The New York Times reported an analysis from Credit Suisse saying that the camera market will move towards an oligopoly where only big companies like Nikon, Canon and Sony will survive. Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida said that mirrorless cameras “are sputtering as buyers put connectivity above picture quality“. And sales are not growing in EU and USA because “consumers tend to equate image quality with size and heft“. For them solutions like the [shoplink 43613 ebay]Sony QX lenscameras[/shoplink] are more likely to be the future.
My note: I am used to these kind of forecasts. I remember of dozen of articles published many years ago saying that Olympus or Panasonic or other small companies would close their camera business the year after. As usual analysts tend to forget t 1) see the full picture (Olympus medical needs the camera business) 2) To understand the Japanese company culture and proud of history 3) their lack of seeing what’s really the future in the tech world.
I believe there will be always be a reason for mirrorless cameras to stay in the market. You cannot cheat physics. If you want the best quality you need larger sensor/cameras/lenses. Obviously, a question could be…do we need that more quality? Most of the people certainly no. But there will be always people who want to step up from the usual (and poorer) smartphone camera quality.
139 Responses
Hedging there investments hoping we take it the way they are telling us ?
IMHO sony/Oly together will be OK but the future is not some strange thing you clip on your cell phone ? still to much need for photography and photographers that will drive the market
things like the A7 I think might be the future ? but who knows ?
I like 4/3 also great travel and even some pro work camera and really most who want great results with a smaller camera would be better off with 4/3 ?
but its not the gear in the end 🙂
Things to remember:
Reuters “Olympus may have to sell off assets”, ” more than 50% of Olympus shares in non-Japanese hands”, “we send inexperienced teenage photographers into war-zones to get killed”
The timing and misinformation of this PR (press release/public relations)by shameless Reuters (maybe paid)is to hide the latest figures for 2013 released by BCN Japan which show Canon and Nikon in a awful light with shrinking market share and the failure to have any impact in the mirrorless sector.
Micro Four Thirds is the largest selling mount in Japan and still growing.
Meanwhile Olympus share is near 12% and set to overtake Sony for 3rd place (Nikon has fallen below 29%),Olympus have also grown their share of the mirrorless market to 43%
Panasonic is not a small company lol
I dont care about such forecasts, even when it happen. As long as i can shoot, my mind is at peace.My worries are more like if i can keep continuing doing shoots with certain models I like alot or if I can find a replacement for them, that keeps me busy more then worrying about gear stuff. Sometimes I think I have the wrong passion.
Sony QX selling that much?! I saw it discounted a couple of months after its release.
And I have never seen anyone using it: I spend a lot of time in Venice and I have an idea of what tourists use to take photos.
Smartphone replacing mirrorless? Mmm no, not yet. Smartphone have a nice IQ, especially when the content (photo/video) is simply shared on Facebook, Instagram, Vine and so on.
A friend of mine called me and was surprised becaused she wanted to do an exhibition with photos taken with her iPhone, but they looked bad when printed 40 cms width. Wow, really?! (Sarcasm)
It is true that most of pictures (dis)appear in social networks, and we don’t need a Phase One to do a twit or post a 1024 x 1024 pixels photo on Instagram, but I don’t see it as the downfall of mirrorless cameras.
I own an iPhone4 and an iPad Mini: the only times I take pics with them is when I want to play with Hipstamatic.
I have an account on Instagram as well as on Flickr, and I simply use smartphone and tablet to upload my photos, and with latest (mirrorless) models you can use wifi to transfer files directly from the camera, if you need.
Perhaps in 5-10 years we’ll have super smartphones, with improved image sensors, but I believe (hope) also mirrorless cameras will improve.
And I don’t want to see dumb faces on people when I talk about aperture or ISO..
Photography is changing, but I think it’s also loosing some bits as days go by.
To every one its own I say: are people happy to snap pics with a smartphone? Perhaps yes, perhaps that’s enough for them.
Echonomic crisis hit also photography world: car industry faces the same problem, selling each year less cars. Only luxury brands increase their profit (I’m thinking about Ferrari, for example). Does it mean we are all walking around now? Or are we using our “old” cars? Or just a bike because it’s enough? I don’t think the point is that only Ferrari will survive and I’ll have to get one if I want/need a new car..
+1000 in my flickr i have some 5mpx. small sensor pz3 camera pics. when i print them in 12×16 they are soft and not usable. I usual print in 20×30 or 30×40…. the 43 sensor is capable of this….
Yeeees, @admin! You cannot cheat physics. You rather can profit by laws of physics by exploiting the hidden potential of digital technology. There is at least 5EV reserve in digital sensor technology, just think about organic sensors, non-Bayer sensors etc.
Hence future 4/3 sensors could be even much more powerful than current FF ones! So what are we talking about?
Good point. I hardly wait organic sensors with x-trans technology from Panasonic – Fuji.
The myth that only micro 4/3 will get better, and that all other formats will stand still.
Nikon 1 will never be as good as micro 4/3. APS will stand still. 135 will stand still.
M43 is always the system that’s just “good enough”. But many people just want more than good enough and there will always be something better
The myth that people will always want better quality even though there is a weight, cost and size penalty.
If smartphones are now good enough for most casual snap shooters why can’t m43 be good enough for most people interested in photography.
After all most photography enthusiasts compromised on 35mm film as ‘good enough’ and didn’t all rush out and buy medium format in the past. That happened when 35mm became good enough in the 1960s and 1970s
M43 is the new 35mm and has now become good enough. 99% of photographers do not need anymore.
By the same token, compact cameras are good enough. Nikon 1 series cameras are also good enough. APS by your argument is also good enough.
The fact is, the market has spoken. The market has determined that the APS-C DSLR is the best compromise in price/performance. The overwhelming majority of camera buyers have voted with their dollars on DSLRs as the best good-enough compromise.
Winning a popularity contest has absolutely nothing to do with being best in something else.
I suggest spending some time in a few local electronics stores to see how cameras are being bought and sold, as it has absolutely zero to do with them being best at being good enough, but everything with which camera that fits the customers budget gets the seller the best bonus.
The very large majority of consumers has no idea what an aperture is (in relation to photography), won’t ever buy a second lens for their interchangeable lens camera, complains about the files being waaaay too big (yet insist on needing at least 24mp by now), buy their camera to use it during one vacation to just store it in a cupboard and forget it afterwards and so on. Sorry, they have absolutely no idea which camera is the best at being good enough, but they do make for the big numbers.
No, the Nikon 1 is not good enough, it does not even have a significant size advantage over m4/3; but Sony RX100 is – if you don’t need a longer (or shorter) focal length. Unfortunately there is no ILC version of it (and Sony does not seem to be interested in developing one – that would have been the last nail in the NEX coffin). The advantage of m4/3 (I deliberately use a term referring to a mount rather than a sensor to include Black Magic) and Fuji is that they are already almost complete systems, lacking only high grade super telephoto and tilt/shift lenses. The (vanishing) advantage of APC-DSLRs is continuous focusing speed and sunk costs, by which I mean that 1) people who have already heavily invested in lenses have no compelling reason to throw their investment out of the window and 2) R&D costs have been recouped, which results in a price advantage. But there is no significant IQ advantage to justify the difference in size and weight. 35 mm is a totally different story. This is a specialist format, like medium format in the film era and, in the long run, I expect it to remain in use precisely among the kind of professionals who would have gravitated towards Rollei, Hasselblad and Mamiya in the old days.
