There is this ongoing discussion about the mirrorless and DSLR future, based on IDC, CIPA and other numbers, as well as some personal anecdotal evidence. A few posts on SAR featured some rather heated debates in the comments (which is good, I think). Hence, I decided to stir the pot even more and write my personal opinion in more detail, in the hope to have an even deeper discussion about this.
Many seem to rely a bit too much on some research companies’ numbers, such as the ones mentioned before. Admittedly, there isn’t much else available, so the numbers are certainly relevant, but it is good to remember that they (1) can be entirely off and (2) are not the whole story (I am even excluding here (3) misreading the numbers, such as equating sales with shipments).
I am not going to go into details about how research companies can fail, everyone interested in reading numbers should be already aware of that, but here is some recommended reading, although it is not about cameras (or just look at some of Macalope’s rants about the IDC):
http://techland.time.com/2012/06/07/lets-just-say-it-nobody-has-a-clue-what-smartphone-market-share-will-be-in-2016/
Which leaves us with the numbers not being the whole story. And here lies the biggest problem, I believe. Some of the so-called “analysts” we read articles from, feel free to write any crazy idea, blinding us with correct (sometimes) numbers, while providing a rather uneducated opinion more than anything else. Given that even the New York Times are able to write an article full of numbers that don’t support its title, which gives rather obvious information and doesn’t provide links to its sources (things for which anyone will get a fail in high school), and it ends up being cited everywhere, I will throw my uneducated opinion in the mix too. I do not mean to disrespect real analysts here, but apparently not many of them are writing articles lately, especially when it comes to technology.
So, shipments are not sales. And market share is not everything. Small market share does not necessarily mean a company “disappearing” in the future. More so, we only have numbers relating to camera bodies and almost nothing about lenses. Lenses also sell for money and bring profit. Etc, etc. However, this is all about the numbers, so let’s start with the assumptions (take them for what they are). I don’t think that it is beginners that buy mirrorless cameras (although they should), as they will generally gravitate towards the well-know brands and the image of the professional photographer they have. I’d argue that mirrorless are bought, for the most part, by more knowledgeable users, those who are tired of carrying bigger gear and those who want to experiment with older lenses or use their existing ones from a different brand. These users generally know what they are sacrificing for the aforementioned benefits. This makes it a somewhat limited market, with a ceiling which is tightly related to the current state of mirrorless, i.e. with mirrorless systems getting more features, improving functionality and completing lineups, there will be less sacrifices for those interested in smaller cameras or lens exploration. Current numbers of camera body shipments do not take account of that. Analysts neither. It is simply unfair to judge future interest in mirrorless cameras, based simply on current numbers for camera body shipments/sales, where DSLRs have a very complete offering. I certainly doubt that we will be seeing the same market share division between the two in 2-3 years, when there will be more complete mirrorless systems, covering all sensor sizes. I also doubt that bigger cameras will disappear, but EVFs will quite probably dominate the market.
EVFs are another contentious issue, so I am starting another topic here. Why will EVFs dominate? Video is here to stay and is clearly a feature that will only get more use, not less. Overall, EVFs are the solution, as OVFs are simply unusable for video, while EVFs are quite well suited for photography. EVFs also give a lot of information, of the top of my head, live histogram, focus zoom, focus peaking, exposure preview etc. The only real downside is battery life, but the workaround is pretty straightforward here. Some might argue about panning and other nitpicks, but that is just grasping at straws in the big sea of different camera usages. In the end, in the near future, we will have some very good EVFs, providing not only for a great shooting experience, but also for cheaper products. How would OVFs compete with that? Add to that all of the current newcomers to photography who are used to smartphones and digital compacts, and there is one very clear path for manufacturers. This is not to say that OVFs will or should disappear. But I certainly expect them to become a rarity (hopefully not a Leica rarity).
Last point and topic. Big camera users have nothing to complain about. There are plenty of big cameras out there, both with OVFs and EVFs. Canon and Nikon provide great lineups of cameras, lenses and accessories. Sony and Pentax have some interestingly different solutions. It is those of us who need or want smaller cameras that don’t have a complete solution yet, with the arguable exception of m43.
