji: retro people with great prime lenses
– Nikon: point and shoot people who want to have a big name camera
– Sony NEX: good looking cameras with a lot of tech features for people wanting it
For people interested in a DSLR, m43 has
– a small sensor with an unusual aspect ratio,
– good lenses are more expensive than Canon/Nikon,
– short batter life compared to DSLRs,
– cameras are harder to hold and control to many people in the EU/US (GH3 being an exception).
The battery in GH3 is as good as DSLR… it uses the same battery as Pentax K-5!
It is normal. m43 is sometimes as big as dslr and often more expansive…
When buyer want quality they buy 4/3 format. When they want affordable camera they don’t buy mirrorless.
mirrorless is much more convenient then mirror cameras. The problem is just that most people think that a dlsr is much better for their needs. The reality is only few people really take advantage of the few strong points these cameras have.
I hope it means huge price cut on the pen ep-5
CaNikon only introduced very poor mirrorless models in order to make their DSLR offerings shine and discredit mirrorless offerings. It seems to work.
On the other hand: if Olympus since 2009 is not capable of offering the much-requested rangefinder style body with viewfinder I am not surprised growth is slowing down.
I think if one would asked Fuji about the mirrorless market the answer would be different.
Mirrorless is no sucess.
Decent penetration in Asia, OK. Global sales show loss of market shares to DSLR.
Honestly, but a Nikon 3200/5200 with a decent kitlens – or a similar Canon. It is not particularily heavy. Ergonomy is OK as is the camera as photo making machine. IQ isgreat. It is cheaper than a mirrorless that delivers on the same level.
Mirrorless are for:
Us enthusiasts that enjoy photo and like a lighter to carry system with several lenses. It may be our only camera os our second camera. We pay extra for less weight.
Then we have upgraders, more and more coming directly from phones. To them mirrorless are big and DSLR are huge.
Well, my old favorite brand, Contax, built excellent and innovative cameras and used Ziess lenses. They were a bit more expensive, but not nearly as Leica. They never did sell well and the transition to digita l killed Contax.
Sad……
So if mirrorless as they currently are designed, marketed and priced is not a success i am not surprised. Canon and its smaller brother Nikon rules.
The day they wholeheartily engage in mirrorless – then it will be a success.
I doubt any ASP-C camera can beat what I can produce in terms of IQ and sharpness with an OMD coupled with the 50 mm f/2.0 or 75 mm /1.8. Full-frame can, but not APS-C. MFT excels over APS-C because it has: premium glass, superb image quality and industry leading compactness (except when compared to Sony maybe).
Really??? So 85 1.4G on a 24mp d7100 will be inferior in its rendering…
You can use any nikon full frame lens from the 70s through todays g lenses on the D7100 too.
I think the real problem is lack of focus. Watch all the different models by panasonic and Olympus – some in the recent past were more of the same thing, over flooding inventory and bringing nothing new.
Then you have what seems to be a “lets throw everything we an think of and see if it sticks” attitude to some degree. Look at how Fuji approached it.
I have a friend who asked me what camera he should by. At the time the ep3 was the best for the price on the market, so I suggested it to him but his wife saw my gh1 sitting there and she said she wanted one that looked like it. I told her no she didn’t but she insisted it had to have the look of a dslr. Americans associate quality with the look of a dslr. They do not care or even understand if it has a mirror in it.
It’s no use getting defensive about this. If you bought a mirrorless,thinking it was the future, you did it out of fanboyism. If you bought it as a lighter alternative to heavy DSLR and believe the brand you bought will still be making them 10 years from now, then you shouldn’t care how the general mirrorless market is dong.
For my part, I could never justify m43 prices for the smallest sensor and lack of viewfinder. Other people like me gravitated to larger sensor cameras that were cheaper, like NEX, Fuji, and Canikon DSLRs. There is compact enough and hen there is most compact ever. I think only a small niche of fanboys really care for most compact ever. Most of us are satisfied with systems that are 1/5 the size of DSLRs, no need to have something 1/6 the size but cost so much more.
