Japanese camera worldwide shipments (Source: personal-view).
–
As you may have read on New York Times (Click here) and USA Today (Click here) Nikon executives said that sales were particularly disappointing in the United States and Europe for mirrorless cameras (Source: Reuters). In short what they say is the mirrorless market isn’t growing anymore.
I am not an expert when it comes to analyze the market. While it’s true that the Mirrorless market didn’t grow lately it is also true that the Nikon 1 system they launched isn’t really an…let’s say “exciting” system. Overall I think there is still a gap between Mirrorless and DSLR cameras. And I hope the NEX-FF can be one of these cameras that can appeal the hard core DSLR user. Let’s see if Sony will do it right!
—
If you really want to know more about the non exciting Nikon 1 system read the review at Riflessiphotografici.
154 Responses
the smartphones cameras now are so good that destroyed a lot of P&S, and if not hurt the sales of DSLR/Mirrorless.
i’m predicting that there will be a dramatic decrease in demand of mirrorless market in the coming 10 years, the only worth buying now is FF mirrorless to be honest
DSLRs will still be sell okay because professionals gotta use them for work
Not entirely true. Smartphones have introduced many people into photography and encourages people to buy better cameras than their phone’s camera.
Not true. Smartphones showed us that no one cares about the quality of their pictures and would rather have a camera with them all the time that has multiple uses, which is why camera sales continue to fall.
Not true.
Many more people view photography as a way of expressing themselves through instagram, flickr, facebook et al.
The “pro” slice of the pie has become smaller because of the proliferation of quite capable smart phones but the entire pie has grown because more people are being introduced to photography and moving up the chain to more “serious” forms of camera.
I think, DSLRs will die out in the next 10 years, become Mirrorless and 32/64K.
Mirrorless, electronic EVF is 100% the future. Nikon 1 has a small sensor, is not pocketable like RX100, and can’t provide the same image quality as NEX/DSLR, that’s why it failed. I think, NEX sales are fine. Smartphones with large sensors will kill P&S, Mirrorless will kill DSLRs, force them to go even higher-res. There will be no bulky lens. All lens will be made out of thin, light, plastic-like nano-glass with dynamic optical properties and no aberrations. And no bulky lens means no bulky DSLRs to support them. Graphene sensors will become 1000x more sensitive, forget about ISO. Also you won’t need F/S/ISO, all photos will look naturally just like your eye can see them in the real world.
What are you on? “1000x more sensitive” – current sensors are not far from quantum efficiency maximum. Sensitivity can be improved teoreticaly maybe by factor 2 or 3 and that´s it.
Graphene camera sensors said to be 1,000 times more sensitive to light
http://www.engadget.com/2013/05/31/graphene-camera-sensor/
That is 1000 times more sensitive than earlier experimental graphene detectors.
nexphotog is correct, in article: “1,000 times better at capturing light than traditional CMOS or CCD sensors”
Do you know what 1000% times means? Because I don’t think Engadget does in the context that the original supplier of that information used. 200% is one stop, 400% is two stops, 800% is three stops. So three stops plus a bit, which is right around the theoretical max. The cost of the sensor would be far higher at current graphene prices, and yields lower. Sometimes “good enough” is.
graphene sensors consume 10x less energy and are estimated to be 5x cheaper than the current sensors when mass-produced. They are currently working on the first commercially available graphene sensor. Problem is: “researchers are still mechanically exfoliating graphene and placing it on a silicon substrate with tweezers” – Currently no technology exists that will allow mass production.
No, nextphotog is not correct. It’s a grossly misinterpreted (even in the official press release…) piece that in itself is as optimistic as the best marketing. The sensitivity refers to a comparison with earlier graphene experiments, not CMOS or CCD sensors, which are already above 50% efficient. The sensitivity mentioned also refers to current per intensity of incoming light, not the quantum efficiency of the sensor.
There’s a limited amount of photons you can capture, there’s noise inherent to light itself, basic physics that are often overlooked.
Thom hogan your statement is off by a factor of 100..
200% is 2x not 200x
1000% is only 10x.
We went through this when Fujifilm used this same terminology. 2x is one stop, and the way some describe that is 200%. Don’t shoot the messenger.
groundbreaking flat 60-nanometres-thin 100% distortion-free lens. Quote: “In the future we can potentially replace all the bulk components in the majority of optical systems with just flat surface”
https://www.seas.harvard.edu/news/2012/08/flat-lens-offers-perfect-image
> all photos will look naturally just like your eye can see them in the real world
Human eyes actually have pretty lousy resolution, sensitivity, field of view, and dynamic range. We cheat by instantly adjusting the exposure when looking at the highlights and the shadows. We also cheat by constantly shifting the POV, since there is any decent resolution only in the very center. Then there is a massive amount post-processing that pieces them together to create a high-resolution, HDR, panoramic image. 🙂
Citation please?
Nikon only made a crappy, half-hearted attempt at mirrorless with the Nikon 1. Nikon is trying to protect its DSLR business by not producing a capable mirrorless like the Sony NEX, that would cannibalize its DSLR sales. It’s a really bad business decision. Nikon has the technological know how, it’s just that Nikon management is inept. It’s better to be your own best competition than to let customers and sales completely slip away. The market is heading towards mirrorless. DSLR tech is antiquated.
The graph represents whole market, not just Nikon. Point of it is that increase of mirrorless market outside of japan is rather insagnificant an nowhere near as good as “mirrorless fanboys” like you pretend it to be. It’s slowly stabilizing instead of growing.
So I wouldn’t be so sure if DSLRs are really a mater of past. Certainly they won’t be for next several years if things go like that – seems like mirrorless boys created a hype boodle that doesn’t have much to deal with reality of sales.
It seems smartphones are eating sales of not only P&S but mirroless too. Current generation of both formats has similar image capture capabilites close to a good smartphone camera. It is only good for snapshots. It featues slow AF and slow lenses.
As someone who owns:
1 – The Nokia 808 Pureview, the smartphone with the best IQ (until the 1020 hits shelves)
2 – An Olympus OM-D
I can tell you that there is no way in hell even the best smartphone can compete with a good mirrorless camera.
actually those numbers don’t look too bad to me. For every 4-6 Nikon DSLRs sold, they sell 1 Nikon 1 series camera. I personally think that is remarkable given that Nikon has a stronghold on DSLRs, and that the Nikon 1 is what it is.
That’s an old graph from an older story about the growth of mirrorless cameras. it’s a overall view of the Japanese market, not just Nikon
No, it looks like the CIPA worldwide camera shipment numbers graphed.
Shows you how powerful brand name is
for sure mirrorless is growing, just not for Nikon. No doubt whatsoever mirrorless will dominate and then replace DSLRs. Smartphones will not and cannot compete with larger sensor cameras (well that would be the in-lens sensor Sony smartphone addon then).
Now if Nikon is doing bad, how bad is Canon doing?
> For sure mirrorless is growing.
No. It is not. It is declining about at the same rate as DSLR sales are declining, perhaps slightly more depending upon how you interpret a few numbers. Olympus just reported 12% decline in m4/3 sales, for example. Sony has been silent about what NEX is doing, indeed silent about all their interchangeable lens initiatives.
Sure, but that doesn’t seem to be Nikon and Canon’s aim here. Seems more like 1) Create mirrorless systems that aren’t as good as their dSLR offerings (to not compete with them), 2) Surprise, surprise, they don’t compete, 3) Talk down the mirrorless market saying that they aren’t as good and people don’t want them (when they likely would if they were actually as good), 4) Business as usual. I hope their strategy fails, but they do have a large say in the perception of which photography products are seen as the ‘correct’ ones to use by consumers and the larger market.
The problem is that if you actually talk to the executives at the top of EVERY camera company, you’ll find that they’re actually in agreement: the US sucks for mirrorless, regardless of what brand you are. Nikon is just owning up to that directly. Canon and Panasonic indirectly by limiting the mirrorless products they bring into the US market, and the others simply haven’t said what’s happening publicly.
But you only have to look at the CIPA numbers to see it isn’t just Nikon and Canon: 10,000 units in June. Total. If that is not an over correction (it might be), then this strongly implies that the US market is less than 5% of the world market for mirrorless cameras. Most of the camera companies have now shifted their shipments to Japan and Asia, where they believe they can sell them more easily.
Nikon certainly has a very strange engineering versus marketing approach to the Nikon 1, as I wrote about on my site recently. The Nikon 1 isn’t a winner on the market mostly for reasons that Nikon controls and goofed on. Now, we can form all kinds of conspiracy theories, such as “this is what they intended, to try to discredit mirrorless,” but the reality is that Nikon was looking for more volume, as growth was already getting more difficult back when they first started working on the project and they have analysts who can do the same projections I did (I missed the peak digital camera sales by a year, and that prediction was over 10 years ago). That they screwed up the Nikon 1 is pretty clear in retrospect, but the big reason they screwed it up was something I saw in my last meeting with multiple Nikon executives: they disagree on a lot of things, and no one got their way on the Nikon 1: too many compromises to satisfy one faction or another.