44 Responses
Lots of valid points here, mate. I used to be a die hard DSLR user. I think I can even consider myself (despite being female) representative of the serious photography hobbyist today. Grew up with film, literally saw digital being born and rise, have had the majority of DSLRs in existence from major makers, have an extensive practice (well over 1K shots/month average, daily maintained blog, occasional paid gig), solid presence on several heavily visited fora. In 2012 I went straight from selling a D700 for financial reasons, to picking up a Panny GX-1 and couple lenses. Although I still have a D90 rotting in a cupboard (that doesn’t get sold *exclusively* because it’s a Bday gift), the minute I looked into an EVF and realized I had full time, WYSISWG exposure preview, there was ZERO going back. I don’t know about others, but unless I shoot manual flash and have precise control over exposure, relying on a metering mode has always been a hit and miss, nightmarish experience. Call me a control freak, but I being a strict jpeg shooter on top of things, full time exposure preview was a total revolution in my photographic practice. I recently bought a D600 for high ISO, fast AF needs, and though the camera delivered perfectly (especially in the former department) I was almost disgusted with not only it’s bulky and akward melted ice cone shape, but the lack of EVF was an *absolute* deal breaker for me, it was immediately returned. Lesson learned, I cannot live without the convenience of a good EVF anymore. My needs for high ISO and good AF haven’t changed, and I’m salivating at the mere thought of a Canon 6D (I like them smallish cameras) but the absence of EVF stops me cold, as I’m loath making the same mistake twice (or at least so close apart). I very much doubt being alone on that boat, and anybody who has also become sort of addicted to the exhilarating use of legacy glass would not give up Focus Peaking either (yes you guessed it, I’m a Sony user). I do see EVFs become more and more common practice, the bigger and better they become, the more the OVF will slowly get irrelevant.
Welcome to the joys of Micro Four Thirds 🙂
Agreed. I also grew up with film, although I actually got more serious with the advent of digital. With all people nowadays starting their exploration on phones or compacts, an EVF is simply the more intuitive solution. As you pointed out, metering is simply limited. When you add the live histogram to it, it is a different world (not to mention I can shoot welding through the EVF).
I think 2014 would be a great year for Sony users.
Thanks for the write-up Vlad! Lots of good points, I can directly relate too.
As practice shows, the established brands have a lot of pull. IMO mostly because of the lenses. I always recommended people to buy what their friends have: being limited to kit lens, cost of the better lenses, is a major frustration for people who try DSLRs/ILCs. That is one of the top point, unique to photography, misunderstood by the market analysts.
And it links to the struggle of the mirrorless cameras too. You often hear “lenses for mirrorless are too expensive”. But when you ask about the cheaper DSLR alternatives, you are literally always directed to eBay with its huge catalog of S/H (and sometimes new) lenses. IOW, DSLR lenses are not cheaper. They simply have being here longer and their price have fallen quite a bit from the MSRP. Something, we can only hope would happen sooner than later to the mirrorless lenses.
“the established brands have a lot of pull”
Indeed they do. And given their pull and the mature technologies they are using, it is easy for them to pull a price war, which slows the intake of mirrorless.
Interesting thoughts, and a great topic.
But the other side is that mirrorless is not in its infancy anymore, and can’t keep declaring without evidence the death of DSLR and claiming overall victory. The returns are now in.
Analysts advise customers how to make money. They are not motivated to be wrong, they are motivated to be accurate. They are not just guessing, they are putting their reputations on the lines based on their interpretations of numbers. They explain how the numbers lead to their forecasts.
Our job is to take the exact same numbers and use them to make the future of mirrorless sound good. I’ve seen a lot of negative personal attacks around against the analysis, as well as subjective guesses, but no one has taken the exact same numbers the analysts used and made a positive interpretation… even anonymously.
Mirrorless is past the adolescent stage and now its job is to produce and sell. It can’t any longer keep predicting the death of DSLR without real numbers backing it. And without trends based on recent sales, units, market share.
While we can say it is simply unfair to judge future interest in mirrorless cameras, based simply on current numbers for camera body shipments/sales, fairness has nothing to do with it unfortunately. Sales have everything to do with the manufacturers surviving. More: We can just as well by the same token say it is simply unfair to judge future interest in DSLR sales based simply on current numbers, can’t we?
The discussion about EVF quality evolution is kind of a dead end. Because quality improvement in an EVF just means it is getting closer and closer to becoming almost as fast, reliable, flicker free as DSLR viewing has been all along. Hard to proclaim the death of the DSLR when the DSLR viewing quality is still something mirrorless only aspires to.
DSLRs have a far steeper drop in sales and shipments than Mirrorless let alone Micro Four Thirds. what does that tell you?
A slightly steeper drop in sales in Japan. Whereas, the drop in mirrorless in Europe and the Americas is faster than the drop in DSLR.
The mirrorless sales figures have been distorted in North America by the Nikon 1 and Canon EOS M launch and fails.