I’m not sure what all the latest news from all the camera makers mean for the future of mirrorless, but I have a feeling Sony will at least be the last man standing so I’ll have at least 5-10 years of upgrades left. Every camera maker is on shaky ground right now, even canikon. However, 43 looks like it is in the worst position with their overpriced gear and huge profit losses.
the viewfinders tend to be pretty good in the mirrorless cam, better than lower range dslrs at least. But surely the advantage and disadvantage lies in the lenses. Image quality is nearly par to all intents with apsc, but there is the POTENTIAL lenses size advantage, the POTENTIAL crop factor telephotos advantage vs the very real dof disadvantage and wide angle disadvantage. Micro four thirds is fine but could be much, much better. Marketing aside, most of the cams are pretty great (as are most DSLR cams) but so much more could be done with the lenses, yet all fanboys do is boast about the great line-up. Its an average line-up with some pretty prices
Good point about the wide angles. I hope you are convincing at least one decent lens maker to produce a m43 life saving 9mm 2.8 prime… 😉
What wide angle advantage are you talking about? There’s not a single wide angle prime for Nikon DX nor Canon EF-S. There are at least 10 different wide angle primes for MFT.
About the potential lens size, please compare an Olympus 40-150mm against any tele lens on APS-C.
I’ve never seen an Olympus or Panasonic mirror-less commercial in the United States of America.
Lets face it. Phones have taken over the masses. People who weren’t interested in cameras before had to buy a dedicated camera. This is not the case now. Cameras are for gear junkies and photographers now. I wish I lived near B&H or similar stores that stocked a wide variety of equipment to try out beforehand but in reality, most people do not get the chance to try some of these models out before they buy them. Ergonomics are a huge factor in cameras. Are they too fiddly? Do the menus suck? etc. These companies are not helping themselves out any by trying to sell an invisible product. Would you buy a car without test driving it? All of these mirrorless cameras are good, but I would not want to ditch my DSLR at this point to have to re-purchase all of my favorite focal length primes, flash etc…have to learn a new system, learn a new flash system etc. I’d rather be working on improving my photography skills rather than forking over my dough on more gear.
cal and others, why do you say m43 cams are pricey and dont have viewfinders? Just dont buy the v latest or most fashionable to avoid high prices. True Olympus were late to the viewfinder thing but Pannys have had them, and could always pick up a bargain. Check out the G3 or even G5, emp2 (no viewfinder on this last one) all great. Really nice to use and lovely pics. Even now the G1 isnt bad. Really, more limited esp the DR but quite capable and enjoyable. Not to say the small dslrs are not competitive sized, they really are, esp that new canon, but stick a lens on and suddenly it becomes a more of a burden, one which you are slightly less willing to carry around
m43 isn’t the future. Why?
A) Good m43 glass is too expensive. It doesn’t hold it’s value well, and many people would rather invest in good glass for their dSLRs and/or rangefinders.
B) Image quality isn’t good enough. APS-C and full frame compacts will replace m43 eventually. Sony and Fuji is leading the way.
C) m43 cameras and lenses are ugly and has been branded poorly. Canon, Nikon and Leica get all the glory. Fuji gets it and makes lovely lokking cameras. Sony is aquired taste, but the RX1 is a stunner.
D) Many m43 users only use it as a backup/travel camera for when a dSLR is too big, and a compacts uncapable. With few photographers using it as their main system, getting a strong foothold in the market is close to impossible.
I read this, and I got the feeling A, B, C and D are more about the past and the present than about the future.
Oh this is easy.
A. 2 prime M43 set. 20mm and the 45mm. Amazing quality and small. Both around the $350 mark. Hardly expensive.
B. Oly’s M43 cams and pana’s GH/G provide image quality on par with latest APSC. Has been shown number if times.
C. Taking pure product design. Fuji is a dogs breakfast. Have u seen the back of the cameras?? The EP range have all been beautiful. Sony have done a great job on the RX100 and RX1 but their nex range are ugly. M? Forget it. Nikon 1 are OK. Obviously Leica take the prize.
D. Interesting to read of many stories where users buy M43 as a second or backup camera only to leave their DSLR’s on the shelf.
M43 still is not on par with the best dSLRs, especially in terms of dynamic range. Try printing big and you’ll soon see the difference from big and small pixels.
The numbers speak for themselves. M43 isn’t profitable and it can only go on for ao long.
Have you ever held the Fuji’s? They feel like cheap plastic.
Mirrorless is failing because people think DSLRs look professional. They don’t realize that a Nikon 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6 can be outperformed by the miniature Sony RX-100.
No more plastic than the smaller m43 lumix and oly cameras!
