I posted a few thoughts regarding where we now stand in the mirrorless market, including a very high level review of the Sony A7. In it, I’m essentially declaring Fujifilm the winner in these early rounds. Here’s the link. Interested in your thoughts.
14 Responses
The USA is expensive to market and distribute too relative to profits ( Google just sold Motorola today for 3billion (1 1/2 billion in cash) having bought it recently for 13 billion and having spent 500 million marketing Motorola in the USA last year and gaining very little market share (the USA bring Google’s home turf!)), large bricks and mortar stores in the USA aren’t in great shape and many Americans don’t feel they have a lot of mine in their pocket or much leisure time except for baby boomers.
“I was in the large theme parks recently in Florida and was interested to note that DSLRs and cellphones rule” if you actually spoke to those DSLR owners I bet you would find they actually bought those cameras a few years ago (another reason why Canikon won’t update their DSLR design in that it would become quickly apparent that their sales of DSLRs aren’t what they should be and that their best days are behind them)
“But are they as good as the best APS-C and full frame cameras in terms of file quality? In my experience? No. Sorry m4/3 lovers and defenders, they are simply not.” it’s far easier to over expose a shot with a DSLR… their goes your file quality and/or missed shot.
“The NEX line (a brand name Sony has dropped for fear of enhancing the product line brand more so than their own name…” erm no because Sanmsung are using NX and Google Nexus (likely to be dropped in 2014 in favour of Play) their brand was getting diluted/confused by other players in tech.
re Fuji marked shutter and ISO dials are not really the way to go because you shutter speeds change maybe 1/17 of a second is better than 1/15 in the future, how do you shoot ISO 320? Also the look of the X-T1 is just too similar to the E-M1 but Fuji will do well in Mirrorless along with Olympus and maybe Sony and Panny.
Fuji did say they didn’t want the hump in the middle, but that the massive EVF they were putting in the camera required it. Otherwise they wouldn’t have built it that way, so while you’re right in that it does look similar to the E-M1, I don’t think that’s what Fuji was going for.
Dude I got to say it. What the hell is with your picture man!
Each few months a new Mirrorless camera is released with a better EVF and again DSLR is dead. And each time a new reason is given; too heavy, too expensive, too big and now apparently the mirror box is too complex and expensive. Lets look at some facts:
1/ DSLR is cheaper, especially at the lower end, sometimes much cheaper. Mirror box is not a factor.
2/ DSLR is lighter, I have a old DSLR here that is lighter than my XPro1 body.
3/ DSLR is smaller, that same DLSR is smaller in some dimensions, and larger in ones that matter (like the useful grip).
4/ EVF is easy, at any time DSLR maker can buy current best EVF and install in DSLR chassis.
5/ DSLR Lens work for many decades, I use lens which is over 15 years old since film days, format is stable. No adapter.
6/ Canon has best seller with EOS-M, many laugh at this camera but Canon is winning with it because its priced right and it looks really good.
7/ Style matters, Oly cameras are winners, they look great in print and in person.
Basically the Mirrorless market is destroying itself, model churn is astounding, prices are still prohibitive even though they are falling, nobody really makes money. Canon and Nikon can just wait, add an EVF and that will be that.
The Fuji story seems to change with every new camera. First they are this, but did not make a profit, now that, and then the T1 which is really a rack of buttons and an EVF put on top of the M1 (which might explain why there was not EVF accessory for the M1/A1). Eventually one has to wonder if there is a profit at all in the Mirrorless market? There are more and more cameras being introduced into a shrinking market …
Recently I purchased a Ricoh GR, after deciding that none of the mirror-less options were particularly interesting and not wanting to waste/risk money on more Fuji gear. This little camera has some real innovation and the rest of the market could learn a thing or two from it.
Good camera, reasonable price, great sensor, easy to use, looks nice. Images are no different than what comes from the X Pro1.
Profits/losses are being announced this and next week we will see if they are increasing/decreasing and for whom…
“DSLR is cheaper” cheaper is only one factor, DSLRs are less aspirational now and less “right” for many customers…
“DSLR maker can buy current best EVF and install in DSLR chassis” not so easy and also canikon have conditioned their customers not to like EVFs
“DSLR Lens work for many decades” they work just fine on many Mirrorless cameras to 🙂
“Canon has best seller with EOS-M2” best seller where? even in Japan the EOS-M only managed 9% market share and is likely to fall back from that in 2014 .