If you look at the CIPA figures the interchangeable lens segment is declining in terms of total shipments but mirrorless is declining less than DSLR.
I don’t believe that you can credit smartphones alone with this decline – that is far too simple an argument.
These are some other factors you can see affecting the camera industry:
1 – Sensor technology has reached the level where a majority of users are satisfied with their current camera and see no point in upgrading, in the past IQ levels not necessarily sufficient in most cases the latest model provided enough of an incentive for users to upgrade
2 – High end camera’s are not essentials or visible social status items. When the global economy is stagnant, as it is, people focus first on things they need and second on visible status items (i.e. cars, watch, smartphone, clothing). High end camera’s are not ‘visible’ enough to show status so they would be lower down the list for most people. If the economy picks up enough, people might get lower down the list and buy that high end camera.
@Thom Hogan
“Olympus just reported 12% decline in m4/3 sales” that’s a downright lie, that’s not what was reported and probably even said. It was “said” PEN sales were 12% below expectations (you don’t know what their expectations were) and it doesn’t included O-MD.
Facts straight once in awhile would be nice.
btw
I was right when I said in September 2011 that the Nikon 1 would be a fail.
Personally I don’t think the Nikon 1 was a failure of a system, the first EOS M camera was MUCH worse.
Yes the Nikon 1 was not too excitin because it contains such a small sensor, but it does what it set out to do when it first launched which is be a small step up from a point and shoot with sleek design. But the problem is that in the last few years the times have changed and they failed to catch up because of the limitations of the Nikon 1 system.
Another reason is that in Asia lots of people buy a camera based on design (especially girls), European and Americans tend to (relatively to Asians ) demand more function out of their cameras rather than just the design
Sony is doing well expanding onto full frame with their rumored NEX and so I’d expect NEX sales to be better than Nikon 1 and might get even better.
If Nikon made just another asp-c mirrorless probably wouldn’t go well either even though they’ll still pull in sales due to branding.
Actually, while writing that, they might be able to do well with a mirrorless asp-c camera but would need a good implementation unlike Canon with the EOS m, they can start getting lot of sales due to branding and if the specs match Or better the NEX then it’ll sell
“Nikon reports a financial loss.”
Nikon doesn’t report financial loss, according to your link.
“Nikon cut its operating profit forecast to 65 billion yen ($673 million) for the year to next March, down nearly one-quarter from its forecast issued three months ago of 85 billion yen, although this would still be a rise of 27 percent from a year ago.”
corrected.
I also read an article showing that Mirrorless is almost dead in USA. The sales in June 2013 is 14.6% as of June 2012..
yes a 85%+ drop year by year
The total unit sales of june in the US were half of the sales *growth* in Japan.
Just to show you the massive differences between countries.
Exactly. But Japan is less than 10% the world’s consumption of cameras, the US >30%. So it matters.
No, Thom. After crunching the numbers you should know that:
A) the *Americas* currently account for less than a quarter of the worldwide sales (both in units and revenues)
B) the USA less than the above since the Americas include Latin America, Canada, etc.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the USA account for about 15%.
Respectively (units and yen) for june, the Americas accounted for 19% and 20% of the worldwide ILC sales. The USA obviously quite a bit less than that.
Sure, it counts, but not nearly as much as Asia or even Europe (above 30% each). Even Japan scores respectively 12 and 13%.
@Thom Hogan
Latest figures report that the USA is 18% of the world market and continuing to decline. Dream on…
That 18% relates to mirrorless only ,sales of other cameras exceed mirrorless in all markets you know the one’s selling in large numbers and actually making money for the companies.I have never seen you post here before on the other hand Thom Hogan is a very respected camera writer and has provided an accurate overview of the market
US market is conservative! Period.
the whole country actually 😉
Most of the world actually.
And I’m not sure if it’s just a conservatism – people simply don’t really need small cameras with very few lenses and enormous choice of adapters as much as people here in comments seem to think.
True.
Most people only need compact cameras with fixed lenses. Or rather: Smartphone cameras with good-enough image quality. They don’t even need a zoom lens – some will crop the images later, but the majority doesn’t even know what their smartphone is able to.
They just snap away.
But these people usually don’t pay shitloads for a camera that can take 60 images per second (because they don’t care!) – and they don’t frequent rumor sites…
Need is the wrong choice of words to begin with. Barely anyone needs a DSLR or ILC in general for that matter.
most people don’t need more than one lens and would prefer a smaller camera
most people are not logical
having lived in the states and Asia, there is much less need for mirrorless system cameras in the states simply because of the lifestyle. In the majority of the US, people drive everywhere and have garages in their homes. Therefore the weights of the camera gear is less of a problem when you want large sensor cameras. In Asia, we are usually crowded and people travel by public transportations so if I bring a DSLR with me it means I will have to carry with me all day instead of just leaving it in the car. That’s why m43 and sony nex are doing so well in Asia
good point
Nonsense!!! Terrible point!!! “We Americans” don’t like schlepping heavy gear any more than you guys…, wherever you are in the world. We have cities–ever hear of New York or Chicago or Los Angeles???–etc.
You’re talking as if the whole continent of Asia would be the same. I have lived in “Asia” as well, but I rarely used any public transportation. How about speaking from your own limited experience?
actually people that live in asia don’t mind carrying large cameras all day because they all have messenger bags or backpacks with them all day anyways. No one cares that you’ve live in asia.
They produced a second rate mirrorless camera line and called that a day, and expecting good sales with that? Nikon must be drunk O.o even RX100MkII is giving the Nikon 1 series a run for its money. I think EOS M, despite its horrendous AF performance and lack of lens options, is still a better product overall. you can fix the M’s shortcomings by releasing a better firmware and more lens, but you cannot fix Nikon 1’s lackluster High ISO performance with either.
Yeah but the Nikon 1 can shoot 12 million frames a second and the camera can decide for you which picture is best and it has the best auto focus of any camera in the world (OUTDOORS @ HIGH NOON)
Maybe if they made some better lenses for the mirrorless camera, it would give people incentive to buy them. The only company making good lenses, in my opinion, is Fuji.
It is not about HQ lenses in mass market segment. It is about use cases. To take snapshots from your trip or party you not need expensive lens or camera. For FB and alikes it does not matter. A smartphone is enough for that. Family needs a good camera to take beautiful pictures of their kids. Slow AF mirrorless is not good for that because kids are fast moving. Therefore cheap DSLR is way better then any mirrorless on the market at the moment. On sensor PDAF could change that. We will see.
Kids usually aren’t going to rush by fast enough to outrun a typical APS-C mirrorless’ AF, not to mention the faster AF offered by Micro 4/3 cameras (not that I like them, I MF everything anyway).
And although the Nikon 1 is a crappy product in general for either electronically illiterate girls who go for the look or people with a low budget who still want to make slo-mo videos, it too offers decent AF performance.
Between any half frame DSLR and a NEX-5r/6/7/Fuji X-Pro1/X-E1, I couldn’t think of any reason other than “this big fat gadget makes me look professional”,and “I like the shutter sound(which I don’t, I’m one of those who prefer practically silent leaf shutters)” that would convince me that a DSLR is the better choice instead of a mirrorless.
Haha, kids are amongst most demanding subjects on AF tracking as soon as they learn how to walk. At least my kids do. They often run towards the camera, especially small ones. Even A77 with its very fast AF is not fast enough at tracking a kid running towards camera. NEX-6 AF is not suited for action photography kids including. I´m not against mirrorless or NEX line but I still wait for fast AF. Or try asking shop assistant what camera you should buy for taking pictures of your kids.
Agree, kids and dogs are extremely demanding to focus due to constant and irregular movements. Unless they are asleep that is…
I didn’t count moving towards the camera in, which I didn’t believe they would often do…maybe it’s just because they’re not my own?
I meant moving as they do themselves, while the photographper keeps a distance of over 3m, at least that’s how I usually shoot anyway.
Haha! Good laugh. Those must be really really fast moving Superman’s kids. I managed to take several HQ pics of F1 racing car rushing right past me at full speed with my NEX shooting at 10 fps – not a problem. 🙂
F1 is most likely not harder than MotoGP and WSBK (wich I have shot professionally), and Superkarts are the toughest to nail of all the motorsports I’ve encountered. Still, I would say kids and dogs beats them all.