I’d have to disagree here. First of all, I do not understand that idea of a “victory”. There is nothing to be won here. As to analysts, I did say that I don’t put them all together. There are very fine analysts out there, but there are also ridiculous articles such as the one I mentioned (not motivated to be wrong, but to be sensationalist, in this case). I have seen plenty of analysts writing completely crazy stuff and it did not affect their reputation in the slightest, they continue to write the same outlandish stuff for the same outlets. And their writing does affect two things, (1) number of clicks and (2) consumer behaviour, not much motivation to be accurate and that is precisely why I wrote that text above. Again, there are very fine analysts aout there, but I am clearly not addressing those.
I also disagree that mirrorless is past its adolescent stage. (1) As a system : there is only one somewhat complete system on the market right now, m43, and it is hardly that complete, when compared to Canon’s, Nikon’s or even Sony’s offer. (2) As far as technologies go : AF is not up to the task, but is clearly improving, EVFs also have room to grow; DSLRs are, on the other hand, pretty much as good as they can be. Based on that and the fact that DSLRs have existed for so long and people are accustomed to them, I do not think it is fair to judge future interest based on current sales (because, in the future, mirrorless will be different, simple as that). Which implies that it is not fair to judge interest in DSLRs either, as I believe they are selling well simply because of the current state of mirrorless. This is not to say, and I thought I made that clear, that DSLRs will disappear. I think DSLRs will disappear only as far as switching to EVF goes, but the form factor will quite probably remain. Just not in the same numbers as today. There is no win to be had here, the market will adjust and people who want bigger cameras will have them, and people who want smaller cameras will have them. I do think that smaller cameras will prevail in terms of market share though, simply because of their convenience. In the same way as phones are pushing away compacts.
Lastly, I will have to disagree with the idea that EVFs are simply “getting closer” to OVFs. That would imply that EVFs are worse overall, which simply is not true. They are worse for some things, while better for other, they are different. And with each step in their evolution, their negatives are being mitigated or are even disappearing. They simply are the better overall solution for where the market is going in the long term, imho.
“Sales have everything to do with the manufacturers surviving.”
However, they are not the whole picture.
The biggest problem with DSLRs is buyers remorse which leads to a lack of word of mouth and recommendations (the best form of marketing).Over and over again I hear of buyers remorse from DSLRs because the camera doesn’t do what they had hoped it would do.
WYSIWYG is the biggest advantage of Micro Four Thirds and one of the main reasons for it’s success.
Yes, I also think that WYSIWYG is a huge point for mirrorless systems, especially for newcomers.
WYSIWYG is not limited to m4/3 alone, as a matter of fact I think Sony has a slighter more straight forward and better implementation of it…
I bet many people would be happier with their EVF it they would shut off automatic image review.
Honestly, I think the reason the photography market is in such a perilous situation is because there is no really good reason for the vast majority of people to buy what they are selling. For a long, long time, a 30-35mm equivalent fixed lens film camera was what most families owned. A handful of geeky parents might have picked up something a little better for family photos and travel. But, expense kept the majority of people from buying anything. But, the most important thing, the results you got came from the camera almost exclusively. You could choose your film, and lens but once that photo was exposed, it was final.
However, now days people can take a picture and edit the crap out of it trivially and there is much less concern about the gear. Cell phone cameras overwhelmingly provide an angle of view around 28-35mm equivalent so it’s right in line with compact cameras from the 80’s/90’s. And editing, cropping, and so on is made trivial. Improved results are trivial thanks to most phones offering a feature of some kind to “enhance” images with a bunch of contrast and sharpening and saturation, etc. So basically people are happy. Everything else has become a niche.
Cameras with interchangeable lenses require either a) dedication to a hobby/profession/purpose to justify the very high cost or b) confusion to get a person to buy them. People need a phone, so, the cell phone camera is perceived as free. Most people take pictures of things right in front of them or they are shooting a landscape. And a large group of people are fine with horrible pixelated digital zoom images. The group that demands capability and quality and is willing to spend thousands of dollars to get it is shrinking all the time.