There don’t seem to be many stores that carry the m4/3 brands in the USA. Most of the time you see Canon and Nikon and a little bit of Sony. It would be very hard to get servicing from Panasonic and Olympus IMO. They never seem to reply to email. I think m4/3 could use brand awareness campaign, and they really need to think about customer service. They lose value quickly and it appears that you are out of luck if you need a repair. Oly is really bad about this.
Even with tourist places where there are a lot of visitors from Asia, I noticed the college-age with mirrorless; however, the little older people with kids seem to have DSLRs.
On a recent tour in Canada, I took time to notice cameras and found mostly DSLR and phones. Very few point and shoots and no NEX, m4/3 or SLT. A lot of Nikon and Canon. It’s not scientific, but very telling. I helped some people get some pictures and one lady accused me of being a perfectionist.
One big factor that Asia has faired better with the newer tech is that the Asian economies have been doing a lot better than the USA or EU. Perhaps people were less willing to gamble disposable income and have stuck with the traditional brands.
I would say that I yet to be let down by a Canon DSLR. They are not perfect, but they are very consistent in IQ. I cannot say that about NEX or m4/3 with the former having odd AF issues and the latter being poor at moving subjects.
Canon APS-C sensors are aweful! The Canon 7D is the worst camera I own in terms of IQ, which is sad since it is so capable in every other way.
Canon’s APS-C DSLRs are not awful, but they are limited to very traditional methods whereas the mirrorless and SLT open up new possibilities. The key is understanding each cameras limitations. I think the OM-D came close to being an SLR competitor but Oly dropped the ball on ergonomics. Lets see how the G6 and GX7 fair. I just don’t see a marketing campaign that would help educate buyers coming from Panasonic, Olympus or Sony. What I like about m4/3 is the balance between sensor (body) and lens system.
The dip in mirrorless sales I think has to do with the quality of the low end mirrorless cameras, such as the Micro four thirds lin and Nikon 1. Having owned a Micro four thirds camera I can tell you that the image files are disappointing, I lasted a few months before selling the camera to get something of better quality. After some research I settled on an X-E1 Fuji. Having shot with it extensively I am constantly amazed at how much better the files are than the 4/3 camera. Some of them are almost as good as my full frame digital camera.
The problem seems to be that most broadcasters on the internet seem to group 4/3 in with APSC mirrorless cameras and they are definitely not the same thing. Perhaps this is why there is a dip in the market. I am quite sure if people were focused on NEX or FUJI APSC cameras there would be a different market trend.
Everyone who claims Asia is the growth market for mirrorless is pulling facts out of thin air. It’s doing well in Japan, and the numbers are actually deceiving. The marketshare of mirrorless in Japan and some Asian countries jumps whenever these companies dump last generation models for firesale prices. It’s no different here in the US. When there was a firesale for the EOS M and Nikon 1, there was a jump in sales in the US. A lot of people purchased Nikon 1 for $250 and EOS M for $299.
New models of mirrorless are not doing as well in Asia as fanboys believe. I visit Asia often, and I can assure you the prevalence of DSLRs over mirrorless is the same ratio over there as it is here in the US. Go to Victoria Harbor and count the number of mirrorless vs DSLRs. You’ll be hard press to need more than the fingers on one hand.
Mirrorless has a future, but it’s not the dominant future fanboys believe it has. If you’re happy with your mirrorless system, does it matter if it doesn’t take over the world? I’m quite happy with mine and really don’t care where it stands in the market.
Well, I live in Brazil and want to share something that happened to me at a birthday party: I was shooting pictures with my beloved GF1 + 20 mm f1.7 and a friend of mine asked me:
“Why don’t you move to a better camera than this crappy point and shoot?”
I replied: “Do you know what’s the m43 system?”
My friend: “No.”
I showed him the interchangeable lens, plenty of manual controls… but he’s still confident that his APS-C Nikon is better. Maybe because of the size or because of the brand. Whatever. But it was clear to me that this a common misconception about m43.
The 20mm f/1.7 makes the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 look like a plastic turd. It’s 3x sharper.
What sells like hot cakes are Dx000-style cameras with a 18-105mm kit lens.
This kit gets you the bulk of a professional full frame camera with the image quality of an RX-100 compact camera. People make no sense.