Cars/bikes are easy to focus for as they usually follow a very predictable path & speed. It is therefore easy to keep the particular point you want to focus on within the range of the focus points you are using allowing easier focus tracking. Kids & dogs rarely follow a predictable path/speed so often drop in & out of the focussing points being used making tracking much harder.
The distance to subject makes a huge difference, as the subject gets closer, the lens must move more.
ie. If the subject is moving 5 Meters towards the camera at 30 Meters and at 10 Meters, the amount the focus system must move to keep the subject locked is greater with the closest distance.
I agree. Photos of kids, especially special-needs children, are a much greater challenge for the camera and the photographer than cars, BIF, or even sports.
Most sports fans know where the play will be, and can pre-focus. BIF usually has an isolated subject against a distant background. And you never have to worry about getting a car to make eye contact.
Just my opinion, of course.
There’s always Leica. $500 for a near-mint 50/2 Summicron and you’re well on your way.It’ll beat everything on the mirrorless market. It’s just good glass. Good glass is expensive. Manufacturers these days try to use cheap glass and make it up with new coating/ more elements/ more asphericals (of course not hand-ground), which are all cheaper than rare glass, they still end up with compromises.
“$500 for a near-mint 50/2 Summicron and you’re well on your way.”
That’d be the cheap part. And while the IQ will be there, that won’t be a very versatile system.
Actually if you get a Summicron-R and a Speed Booster(slightly sacrificing corners) then it should make the No.1 versatile prime combo. I managed for half a year with a Planar 50/1.4 without a Speed Booster, after I got the booster, I felt that the 50 was a little short, so I’m planing to get a 85, but that’s just me speaking for myself.
As I’ll report shortly, Nikon has made three extraordinary lenses for the Nikon 1 series. Lenses that don’t really match the low-end nature of the S1, J1, J2, and J3 models. It’s not about lenses in this case, it’s about sale of cameras with kit lenses.
I think: last two year boom was due to the release of a lot of new outstanding mirrorless camera (nex6/7, Fujifilm x line, olympus OMD).
Right now everybody is waiting for new flagship models to be on the shelves, FF also eh!
The situation has been exacerbated, also, by the economic crisis hitting a lot of country in the U.E.
That’s all ..
I agree, many are still in recovery mode and not ready to buy new cameras when their old one still works, and its IQ has not gotten any worse as new models have been released.
Nikon is mainly a DSLR producer, althought their Nikon 1 system could be very interesting, what should they say? they are protecting their own market …
I love mirrorless. The future is mirrorless. The uninspiring offerings by conventional camera companies like canon and nikon are not attractive to consumers. It looks like they are struggling with cultural change. I admire sony innovation. I really hope sony gains the upper hand.
P
two things would really matter to me if I was about to make the transition to mirrorless: sensor size and compatibility with existing system. those who doesn’t care about sensor size are happy with their phone cameras. Sony and Canon have huge advantages compared to the others. personally I believe the coming eos m with on sensor pdaf and enthusiast oriented body will sell well if they get it right.
You need big sensor in small bodies with modern features to sell your mirror-less systems. ‘Sony RX100’ is the only reason why your 1 System is not selling unlike your conservative system. You need innovation. You need to be knowing modern consumers mind. Poor Nikon! Now lets see Nex-Full frame cutting your old mirror system sells as well. Bye!
https://www.google.com/search?q=curve+of+inflated+expectations&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=xFIHUreyDsjTOZG4gMAG&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=633&sei=1FIHUr7fA4mLOMuegJAE
And 2012 was the first peak, after that some hesitation as the early adopters have all invested.
Then comes the massmarket growth.
(And yes, you can map this curve to almost any new technology, just adjust the timescale…)
You’re trying to equate word of mouth (hype) to sales. The sales curves look different.
This story seems to be in most online news outlets and no doubt will make its way to all photography blogs,forms, and news sites. Is Nikon doing this out of fear of the upcoming FF NEX? I would imagine seeing the headline most have that mirrorless isn’t selling well will stop some people buying into the mirrorless systems.
Nikon 1 wasted a huge opportunity.
When an APS-C sized sensor NEX-5R with the 16-50PZ lens is smaller than a 1″ Nikon camera with lens, how can Nikon sell anything ??? They didn’t take advantage of their system sensor size at all.
They should have made at least one very small camera, with at least one very compact zoom lens (like the Panasonic 14-42X or Sony 16-50PZ). Of course, this requires innovation, which Nikon did not do.
@Catalin
The Nikon1 has been a godsend and good opportunity for Sony, Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji mirrorless, it’s gonna get tougher for Nikon1 as they have burnt a lot of fingers (consumers and distribution) as well as Oly, Sony and Panny keep hammering away…
google for “Curve of inflated expectations” .
2012 was the first peak, after that some hesitation as the early adopters have all invested.
Then comes the massmarket growth.
(And yes, you can map this curve to almost any new technology, just adjust the timescale…)
I think the main point is that Mirrorless Cameras are mostly (not all) for people who want to show they have money.
i mean the mirrorless system really has flaws.
– If people want a compact camera, they buy a compact camera. A mirrorless is more compact than an DSLR but way larger than a real compact camera where you can have 10x Zoom into your pocket.
– The handling of Compact cameras is and always have been more uncomfortable than the handling of an DSLR
So right now the NEX Systems and stuff like that was mainly baught by people who just want to waste there money to brag about there camera and i mean, does people doesnt exist infinite in the world. There is a point where everyone of those have such a camera and as most of them never even use the camera, they wont buy a second or newer one.
Have you ever seen how ridiculous it looks if you put a NEX-7 on a 500mm prime lense and how hard it is to handle it.
I tried the NEX-7 a lot of times beside the a77, especially for the extra gain in noise in the a77 by the SLT Mirror. How to say, i dont have the NEX-7 anymore.
The Viewfinder was technically the same, but is was _way_ more comfortable on the a77, on the NEX-7 i was always like looking thorough an keyhole to see the huge viewfinder behind that keyhole (especially when wearing glasses).
– The E to A-Mount Adapter is Expensive but you need him for most lenses (there is for example no 16-50mm f/2.8 for the NEX-7)
– If you put an A-Mount Lense in front of a NEX it looses completely its compactness and its _very_ hard to handle. It a pain to hold the camera while using the zoom on the 70-300 for example. Unuseable!
The a77 have much more buttons and the functions are easier and faster to reach then on the NEX-7
So if you really want a good handling camera you take the a77 (or the a99 which handling is even more better 😀 but more expensive too ;)), if you want a compact camera you take a compact camera.
So when do you take the NEX-7? Its when you are able to take good photos and want awesome stunning photos from an compact camera. But to reach that you need good lenses, all those good lenses are mostly A-Mount and even the good E-Mount lenses are everything else than “compact”. They are just more compact than an A-Mount lense.
So they are not compact enough that people who want to buy a compact camera buy them and the handling and is not good enough that most people rather buy an DSLR and take those 200g extra weight (NEX SLT) (oh my god! its 200g! how can i take it :'( )
Its not like the NEX System its bad! It delivers awesome image quality, its just that the market is very very small and even that small market already spent enough money so why should it grow then?
Everyone who wants a Mirrorless camera have one and the others dont have one for good reason.
The A58 is 411 € lense and the body’s weight is 492gramms, the NEX5 is 218gramms and is 519 € with the 18-55mm (+ 300 € for the viewfinder + 290 € for the AtoE Mount Adapter (That are additional 250g)
So with the A-Mount Adapter and the Viewfinder the NEX-5 is the same weight than the A58 but _without_ in-body image Stabilisation.
Thats maybe not a 100% perfect comparison and i dont care for such a comparison. You can easily see that the SLT System is cheaper, very lightweight (common its 492gramms) and much better to handle with more buttions and more ergonomic body.
So now tell me why all the world should buy a NEX instead?
i don’t fully agree, maybe because i dont share an alpha user point of view.
“- If people want a compact camera, they buy a compact camera. A mirrorless is more compact than an DSLR but way larger than a real compact camera where you can have 10x Zoom into your pocket.”
i started from a canon and moved to NEX because the canon system is frustrating to use on the lower end models and it was heavy to carry my 5d + 24-70 + 85 1.4 in my bag (810g + 790g + 725g = 2.3kg PLUS my other items in my bag). compact cameras have a terrible low light performance, and poor image quality at low light, the image qualtiy and weight of the NEX 5n (and now NEX 6) is a significant improvement over compacts but still not as good as a FF DSLR, but for the weight (around 500g w/kit lens) it is a really good compromise.