Within this set you have pros, enthusiasts, and moms/dads. The pros spend the most, but, are the most conservative because photography is a horrible business and the last thing they need is risk from a system switch or addition. Plus, pros who provide their own light are often relying on camera specific support with features that only a handful of camera makers even build into the bodies. Enthusiasts sometimes outspend the pros. These are the people who only really care about making cool images or playing with cool cameras or both. They have money to blow and no actual requirement of the camera. They may imagine or fabricate a requirement, such as a desire to get a picture of birds in flight or something, but, they are not relying on it for income. These are the people who can afford to dive in and play with new technologies. The size of this market varies wildly by region. And finally, you have parents. They realized they want pictures of their kid they won’t be disappointed in after a few years. Maybe, they want video. In fact, most want video. They don’t want to spend a huge amount of money but are willing to invest. Honestly, these people should be buying cameras like the Sony RX10 but what really happens is they go to Best Buy and are sold a shitty Canon DSLR with a kit zoom and MAYBE a bundle with a horrible bag and a 55-200 for a few hundred more dollars. They probably won’t ever buy another camera because they never actually take the time to really learn how to use it and so they hate it.
The irony is, the last group should be buying the mirrorless cameras, especially offerings like Nikon 1 which heavily favor the expectations of these customers. And also, enthusiasts should be buying mirrorless cameras, because, they can do all the same things that they actually need, but, they have fantasized about needing way more capability than they do so they are afraid to commit.
And the pros, well, the ones who have really established themselves are already experimenting with switching to new tech. Just look at Zack Arias, David Hobby, Trey Ratcliff, David DuChemin and so on. These guys can have multiple systems and use whatever pleases them and their clients. They are outliers, but, they should serve as examples especially for newer pros who are largely doing portrait work anyway which just about any mirrorless system is suitable for (or will be within the next year).
But there are still missing pieces for all the groups. Parents need AF more than anyone because they don’t know how to make it happen in cooperation with the cameras. The pros have all kinds of needs and there are many systems that still lack good lens options for things like full body portraits with great shallow DoF. Enthusiasts may not need to sell pics of Snow Geese in flight, but, they do need a long lens to get those shots anyway and that doesn’t exist on any mirrorless system in any meaningful way (MFT long lenses are pure garbage, Fuji’s first super telephoto is a year or more out, Sony expects you to adapt a ridiculously overpriced full frame DSLR lens, and Nikon 1’s sensors are too small to get reliably good results out of long glass that isn’t $6000+). There are other missing pieces depending on which system you look at.
So really, mirrorless? It’s still baking. And the customers? They barely existed to begin with and they are already making images that satisfy them. When will they come? Well they will feel envy, and curiosity, and they will consider switching but not until the systems are more complete.
Hopefully all of the major players, especially our newest (meaningful) entrant, Fuji, realizes they are probably going to have to build this market over the next decade and continue to innovate ways to integrate the cameras into the existing dominant use model that people are expecting now. Sorry, but, wi-fi to phones is a horrible user experience for getting pictures out of the camera on the fly. It would be far better to use Bluetooth so people do not have to lose their internet connection while they fool around with transferring files. Maybe, someday, these companies will learn more about things like user experience, something camera makers have been sorely unaware of for decades.
Ultimately, though, cameras like the Fuji X system or Full Frame NEX are going to be selling to a niche market even with professionals on board. Prices have to go up as volume goes down and the enthusiasts driving the mirrorless market so far hate this. So there is great conflict on the horizon for this market. I personally hope it keeps going, but, in the end I won’t suffer too much if they all dry up and go out of business. I’ll just be a little sad about the state of my hobby.
This is one of the best posts I ever read on the subject. I totally agree with you, and this pov explains many things, like why we see so many canon/nikon basic models with kit lenses in the hands of parents/grandparents and why mirrorless cameras are seen as oddities by most, especially when they are not shaped like a big dslr.
Very nice write-up. I have a more optimistic view on the subject, albeit not that different.
Today, 2013 onward, from my view, working in the American market, shooting events almost daily, where family and friends are photographing their siblings or friends, the smart phone cameras are in use by 95% of the people standing near me at the event.
The other 5% are using DSLRs.
I am the only one shooting an MILC at all of these events that I shot during 2013.
Factually this is where the market stands in my neck of the woods. And that 5% DSLR on many ocasions falls to 1 to 2%.
The second most important fact to me is that I am getting shots of the events that NO ONE else is capturing by looking through an OVF. My MILC enables me to use a full range of vantage points when shooting. The light weight and tilting LCD and a good sized APS-C sensor gives me significant advantages over using a DSLR.
These two observations of mine are based on ‘facts’ I observed about: The type of cameras in use and the Ease of shooting.
All this means nothing to the Smart Phone users I referred to above.
For certain types of shooting I intend to join them once Smart Phone IQ maxes out.
For us photographers the above ‘facts’ that I present to you indicate the MILC companies
Do Not know the real value and advantages made possible by the products they are selling.
They still compare themselves to DSLR’s or rangefinders and do not advertise
the ease of shooting with light weight cameras and lenses.