The Nikon 1 and Sony 1″ sensors will be good enough in a few years.
By then m43 should have enough of the market that it should be thriving.
APSC was good enough a few years ago which is why it became the dominant format. It will remain the dominant format for a few years as people have invested in the systems.
But it will gradually come under pressure from m43 and 1″ sensors as quality grows in both of those formats and people look for something smaller.
Eventually we’ll end up with superzoom cameras with ultrawide to super telephoto lenses, tiny but amazing sensors and fancy software to create any DOF effects we want. Given the current rate of progress I would imagine that will take 20 years.
In the meantime we have to change lesnes and buy into systems.
You nailed it. All things considered, m43 capability is already better than the technique of most people that choose to run a FF or APS-C camera. I don’t think ISO 204,000 and razer-thin DOF will be the only factors that determine the future success of the “surviving digital photography systems.” Anyone who says otherwise has probably skewed their own perspective to fit a narrow photographic universe that will require extensive therapy to escape.
I just placed an order for the GM1 because while I love my GH3 and use it on most of my paid jobs, the GM1 makes an ideal personal shooting kit together w/the 45mm and 14mm. As they say, the best camera system is the one you have with you and this one was definitely made to travel – and is no slouch in the capability dept.
??? I don’t get your point, ronin. kesztió points out the very likely case that future m43 sensors will be better than current FF sensors. He said nothing about future FF sensors. In no way did he indicate that FF sensors will stand still! Every sane person understands that the improvement will benefit all available sensor sizes.
kesztió’s point is, however, interesting. Those who currently hail the A7/r sensor as the only one that can be used, most likely will claim that the future m43 sensor can not be used because there is a slightly better FF sensor. In the mean time, I happily continue to take pictures with my m43 camera 🙂
“The myth that only micro 4/3 will get better, and that all other formats will stand still.”
That myth only exists within your head, and is your default reply to people pointing out how technology evolves. It was clearly pointed out that over time, m4/3 will achieve the same performance as 135 format does today.
Absolutely no implication was made that 135 format won’t improve during that time, or that 1″ won’t improve during that time.
So, you are taking someone’s argument, twist it, turn it into something that wasn’t said, just so you can argue against it.
This is how your type of non-argument is called: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Its a fallacy, which has been pointed out to you quite a few times before. By insisting on repeating it, you are merely showing your true colors.
I never buy any fund from iBanks because those analysts and managers are cheaters. Their analysis are far from truth.
It’s true that most of people are now using smartphone to shoot. However, there are still a lot of people pursuing image quality and portability. Micro 4/3 can fullfill the requirement of these people.
Such analysises are often not more worth then the “paper” it is written on. I have lost some Money because I didn’t take notice of their hints – and I lost some Money because I DID take notice of their hints!
If I look back, it’s a shame what this “analysts” all did forecast – and what came true.
If I look back, it’s a shame what this “analysts” all did forecast – and what came true.
like Subprime Mortgage Bonds Get AAA Rating, funy i wonder on whose payrol is an analyst and his market position…
jast sayin’
this so called “analyst” forgot about Samsung.
Samsung Electronics is about 5 times bigger than Sony and tens of times more profitable.
Samsung cell phone sensors are catching up with Sony quality. In few years from now Samsung probably will stop buying sensors from Sony and use in their cell phones only Samsung sensors. And they will also be competetive in mirrorless market.
The so called “analyst” also forgot about new material in electronics – graphene.
Graphene sensor can be made spherical, like human eye. Should I say … aspherical?
Also organic sensors will be made on spherical surfice. This will trigger revolution in lens making. Lenses will have fewer elements and totally new different design. At some point, the lenses will use at least one “flexible” liquid element. Samsung currently is number 1 maker of graphene and together with IBM they are very large patent holder. Sony nikon and canon have neither money nor technology to become player in that field. They could try to buy small companies with patent portfolio but …. they have no money for that. Therefore, they will be buying graphene sensor from Samsung and Taiwan companies. Quite possible Panasonic will have their own organic based sensor.
.
The so called “analyst” is totally wrong in market assessment. Current cell phone picture takers, will sooner or later develope desire to take better quality of pictures. As admin pointed out in his comment, you cannot cheat physics. In car industry they call it: “there is no replacement for displacement”. Therefore by 2015, there will be significant increase in sales of mirrorless cameras and there will be total decline of DSLRs.
.
Now let’s make small analysis about the so called “analysts”. They are puppets. They are useful idiots in the hands of bankers. Do you remember when few years ago the same useful idiots who call themselves “analysts” tried to convince you to “invest” and “buy the property” ? Those who followed this advice were utterly robbed, and their houses, especially in spain and usa, lost 70% of their value, but mortgage remained the same. So do you really want to trust these useful idiots who call themselves analysts? Let’s make this “analyst” simple offer to test him. Let’s ask him to put $300 000 surety as a support of his ‘analysis”. If he is wrong, in three years his $300 000 will go to Red Cross or other organization. And you’ll see immediately that this “analyst” will get panic attack and will not put his money in his own “analysis”.
People do not know that “analysts” do not pick up the topic of “analysis” freely. They are useful idiots who do “analysis” on request from their masters. And masters, are … masters of manipulation.
Have a great new year.
You do realize that Samsung just chose to merge their camera group with their smartphone and mobile group, right? Samsung clearly sees a different future for imaging, one that’s not a standalone function within their company.
Actually, smartphone shooters are ex-entry level point-and-shoot shooters. As my brother in law said to me a couple of months ago, when he asked my help for choosing a new smartphone and a tablet “you care about IQ, I don’t; all I want is something to take snapshots of my newborn granddaughter and post them on FB, so that my wife’s friends can see them!”. In the film days I was shooting with a Nikon FE2, he was shooting with a Kodak Instamatic – and half the pictures had half of the head of at least one person in the group missing. His smartphone pictures are actually better!
The article does NOT predict mirrorless will go away, but rather it implies that it will be canikony that will supply mirrorless. Now, if that’s true– I don’t know.
Credit Suisse = Rumor
(FT 0.5)!
🙂
More like FT0.1
Well, the article suggests Olypan will not continue selling mirrorless cameras and/or lenses. That means m4/3 is going to disappear?
I dont believe this is going to happen…
These guys may or may not be correct in this prediction, but if they are right it’s because they got lucky, not because of any actual predictive skill. Analyits are, after all, a special class of people who make a lucrative career convincing gullible investors to believe the confident-sounding predictions that they pull out of their asses when in reality technology is often far to volatile to predict accurately even a couple years into the future.
Easy case in point: Netbooks.
Jump back in time 5 years to 2008 when netbooks were all the rage. Pretty much every analyst who was anyone was predicting ever-increasing growth for the market segment. Gartner, a particularly big analyst firm, predicted sales of 50 million netbooks by 2012:
http://deviceguru.com/netbooks-to-take-the-market-by-storm/
Analyists at the time were, of course, telling one of the niche computer companies that didn’t make netbooks–Apple–that they needed to start, or they’d be left behind by everybody else.