“- The handling of Compact cameras is and always have been more uncomfortable than the handling of an DSLR”
i have small hands (im not a big person, and no, i don’t even lift 🙁 ), so i can’t agree that the handling on the DSLR is better, because for me, it is not. i would much rather hold a NEX 6 over a 5d all day, any day. I have done some event photography with the 5d and i was pretty tired, no more problems of that with the NEX 6.
yes, I am one of those people who own more than 1 camera, but only because i work and have the money to spend on them. I know many people who own a DSLR but WANT a mirrorless but won’t get one because they don’t have the money to (and too lazy to sell their DSLR). its not that they don’t want one, its just that they are uninformed and think that “DSLR is the best and better than mirrorless in terms of IQ, no questions”
“Have you ever seen how ridiculous it looks if you put a NEX-7 on a 500mm prime lense and how hard it is to handle it.”
I don’t have any problems using my 500mm on my NEX 6. its a mirror lens though but its pretty compact 😀
“The Viewfinder was technically the same, but is was _way_ more comfortable on the a77, on the NEX-7”
i disagree, the NEX 6 (essentially a NEX 7) has a more comfortable viewfinder positioning for me. I’m a fan of the rangefinder placement of the viewfinder because my nose doesn’t hit the screen as it normally does with a SLR type viewfinder.
In terms of lenses, the advantages of using an E-mount camera is that I can mount M-mount lenses on it, personally i choose the voigtlander M lenses for its good price, big aperture and low cost (compared to zeiss/leica lenses) which work out really well for what I shoot (WA for landscapes, big aperture for night time shots). I know some people need AF.
its all really up to the individual preferences, the NEX system is a good option to provide the SAME IQ for a smaller physical size. i’d much rather carry around a NEX than a DSLR/DSLT because of the weight/size which means its easier to carry and so i’m more likely to have it with me when I want to take some photos. AND i don’t have anything invested in terms of alpha mount lenses so don’t need to carry around bulky lenses an a LA-E2 adapters. instead i have a nice set of lenses which fit nicely in 1 bag. the NEX system is targeted at people like me who want SAME IQ for smaller size 😀
> i started from a canon and moved to NEX because the canon system is frustrating to use on the lower end models and it was heavy to carry my 5d + 24-70 + 85 1.4 in my bag (810g + 790g + 725g = 2.3kg PLUS my other items in my bag). compact cameras have a terrible low light performance, and poor image quality at low light, the image qualtiy and weight of the NEX 5n (and now NEX 6) is a significant improvement over compacts but still not as good as a FF DSLR, but for the weight (around 500g w/kit lens) it is a really good compromise.
Yeah but thats Canon, Sonys SLT Range is smaller and lighter than Canons SLRs. Really hard to compare.
Also there is no 24-70 f/2.8 for NEX, you _have_ to buy the Adapter + a 16-50mm f/2.8 so you have the identical weight as for an SLT but with handling issues as the 16-50 f/2.8 is not really good to handle with NEX-Cameras.
> i have small hands (im not a big person, and no, i don’t even lift 🙁 ), so i can’t agree that the handling on the DSLR is better, because for me, it is not. i would much rather hold a NEX 6 over a 5d all day, any day. I have done some event photography with the 5d and i was pretty tired, no more problems of that with the NEX 6.
Again, the 5D really is a bad example
> I don’t have any problems using my 500mm on my NEX 6. its a mirror lens though but its pretty compact 😀
So you can use the 500mm without any problems handhelt? I mean the Lense doesnt have any stabilisation and your NEX neither and the Lense is about the 100 size of the camera. I doubt its any comfortable or compact to have the 500mm handhelt.
The Image Stabilisation in the body was one of the main reasons for me to take an Sony Alpha instead of an Canon or Nikon.
> i disagree, the NEX 6 (essentially a NEX 7) has a more comfortable viewfinder positioning for me. I’m a fan of the rangefinder placement of the viewfinder because my nose doesn’t hit the screen as it normally does with a SLR type viewfinder.
Cant reproduce on a77 or a99
> its all really up to the individual preferences, the NEX system is a good option to provide the SAME IQ for a smaller physical size. i’d much rather carry around a NEX than a DSLR/DSLT because of the weight/size which means its easier to carry and so i’m more likely to have it with me when I want to take some photos. AND i don’t have anything invested in terms of alpha mount lenses so don’t need to carry around bulky lenses an a LA-E2 adapters. instead i have a nice set of lenses which fit nicely in 1 bag. the NEX system is targeted at people like me who want SAME IQ for smaller size 😀
The NEX Zoom lenses are
1. Not the best
2. Everything but fast (if you want SS)
the 16-50mm for NEX is 3.5-5.6
the 16-50mm for SLT is 2.8
SAME IQ menas SAME IQ. If i shoot in twilight scenes, its a huge difference if i have 2.8 or 5.6 at 50mm. Its 3 Apertures, 3 ISO-Stops.
So when i can choose ISO 800 on the a77 you have to go up to 6400
You have to add 0,5 EV in noise to the a77 in case of the SLT Mirror so its ISO 1200 in reality. Still way less than 6400 and very easy to remove in with Nosie Reduction. ISO 6400 is quite harder to remove with Noise reduction to keep a lot of details and nice colors.
But again about the Handling. The a77 have about 4-times more (customizable) buttons than the NEX-7 or NEX-6 have. Maybe that doesnt care that much if you only take landscapes but even then i use a lot of buttons i customized when shooting landscapes because i want the best picture if i press the shutter, not just a picture.
Maybe its about the personal preference but then much more people want the more flexible and cheaper system than the more expensive one with less choices and more compromises.
Sony says the NEX is compact without compromises and thats not true. You have compromises on fast lenses and handling and lenses are way more important than the body for Image Quality (in my opinion).
The less in weight really is mostly virtual.
Right now i also carry only 1 Bag with me
a99 + 24-70 f/2.8 + 70-300 f/4-5.6
Thats one bag and not really heavy, i can climb Mountains without problems with that bag and i dont lift 😉
So as long you are not an ultimate extreme sport guy who on the other side dont have enough power to hold an SLT with lense you dont really _need_ a NEX camera.
So the market quite is and will be very small.
*bows* well made argumentation and plenty of great points raised Vamp898. 🙂
Dude 🙂
Sometimes I have a money to burn, that’s why I bought some Leica lenses, what put their DSLR counterparts to shame used with NEX.
And keep in mind: DSLRs and everything with long flange distance is a relict from Jurassic period, unneeded limitation. I hardly can name 500mm lens + DSRL shaped camera being an ergonomic combo. Mirrorless approach shows a way to go with these lenses: put lens on shoulders, wear the “google glass alike” VF. That’s really closer to ideal than a bulky lens on a bulky camera in hands. I also think these long lenses deserve to be the integral part with a sensor (modular) and some control elements: they are already big and already expensive.
What about the Sony a99 and the Sigma 500mm f4.5 EX DG (or the Sony G if you have enough money)
And about the Google Glass like think… im not sure if you are serious or joking…
Im afraid my neck is going to break, really! How is that possible?
Your shoulder 15cm behind your eye, how is that possible?
But still you dont have any SS, you dont want to hold 500mm by hand without Steady shot… really… you dont want…
Don’t show your lack of understanding. Obviously I meant: VF that wears on an eye, like google glass does or something. The super-light sensor module, some camera controls, like shutter button, some wheel on the lens barrel, put it on SHOULDER. It’s way more stable than holding it in arms, no matter how much camera weights and what grips it has and what experience you have. It’s not a fantastic right now and FAR more usable than what we have now.
PS anything longer than 135mm is not my cup of tea. I prefer to go wider and stay unobtrusive, so mirrorless with short flange distance is my way to go and the less my camera will resemble DSLR the more happy I will be.
“Yeah but thats Canon, Sonys SLT Range is smaller and lighter than Canons SLRs. Really hard to compare.”
yeah. well I don’t own (and dont plan on owning) any SLTs though, i was looking into the A99 but stayed with NEX for small size
“Also there is no 24-70 f/2.8 for NEX, you _have_ to buy the Adapter”
hoping the FF NEX zoom lens would change that 😀 (though it is unlikely)
“Again, the 5D really is a bad example”
the 5d was my main reason to switch fully from a DSLR to NEX, it was the last straw from all the problems i had with OVFs, weights and size etc
“So you can use the 500mm without any problems handhelt? I mean the Lense doesnt have any stabilisation and your NEX neither and the Lense is about the 100 size of the camera. I doubt its any comfortable or compact to have the 500mm handhelt.”