They offer themselves as the DSLR alternative instead of what they are:
‘State of the Art Imaging Tools’ (eg. Samsung’s fast PD & CD AF).
Once the camera companies realize this the MILC market will grow rapidly, and over time,
for the same reasons, Olympus (DSLR alternative form factor & smaller sensor) will
fall out of the camera market.
Not to worry, these are just my opinions, I have no ax to grind.
“MILC companies do not know the real value and advantages made possible by the products they are selling”
Couldn’t agree more. Sony is the prime example here, they seem to be unable to properly advertise the great cameras they make.
“They still compare themselves to DSLR’s or rangefinders and do not advertise
the ease of shooting with light weight cameras and lenses.
Once the camera companies realize this the MILC market will grow rapidly, and over time,
for the same reasons, ”
Fair enough, but the mirrorless HAVE been positioning themselves as this right from the start. And the market has not grown rapidly, has shrunk.
They offer themselves as the DSLR alternative instead of what they are:
‘State of the Art Imaging Tools’ (eg. Samsung’s fast PD & CD AF).
May I suggest you delete this post as it seems to have been posted before you completed it.
Good observation and my fault, RAW JAW, please ignore the last paragraph.
“They offer themselves as the DSLR alternative instead of what they are:
‘State of the Art Imaging Tools’ (eg. Samsung’s fast PD & CD AF).”
DSLRs are also state of the art imaging tools, and with even faster autofocus. And at a lower price point.
The achilles heel in mirrorless is the expense. This really hasn’t been addressed. A decent DSLR with arguably better image quality, better viewing, faster autofocus, can be had with a two-lens kit for as much cash as a top of the line mirrorless body alone that even in 2014 can’t really compete in AF, viewing, speed, image quality.
The key to success in mirrorless is not to whistle in the dark by proclaiming the death of the dslr. Clearly that has not happened, is not happening, shows no sign of happening. No, the key to survival of mirrorless is to offer an attractive price point such as the consumer accepts it. Because right now the consumer has no motivation to pay more for less as compared to a DSLR.
Don’t take my word for it. Consumers are voting every day with their wallets.
The trend also is that Nikon and Canon have deep (profitable) pockets, and will dominate mirrorless in 5 years while the other players one by one drop out (Sony may stay). This is not my prediction, just stating the trend. Once the segment is crushed, the big boys can feel free to abandon the mirrorless segment, having killed it forever, if it does not make its margins.
Hi,
Your statement: “DSLRs are also state of the art imaging tools, and with even faster autofocus. And at a lower price point.”
A camera with a mirror box is not ‘State of the Art’ in 2014.
It may have the best, most refined mirror box ever made, but that is not ‘State of the Art’ in my opinion.
Mirror boxes will become just as extinct as the old TV tubes did, for much the same reasons.
Your statement: “The achilles heel in mirrorless is the expense”.
Time will solve this issue.
Dismantle a DSLR and an MILC and place all the parts on adjoining tables.
First question: Which takes more material, time, and labor to produce, the DSLR or the MILC?
Your statement: ” The trend also is that Nikon and Canon have deep (profitable) pockets, and will dominate mirrorless in 5 years while the other players one by one drop out..”
Recent news seems to indicate Nikon is re-thinking its ‘1’ line due to very poor sales.
Samsung and to a lessor extent Sony have the deep pockets.
Thanks for the exchange.
Micro Four Thirds have more versatile and accurate Auto Focus.
Much easier to get the shot right in camera ie no over exposed shots or poor white balance, no need to chimp while you miss the shot/moment.
Nikon does not have deep pockets, it has no growth products at the moment and many are in freefall.
Olympus have proven to be strongest in Mirrorless wirh canikon being weakest.
“A camera with a mirror box is not ‘State of the Art’ in 2014.
It may have the best, most refined mirror box ever made, but that is not ‘State of the Art’ in my opinion.”
One can also say that viewing a tiny TV set is not “State of the Art” in 2014. It may have the best resolution, the quickest to react to light changes, the lest amount of smearing, but TV sets have been around for 80 years.
One can even say the tiny television has almost as good resolution as SLR viewing, almost as good reaction to light changes, almost as little smearing as an SLR.
Declaring that reflex viewing will become extinct and DSLRs are dead is the same mantra mirrorless has been pushing for four years. (Not saying it will not, since there is a lot of motivation for manufacturers to lower their costs while trying to position quality losses in doing so as some kind of benefit to gullible consumers- which is exactly the marketing that mirrorless manufacturers are doing).