Jump forward to today, and how did those predictions fare? Turns out that Apple went and released a tablet computer that got the ball rolling for other tablet manufacturers–many of whom are not well-known traditional PC manufacturers at all, like Samsung–which went on to not only completely kill off the netbook market segment but are now substantially eating into regular PCs as well.
Actual 2012 netbook sales: 14 million. 2013 sales: about 4 million, and most of the major manufacturers of them don’t even make them anymore.
Cameras are, of course, not as volatile as computers, but the point here being that pretty much every single analyst from just a few years ago wildly misgauged the entire industry, and not a single one of them would have predicted that current global sales figures would look even remotely the way they do.
Here’s a particularly hilarious “analyst” misfire: ABI Research in mid-2010 published a report on internet devices that would cost you a whopping $4200. It predicted, according to reports:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100722006175/en/Market-Shares-Shift-Annual-Netbook-Shipments-Double#.UsFDa3mKM1k
…that sales of netbooks in 2013 would double, to 120 million units globally, and that the market would consolidate with Acer as the clear leader.
Reality: 2013 sales, 4 million units, and in January Acer announced that they were ending production of netbooks entirely because nobody was buying them. So in less than two and a half years, the report you’d pay $4200 to read was off by a factor of 30–that’s 3000%–and predicted as market leader a company that wasn’t even manufacturing the product anymore.
If you believe anything an analyst says, you’re either stupid, or what they’re saying fits what you want to happen.
Ah netbooks, those little pieces of junk… how quickly and gladly they are forgotten.
These same asshat analysts and their ilk were all screaming that Apple should release netbooks to stay “competitive”.
Apple released the MacBook Air.
Then Apple the iPad, blindsiding all of them.
Today Pee Sea sales are plummeting… Microsoft is irrelevant, beyond their captive and entrenched markets… while Mac sales are actually increasing, while iPad and iPhone rule. Meanwhile Samsung is getting hammered in courtrooms around the world for stealing/copying Apple’s designs and other intellectual properties.
Funny just how WRONG douchebag bean counters can be.
iPhone rules?? With 80% of smartphones being Androids? 🙂
And iPhone taking 90% of the profits.
Apple’s responses to the netbook craze were twofold. First they came out with the MacBook Air, which was able to run the full-featured Mac OS X which was already well established. Second they pushed the iPads, for those who wanted something even more portable.
One of my observations is that the so-called technology analysts frequently predict that one technological development will kill of a given existing technology. At times they are correct. More often what happens is that technology is diversifying, and an existing technology does not fit all of the applications for which it is being used. Thus there is an opening for an additional (!) technology which fits one segment better than the existing technology. The new technology will prosper in that niche, but will not supplant the previous technology in the niches which are better suited to that existing technology.
Many of these analysts think that the only sign of a successful technology is an ever-increasing volume of sales or market share. Anyone who studies history should understand the concept of market saturation 🙂
Thus we have a technology market in computers (for example) which has servers of various sizes from large to modest, desktops, laptops, tablets, etc. They all address different needs.
The same obviously applies in photography.
I have been in the Financial industry for 20 years. I cant remember more than half a dozen people that are able in judging Social processes and their future Development. I was around when such prognosises were done: thousands of useless figures in excel charts. Some of them correlate, some of them dont. None of them show any causality. Most employees in Banks dont even know the difference..
So: If someone who is called analyst tells you something it is wrong. Not most probably. For granted.
The key word, of course, is FINANCE analyst. They probably know nothing beyond their spreadsheets (and in the best case scenario the press releases and the quarterly statements of a particular industry); they certainly know nothing about the underlying technological trends, the current state of R&D, or the true importance of a patent. I bet that an average engineer in the particular industry, or a skilled patent attorney could have made far better predictions. And even them might get in wrong. Did you know that gorilla glass actually derives from Corning patents of the 60ies? It went out of production(no advantage, if you only want to manufacture oven and stove-proof kitchenware), until Steve Jobs started looking for a suitable material for I-phones…
BS man. My Facebook friends have the worst photos in the world all taken with cell phones. High quality cameras will be around for a long time!
This article is totally bias.
If they said that the only surviving company to produce the camera are Canon, Nikon and Sony, then what the heck Nikon say will survive when their sales fallen to 30% this year led to 26% loss of the income to their company? http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/11/08/nikon-sales-fallenthe-nikon-df-high-demand/
The demand of the mirrorless camera is increasing particularly in Asia Pacific region because of size and functionality par with professional camera such as DSLR. Many people consider weight and quality rather than choose the bulky camera, I also saw the Olympus OMD EM-1 and EM-5 are selling well as well as Panasonic camera. Not mention about Samsung, but the smartphone camera with advanced features such as Lumia 1020 may also become the killer of bulky camera.
What do you think about that?
Nikon is profitable. Canon is profitable.
Panasonic and Olympus and Fuji are losing money in their camera lines.
The article gives specifics about sales losses in mirrorless.
Yet somehow it is biased.
What do you think of that?
Actually Nikon is not profitable in its latest earnings and Olympus was profitable in their last earnings report. Oh and there is also the fact that Olympus has been profitable except for the fact that it was paying out on law suits from the accounting scandal, dragging it into the red. That is behind them now so blue skies ahead. Not sure what colour the skies are for Nikon, looking red from an investors perspective
Nikon made a profit of over 200,000,000 dollars in its most recent half year. Olympus lost money in its camera business yet again.
I’d suggest you actually research numbers before sharing incorrect information. Or maybe you did, and prefer to change reality.
They better do, as Nikon has no other business to fall back on, they already lost that one to ASML a while ago.
One could argue that Nikon so much depends on the camera market that they’ll put everything into their survival, maybe so, but the way they simply gave away the market to ASML doesn’t bode well for that.
Canon otoh does have a sound alternative business to keep them afloat in case of real trouble for their camera business, as does Olympus for example.
Despite their profits, Nikon is by far the most vulnerable serious player in the camera market, they simply cannot afford any real mistakes at all.
Olympus’s quarterly net loss was ?1.83 billion versus a loss of ?4.45 billion in the year-ago period the Company that its sales of its signature mirrorless model, the PEN, had fallen 12 percent in the first quarter, below its expectations.
Olympus was profitable? When? You have a link to that?
last I checked, Olympus hasn’t been profitable for years!
The way i see it, Olympus needs Sony to stay afloat. Problem is, Sony will siphon Olytech, making Sony cameras better until Sony Owns Olympus, including the medical side.
Corporate takeover.
As an investor I am somewhere invested in Samsung, as a photographer in Olympus. 🙂
I also remember that at the time of the Woodford affair there were rumours that external investors were trying to gather control, a large international group spearheaded by Mr. W . – and failed.
Oly is really in the hands of Japanese banks so as long as they play Oly plays. Same might be for Panny and others. Possibly only Canon and Fuji can finance themselves.
Now as a photographer I fear even less. True smartphones have a tsunami effect, but:
– O&P are concentrating on enthusiast/semipro models, climbing the value added ladder
– photo app might in the end lose steam like anything else. Will the outcome be a planet of better photogs?
