There is still a long way to go for mirrorless to grab the Photographers heart. As you can see from the Infographic posted by Quesabesde this years World Photography Award winners mostly use DSLR cameras.
The only mirrorless cameras on the list are from Olympus and Mamiya.
18 Responses
How does this numbers correlate to the types of cameras press photographers use?
> World Press Photo
> […] winners mostly use DSLR cameras.
What’s common between “Press” and “DSLR”? They are both dying. All we need to do, is just persevere and wait. 🙂
P.S. Though I have no doubt that DSLR remains the workhorse of the industry (and would remain for some foreseeable future) all such charts bear very very little relevance to the rest of us. Under-representation of Nikon and over-representation of Leica/Hasselblad (one too many of each) is a clear indication that the World Press Photo are not representative of the whole photographic landscape, and are rather segregated niche.
bold statements. The press is dying… really? In this respect, ‘je suis Charlie’. We’re in need of non politically, non religiously polarized, independent media providing a professionally managed & checked news gathering, more than ever. This institute is of a major importance in our society… and I really don’t think you can leave this to bloggers or Facebook. Regarding DSLRs, all decreases in DSLR-sales are apparently only true for the consumer ranges. What makes sense, after all, it is this crowd that will look the most to MILC concepts. The whole MILC-market just replaces what was formerly owned by bridge cameras, compacts & entry level DSLRs – and very occasionally, a professional camera where it doesn’t fit in the weight & size constraints of a mobile pro-photographer. And that’s not a shame.
> We’re in need […] more than ever.
Yet nobody wants to pay money for news anymore.
> The whole MILC-market just replaces what was formerly owned by bridge cameras, compacts & entry level DSLRs
And what the Sony A7 “replaces”? Or Oly E-M1? Or Fuji X-T1?
Your error is that you lump all MILCs together, and dismiss them simply based on the fact that they are MILC.
> [..] all decreases in DSLR-sales are apparently only true for the consumer ranges.
This is a myth, inspired by the traditional inertia of pros to change what works with something new.
Pros, in any field, always look for way to do their job cheaper. It is part of the business: cut expenses to increase the profit. There are no apparent decrease or shift among pros mostly because the money were already invested, and as such have to be recuperated. But as next time for big update/upgrade comes, as the pro DSLR prices keep climbing, as the income sources for pro photography keep drying up, people would start inevitably looking at the cheaper mid-/enthusiast-level gear.
As a seasoned computer specialist, I still remember the times when pros had to use professional workstations which costed at least 4 times more than a typical PC. And the transition to PCs at workplace took almost a decade, despite that everybody already had, along with the workstation, a PC under the table. And even decade later, there were still hold-outs who ridiculed the PCs and insisted that their workstations are irreplaceable by those puny cheap beige boxes. Parallels to the current state of the photomarket are astounding. The only question is, what is “PC” of the photomarket. I very much doubt it is a smartphone.
Everybody is paying for news, be it due to taxes, or buying newspapers, magazines, subscriptions or by buying products from other companies, that need publicity & pay for this to our news providers. Even pictures are hardly ever free, somebody (you at the end) is paying for this. Regarding the e-reader and iPad stories I don’t see the typical Newspaper/magazine shops here in Europe decrease in size. Even contrary, there has never been such a diverse & specialized offer as there is today, and shops with such an offer are really ‘hot’. I also notice how people are getting disappointed by the ‘electronic reading’ – mostly the limiting technology behind it, special apps preventing you to print or keep info you find interesting in a decent way – not to mention that the subscription price is in most cases only a very small portion smaller than the paper versions. All free news gathering is purely an appearance, it has to be paid somehow and there is still a huge machine behind it. That’s good. That’s right too. I don’t want to depend on a ‘press’ from individual bloggers taking ownership of ‘their truth’ – again, the objective press is a professional institute that has a clear mission! And concerning the MILCs, tell me, after all the charts we’ve seen over the last Quarters – where is that exponential growth? The definitive proof people are converting to this kind of cameras? It’s unfortunately not a reality. It’s just not happening in the pro-oriented world, unless on a very minimal scale. It’s all about investing in a legacy-oriented system too. I’m not going to sell all the investments in glass and accessories that has cost me an arm and a leg over the years to switch to something that is still a challenge and not offering the same functionality. I’d like to see a proof that a premium MILC system is btw so much ‘cheaper’. Look for the total cost of ownership including the depreciation cost over 5 years, I’m still convinced the current DSLR-investment performs better than any MILC-solution will be capable to offer you.