Model churn is realising turnover faster with faster moving inventories when done right and introducing new technologies quicker which meet customers needs…
You make a number of good points. From my perspective, though, the mirrorless market is still pretty wide open and that forces innovation and churn. The DSLRs are gaining from these trends (witness the focus technology on Canon’s 70D) and so perhaps the real convergence will be somewhere in the middle of present day DSLRs and present day CSCs.
My prediction, however, is that the mirrorless cameras will continue to get better such that the DSLR advantages diminish. To the point of their obsolescence. Time will tell…
You seem to have totally ignored samsung nx.
Not all that hard to do. For a while they had no EVF camera and then embraced Android as an OS… but I will certainly admit that they are doing a few things right:
1. Iterating with better bodies
2. Delivering on the lens roadmap
3. Opening up distribution channels here in the States (witness the floor space and booths at Best Buy)
Worth watching them…
Rey
Actually the nx10 was on the market before nex and fuji, and has evf. The problem with samsung is that it’s not a recognized brand, so they need more than being good enough. They have to be extraordinary to get attention, and they are not, at least not now. They are just quite good, with nice lenses. The high end bodies are slr like, so not cool looking. I think that few would choose nx30 over the x-t1/x-e2 and over the future sony nex7 replacement.
“They have to be extraordinary to get attention, and they are not, at least not now.”
Very well said.
I don’t know the IQ of the NX line but I’m very familiar with what Fujifilm has done with the X-Trans and I think Samsung is going to have to compete with that… and that is a tall order.
“Mirrorless cameras and advanced point and shoot cameras are practically nowhere to be found. Still though, I think that DSLR owners will migrate to mirrorless.”
Opinion is here with nothing given to support it. Your analogy between SUV’s and DSLR’s is somewhat flawed as well. Criticism of the SUV extends beyond poor gas mileage. Lack of visibility, rollover potential and risk to other drivers are major factors. In essense, there cost to performance ratio is significantly higher than smaller vehicles. In contrast, DSLR’s still pack a huge punch in terms of features, build and overall access to cheap legacy lens ecosystems. Instead of costs increasing, they’re actually dropping on bodies while a wide array of lens choices gives you practically any choice in terms of price entry. Cost to performance advantage is increasing and we have yet to see what technological advantages the next generation of FF bodies will offer.
Canon likened to blockbuster
First, Blockbuster didn’t survive because they didn’t adapt. They failed to adapt effectively. Waiting until the last minute and taking a halfhearted approach leads to the inevitable- lukewarm sales. Their online services never took off while Netflix and Hulu gained ground because they failed to invest.
Secondly, Blockbuster signifies the end of a complete type of media distribution. The death of DVD’s and online streaming is not like the migration from DLSR’s to M43rds. IMO, DSLR’s to mirrorless are like DVD’s to mini-disks. The mediums are virtually same and both have price to performance advantages. However, they don’t completely rewrite the book.
Size and weight argument:
Weight is just as much an ADVANTAGE as a disadvantage. Want longer, faster lenses- go DSLR. They’re becoming lighter as well. No one ever mentions this either- THEY ARE BECOMING LIGHTER. There is no special religious cannon that states DSLR’s must be heavy. In fact, take a look at some of the early alpha DSLR’s- pretty damn small and light outside of bulk.
Some of the FF glass is fairly light and small as well. You have seemingly endless choices with FF glass from light, small primes to expensive heavy zooms.
You want crop? Not a problem, your FF glass will work with that. Oh, you want FF with your M43rds, sorry- you’re restricted with that format and your expensive lenses.
My guess is we will see the dawn of the light full frame non-mirrorless cameras. More sleek, offering better, faster and more advanced AF options with superior build and ergonomics. Size or bulk will remain the same, but manufactures will find ways to exploit this ADVANTAGE. Critics aside, the DSLR is far from dead. And for the love of God—please show me someone who has gone to the chiropractor due to their heavy DSLR. When you do, I’ll show you someone who was probably lugging around some ridiculous zoom he didn’t need when the fast, light and optically superior prime would have done just as well.
I’m sorry but Blockbuster never adapted to anything, ever. Blockbuster and Planet Hollywood used to be the only games in town where I live here in Texas. Blockbuster had the WORST customer service, moronic and disrespectful staff, unreasonable late fees, unresponsive corporate resolution department. Even if their employees forgot to scan your video, you still got late fees and they didn’t give a shit. Ever. They only changed their model after they lost insane amounts of money to other video outlets.