You give your answer, I already have my own 🙂
Poor pentex, great products but they are in the background. only few people own then.
(not me ;P )
I own a Pentax (as well as my E-M5/GF1)!
Oly and Pentax are similar in principle and will always have a loyal customer base.
I own a Pentax and a couple of lenses!
… an Asahi Pentax Spotmatic SP2, with a 50mm f1.4 and a 105mm f2.8 SMC Takumar lenses.
They were bought by an ex-girlfriend’s late father in Paris around 1970. And I still use them with my GH2 and GX7. 🙂
I have zero interest in Pentax DSLRs, but Pentax has always made some very nice lenses. I’d love to see some of their super-compact Limited Series lenses reworked for mirrorless and M4/3.
You should check the 50/1.4 for radioactive coating though! Some of those lenses can cause damage, check google.
I checked at one point. There was a series of earlier SMCs that used radioactive stuff, but it was omitted later. I think the only real problem is that it can turn yellow over time.
It is a beautiful lens! Every time I shoot with it, the images remind me of Kodachrome… RIP!
people worry tto much about the radiation of those old lenses…in an age where most radiation comes from mobile phone networks
Those lenses use glass doped with radioactive rare earths.
Doping of glass is done to change the refractive and dispersion properties of that glass, and the exact amount and type of doping determines how those properties change.
The use of radioactive materials will cause a bit of radiation, but thats not a real worry as you point out. However, the decay that causes this radiation also causes changes to the doping of the glass, and hence will very likely change the refractive and dispersion properties over time.
If you use it simply because you like the way it renders, this is of no concern. If you use it for its supposed optical quality however, its good to realize that after a few decades, such lenses will typically no longer perform according to their design specifications, and that isn’t just the bit of yellow cast they tend to get over time.
I love the Takumar 50/1.4 – a most stunning lens!
I admit, my Pentax is not one of their latest offerings, it’s a 67II! The YAMATO class of SLRs.
YAMATO class… LOL!!!! 🙂
My Kodak Aero Ektar f/2.5 178mm already weighs more then your Pentax 67II (showoff mode/ON)
I also own a Pentax and many limited lenses.
Thanks for the “shocking” forecast, Admin, good way to get a bunch of hits! As primarily an Olympus user of over 30 years I’ve long ago gotten used to such “the sky is falling” predictions. Reply? Mark Twain said it best: “The news of my death has been greatly exaggerated”.
If anything, mirrorless is clearly on the ascendancy internationally, especialyy in Asia where future growth of the industry will matter most. And it is telling that 3 of the top 5 most popular cameras reported by DPReview are Panasonic (GM1 and GX7) and Olympus (E-M1) products.
Let’s just say I’m shaking in my boots by this latest obit 😉 !
bunch of hits? I only report a New York Times article. It’s no making up a story. This news is all over the web. At least I am questioning their analysis.
It’s not a NYT article, it’s a Reuters report. “New York Times reports” is not a correct way to describe the relevance of this story.
Equity research associates and analyst are divided into different categories such as Oil and Gas, Consumer Products, Leisure and hospitality, technology… as each industry requires different valuation method. If you are working on pure equity research coms then there is a high chance that you will follow a group of 5 – 10 similar companies. These make you far more familiar with them. However, in big shop like Credit Suisse, diverse clients often require a larger degree of coverage and so analysts have to stretch themselves thinner. This is not to mention the elaborate feedback systems that big companies usually have with big banks’ analysts (eg: analysts give good feedback for companies to get better future information – this is common practice). This is why I don’t usually trust these reports.
I think sony QX and smarthopne as photo will never match normal cameras with real lenses
that but doesnt mean that m43 will really survive …it will be hard in this FF world
anywa I keep m43 …just would welcome to be more affordable
The Credit Suisse prediction, pretty much is already here. We have big Canon, the smaller Nikon and the wannabie Sony that at least totally dominates sensor development.
The rest are FINANCIALLY insignificant.
My guess is some other brands will survive:
Leica because it is Leica
Olypmus as an appendix to Sony
Fujifilm because the comany being so big likes to have cameras in their product line.
The problem is that the is very little camera midfield; either use the smartphone – or you are an enthusiast and/or pro.
If you are in high end you need to offer a SYSTEM rather than cameras. It also seems, in this niche Canon,Nikon and Sony releases FF sensor cameras. If the small want to be around in the future, they must develop FF SYSTEMS.
Like it or not….
Speaking of systems, Oly would win a lot of friends by supporting the wonderful 60mm macro with some more macro accessories like a ring flash (not the 4/3 one) and a wireless flash that doesn’t depend on the clip-on body flash. Oly do a great job with the scuba gear but have left their terrestrial fellow high and dry 😉
If you look at company value. The value of Olympus twice that of Nikon and The value of Canon is four times that of Nikon, so it looks like Nikon is the one that is insignificant.
Micro four thirds is a bad joke:
-One company specializes in corporate fraud
-The other company specializes in making toasters
-M43 users in deep denial
-Massively overpriced cameras and lenses
-Tiny sensors
-No market share
-No Future
-No Hope
Is it true that Nikon have patented a process for driving cars using the oil off their sensors?
Carry your kilograms like Sisyphus (your D800e and the Holy Trinity of Nikon) if you need that. For the rest of us, a Fuji APS-C or a Oly/Pana MFT can achive 90% of what your gear can achive without having broken backs! And remember shallower DOF can be achived in post-processing but vice versa is not possible. So apart from a slightly better DR and 2 stops ISO advantage (reduced to 0 by Oly IBIS for non-sports shootings) your FF has no other advantages 🙂
I agree you can do most things but if you want to do proper shallow DOF in PP you’ll spend countless hours in front of your computer which will most probably as bad for you back as schlepping around heavy gear.
Also, the ibis argument doesn’t make any sense because most lenses that need it come with OSS. Generally stabilizations is totally overrated as it’s only usable for static objects. Try shooting a low light portrait at 1/5s. Your ibis won’t magically ‘stabilize’ your model (whatever that means).
I don’t get why people cannot accept that there are some limitations to using a smaller sensor. Aren’t there already enough advantages such as size and weight to offset those limitations? Why invent stuff that’s plain wrong?
1/5 for model shooting/portrait? Use a flash!
I do and that’s why I say stabilization is overrated. For serious stuff you need a flash or tripod anyways.
> if you want to do proper shallow DOF in PP you’ll spend countless hours in front of your computer
Strange. My digital photography book manages to describe it in single chapter.
In essence: just blur/darken/lighten what harms *hint* *hint* the composition.
I’ve seen more portraits ruined by objects growing out of the subject’s head, regardless of the OOF blur. Because if the object is large/colorful/contrasty, even if it is blurred completely, it is still there as a colored patch, it is still distracting from the subject and harms the composition.
Well, if you’re using shallow DOF to compensate for a lack of composition skills that’s another problem but I never suggested that. There are genuine uses for shallow DOF even though i personally must say that I use it only very rarely.