Panasonic manager Darrin Pepple said “In the U.S. at least, [DSLRs are] still what they know and what they understand. We’re continuing to innovate in the way of lenses, size, form factors, trying to find the magic bullet.” Panasonic has found that DSLR-style feature sets are more attractive to Americans, and simpler mirrorless models failed to find an audience.
That’s in large part because they don’t know anything else exists. Panasonic’s presence in mass-media is virtually non-existent, as is their presence in the stores where people actually shop for cameras. If Panasonic and Oly would actually try to market these things in the U.S., maybe they’d sell a few more of them.
It’s an egg-chicken problem, therefore it can’t easily be cured. You don’t invest in advertising and marketing because you don’t expect sales to catch in a Country.
If you have some historical perspective, you should remember how 4/3 crashed to 3% of the market by 2008 and disappeared in the US. Olympus fired its marketing division, and Panny tried to hold on, but basically by then 4/3 had been defeated in the US.
They were clever enough to restart the sales from home with a new technology called Micro 4/3, but 90% of the sales were limited to Japan. The the Dragons caught up and the rest is history. But until 2 yrs. ago US and Europe were off the radar. Then Europe began, with Germany and UK doubling up sales in a year but from low unit percentages. US still trailed behind.
So back to the beginning: one won’t invest in marketing, if one has been burned before. Especially true in a camera saturated market.
South Asia was much less saturated, because of poverty, but the economic boom saw the new affluent classes available for experimenting with photography. A happy coincidence that O&P were there. They saw the opportunity they didn’t see in the West and jumped on it with billboards, etc.
Even Canon and Nikon FF camera kits (6D and D600 with 2 lenses) are present in Costco, I mean really how many people actually buy $3000 kits in Costco, paying taxes (when they can easily save on taxes – and on prices – buying from Amazon etc). And it is right next to Nikon J1 (J2 or J3 now). Pana could not put a G5/G6 in there? Why? Bigger DSLR-looking camera Americans supposedly like at Nikon J2/J3 price Americans definitely like. And, unlike Olympus, Panasonic here is very well known and respected brand.
Just sloppy work of their US representatives.
Even when O & P realize that they should focus on Asian market they still sell their camera much more expensive than in US or Europe. If they sell their camera with price as good as US and Europe I think they will surprise with the number.
Oly and Pana are offered all the time on ebay much cheaper from Japan and Hong Kong (like 35-100, $1500 US warranty, $1000 from Japan). So at least at those Asian markets they are priced better than even in the US.
If PEN fell 12% compared to year ago, and we know that both DSLR and mirrorless markets fell 18% overall, it means PEN actually increased market share, without even really trying in that time period (E-P5 only appeared by the end of it and grossly overpriced).
Probably because of implosion of Pentax k-01 and Q and Nikon 1. With NEX-5r and -6 priced so great, they should be fine (unless that sweet price is only in the US).
nikon has failed its objectives with its mirrorless and throws mud on the mirrorless system nikon is exploiting the ignorance of people towards new technologies trying to push trying to push useless products to most amateur photographers, difficult to use, and oversized compared to the quality of the lenses, such as the Nikon D800
leveraging mpixel useless. on the other hand after having denigrated sensors 4/3 and m4 / 3, creates a mirrorless system with sensors undersized ’cause fear competition with its internal aps-c
NIKON very Good Jobs
You have a 5 Aces poker 😉
It’s easy, Olympus and Panasonic set Professional Grade Equipment price to their cameras.
So instead of bringing new people into the market they hope professionals will chose them.
The problem at those price points the market is conservative and usually chose DSLR.
They should bring their cameras o the price of a commodity.
When I say cameras I mean the real ones E-P5, E-M5 at Olympus and GH3 / GX7 at Panasonic.
The price should be around 600$ Per body…
Otherwise, by the time the 2 giants will wake up it will be too late.
Hmm yes, G5 and G6 are not real cameras but the GX7 and GHx are..
The E-P5 is a real camera but the E-PL5 is not…
You know why that is the case? BECAUSE MIRRORLESS IS MUCH MORE EXPENISVE THAN ENTRY LEVEL DSLR WITH THE SAME IMAGE QUALITY.
SO OLYMPUS AND PANASONIC, PLEASE REDUCE YOUR PRICE DOWN FOR 25% AND THE DEMAND WILL JUST ROCKET UP.
And last but not least. Have the americans lost their taste for experimenting and become reactionaries?
That is what happens in an extreme mass society where everybody want to imitate everybody else.