Unfortunately the DSLR is dead mantra is looking increasingly desperate. Because DLSRs are not dying. In major markets – Europe, US- mirrorless is shrinking even faster than DSLR.
For the reasons I mentioned. Mirrorless is foisted upon the public because it reduces costs for the manufacturer, period. It’s best selling point is that although focusing and image quality and viewing is less than the DSLR, at least it is smaller. In short, for all the disadvantage, consumers can enjoy an extremely nice camera that is a) smaller and b) lighter.
The problem is, consumers are voting with their wallets that they are not willing to pay more for less.
Especially when that less is not so less… the large EM1 does not give up much in smallness to smaller DSLRs. Yet the EM1 body alone costs more than double the price of a very nice DSLR with faster autofocus, better viewing, better image quality, and two kit lenses.
That’s an issue. Mirrorless needs to get cheaper than a DSLR to be competitive.
Mirrorless is long in the tooth. If the DSLR was going to die as the increasingly hollow predictions would hold, it would show signs of it. If anything, mirrorless is dying faster.
The myth of DSLR death should be abandoned. Mirrorless needs instead to pursue a co-existence strategy with DSLRs. Look, APS co-exists with 135 format, neither needs to constantly proclaim the death of the other.
Mirrorless needs to resign itself to coexisting with its bigger brother that will not die. To do that, mirrorless needs to drop their prices, or no one will buy it. With no one to buy it, the mirrorless players slowly drop out. Whether or not DSLR will be dead, the trends if anything are showing that mirrorless will die sooner.
This isn’t me showing it. This is what worldwide numbers show. You’re free to use those numbers and come up with a different forecast. I have yet to see anyone do that, however.
“Declaring that reflex viewing will become extinct and DSLRs are dead is the same mantra mirrorless has been pushing for four years.”
Who exactly was pushing that mantra for four years? Analysts? Or some commenters like us? Four years ago only m43 existed and nowhere near the shape it has today. Up until 2012 its best cameras had rather crappy sensors and most of the interesting high-quality primes and zooms did not exist. The Sony NEX was launched in 2010 and for its first year it was two cameras and three kit lenses. Fuji launched in 2011 and it was one camera with three primes. Etc. Mirrorless systems are barely stepping on their feet, it has been less than 3 years that we have somewhat decent (with an accent on somewhat) offerings. It will certainly take more than that for the industry to change.
And this nonsense about “focusing and image quality and viewing is less than the DSLR” should stop. AF might be better, but MF is certainly more convenient with proper LV or EVF. Viewing is less also means nothing. You are taking photos, so it depends on what EVF or OVF give you. You might prefer OVF and that is perfectly fine, but to deny its advantages the way you do doesn’t work. As to image quality, I don’t see why mirrorless would have lesser quality than DSLRs. That is entirely preposterous.
Mirrorless Micro Four Thirds is not shrinking in Europe, the USA’s figures have been distorted by the Nikon 1 and EOS M launc and fails.
Im using Nikon D700 with grip for portraits, Olympus OM-D E-M5 for allround, but took my first studio portraits with it last wednesday. This worked so well that one of the pictures was picked as best picture of the day on Norway’s largest photosite, accepted by Vogue.it and also used as top picture on of the OM-D pages on Facebook.
Size does matter, mirrorless is not perfect, it is not a perfect actioncamera yet, but getting closer for each new model.
Friday a week ago I bought a camera for having in my jacketpockets – the Lumix GM1 in black and it’s amazing what this tiny camera can do regarding picture quality.
Did I say it was little ? D700 without grip…
http://camerasize.com/compare/#491,181
I don’t see this as us vs them, a war, or anything of the sort. Many of comments seem to make this into some crazed Apple vs. Windows or Android nonsense. We’re talking about a set of tools that one uses to accomplish their art.
Why not take the same gloom and doom approach when discussing modern medium format? Phase One cameras have an miniscule level of sales compared to the Canikon duopoly. They are slow, heavy, inflexible, and very expensive. But one doesn’t speak of Phase One in those terms, does one? It’s just another tool that some find to be a good fit for their personal photography.
“So, shipments are not sales”
Nope there is a massive warehouse somewhere that contains millions of DSLR cameras whilst every mirrorless camera has whizzed off the shelf into the hands of a keen buyer. If you look at the few online retail charts {the various Amazon sites, etc }the numbers of actual sales clearly does not make mirrorless numbers appear any better.