Still saying that it’s possible to create natural bokeh in PP with just a few clicks in photoshop is bullshit. Things at different distances get blurred differently. But the blur tools in Photoshop obviously don’t know at what distance various objects were which means that a human has to intervene. And this does take time. It’s the same thing with people using blur filters to create miniature ’tilt’ images (which isn’t even the original application of tilt anyways but oh well). Let’s see how well your blur filter works when there is something with vertical extension on the (tilted) image plane.
Sorry but you make some common mistakes about the usefulness of image stabilization.
1. It also helps when shooting at ‘safe’ shutter speeds.
2. 1/180 for example may well be enough to stop motion, but not for handholding a 300mm lens
3. there are situations such as smoothing out flowing water, where no amount of fast lenses or high iso capability are going to help because the shutter speed must be long enough to get the smoothing effect.
4. It gives you the choice to use a longer shutter speed and lower iso when motion allows for this (this is the only use you seem to realize, but evidently its not the only use).
There is a fair bit more to this then the simple picture you try to paint, and consequently, its also likely your idea of which lenses might benefit from stabilization are wrong. For example, IS is very useful with the Lumix 7-14/4 when capturing waterfalls, fountains, or water surfaces that one might want to smooth, but this lens has no optical stabilization.
Not important? maybe not to you, but that totally depends on your photography, and not on the usefulness in general.
Man… I just said that it’s overrated. Nothing more, nothing less. I agree it is useful under but some people act as if it was THE substitute for high ISO performance which it simply isn’t. It’s a different thing as you pointed out. High ISO performance can only be substituted with even higher ISO performance.
And btw. I always take a tripod with me when I go for nature/landscape. Yes, it’s possible to smooth movement with IBIS but let’s say you also want to shoot a something which is farther away (landscape at close to inf). Additionally assuming that you have no means of controlling the speed of clouds (which you most probably don’t) what are you going to do when the clouds are moving slowly in a scene where you want considerable smoothing in the sky? There is an upper limit of what you can do with hand-held IBIS and that’s why I take my tripod with me instead of risking lost shots.
Imo the beauty of m43 is that I can just take all the gear you need like lenses, tripod (which also doesn’t have who have to carry big cameras and big glass. That however doesn’t mean that the smaller camera itself is more capable than the big camera. There are compromises and I just don’t get why some people can’t accept that.
You only said it is overrated? No sir, this is what you said:
“Also, the ibis argument doesn’t make any sense because most lenses that need it come with OSS. Generally stabilizations is totally overrated as it’s only usable for static objects”
So, thats actually 2 arguments there:
1. IBIS is overrated because most lenses that need it come with OSS.
2. Generally stabilization is totally overrated s it’s only usable for static objects”
I pointed out how both arguments are factually incorrect.
I’m not saying IS is the solution for all situations, rather not, but I am pointing out it is:
1. more useful then you suggest
2. not just limited to static subjects.
I gave 2 reasons why it IS in fact useful with non static objects also, which you indeed addressed by pointing out there are more extreme situations where it will not help, and that require a tripod or other kind of support. Sure, agree those exist, but this really doesn’t negate in any way the usefulness for that smoothing example, and doesn’t at all address the 1/180 with a 300mm lens example.
Please try harder, or maybe just accept that for many people, IS is in fact a very very very very useful tool, even if it isn’t for you. It has to do with things like application, circumstances, intended use of the pictures and such.
I totally agree with your conclusion that ISO and IS are not the same thing, and often can’t replace eachother, but that really goes both ways, while you are painting an extremely one-sided picture of that.
What you do is equivalent to people saying tripods are generally totally overrated, which is obviously a rather silly thing to say unless you limit yourself to specific conditions and applications.
‘So, thats actually 2 arguments there:
1. IBIS is overrated because most lenses that need it come with OSS.
2. Generally stabilization is totally overrated s it’s only usable for static objects”’
Take anything out of context and you can turn in any way. This was the original comment I was commenting on: ‘…2 stops ISO advantage (reduced to 0 by Oly IBIS for non-sports shootings)…’
1. If you are comparing different systems, it’s just reasonable to equate ILIS and IBIS so it’s pointless to say that system X is better than system Y because it has IBIS when many lenses of system Y come with ILIS.
2. If you think that stabilization gives you 2 stops advantage for everything but sports, you are obviously overrating it.
‘…or maybe just accept that for many people, IS is in fact a very very very very useful tool’
you know, just the comment before I wrote: “… I agree it is useful under(tipo) but…”
I don’t even know what you are trying to say with your 300mm example. Yes, stabilization is also useful for lenses that are hard to support but at 1/180 you’re still shooting something that is more or less static. A fast walking person that works perpendicular to the lens axis will already be blurry. If you’re using a telephoto to compress landscapes that’s fine but it’s at least my impression that most people use these FL for sports and wildlife.
Btw. calling people ‘sir’ in the internet is mostly considered rude. But I think you know that (even though I don’t really know what I did to make you behave that way).
Lets just keep it at that both your post and the one you replied to are an exaggeration.
With regards to the 300mm lens example, lowering your shutter speed may be very useful for panning shots, or for example when taking pictures of performers on stage from some distance (this helps to eliminate much of the difference in height between you and the stage), where you may want to show that a drummer is actually playing his drums instead of sitting there statically, that a string on an instrument is actually vibrating instead of being warped etc.
Its just 2 examples, I’m sure that with a little bit of creativity you can think up more such situations yourself.
There are lenses which are built without OSS (e.g. canon 24-70 f2.8 to name just one, also not all non-oly mft lenses have OSS), so here IBIS is realy a big advantage…
For the rest I agree with you statement that pleople overrate IBIS (it’s 5 stops better, but only compared to lenses without OSS). Mind you, I love IBIS 🙂
Yep. Thank god 6000+ Euros for your 4 Kilograms of gear is a) neither overprized nor b) causes denial in owners…
And an insecurity where they feel the need to compare themselves to other systems because they have this niggling feeling they made the wrong choice, so need to mask it by trash talking.
If old fool frame above was so happy with his system why does he troll m43 forums seeking validation for the camera he probably doesn’t know how to use
Well, in defense of those people, we can easily spend that much on Olympus and Pansonic Gear as well 🙂
I think m43 is a great compromise and decided to go this route because it allows for smaller lenses/cameras for when that is practical, and I have a GH3 which is really good for video.
I’s not cheap though, I have Oly 17 1.8, 45 1.8, 9-18, pana 25 1.4, pana kit, pana 45-150, and sigma 60 2.8.
I still wish for oly 12 2, oly 75 1.8, pana 12-35 2.8, pana 35-100 2.8 (the zooms would be nice for weathersealing + good stabilized video)
Try adding that up 🙂
geez-hope the forecast is wrong-I too am thinking about dumping my Canon stuff as Fuji (and the others) makes a terrific product-I use an x100s for almost everything-m43 just gets better and better with each new camera-but if you think about it-why doesn’t canon have a nice mirrorless system-Nikon has a great little cx sensored camera set -losing the other mirrorless players would be a sad day…
These are the same bunch of people who were telling us the banking sector was sound before the crisis. Credit Suisse must be holding some stocks of the big three and trying to make us believe their bullshit.
Yep, exactly, and Apple is dead. Are analysts the most overpaid useless people on the world?
Yep, and the DSLR is dead, even though their sales have increased and mirrorless sales have plummeted.