> I don’t see the typical Newspaper/magazine shops here in Europe decrease in size.
Then you need to look harder. Out of Europe, only Germany’s news business remained so far OK. The rest of Europe – readership decreasing, and advertisement prices are slumping.
> And concerning the MILCs, tell me, after all the charts we’ve seen over the last Quarters – where is that exponential growth?
What are you talking about? You seem to be on some pro-DSLR crusade and read out of my comment something that is simply not there.
> I’d like to see a proof that a premium MILC system is btw so much ‘cheaper’.
What are you talking about? Really? (But just in case you missed the prices: Canon 5D3 is well above $3000, while Olympus E-M1, Fuji X-T1 and Sony A7 are all below $2000.)
> Look for the total cost of ownership including the depreciation cost over 5 years […]
I’m not sure about pro photographic market, but in literally all other pro fields, “depreciation” is not even part of the picture: the costs of the gear acquisition are transferred onto the customers, one way or another (price or amortization fees).
> I’m still convinced the current DSLR-investment performs better than any MILC-solution will be capable to offer you.
Not in the case if your budget is only $2000.
What’s your point? That soon news gathering is only provided on Facebook, Twitter & by bloggers that work for free? Professional photographers are soon going to make pictures with sub-compacts because they can no longer afford a DSLR? DSLRs are not going to be there anymore because only mirrorless compacts will be the top market? If this is the reality, the end of the (photographic) world must be near. I don’t believe a word of it, really, there is not one graph of a credible source that you can show that proofs anything of this.
Here are the photos shot with Olympus E-M1 & E-M5:
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/awards/2015/spot-news/j%C3%A9r%C3%B4me-sessini?gallery=2900401
http://www.worldpressphoto.org/awards/2015/contemporary-issues/fulvio-bugani?gallery=2900401
Um, you’ve been saying the DSLR is dying for 8 years now, and declaring victory over it all that time. Yep, mirrorless has DSLRs right where they want them.
As though this is a matter of “persevering,” as though its some sort of odd religious battle of the diddling stokers.
8 years? Wow, that’s a long way of following someone you disagree with.
So, it’s the camera that makes good photographs, not the photographer. Got it.
I find it sad that the camera used to make an award-winning piece of photo reportage attracts so much interest.
At any one time humanity has very few trailblazers and tons of followers.
Followers learn from the example of trailblazers (some better than others, some not at all). In particular, if followers don’t see anyone using a certain type of tool to achieve something, they’ll doubt the effectiveness of the tool. Not logical, but it’s the kind of rule that works for followers by minimizing risk. Trailblazers are those that have to assume risk and guide the followers after them.
Sad, but true.
Hah! After seeing this, I’m convinced! CON-vinced!! I tell you. To make an award winning photo means I must sell my wonderful little mirrorless and go back to a bloated, heavy, and not as flexible/capable DSLR.
Right?
>> The only mirrorless cameras on the list are from Olympus and Mamiya.
forgot about Ricoh GR
Most World Basketball winners are still coming from USA…..
That’s more relevant because they have the culture of competition, the ambition of being performant and do all to be the best. contrary to World Press Photo winners which only use the Canikon by habit even though the Canon gears did not involve, did not get more performant
This reminds me the advert for cleaning products where it is said the power is not in the strength of the cleaner but in the product… with Canon it’s the opposite 😉
Most World Press Photo winners still use DSLR and 8 of them are with Sony sensors 😉 : Nikon DSLR and Apple iPhone)
AFAIK, the E-M5 sensor was also made by Sony. The E-M1 seemed to be Panasonic.