I have no problems with it, it only becomes a problem when the subject moves, i use it once in a while for shooting into the distances and mountains don’t tend to move very fast 😛
if rumors are true and the NEX system will have IBIS then it renders the IBIS alpha vs no-IBIS NEX moot.
i shoot mostly on primes on my NEX, the voigtlander 40mm f1.4 is a very good compromise between cost and fast aperture. i’m pretty much use to primes that i forget about the slow zooms
“The a77 have about 4-times more (customizable) buttons than the NEX-7 or NEX-6 have.”
i agree that the NEX 6 lacks buttons, but there are a few Fn which lets you program features, its not perfect but it does reduces the amount of menu diving. I have a RX1 now and then menu on that is much better but i don’t know how it’d compare to the alphas
“So as long you are not an ultimate extreme sport guy who on the other side dont have enough power to hold an SLT with lense you dont really _need_ a NEX camera.”
haha, well i don’t NEED a NEX, but i much prefer it still 😛
“If i shoot in twilight scenes, its a huge difference if i have 2.8 or 5.6 at 50mm. Its 3 Apertures, 3 ISO-Stops.”
It is 2 stops. But you are generally right – mirrorless mounts allow for cheaper and better (especially brighter) UWA, WA and standard lenses, but manufacturers failed to take advantage of this. Only m43 has f/2.8 zooms, and Panasonic overpriced them through the roof – you can get FF f/2.8 zooms cheaper (meaning that the overpricement is not by a few percent, but by the factor of 3 or 4).
NEX lenses like 24/1.8 for 1100 is a joke of a price, and 55-210 f/6.3 simply a joke.
@peevee
+1, 24/1.8 is pure joke
In combination with NEX it provides nothing but ability to focus manually over any smartphone has and nothing more. For it’s price it MUST have DOF scale to be a good street shooting lens, as it supposed to be one being the 35mm equivalent.
And I havent’s mentioned its technical performance yet that is quite mediocre for its price. Toyish overpriced lens for toyish NEX system 🙂
I have no idea what part of the World you live in, but here in Sweden, people don’t buy a mirrorless to show off their wealth, on the contrary I’d say. People who wants to appear wealthy buy a large DSLR with a large lens, or a Leica. And I am pretty sure this goes for most parts of the World.
I certainly didn’t buy a NEX to show off my wealth, as I don’t have any wealth.
I bought it because I can use all the lenses I already own. There is no way I can afford to buy a whole load of new lenses from Sony or Zeiss.
A NEX is economical, practical and flexible.
Vamp898, very interesting points raised, but I am not sure I’d agree with that one:
“… Mirrorless Cameras are mostly (not all) for people who want to show they have money.”
Even based on your comparison, A58 vs NEX-5, the difference is too small for anyone to be able to show off. Also, I guess this depends on the country, bigger cameras work better for that purpose. That has been my impression for Japan.
I believe there are 2 issues – first, user knowledge, second, the current state of the mirrorless market. There are plenty of people who have no idea what the advantages of a mirrorless system vs a DSLR are. They do however know that pros use DSLRs. And most mirrorless offerings are aimed exactly at those same people, which are the biggest part of the market. The, mirrorless technology has trade-offs, a bit too much for the moment, to make it really appealing as an alternative to a regular DSLR.
As to the dimensions and weight, it always depends on how and lot you are comparing to. I have a NEX-7 with 10-18, 35 and 50. The whole package is less than a kilo and takes very little space. You can’t make an equivalent with an SLT, unless you go for the lower models, which will invalidate the comparison.
Sounds like they’re just trying to make excuses for making a substandard product by blaming the market.
According to the link about Nikon 1, they consider it to be a very good and complete system.
Mirrorless cameras sales are very good in fact. Don’t compare them to Canon or Nikon: compare them to Pentax, compare α vs NEX, etc: they are better. Canikon in another league and western people show how inert, brainless they are (and they dare to blame orientals in this LOL), with their pattern “Camera≡Canon or Nikon”
Nikon and Canon both failed to take advantage of their huge lens ranges with a mirrorless solution. Sony has the smarter solution against Nikon 1 with their RX100 plus even improved with the RX100II and the NEX systems leaves EOS-M behind in the dust. I really don’t understand why these two companies didn’t serve their customers by offering an advanced mirrorless solution to mount their existing glass. They simply left this market to E-Mount.
“And I hope the NEX-FF can be one of these cameras that can appeal the hard core DSLR user. ”
The bulk of DSLR market is not about “hard core DSLR user” (which has plenty of expensive DSLR lenses and FF bodies to change to other systems). It is about Rebels and Nikon D3xxx-D5xxx with kit lenses, and the secrets to compete in this market are simple: price cameras with viewfinders right (below the Rebels, and it is possible given the lack of a lot of stuff in them), equip them with zooms with good ranges (better than 18-135 DSLR kits), put them in actual physical stores with displays telling advantages and with charged batteries, and advertise/advertise/advertise.
Sorry, but $1000 OM-D E-M5 is not going to win in the market with $500 K-30, even if it is smaller.
It’s always nice to see business people eventually realize that there can’t be exponential growth ad infinitum.
Whatever success the Nikon 1 has achieved has been mostly out of a captive audience.
If Nikon is surprised by the stall that’s taken place now, then its telling that they don’t have a proper understanding of today’s market.
Mirrorless is not going away——Canikon will not be able to stop it!
I doubt they want mirrorless cameras to go away, but their own solutions show they’d expected to keep this camera range on distance to classic DSLR. But even worse Canon’s own forgotten FD-Lenses are celebrating a new spring attached to Sony NEX cameras. Well, at least they understood the market better than Kodak did and even better there remains competition between more than only two companies…
Well that seems pretty arrogant of Nikon to make such claims. Yes there are sales charts to compare mirrorless to DSLR sales, but I wonder if they are even considering the obvious fact that mirrorless cameras are still in their infancy and still cannot compete when it comes to high end, professional quality lenses and accessories. They are calling the time of death before giving the mirrorless market a chance to grow.
While some professionals have completely replaced their DSLR systems with mirrorless, I feel that unless mirrorless cameras can offer equivalent options of professional standards such as the 70-200mm F2.8 on a native mount then sure, mirrorless cameras will hit a brick wall in growth.
I think Sony has the right idea in coming out with an entire mirrorless camera line including the DSLR look alike A mount mirrorless coming soon. I feel the reason mirrorless systems currently see a limitation and possible limited room for growth, is because companies are extremely hesitant in releasing lenses and systems that people may feel are too bulky. That’s definitely what first made mirrorless appealing, but if anyone expects mirrorless to completely replace DSLR models in the future, then there has to be compromises. Sony’s eventual offering of A mount mirrorless cameras along side NEX cameras appears to be exactly the approach Nikon should take before making such haste comments. There will always be people that appreciate larger bodies for their comfortable and secure hold, as well as people that prefer the portability of existing mirrorless, so why not appeal to both and approach the mirrorless market with two body styles.
Mirrorless as a compact system solution as we see them today, yes, will eventually hit that wall and can never fully replace DSLRs, but mirrorless as a technological solution and overcoming obvious limitations a reflex mirror has, is far from limited and dead.
I’m actually thinking Nikon is one reason the reason the mirrorless market is hurting.. Because of their half-hearted attempt it makes mirrorless look bad.. and expensive for its quality.. But I might be too hard on Nikon >.>
@acolyte
If you could take Canon EOS M, Nikon1 and Pentax Q out of the graph the trend would look very different 🙂
I’m a Nikon shooter. I’m currently using a d800 and d7000 set up. I’m waiting for Sony to put sensor stabilization and/or FF in to a NEX camera and I plan on switching.
I think mirror less is the future. The only thing holding it back is af speed and clearly the lens tech for small lite fast zoom lenses. I think some cameras will retain there dslr shape because of the lenses. I think the argument about which is better is silly since each person knows what works for them. Some people will call the nex line a toy line but really its a tool just like any other camera. I don’t get this constant war, Just shoot with what you like. I like the nex line but have to use a alpha along with it because of the 16-50mm 2.8 85mm 1.4 50mm 1.4 135mm 2.8. If the nex had IBS I would have switched completely. I love my nex-6 better than any alpha except the a99.
+1, let everyone shoot their own systems in peace! 😛 i’d still advocate mirrorless to my friends who don’t have a camera yet though haha
Mirrorless is a fad a passing breeze a paper tiger.
It never was going to have the sales of DSLR’s making something small isn’t always practical.
As for NEX so little in the way of decent lenses, the party is over folks now it’s time for bigger sensor compacts and lets get shot of these boring ILC models. To many mirror less makers little innovation in most of the products.
Olympus ran and hid with micro 4/3, let’s hope Sony have the nuds to really compete in this market, leave the NEX for the kids and soccer moms..let’s have the real meat
Except, bigger isn’t always practical either. Lenses can and probably will continue to be made, the party is hardly over. And last, but not least, there is way more innovation in the mirrorless market than in the DSLR one, and that for more than a couple of years already.