There is a whole lot of denial going on here, attacking the analyst forecasts yet ignoring the specific actual sales numbers the article bases the forecast on.
The forecast may or may not be wrong, but the numbers can’t be denied. Sales of mirrorless are falling off a cliff.
Quick, there is something you can do to prove the forecaster wrong! Invest all your money in Olympus/Panasonic/Fuji stock to prop them up. And buy and buy and buy more product.
What’s that? You don’t want to invest your hard earned savings in a company that keeps product lines that continue to lose more and more money? You prefer to save the money so you have some to give to your children?
Oh.
I don’t think readers here are in denial. Obviously most readers here use m43 kit and they know it is excellent for their needs. Are mirrorless sales falling off a cliff? Maybe in the US but elsewhere? I have noticed more mirrorless cameras in the hands of tourists lately, I see a lot of tourists from Asia. Technology-wise for sure mirrorless will out live DSLRs.
Panasonic is not a small company and Oly is hooked up with Sony. I can’t see either Pany or Oly disappearing anytime soon. This means the predictions are wrong, simple as that!
The merkins seem to think they are the world , if it doesn’t sell in merka then it must not be selling!
What a sad nation it has become
Denial? Maybe you should look at the track record of some of these “analysts”, just for starters. And these are not “actual sales numbers”, by the way. Nothing is falling off any cliff.
It’s either denial, or poor reading skills, I dunno. Because the article discusses very specific worldwide trend numbers. There is only one location that mirrorless sales are increasing, and that’s Japan. However, DSLR sales in Japan are increasing at an even greater pace.
Seriously, guys. I have micro 4/3 equipment I enjoy. But I don’t intend to buy any future equipment in this format, at least until there are any signs of long term viability.
What else do you believe that banks will tell you?
We can trust banks. They would never do anything to risk the trust they develop with their customers, right?
Typical Corporate bank forecast that can only see the forward march of globalisation and cronyism. Most of the authors would know what a camera is. Its complely worthless other than to those interested in share prices which have been inflated by the central banks and their quantatetive easing and currently bear no relationship to earnings. This will all come to an end and then we will all feel the effects of the 2007 crash that thus far has only really hit the poor hard but has also wiped out the savings of the middle class.
Ingress quote:
“…only big companies like Nikon, Canon and Sony will survive. Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida said that mirrorless cameras “are sputtering as buyers put connectivity above picture quality“.”
Mirrorless is sputtering, and yet the conclusion is that Canikon will survive?!
That has no mirrorless to be reckoned with?
Yeah, right.
1.3 kg dinosaur DSLR relics are the ones that will go extinct, when people realize that IQ is waaay good enough for almost anything from small(er) mirrorless tech. Sensors do evolve, and fast. And there is a limit to how much the market at large needs for IQ. If Canokon don’t wake up and goes along w/ this trend, they are the ones in trouble. Not Fuji, not Panasonic, not Olympus.
+1
The US is slow to realize how good smaller sensor cameras have become, but people are blown away by what can be achieved by these setups when I show it to them. Word of mouth will eventually convince a lot of people to realize the benefit they gain from smaller systems, while giving up very little in the Image Quality department, for MOST purposes.
But it’s time for the pana-oly marketing depts to start pushing just this.
I still get people who have a hard time believing that some photo’s I show them come from ‘my little camera’ (in a very condescending tone of course). Of course these are Canon / Nikon FF people….
Micro Four thirds was dead in the water before it started: Tiny sensors, loads of huge (and always overpriced) cameras, overpriced, slow, lenses.
when you can get a superior performing asp-c dslr system for double the performance, half the price and a little more weight (assuming your muscles are strong enough, lol).
If your worried about the weight, get a smartphone (something I would choose over M43, every-single-time – as does mostly everyone else, accept for a few nerds on camera forums, lol).
Huge cameras and slow lenses? Are you sure you’re commenting on the right post?
I think having great lenses is what drives a system. Full frame has them and so does m4/3. These are what people are passionate about. APS-c is decent for Canon/Nikon to get sales from big box stores and internet, but there doesn’t seem an easy way to get smaller size optics. The 6D, d610 and now A7 are going push full frame back into the forefront. M4/3 mistake is not making a competitor to the Rebel in both size and price and getting a retail channel established in the US. M4/3 seems to weighed down in retro body style with high prices.
It seems that photographers like full frame and m4/3 optics for differing situations. I wouldn’t buy into this report.
Any so-called expert who predicts that Sony’s QX gadget is the future would appear to have a very cloudy crystal ball.
> Credit Suisse imaging analyst Yu Yoshida said
LOL. Big bankers predicting that big businesses are the most safe to invest into? That’s just silly. I gather they simply try to gauge the impact of the P&S “merging” into the camera-phones.
#1 The problem here is rather that camera market is fragmented, not singular. There are many niches. When consumers give reasons for buying one P&S or another (or cameraphone for that sake), one hears rather diversified list of requirements and expectations. And cameras and lenses, whichever model you take, are still highly compromised products. Meaning that, until major breakthrough in optical designs is made, the market would stay fragmented, both feature-wise and price-wise. I might have believed in the consolidation around large companies if there were at least some price consolidation (IOW all cameras had approx same price, difference between high/low-end max 100%) but that definitely doesn’t happen anytime soon.
#2 From my very limited experience, even the investment market doesn’t work like that. Funds are looking for companies whose shares are on the move: that’s where the profits are made. Investments into larger companies often act as more of an anchor – because the security is good but margins are low. It is smaller companies which are traded more actively. That’s also why venture capitalists keep giving money to found such smaller companies to work on prospective technologies. Whatever VC lose on the investment into the company, they make back on trading its stocks. (Unless company succeeds and they make huge profit.) And that’s how the wheel spins.
> until major breakthrough in optical designs is made
That’s reminded me. While everybody is talking (and quite some research is being made) about DoF and OOF post-shot adjustment, everybody forgets the elephant in the room: post-shot adjustment of the perspective distortion.
Wouldn’t it be cool to give a wide-angle shot the compression of the tele-lens? Or add wide-angle distortion to the tele shot?
I doubt that can be solved by the current 2-lens stereo (or “3D”) setups, since they capture distance information only in one plane.
> Wouldn’t it be cool to give a wide-angle shot the compression of the tele-lens? Or add wide-angle distortion to the tele shot?
uhm, no.
There a healthy reaction here. In fact if an earlier news were true Oly is expecting breakeven in 2014, so that means 1,000,000 cameras/yr..
Not much compared to Canon’s – what – 10,000,000 – but still a sizeable amount.
Now compare to the one or two billion cellphones! Of course even Canon is v. little. We are talking about people who need – or figure they need a dedicated tool. Also, some who need only a luxury item, collectors, voigtlanders 🙂
So we see the paradox of Oly making profits for the first time in 10 yrs. while other companies collapse…
Even, it’s weird you didn’t notice the tell tale signs of the industry restructuring. See Ricoh-Pentax for instance. Did they feel the damage? For a photog. a change of property is not so important, as much that the design team and the expertise of the original brand is preserved.