The bottom line is that mirrorless production and shipping volume fell by 17.8% compared to last year .With DSLR production and shipping volume also dropping but by less 14.6%. Resulting in a lower market share for mirrorless than last year, and the year before that.The whole interchangeable lens camera market numbers are in decline with mirrorless actually declining by more than DSLR . So you have the situation in the last 2 years of mirrorless sales there are more players sharing a smaller market
.
Interesting sarcasm. I find it strange though that you and ronin think that I am somehow defending mirrorless here. The only “defence” I make is in my last paragraph, where I argue that this type of cameras should exist.
No matter how you twist it, shipments are not sales and this brings some issues. Would it be so inconceivable to think that manufacturers overestimated the demand for a comparatively much newer product and their estimation for a long time existing one were better, and that resulted in a bigger drop for mirrorless shipments (just one example)? The bottom line is that it is difficult to have a reliable forecast with the numbers that we have. For a multitude of reasons, as I explained above. Shipments vs sales being only one of those.
Mirrorless cameras need to improve:
1. EVF dynamic range and refresh rate
2. AF speed (on sensor PDAF is just not there)
3. System versatility (lens selection, accessories)
4. Price: in a real world scenario a mirror-less camera should be cheaper than a mirrored. In my view mirror-less manufacturers put more money in PR than in product development.
Posters tend to forget that with live view every DSLR is two camera in one: mirrored and mirrorless. You can have a mirrorless camera at hand when buying a DSLR.
To overcome DSLRs mirrorless cameras should have
1. fully articulated touch screen LCD finder with a size matching smartphones (4″ and above),
2. tiltable detachable EVF (with ability to upgrade to the next generation, thus better EVF)
3. global or at least half electronic shutter
and most importantly repeating again a LOWER PRICE than DSLRs. When the list price of Sony A5000 is equals the street price of a Nikon D5200: the choice is a no brainer.
Do not come with size comparison: pocketability is a propaganda issue, a PR phenomenon.
1.The latest EVF refresh much faster than the human eye and adding much more dynamic range to an EVF would make little difference but it will come.
2. CDAF is way more accurate and versatile, as for speed it’s nearly up there with the best of PDAF
3. In some ways Micro Four Thirds is more versatile than DSLRs in a few ways not yet.
4. In real world DSLRs should be even cheaper because the lack of new technology, development costs long paid for and volume, canikon are still profit taking for short term gain.
I totally agree with what is written in top, not because its my own opinion or because I think it is right but because its a fact that i am living now days …..
I’ve been shooting from 1991 up to today, I tried most of the camera brands and lived in the film and digital age, by 1996 I build up on Nikon and continue with nikon until 2 month ago when I throw away my 17 years of nikon in ebay and bought the Olympus M-1, and guess what I did not miss the DSLR not for a sec while shooting with the m43, the thing that I love about the M-1 not that its a m43 camera but I love the mirrorless system and even sometimes I ask myself how did I live carrying one KG with me around? How did I shoot in that retarded OVF when EVF with this quality exists ?
EVF rules and will rule for long to come, once you try it there no way back to OVF, even now when I think of buying big one I only see one camera and that a99, why ? because it has EVF!
nothing better that seeing what you are capturing before u do so ….. as simple as this.
A few points to consider:
1. The link between high quality photography (as a hobby) and expensive camera gear is weakening. The notion of “good enough” has become widespread and many new hobbyists who would have undoubtedly bought a DSLR system five years ago are likely to stick to their phones for a long time. I see it all the time.
2. Many long time enthusiasts would love to replace their DSLR gear with a mirrorless system, but are tied to their mounts to a prohibitive degree. Swapping systems may be a very expensive proposition.
3. The lack of a fully-fledged large sensor option is a deal breaker in the eyes of some young, aspiring enthusiasts. Canon and Nikon seem like far safer paths.
4. Casual shooters may dislike the price and complexity of interchangeable lens systems. Some of them have been willing to pay those prices for a much improved “image quality”, but modern bridge cameras such as the RX10 and Stylus 1 are indeed more appealing to this segment of the market.
I’m not saying mirrorless systems can’t coexist with all the other propositions, but don’t expect them to “conquer” the market. Competition will only become fiercer. It’s a young technology, currently trapped between the more mature DSLR, quickly improving compacts and the ubiquitous camera-phone. But I believe this technology is sound. It has inherent advantages (WYSIWYG-viewfinder, CDAF accuracy, structural flexibility and manufacturing efficiency) and a lot of room for improvement (especially in the PDAF arena).
Very good points. Although 3 and 4, imho, will be addressed over time.
2. I think more people are mothballing their DSLRs than replacing these days either intentionally or because once they purchase a Micro Four Thirds camera they end up leaving their DSLRs in the cupboard.