They did everything right:
1. No more late fees
2. Online pickup
3. Multiple rentals at once
4. Cheaper rental rates
It didn’t matter. Everyone hated Blockbuster so much nobody went there unless there was no alternative. They made all the right changes a dollar short and a day late.This same arrogant, dismissive attitude is what is going to kill Canon and Nikon. No new innovative features, recycling old sensors for years, and blowing off software innovation from supporters (like Magic Lantern) will come back and bite them hard. Canon and Nikon rely on solely on brand recognition in the USA, not high performance devices. Their DSLRs get their butts kicked every where except USA. Ignorant photographers and stubborn camera dealers shoving DSLRs down the throat of every customer that walks in their door exacerbates the problem. Mirrorless is the future. You don’t need a mirror to take pictures, and big bulky DSLRs are not going to be around forever.
The structure of the interchangeable-lens camera ecosystem (many proprietary mounts with decades-long lifespans of optics) makes it one of the most conservative markets in consumer electronics. Simply put, there is a great financial penalty involved in replacing a system. Therefore DSLRs will continue to dominate the market for a long time unless one of the following occurs:
1. Canon and Nikon will change their mounts (a suicidal move, so very unlikely).
2. A universal mount will appear, that offers full AF and aperture control capabilities with DSLR lenses designed for multiple mounts (patent infringement hell may break loose).
3. One or more of the mirrorless systems will gain a revolutionary technology that will render all competition obsolete in one day (very unlikely).
Until then Canon and Nikon are quite safe regardless of what they do.
I left Canon and went mirrorless because of a lack of innovation, seeing them recycling old sensors, and blatant arrogance from their corporate office. Canon and Nikon make DSLRs and still add video as an afterthought. DSLR video support is pathetic. Sensors are recycled too often, millions of dollars spent in R&D and nothing innovative ever comes from these companies. I remember when the T4i came out, same camera as the T3i, just more expensive, and the shutter dial could rotate without stops. Totally unacceptable. Magic Lantern makes truly innovative video codecs unlocking Canon cameras potential for video and Canon arrogantly ignores this breakthrough in favor of keeping their status quo.
We are moving into a world where every one will have a screen in their pocket, and hybrid camera devices will be required to satisfy the changing tastes of the consumer. Hybrid cameras are the future and fortunately, mirrorless cameras are taking on this challenge in the right way and are truly making amazing and innovative devices.
I see no point in clinging onto a flipping mirror inside a camera when it’s not needed. Get rid of the mirror, save space, and drastically reduce the size of the camera. Brilliant! Why wasn’t this done years ago?
Create IBIS (In Body Image Stabilization) and virtually eliminate the need for a tripod and stabilize ANY lens you put on your camera. Brilliant! Save money on not having to require floating lens elements, and pair other lenses without the software incompatibility. No excuse, every camera should have IBIS or some variant of IBIS.
There is now no excuse for anyone to complain about mirrorless. There is a sensor and price point for everyone. They are smaller, faster and actually can be carried around all day more often. The most complete and robust mirrorless system is M43. Want APS-C? Well Sony and Fujifilm have the best high quality options, with Fujifilm’s T-X1 APS-C and high end lenses producing photo IQ (Image Quality) virtually identical to Canon’s 5DMk3, truly pathetic on Canon’s part. Want Full Frame? Sony’s A7 has you covered with the ability to couple any lens on earth to it’s body.
The USA is the only market that mirrorless hasn’t truly made much headway. I credit this lack of growth to ignorant photographers, stubborn camera dealers and decades of conditioning by Canon and Nikon. Here where I live in Houston, camera stores do not have staff very well educated on mirrorless cameras. When a new customer walks in and wants a better IQ than on their cell phones for their upcoming trip to Disney World the employees force a big, ugly, bulky, unintuitive DSLRs down their throat. But who can blame them? It’s an easy sell. Canon and Nikon own a oligopoly of public opinion in the USA. Watch college football? All photographers seen on television use Canon or Nikon. Watch Wimbledon? All the photographers use Canon and some Nikon. Watch basketball? All photographers use Canon or Nikon. The average enthusiast thinks “Wow, I want what all the professionals have.” I would know, I was one of them.
Canon and Nikon’s bigger market share of DSLR camera sales in the USA over mirrorless are riding on their brand recognition, presence on big venues on television, and long established ties to cameras dealers/stores. DSLRs are not doing well in the USA because of stellar performance, intuitive design, or innovative breakthroughs.