In the end do you want a physical camera or not? Many couldn’t care less, but there are certainly those who think that the material object contributes to the image, and will spend for it. A minority, but a paying minority.
It would be interesting to know how many the industry leaders forecast. And how many customers they need to stay afloat.
Needing relatively few like Oly might be a plus.
Forecasting profit is not the same as making profit. Olympus has a not so nice track record of achieving forecasts.
Readers here are mad at the forecasts, but they ignore the actual numbers given.
Financial investors want to make money. If they thought the mirrorless vendors had a chance, they would be all over it. Why would they want to invest in money losers?
But look. All us fans can make a difference! Let’s invest every penny of our savings- our IRAs, our kids’ college funds, our mortgages, max out our credit card cash advances- and invest in Olympus and Panasonic and Fuji cameras and in their company’s stock!
Because we all know that sales don’t matter and profit doesn’t matter and analysts don’t matter, because we know we like our stuff, and DSLR is dead, and Americans are stupid, and millions of DSLR buyers are stupid and inferior, and mirrorless will take over!
But we won’t. We won’t put our money where our mouth is. Because, frankly, we don’t want to lose money either.
“Financial investors want to make money. If they thought the mirrorless vendors had a chance, they would be all over it.”
Stock trading has everything to do with emotion, and very little with hard facts (which in reality aren’t very hard either)
“Why would they want to invest in money losers?”
Yeah, why would they. Why did some company just invest a lot of money to buy an 51% share in 3 loss making sensor production facilities… maybe it just doesn’t entirely work the way you think it does?
Yes, you are right, Raa. People deliberately want to lose money and will line up to invest in products they know are losing money. Silly me for thinking otherwise. Thanks for setting me straight.
Where did I say they want to lose money?
I said something else, but considering you didn’t even manage to read my name correctly…
“So we see the paradox of Oly making profits for the first time in 10 yrs. while other companies collapse…”
Correction, Olympus forecast says they’ll break even in 2014, so thats not exactly an established fact. It should also be noted that Olympus has not achieved its forecast for many years in a row now (through they seem a mere 10% off this year, which isn’t that bad actually).
Probably very little profit in the sensor/”glass” on cell-phones vs mirror-less, and especially lenses for mirror-less.
They reference the QX lenses as the direction tech is going in photography?? LOL!
I visited a Sony store in Los Angeles last weekend and tried those lenses out. They kept losing connectivity to the phones! When I want to take a picture, I want to press a button or screen and have the picture, not fight with my phone.
Cool idea but awful implementation. If this is the future, we better stock up on our ‘old’ digital cameras today.
We can’t predict the future. I owned and still own Saturn cars. Lots of Plymouths and Oldsmobiles still on the road. I own and love my E-M5, but my world doesn’t revolve around it. I don’t put much stock in reports like this because no one’s crystal ball is very clear but life will go on regardless of what car we drive or camera we use. Admin – I like this kind of report, so keep posting them. I just don’t hyperventilate over them
As much as I like Panasonic M43 cameras, I’m looking to Fuji as a way out of M43.
There are just too many reviews that love everything about a M43, but then they crappie over the 16mp M43 sensor.
Let’s be real here… As good as M43 engines get, FF and APS-C camera engine gets better as well!
It looks like I may have a trinity, Canon FF, Fuji APS-C and maybe a G6. But it’s not looking good for M43. My “bulky” FF canon gives me the best image quality out of any camera I’ve ever owned.. ever.
you want to buy my fuji? It’s great but I think I’m going to keep my full frame cams and a GX7
I have the GX7, I’m selling it. Not that it’s not good, but I prefer the center evf.
Also, I like the fact that most Fuji’s have a aperture ring and again, the IQ is better.
As long as Panasonic stays small, smaller than everyone else, I think they’ll be ok.
Am I allowed to suggest that maybe you should spend a little more time on actually using the equipment you own instead of on what equipment you should own?
It’s Obvious that I do, which is the reason why I’m selling the GX7 and getting something in replace of it with a center VF.
I have both the GF2 and the GX1 with clip on CENTER VF.
I’ve owned a G5 with a CENTER VF.
I own a Canon 6D with a CENTER VF.
I’m selling the GX7, simply because I’m more COMFORTABLE with a (Say it with me…) CENTER VF.
It’s “Rumored” that the next Fuji camera will have a CENTER VF, which is why I’m thinking about that.
So, in summation, Yaa.. You’re barking up the wrong tree. Bark elsewhere and take your “Suggestions” with you.
Hey, I don’t care where you want the EVF, but find it funny you are already talking about selling your GX7.. it has been around for how long?
Since October.
Does it matter? I’ve had close to 2 months shooting with it. That’s more than enough for me. Maybe not for you, but that doesn’t matter. I don’t need you or anyone else’s approval.
And again, I CARE where I want my EVF… WTFDYTYA to judge what MY NEEDS should be?
For the record:
-The GX7 is a very good M43 camera… One of the best ever.
-The Silent mode is one of the Slickest ideas ever for a camera in my opinion.
-Video quality is great. Better than any Olympus camera, but we all know that already.
-Why Panasonic didn’t release a All Black version from the start in the U.S. is beyond me. One of the reasons why I don’t have a GM1 right now.
-Ibis is great. I could see the difference in the P/L 25mm pics. It may not be up to par of Olympus Ibis, but so what, it’s there, and it works.
At the end of the day, shoot with what you like. I’m looking forward to see what this Fuji camera is about. If it doesn’t have a Center VF, then it looks like a 6D/G6 combo for me…
“Does it matter? I’ve had close to 2 months shooting with it. That’s more than enough for me. Maybe not for you, but that doesn’t matter. I don’t need you or anyone else’s approval.”
And I wasn’t thinking you needed my approval, or would care about what I’d think about whatever camera you buy.
But eh, you’ve had it 2 months and are about to sell it, and yet find it strange that I comment on you maybe being a bit too busy with what equipment you should own?
“And again, I CARE where I want my EVF… WTFDYTYA to judge what MY NEEDS should be? ”
Hmm? where did I tell you what your needs should be? I’m merely noting that you are rather busy with what camera to own, while you just got a new one very recently.
Why go to Fuji then? If you want the ultimate in Quality/low-level, go straight to flagship Nikon/Canon..
Doesn’t seem to be much difference between Fuji and the best m43 cameras.
I can certainly respect anyone who feel their needs are not met by m43. For my purpose, I’m more than happy with it, both for video (GH3 especially) and pictures. Fast lenses make up for the sensor size to a large degree (building up primes ranging from f1.4-f1.8)
Reason for me to go with a Fuji is for better manual control and better image quality.
Sure, M43 IQ is good, but it’s not beating Fuji IQ.
And you’re right, Panasonic Video quality is up there, which is why I’m considering getting a G6 for that reason. I’m not giving up my 25mm 1.4 nor my 20mm pancake ever.
And I like what Fuji is doing with their lens selection. It’s not at the point of options like M43, but for my needs, mostly Street Photography, it will serve it’s purpose.
If Panasonic could stay the course of staying smaller than mostly everyone else, providing small primes and zooms, I see them being around and carving out their spot in mirrorless cameras. M43 has been losing ground in mirrorless year after year. The G series should be their largest M43 stills camera, not counting the GH series, because I believe Panasonic will direct that full steam towards Video users.