Everybody must conform to one of the two winning brands. All the others are suspect, ineffective for image status.
That is why I said that in a terminal consumerist country photography is killed by commercial photography, which is all about beautification and hairdressing.
By comparison the Asian photogs I see at flickr *mostly* take an interest in REALITY in the streets.
For that mirrorless cameras are admirably suited. You don’t have to sport giant cameras like at marriages or fashion venues.
Indeed they are at the same stage Vivian Mayer or the Farm Administration photogs. were 50 years ago. How much has been lost in the US.
Here in Germany the ugly and heavy dslr’s are still popular, but when those guys see me with my Nikon V1 and 32 1.2 they say “wow incredible“
So there is a weak marketing (protection of dslr series) people just do not know how good the small cameras are.
I guess dslr’s are death.
Who needs a huge mirror, that create vibrations in that sensitive time of shot plus a noisy Slap?
Why should the mirror/submirror/phase af System that creates af failures longer exist?
In my V1 there is still a mechanical shutter – for what? I went to electronic shutter an noiseless operation.
So why not leave shutter away and save money and make it cheaper?
the V1 and that new 1.2 lens seems to be a great combo, I have seen some sample photos from the 1.2 and it looks very convincing for people who are into portraits.
I have read though that using the electronic shutter of the V1 results in slight IQ degradation?
Part of the problem is the splintering of the mirrorless as a platform. If all of the manufacturers used the same system (MFT) rather than trying to come up with their own unique versions, it would raise awareness for the platform, increase demand, increase competition in lenses and hence float all boats higher.
People are (as some of you have already pointed out) not logical. Maybe also the following subconscious drive plays a role:
They want the THEORETICAL highest image quality system – and that’s not MFT, FF Canikon with best glass is still much better.
But most people don’t know that their small body with cheap glass has nothing to do with the Canikon combinations used by pros. They just have the implicit notion “Canikon = best”.
By the way. I’m also jumping off the mft wagon.
In my opinion m4/3 is overhyped (e.g. in this forum here); it’s nice, yes. But sometimes it seems people think image quality is almost FF.
(I’m hugely dispappointed by my OM-D with pana 7-14, 12-35, 35-100, oly 45, 75: not soooo much less expensive than a D800 + 14-24 etc. e.g., but lightyears worse concerning image quality.
Conclusion in my opinion: Mirrorless will win with FF mirrorless and professinal ergonomics (not this unprofessional retro OM-D stuff).
You are a true cretin, and a wordy one.
if you read Mirrorless Rumors you’ll see that Sony and Olympus are dividing the realm among themselves. Oly will have the cropped side, and Sony the FF.
In fact they are highly complementary. No format has all the advantages.
The only thing that would prove your thesis is asking camera buyers. If you could have any small camera system for free – identical cameras with identical features, what would you choose – m43 sensor or FF sensor?
No it doesn’t. It’s the gist of the Sony-Olympus agreement, according to Admin.
If I were to get a FF it would be only for a couple of lenses. In mirrorless, with short distance to flange there will be a lot of problems, and they will be needlessly expensive, compared to m4/3
You are not able to avoid a retarded film concept. m4/3 instead was meant from the start for digital and designed for mirrorless.
Update or die 🙂
“You are a true cretin,”
Would you mind stop insulting me or others (even though it might be tempting to do so when hidden by internet anonymity)? It’s not the first of your postings which introduces an unfriendly atmosphere into this forum.
Thanks! 🙂
That was caused by YOUR posting FOUR times in a row. Only a deranged person would do that.
So please we are waiting for YOUR apologies.
I’m sorry for the triple post; problems with my phone and bad connection.
Would you apologize for insulting me, thx.
Fab
OK – you are not a true cretin 🙂
Don’t worry, amalric, your position as top idiot is safe here and anywhere else!
LOL You guys are funny. 😀
Mirrorless needs to revise its marketing. You don’t budge the market leaders by attacking at the same price. Here in England Pen EP5 is£999. Buyers know within a few months the price will start its drop. The result is twofold : – people will wait before they buy, and secondly it “devalues the currency”, so that people perceive the “real value” is in SLRs, which are much bigger and give you more bang for your buck. Yes, if you want the ultimate IQ, an SLR will give better, but differences are slight, and how often is that big SLR left at home? The best camera is the one you have with you, my m4/3 go everywhere with me.