I agree mirrorless is here to stay, and the dSLR as we know it WILL go away, maybe not the form factor. I think this is where people get hung up.
m43 had many faults in the beginning, and still has a few left. I agree that it is mainly “educated” consumers who are buying these cameras. They are, as you said, people who know what they are doing. That’s why I bought into m43.
However, some of the more glaring issues are expensive (not overpriced) high-end models that can compete with any dSLR, and then little in between, then a significant drop-off in basic functionality at the lower end, yet higher priced than many entry-level dSLRs (overpriced!). And WAY more expensive than even many advanced point and shoots, yet has similar handling. The only way m43 will make a dent in Canikon’s market share is to have the same functionality as even the lowest level dSLR with comparable pricing. Then market the hell out of these cameras to get the word out.
“I’d argue that mirrorless are bought, for the most part, by more knowledgeable users, …” <<< I would say it may not be true. part of users of mirrorless are those who owned a DC once and want a machine for better quality or to learn more about photography. And, they may just look for low-end mirrorless, say E-PL5, because those high-end mirrorless, say E-M5, are just too expensive for them.
By the latest stats it seems that Oly is the first in mirrorless before Sony, so by the same token m4/3 is too. Now, believe it or not, Mr. Terada declared that he expects Oly to be back to profit in 2014.The breakeven if I remeber well is 1,000,000 cameras, so this might act as a reference.
At the same time Sony has opened another can of worms (or a beauty) with mirrorless FF35. This is a multiformat camera. So Oly might follow soon and other makers. It will be interesting to see what are the sales figures by end of 2014.
As someone noticed below sales numbers matter – for the companies – but less so for the users. Mirrorless are cameras for enthusiasts, therefore they matter for the kind of new photographic experience they open to – small size being part of the package, but also the WYSIWYG EVF, and lens adaptability.
This IMHO is v. important in the age of the smartphone. Sony is also bringing in multiformat. This means that in the end many of us will have multi-brand devices, where the most flexible brand wins.
This in turn triggers cooperation between small brands Oly with Sony, Panny with Leica and Fuji and these collective aggregations might in the end defeat the immobile colossi C&N, like Gulliver’s tied by the small dwellers of Brobdinag 🙂
Finally old fixation with me is the geographical location of mirrorless development. It is happening most in Asia, and I am not sure that the US has the staying power to ensure the continued development it needs, although it has the funds. It is simply too distracted or conventional to see further than C&N.
So watch Asian forums and photogs. to see how one can welcome the novelties of mirroless in a relaxed, uncrippled way, without the need of producing tons of justifications.
It is amazing the resistance one meets in other sites every time one tries to map the coming developments of mirrorless. Yes it is disruptive technology, and so some fear for their blessed property – can you believe it?
Your last paragraph really sums it up nicely. Couldn’t agree more.
Thom Hogan 15th January 2014 “I’m pretty sure the reason NikonUSA would give about not being at Imaging USA is that the decline in camera sales has put them under profit pressure”
Some people have made reference to companies like Sony not properly advertising the merits of their smaller cameras over a big DSLR, but personally I think the overall struggle of mirrorless to get real acceptance is the total absence of ads in certain markets, and that’s all. Plain and simple. In Japan (where I’m living now) you see ads for Olympus and Panasonic’s m4/3 cams on TV and in trains all the time, and to a lesser extent you also see Sony. And these small system cams sell fairly well here. At least walking around on the street in Tokyo I see someone sporting a mirrorless camera not quite as often but in similar numbers to how many DSLRs you see.
Now, when I head home (Chicago area USA), the story is totally different. You never see any ads on TV for mirrorless cameras. Maybe there are a few rare Sony ads here and there, but not many, and they don’t really show the person watching what exactly the point of the camera is. They don’t really try to explain the main point, and that’s that you can get great results without having to buy a camera that’ll cause back pain just lugging it around. And that’s the only real message they need to get across. But again, it isn’t just the quality of ads, it’s the total lack in many areas. And if companies don’t advertise, how can they possibly hope their products to sell.
Back to my home turf in Japan my personal camera of choice, the GX7, has been fairing very poorly. And wouldn’t you know it, Panasonic hasn’t been running ads for it at all, not even in the beginning. I can’t even count the number of times I’ve seen Ayase Haruka hawking the GM1 since it came out, but I don’t even remember a single ad for the GX7.
So IMO the solution to the problem is awareness. It’s like the early days of the iPhone in Japan, which didn’t sell for anything for around 2 years. No ads or ads that aren’t useful = no sales.