Let’s not kid ourselves, there are a few niggles to be fixed and more lenses to be made, but in the end all camera will be mirrorless. And some will keep the DSLR shape.
IGNORANCE. It’s terribly frustrating to see generation after generation of DSLRs put into the market, when all serious camera makers should have been spending the last 20 years figuring out how to GET RID OF THAT DAMNED MOVING MIRROR.
It’s a dinosaur technology, it needs to go, and the only thing keeping it around is IGNORANCE. It’s mainly the fault of Canon and Nikon, and their legion of pros who never learned the REAL purpose to a viewfinder. Behind that ignorance Canon and Nikon are scared to drop DSLR, like the brave innovators Sony and Panasonic are doing.
Because of that base ignorance, we’re all short-changed on options for MUCH BETTER CAMERAS.
Sony needs to quit being timid and MARKET THEMSELVES as the BETTER CAMERA. It is.
Once again today I stood next to a Canon-shooting pro, who’s head cranked sideways when he heard my $500 Sony body rattle off at 8.5 frames per second. He tried, like they usually do, to ridicule the Sony decision, but when you CONFRONT THEM, DEAD ON, and ask what feature or specification is it that makes your Canon t4i better than this Sony a57, they’re STUMPED. Because it doesn’t exist…the Sony is a better camera………….PERIOD.
And 30 minutes later after I explain how much I saved on lenses having a stabilized body, after I’ve demonstrated how POWERFUL live view in a VIEWFINDER is, if you use it right, and after he’s heard the Sony shoot in “machine gun” mode a few more times….he wants to sell his kit and move to a REAL CAMERA. I’ve converted 50 Canikon shooters this year by myself…it NEVER takes more than an hour! Sony ROASTS Canikon, it’s no contest. (if you have the technology demonstrated to you)
A REAL MODERN CAMERA DOES NOT HAVE A MOVING MIRROR. No matter what the market says, we WILL have REAL modern cameras soon…..Canikon can’t keep making the SAME camera forever, or Sony will leave them YEARS in the dust.
+1 for saying the way it is.
I completely agree. While Canon and Nikon continue coming out with DSLR bodies to enhance the performance, the only innovation being made here is how to overcome the limitations of the reflex mirror aspect. Instead of tirelessly engineering the heck out of dslrs to overcome their limitations, here’s an idea, remove the mirror and approach the mechanics behind making pictures from a fresh and new perspective. Canon and Nikon make excellent DSLRs, but the general public need to realize that a moving mirror adds nothing to improving image quality. It does when considering autoocus speed and being able to track moving subjects, but other than that, mirrorless cameras will continue to get better and close the gap further between the image quality of pro dslrs and mirrorless.
At the moment, no mirrorless can challenge full frame dslrs but that will change soon when Sony brings out the first offering, and other manufactures follow suit.
Ill informed if not slightly silly post.
What you like not everyone else goes for, most people don’t really like EVF’s or see them as an advantage.
That’s why Canikon make DSLR’s with mirrors and people buy them, Nobody gives a damn about mirror less or EVF’s.
Canikon sell a whole heap more cameras than Sony do. Sony make products most people don’t want to buy, Canikon make products that photographers want.
You are calling him “silly” and “ill informed”, yet you say things like ” most people don’t really like EVF’s or see them as an advantage”, which you absolutely cannot backup. Canon and Nikon do sell a lot more cameras, but that has nothing to see with OVF.
You’ve shot yourself in the foot. If EVF were wanted people would be buying a lot more Sony cameras and they’re not.
What’s the point making a product that majority of users don’t want?
You work it out.
A99 in indicative of Sony’s failings, charge more for an EVF camera than an OVF one and wonder why it’s a flop and everyone is buying FF Canikon’s.
You make products people want, not what some suit in Japan think who knows nothing about photography at all.
You are insisting on your causality, but it simply isn’t true. People were buying less Sony and More Canikon even before, when Sony had OVFs.
Thats because Sony always does stupid mistakes
A900 had neither Video nor LiveView _for no reason!_
A99 have an APS-C Phase-AF and only 6fps _for no reason!_
I mean most of the people dont care like me. Im fine with the AF and i never need for than 6fps, but some people do.
They want a game changer, not just a good camera. They want something special which worth taking the downsades “Like less 3rd party equipment and higher prices for same quality (Im talkin about the Zeiss lenses)”
If they own a 5D Mark II with 20 Lenses, they dont want to sell all lenses and the camera to get a a99 just because the SLT Design and the EVF.
They have to decide to pay 3200$ for an 5D Mark III or sell all there stuff, get new Sony stuff which probably will cost them 8000$ or even more.
The a99 is not awesome enough to let them decide for the a99. Thats just the point.
If the a99 would have the features of the 1D-X, that would cause more attention. So 12-14fps and babam some poeple are suddenly thinking about “Do i want to spend 7000 $ on the 1D-X or 2800$ on the a99”
But mostly its because profesionals are extremely conservative. Even more than farmers and they dont even eat what they dont know!
And from that viewpoint, Sony sells a very lot of cameras!
Not to forget that Sony have bad marketing. Sonys Marketing is that awesome generic that Canon and Nikon could take 99% of Sonys marketing and just use it for there own cameras. Canons and Nikons Marketing is not the best too but they are the leader, they could just say “We have something new, buy it” and people will buy it without even knowing if there is a difference.
Beeing a good photographer doesnt mean having any knowledge about Sensor Technic or whats better on an EVF. They look thorough an EVF and say “Its different, i dont want it. I was fine with the old, give me the old one” without even thinking about if it is better.
Also they dont care if the Sensor of the a99 is better. If the dynamic range of the 5D Mark III is same poor as the 5D Mark II, its like that. “I was fine with the old one”.
They dont want something better, they want that it stays like it is and does not change as they are fine how it is now.
I know I am being a broken record, but the mirrorless’s challenge to the DLSRs and NEX-FF’s success will depend on the range of lenses available for the systems. This is a bit circular, since an unpopular system cannot afford an expansion of the lens line, but a company with resources like Sony ought to demonstrate from the get-go that they are serious about the product line. Zeiss does seem to be on board with this, so I’m hopeful.
Of course mirrorless sales have leveled off – why wouldn’t they??
There haven’t been any significant advancement in the market / technology over the past year.
As soon as the technology takes another step forward, there will be another boom in sales. FF mirrorless (such as the new NEX). 4K video. Significant decrease in price with an increase in quality. These are things that will cause consumers to upgrade their existing system.
And if you’re a camera company who isn’t established in the mirrorless market, or isn’t actively working on the ‘next generation’ then you’ll always miss the ‘boom’ and be riding the (less profitable) tail-end.
The video function of Nikon 1 has not gone far enough to shock the market. In fact, Nikon 1 can produce a professinal 1 series camera which can shoot 4K video. But Nikon seems cannot catch up the engine on video yet and has nothing to threaten the status of Canon or Sony on video side. I think that’s not quite possible to break through this situation except Nikon dares to open the potential of 1″ sensor on video side with a relative low price. If Nikon 1 can be generous to let shoot 4K video and able to shoot RAW, I think the “shining effect” from the videographers might help to bring up reputation. For example, eoshd would love to recommend it to the low budget filmmaker, I guess.
@MC
The 4K video market would want a large sensor and not the CX lens mount plus a whole host of other features that Nikon1 can’t and won’t offer.
The problem with Nikon mirrorless, Nikon 1, is that they bought a bad 1″ sensor from Sony. Instead, Sony used a better 1″ sensor in their RX100.
The reason Mirror-less sales slowed because Canon and Nikon released sub-par systems. If they’d have made something in-line with M4/3’s, NEX, or Fuji X the sales would have grown in that segment. I know from Sony’s financials that their DSLR and Mirror-less sales grow over the past year.
That doesn’t make much sense. People still had access to M4/3′s, NEX, or Fuji X.
Why would it sell well?
They are selling very nice sensor (Aptine) crippled by decisions by marketing department due to segmenting decisions, and overpriced compared to the real competition (yes, it’s smartphones).
Pull out a Sony RX100-II killer with an Aptina sensor, giving 4K feed and it will sell like hot cakes (regardless of what the true optical resolution is).
If a start up like GoPro can do it, then Nikon can too.
Nikon are just too slow, too bureaucratic and living in their past glory.
If they did a clean slate design with no stupid restrictions, they could revolutionize the market.
After all, they have no high-end video camera sales they need to protect, like Sony, Panasonic and Canon have.
Nikon is in an unique position, but they are for some inconceivable reason unwilling to take this chance…
It is quite obvious that mirrorless for Nikon does not sell well. It is because that their mirrorless system is not on par with the NEX or the Olympus. It is the same case when we compare the Nikon DSLR’s to those of Sony’s. Nikon, listen and make decent mirrorless systems and then see if it sells or not!