OlyPan, Sony, Fuji, they should remember when the Japanese attacked the US car market they used Civics against Cadillacs: small, efficient and cheap cars did the job. Mirrorless tech is brilliant, but tech alone won’t do the job, not when US vested interests are happy with the margins from Canon SLRs and lenses and customers are happy toting that big macho hunk of camera in front of them!
I think that car analogy is right on. The Americans are too familiar with the feel of the size of “good” cameras, so there is a psychological resistance. But with a few pros turning to µ4/3, like Giulio Sciorio, Frederick Van Johnson and Scott Bourne, people will start to see through that. I just hope the Asian uptake is enough to let Pany and Oly keep up the required rate of development.
just come out with a E-7 to feed americans, quite simple, Olympus top people are just stubburn and stupid
In the end the one argument you can spend for mirrorless, is that they are more fun – so you use them more than a dSLR.
But until O & P can have the same economies of scale of C & N forget about cheaper. You pay your money, you have your fun.
Drop GH3 price to $799 for body only (currently $1098 at Amazon). Add ProRes HQ video codec via firmware update or add to GH5 if GH3 firmware won’t support. Video is driving more sales.
GX7 body only will start at $999 at Amazon. Maybe Panasonic will sell as many as they can make at that price but it seems way too high given the current competition in APS-C DSLR and even APS-C mirrorless.
Dear Olympus, if you fix the crappy video on your camera more people will buy it.
If they removed video all together, maybe I’d consider getting one. Please give me a camera with less features and less buttons. These small cameras are just too small for all those buttons for people with working hands to operate.
IQ IQ IQ! Features Features Features! Dear Panasonic, Olympus and Nikon, wake up!
All camera makers are not putting as many as possible features they can achieve on a single camera, that is why hold buyers back from replacing their existing cameras. As simple as that!
If a camera maker makes a changeable lens camera in NEX-5 size and weight with RX1 IQ on still and Blackmagic Pocket IQ on video with 70D AF capability + 60p, I can guarantee you it will be selling like a hot cake all over the world!! If it can’t sell well, I cut my head!
If I got the above features, I don’t mind to pay anything below US$2000 for body only. And I don’t care at all the sensor size. Big, small, whatever! Crop factor’s issue can always be resolved by lens choice + great high ISO performance camera.
Contrary to what you believe absurd multiposter it’s not by increasing the number of features that you conquer more photogs., it is by offering well sorted cameras, dedicated to a few aspects, see for one the Ricoh GR, or the Leica.
Chrismas Tree like cameras are for consumers, not for photogs, and therefore are soon forgotten. I have the E-M5 which is borderline. It has many features that I will never use, but it is so configurable that I can forget them most of the time. But it took me all my past Olympus experience to do so, and I am pretty sure that those who haven’t, hate its menus.
Sometimes it is as if O&P lived in a separate reality, but that can be said also of US consumers, so the misunderstanding goes on.
By comparison in Japan and S. Asia they got the mirrorless concept from the start, and so they increase market share easily. If you are an urban photog. you need urban cameras. It is not a surprise therefore that for a new generation of photog. the dream is to have a Leica, not a Nikon D800. Sony will try to cater to that at more acessible prices with a mirrorless FF.
I actually agree with you. I don’t need too many features that complicate the camera. I only need core features (those that I mentioned above). A very good example is Blackmagic Pocket camera. It’s so simple and those simple menu and buttons are all I need in a camera with its excellent IQ. However, what’s lacking on it are some “simple and basic” features such as shooting still photos and to shoot 60p video. To add this two features in, I’ll buy without second thought.
Well, apart from the video, I think that Fuji made a serious effort in selecting the basic feature set a photog. needs, and the providing the relevant buttons.
I suppose that it is still an advantage that dSLR have: the pro and the consumer level are more clearly separated. I hope that in the OM-D Pro, costing a fortune, Oly comes back to its senses.
Having a real Pro level adds a lot of prestige to a brand. That is the reason why C & N still have a lot of traction, even with consumer cameras.
Sony RX1 is a great example of Pro grade IQ in a small and light camera. It’s all possible.
Cameras such as the Panasonic G5 and Olympus E-PL5 share competitive pricing with entry-level dslrs.
These are the cameras that O and P need to get onto retail shelves alongside Canon and Nikon dslrs.
I think they would sell well if they made it on to sales floors.