FF looks better than any for sure and I have em all, but the M 4/3rds are the most fun in my book. I’ve been shooting film since my first Nikon F in 1969. I own Fuji, Sony FF, Canon FF, Panny M 4/3rds…some compacts.
Love the M4/rds
And wasn’t crédit suisse the folks who said APPLE was going to fold back in the 90’s?
Good Products and Niches tend to find their own life and often mass acceptance and profit
I do hope M 4/3rds starts making better sensors but they are not horrible and I take some pretty nice images with em.
Viva “thinking different” and screw the bean counters who try and tell us what we will want so they can hedge their $$ bets.
Consider the source.
Olympus and Panasonic should think about making some “bigger” sensor.
Remember this article?
http://www.43rumors.com/after-the-e-m1-does-olympus-have-to-go-full-frame/
“It’s true that Sony will soon announce a mirrorless FF camera. But it will cost 2.5 times the E-M1 and I doubt it will give you the same kind of mature usability and durability.”
Today we know the truth is the A7 COSTS LESS than the EM-1 and the body, is very usable, durable and EVEN LIGHTER and SMALLER than the OMD. Sorry to say that but my opinion is that FF mirrorless is the future. M43 is a well built system but it’s just been overtaken by todays technology. Sony simply changed the game.
Ah, one of those who thinks repeatedly posting something makes it true…
The A7 is not cheaper, and has a list of issues that don’t make it an alternative for many uses.
No surprise. They have reached the logical conclusion based on the experience of mature businesses.
The only way for the small brands to survive is if the camera market grows rapidly again.
If they can be profitable with 1,000,000 cameras *as they said*. They might be profitable with it while Canon isn’t with 10,000,000. That is exactly the meaning of niche surviving in a camera business which is not only saturating, but *contracting* because of the smartphone photo app expanding.
If the shakeout is beginning, and this is what these warnings about the camera industry are about, then mirrorless might find itself as the most resilient – it has the latest technology and the most appeal.
C&N might abandon APS and find refuge in Pro FF, while Sony has a sort of hobbled walk at the moment. By comparison m4/3 walks very straight in one format only – with raising prices however.
We should ask what T. Hogan predicts, if mirrorless can make it in 2014 by doubling the sales – which is what Oly predicts anyway. Because it is so recent mirrorless might be the part less hit of the camera industry. Do note how quickly it took up wi-fi.
Question… Doesn’t Canon make more sales off their APS-C cameras over full frame cameras? Because if I’m correct, why would they get rid of it? Why not expand on it and make a proper Mirrorless camera?
I don’t know why canon doesn’t make a Mirrorless 7D in a weather proof G-1X-like body, swivel screen and all, with interchangeable lenses.
That would create an uproar.
Almaric,
Let me explain something about niches.
Niches work when you have something special, and can charge the price you want. Example, Leica has a mystique based on its superb lenses and legendary users. It survives by charging $$$$$ to a few.
M43 isn’t special when it uses technology off the shelf. Sony also has fast EVF and hybrid AF. Nikon One has better PDAF on-sensor.
In fact, the overwhelming majority of M43 sales is based on cameras without EVF to upgraders. And, M43 prices are dictated by the DSLR competition. DSLR prices fall, M43 prices fall.
Fact. The sales from either of Canikon’s entry level cameras exceed the combined sales of MILC. Exceeds by several times the combined sales of M43. That’s how much more money that Canikon can invest into their cameras.
So we’d like to understand how sales of dSLR are falling by 24% this year, while Oly predicts a doubling of sales in ’14.
There’s a limit to the lack of grasping, isn’t it?
You believe in Oly’s ‘projections’?
How’s that for grasping at straws?
> DSLR prices fall, M43 prices fall.
weird – from where I am standing, it looks like DSLR prices are going down and M43 prices are going up. (which I am none too happy about)
Weird. I must be mislead by the amazing discounts on new camera models. Some even before they shipped. What gives?
Olympus and Panasonic should think about making some “bigger” sensor.
Remember this article?
http://www.43rumors.com/after-the-e-m1-does-olympus-have-to-go-full-frame/
“It’s true that Sony will soon announce a mirrorless FF camera. But it will cost 2.5 times the E-M1 and I doubt it will give you the same kind of mature usability and durability.”
Today we know the truth is the A7 COSTS LESS than the EM-1 and the body, is very usable, durable and EVEN LIGHTER and SMALLER than the OMD. Sorry to say that but my opinion is that FF mirrorless is the future. M43 is a well built system but it’s just been overtaken by todays technology. Sony simply changed the game.
where other than your mind is this magical place where the A7 is cheaper? also. have you not read the problems with these cams?
Where do you see the A7 for less than the E-M1?
“Today we know the truth is the A7 COSTS LESS than the EM-1”
Oh really? where?
Its in approx the same price range, through a little more expensive. Stop telling untruths.
“and the body, is very usable,”
You understand that this camera has some serious issues with wide-angle lenses due to the mount not being wide enough to allow sufficient peripheral illumination, and the flange distance being so short that angle of incidence away from the center will also be a big issue for wide-angle lenses?
You noticed the shutter of this camera sounds kinda like that of a mid 1960s Practica, with the same effect on any nearby wildlife or people (seek cover, someone is shooting at us!)?
If usable means being able to show off how you have a fool frame camera, then it certainly is. If you’d actually like to use it as a full frame mirrorless, then its usable for certain things, but not a very well usable camera overall.
“durable and EVEN LIGHTER and SMALLER than the OMD.”
You understand that a larger sensor will also require bigger and heavier lenses, and that almost any lens/body combination with an A7 with be bigger and heavier then a similar setup based on an m4/3 camera, even when considering the biggest and heaviest m4/3 bodies?
Considering this has been pointed out repeatedly as well, and is a consequence of not that difficult to understand physics, I’ll ask, why are you saying things that you know to be wrong?
Quick question? Have you ever seen an adapted microprocessor forum. With topics like: “Hey I just monted a vintage intel 80386 on my brand new Windows 8 laptop and I get better frame playing BF4!”
You don’t because with more than one million engineer tinkering with CMOS for the past 40 years the best microprocessor is the next one!
So the best sensor easy is the next one! It is an endless pursuit with no end in sight.
No the best lenses? Depending on the focal they might have been designed 30 years ago or in the last decade.
But one thing for sure only mirroless can take advantage all those old lenses.
Due to the drastically smaller investment in optical engineering (compared to microelectronics) I for one look at optics quality first and foremost.
Digital image production doesn’t need optics it purely needs computing power, CGI is your friend, but Photography is all about optics and it is why company like Leica, Zeiss and Olympus who are in the very high end optics business will survive while other will suffer in a shrinking market.
So I will say m4/3 is there to stay.
V. Well said – it’s sensor AND glass, and only a slew of companies have both the technical daring (sensor) and the expertise (optics) to make one work in favour of the other. I’d add Fuji, but not yet Sony which has just botched it.
Trolls tend to isolate single elements, because the fail to see the whole: that is the strength of m4/3, no single technology being wasted towards photography. So infuriating, but that’s what we pay for 🙂