Nikon- One and done. Welp you threw a turd into the crowded sky and expected it to fly eh? And that’s the sum of your effort eh? Haha. US likes bigger cameras to be sure, but the 1 system.. lets just say it, sucked.
Carl
This camera is much better
http://photographic-central.blogspot.com/2013/08/panasonic-lumix-g5-full-review.html
Well, we tend to forget that DSLRs are going mirrorless also, are getting smaller and smaller, so i believe in very little time there will not be a visible separating line.
Yes
Welcome to market saturation due to all cameras being made in the past couple of years being good enough for virtually all users.
Before that you could see serious improvement in each generation so there was an incentive to replace the camera. If you bought pretty much any camera in the past 3 years there would be very little to be gained for 90% of users, so they will just keep their older camera & not buy a new one…
Lets take someone similar to myself who is just hobbying…
Start with a Mino 5d.
Upgrade a year or two later to an a100 – useful improvement in resolution.
Upgrade a year or two later to an a350 – improvement in resolution, tilting screen & live view.
Upgrade a year or two later to a580 – negligable improvement to resolution, huge improvement in ISO.
That was over 3 years ago & there has been no feature in a newer camera that has improved the photography experience for most users that would justify the spend (which for most is not really that insignificant) on a new camera. (Ok perhaps the EVF for a few..)
Most hobbyists who want to take a decent photograph probably already have the tool that gets the job done (bought in the last 3/4 years).
If they already have a tool good enough why are they going to spend more on a new camera that is also good enough but perhaps slightly better in ways that make virtually no difference to them?
Most adults (over 21 or so) that want a decent DSLR/mirrorless now have one & this what I believe we are seeing reflected in the market.
Ok I have upgraded this year myself to an a99, but doubt that many users in the real world beyond the forums could justify that spend to themselves/their significant others 😉
What would make me want to upgrade in the future?
High ISO is good enough for pretty much any situation (pitch black concert hall last week with one dimmed bulb… Job done)
24MP to 36MP? 50 MP? Probably not. I’m no crop freak & even 14/16MP has resulted in great prints at pretty large sizes so what does that gain me???
Better EVF? OK its not perfect, but it more than gets the job one.
Better ergonomics? Happier with this camera than any other before. First time enough buttons & body tall enough. Grip too deep & thumb grip could be better & the rear wheel less easy to knock but no real biggie to improve on.
Better auto-focussing? First camera I’ve been happy to trust to AF in most situations. AFD is good but annoys the freak out of me that I can’t choose the EXACT point I want it to track – I have to go with the point the camera chooses which is often not quite right… (p.s. if anyone has any hints on what I can do to get around this (with things with no face lol)I would be most apreciative)
Better AF coverage? Ahhh! The biggie! The one thing that would make me want to upgrade – AF coverage over most of/all of the frame!
So lets say Sony bring out an upgrade to the a99 with a few tweaks here & there & most importantly AF coverage over most of the frame….
I buy that camera….
Then what will make me want to upgrade in the future?
Nothing that I can currently foresee…. That camera will do me until it breaks/I die.
Where do Sony get their sales out of me then???
Perhaps some huge seachange in technology but I am struggling to think what that could possibly be???!!
Photography is not only about sensors and lenses. This is what most companies fail to understand. It is also about intelligence. Its artificial part, which is about software, is what is severely missing. Sony’s “app shop” is too little for what it could have been today. Just imagine, to name a few: movement and velocity detection, sound recognition and trigger, object approach detection, lens self calibration.. All of these are “yesterday” in technology, but..
Tanglefoot, I think you’ve nailed it. Although I would add that these charts represent TOTAL camera sales (supposedly) of all companies. As someone said Canikon lead the industry by a very wide margin and they are both heavily invested in DSLRs. Meanwhile the smaller companies (Sony, Pentax, Olympus, Panasonic, etc.) have all jumped on the bandwagon mostly because they can’t compete in the DSLR realm with Canikon but the P&S market is quickly going down the tubes.
So I think you’ve got a collision of market forces:
1. flat line of tangible changes in innovation (the can also be seen in the PC industry)
2. largest consumer market is people moving up from P&S–these people, in the USA, equate DSLR with Canon and Nikon despite as good or better options from Pentax and Sony
3. “Hype Cycle” has caused a trough as all the early adopters who understand the advantages of mirror less cameras already own one or are waiting for a new refresh (see reason #1)
4. DSLRs are amazingly, AMAZINGLY cheap. You can get a D5200 for much less than an RX100mkII. Now I understand why that may be and I understand how the RX100 would be a better choice for many of my family and friends looking to get a “nicer camera” but they don’t because they’ve never owned a DSLR.
I suspect as more and more pros start to use mirrorless cameras and the 1st and 2nd generation of bottom-line DSLR purchasers start to look for something smaller they can take with them, the mirrorless camera segment will expand again.
For the record I think the Nikon 1 series is pretty cool for the what it is and I recommend the sub $300 V1 to many people. Also, I think the sensor in the Canon 70D is the best mirrorless camera sensor NOT in a mirrorless camera. So with some changes and tweaks, like putting the 70D sensor in an EOS-M system, those two systems might be truly competitive. Well, the Nikon 1 will always be a “second system” for most and should continue to be priced accordingly.
I actually really hope that Sony released the FF NEX soon, that it plays nice with third party lenses (including the OSPDAF), and that … it has 4K video. Not a top priority for me but Canon got so much mileage out of the video in the 5D it is crazy. Sony has great video tech, they should risk enough to put quality video, really quality video in their premium systems. Yes it may cannabilize some F-series sales but in the end I think they will make so much more overall. I know of several top cinematographers who shoot a combo of C300 and 5D’s because the footage & tech is so familiar. In today’s convergent imaging field Sony is poised to do so well but they have to risk cannabilizing sales.
Wow Admin,
What a surprise, another non related Sony post bashing on a camera manufacturer.
Nikon and Canon are still the best selling cemeras. Fuji’s X Series is becoming a huge Sony contender.
But instead of praising these cameras you bash them like the Lunar.
How bout a post about taking better pics with your NEX camera or something positive and beneficial I stead of childish fanboy rants. I never see crap like this posted on Nikon or Canon rumor sites.
Why is he bashing?
Nikon said that Mirrorless is shrinking, not SAR 😀 SAR is just quoting.
Also hes right with Nikon 1. I tried the Nikon 1 System multiple times and its shit. Shit like hell. I cant even describe how shitty it is.
The D7100 is cool, the D600 and D800 are both awesome, the Nikon 1 again is shitty as hell.
Thats not bashing, its just the truth and everyone will agree as people who wont agree (people who are lucky with Nikon 1) dont read such rumors sites because they dont even have any photography skills or image technology knowhow.
The target group of Nikon 1 Users (and that is how Nikon does advertise it!) are people who dont even know when to press the Shutter or how to Frame an Image!
The main advertised features are that the Nikon 1 takes photos before you pressed the shutter because it thinks you are to stupid to press it when its the right time.
And such users dont pay for such an expensive system when they can just put out there Smartphone.
Nikons idea is good, bring good image quality by technology when people are to stupid, the problem is that stupid people dont even care about taking good photos at all. If they dance in the disco taking smartphone of hugging girls they dont care at all if its noisy or good framed. Of if a mother is taking a photo of her baby she does want to have a photo of her baby. Even when it cires or it shit itself or is sick or have spit or is full of cake because its still to young to eat cake at all –> They want just a help to memorize it.
they dont want good looking photos, they want memorize cane. And that is what a smartphone is enough for so Nikon just lost there market completely to those who want to brag about a small camera and to the very very less people who really want a good compact camera.
Thats not bashing, even Nikon is accepting it so you should accept it except for blaming the SAR Admin for posting those facts.
Hello Nikon, if you’d just LISTEN TO YOUR USERS, you wouldn’t be in this predicament! I’m one of the few who happens to LOVE the Nikon V1 and 1 system, but it still leaves a lot to be desired. The 32mm f/1.2 is heading in the right direction. But removing features on the V2, changing the battery and making ugly with a huge hump on the top is exactly what NOT to do. You should have kept the same battery–you know, the one in the very popular D7000/7100/D800, and just added what people wanted to the V1, a real mode dial. And, btw, mirrorless is the future no question.
Ok there is a lot of non-sense right now
First of all
– The professional photographer which are mostly extremely conservative are not the reason why we still have the mirror. If Sony/Canon/Nikon would have the Technic to replace it, they would already done it. They are all working as fast as possible on other solutions then an moving mirror and there are a lot of innovations and there is a lot innovation still ongoing right now (look at the 70D).
We have not reached the target yet but we are going fast there
– If the mirror is dinosaur technology, whats light then? Better replace light because its the even older technology
– Even Sony is not able to break the law of physics. If you want a high quality (good corrected) and fast lens, it always will be big.
If you want a good handling and you want a good all rounder camera you need a lot of buttons and customization
Both is not able with NEX as large lenses are nearly unhandable and there is no place for buttons or good ergonomics.
The target of the NEX is being as small as possible and that’s what it is (with all it downsides).
So DSLR/SLTs may loose there mirror, but they wont loose there shape as this shape is not dinosaur technology, the a77 and a99 are made with perfection for humans with the latest technologies. Look at how an DSLR looked like 20 years ago (just look at recent laicas 😀 that’s dinosaur.)
Also a lot of photographer want to have large lenses, a lot of people need 500mm or even larger lenses and i already tried multiple times to handle them and you really don’t have any advantage with an NEX.
Even an NEX fullframe will have large heavy lenses if they are fast and with good quality.
In my opinion an NEX fullframe really wouldn’t have any advantage over the a99, why should it? It will most probably have worse autofocus than the real Phase-AF in the a99 and the loose of weight will be abuot 200gramms. Also the lenses wont be smaller or lighter as Full-Frame Technology with such a price-tags is for professionals.
professionals want high-quality fast lenses –> means they are large and heavy.
So you can feed the so called “Soccer Moms” with the 16-50 f/3.5-5.6 but not a professional. No professional will ever buy an 24-70 f/3.5-5.6 or an 500mm f/8 on a full-frame body.
Also they dont want to put such large and heavy glasses in front of such a small body.
Does those 200gramms really matter? Are those so important? Common thats a joke.
Why should i pay more money on a worse camera with worse handling just because i save 200 gramms, that’s ridiculous.
Sorry for my late answer, i was out on taking photos yesterday, we had beautiful weather and i made some awesome shots. I was again over surprised about the insane high Dynamic range of the a99, even at ISO 800
If sony finally gets perfect phase af onto the image sensor i think we will see DSLR-Shaped Cameras with A-Mount without mirror.
Or we will see DSLR-Shaped Cameras with E-Mount as the E-Mount will save an minimal amount of space. But its only a very very small piece so it wont worth the price which it needs to develop, also all old lenses wont be compatible anymore.
Result: We likely remove the mirror as soon as Sensors can replace it, but we wont loose the shape or the size as this shape and size the a99 have right now is nothing about dinosaur or conservative, its brand new with latest technology. Its made like it is by force, not because there is no other chance to do it.
A lot of NEX users don’t care about autofocus. Leica and Zeiss make enough quality lenses, and they are tiny. You get the best of a few worlds, and in a tiny package.
I have a few Leica lenses for my NEX7, the WATE, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2 APO and 135mm f3.4 APO. I don’t shoot sports, nothing else absolutely needs AF. Short of a 12mm f2, I don’t care what plans Sony has for E mount lens. The ability to use these lenses is the true advantage of EVIL cameras, something the A99 can never do.
If Sony brings the FF NEX out, I’ll sell all my Canon gear and get two.
> A lot of NEX users don’t care about autofocus.
Nonsense. If that is really the case, that will increase the chance that never an FullFrame NEX will exist.
> Leica and Zeiss make enough quality lenses, and they are tiny. You get the best of a few worlds, and in a tiny package.
Thats just wrong. Leica and Zeiss create completely overpriced prime lenses. There is no 24-70 f/2.8 equivalent aviable for the NEX, also no 70-200 f/2.8.
If the NEX System is the future, then the Future doesnt have any normal priced zoom lenses and only luxury prime lenses which doesnt worth there money.
> I have a few Leica lenses for my NEX7, the WATE, 28mm f2.8, 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4, 90mm f2 APO and 135mm f3.4 APO.
Yeah, thats really compact. Carrying 5 lenses. Really the NEX System is compact, you got me! And you only have to pay the price of a full-frame camera! Awesome!
Also they are all APS-C Lenses 😀 *lol* tell me when you stop joking around
> I don’t shoot sports, nothing else absolutely needs AF.
Nonsense. Go home, you´re drunk.
> Short of a 12mm f2, I don’t care what plans Sony has for E mount lens. The ability to use these lenses is the true advantage of EVIL cameras, something the A99 can never do.
The a99 is full-frame, you talk about APS-C Lenses. Sure a camera with a full-frame sensor cant have such small lenses. But on the other side a NEX-7 can have such good image quality than the a99.
> If Sony brings the FF NEX out, I’ll sell all my Canon gear and get two
Be ready for heavy and large full-frame lenses 😀 you still live in a dream world where physics dont exist and your money decides what you get.
Accept that you cant buy everything with money. You maybe can buy a bunch of Zeiss and Leica lenses but you cant break the law of physics.
You are the best example for poeple who buy there camera gear to brag around as you profen to have not understood how optics work at all. Shame about you. Now please stop commenting.
Overpriced? Because there is no competition. Find me another high-performance 35mm prime with a 39mm thread, or a 400 gram 90mm prime. How big are Canon’s 35f2 and 85 1.8? I can carry ALL of those on a trip, and it’ll be lighter than a 5d mkIII and three big zooms. I get 1-2 more stops all around.
Tell me what else needs AF? Street? Scenery? Birding? Macro? I work and print up to 16*24 with the NEX7, don’t lecture me on why AF is a must-have for “something”. AF can miss. MF on an EVF cannot miss.
AF FF lenses are going to be huge. But there are lens makers already making excellent lenses for FF that are small and light. Sony doesn’t have to worry about the e-mount system. Just sell the camera and a better a-mount adapter, and make their own m-mount adapter with LEDs for 6-bit reading.
Then please allow me to ask the Question again.
If a Full-Frame NEX would only save about 200g, why need it at all?
Are those 200g for the compromise of worse handling really worth?
I dont care about thread size to be honest but there is a 35mm f/1.8 from Sony for 179 €
And there is a 35mm f/1.4 from Sigma for Full-Frame which is 689g
Also there is a Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 for 489 € with 549g (also full-frame)
But none of them have Image Stabilisation so on a NEX they would be even more heavier in case of additional Image Stabilisation. Or you just dont have any Stabilisation and you have to compensate the missing Image Stabilisation with ISO (that really sounds like the NEX System is designed for best image quality!)
You see, the NEX System is neither compact nor really light, its just APS-C and missing image stabilisation. It does look light but only because it have a nice design.
A Full-Frame NEX wouldn´t be lighter than the a99, just 200g on the Body in maximum.
There are no fast lenses with IS, either they are not fast or they have IS. Because a compact lense cant be fast with having IS. It takes away light! thats Physics!
Again, Sony is not possible to break the law of physics. And just because a camera looks modern and small, it doesnt mean automatically its lighter or more compact.
btw. the Tamron SP 90mm and the Sigam 35mm are both better in sharpness and distortion than the lenses you mentioned.
> Tell me what else needs AF? Street? Scenery? Birding? Macro? I work and print up to 16*24 with the NEX7, don’t lecture me on why AF is a must-have for “something”. AF can miss. MF on an EVF cannot miss.
Than tell my why AF is so important for Sony that they had millions of development cost just to create the SLT System if the NEX AF is good enough?
But yeah, that are good examples. Street, Birding and so on. Have you ever tried focusing using an 500mm Lense on a fast moving small bird? Have you ever tried to shoot one of those scenes where you have a half a second with an 85mm lense without AF? Wahahaha common just because you dont do anything which needs AF (or you cant use the advantages of an good af, or you just dont like it because you dont have it) it doesnt mean nobody want/need it.
> Just sell the camera and a better a-mount adapter
But with the A-Mount Adapter the Camera is going to be the exactly same weight than an SLT. where is the fucking advantage then? How stupid is that? A system for a higher price without any advantage?
Also the handling is still worse. So its the worse system for the higher price. I wonder why you not care about that? Oh let me guess, you dont care about handling 😀 You dont care about neither AF nor Handling nor about Image Stabilisation or sharp lenses for a good price.
You just want manual focus prime lenses without image stabilisation for an completely overprice 😀
ah that was a good joke. Can we go serious again? Please!
It seems like you would like to throw away all good technices developed in the last years just to give NEX an right to exist.
NEX is and will always for the people who have to much money for a fancy camera and this market is (and hopefully) will be small! Easy as that.
People complain about “If there would be more lenses, NEX would be much better”. But there arent more lenses because it is not possible to build much more lenses in good quality in that size with image stabilisation.
Its not Like “NEX would be perfect with more lenses”, its like “NEX wouldn´t by NEX with more lenses”. Easy as that.
There is no reason to buy an Full-Frame NEX over the a99, so i really hope Sony is not throwing money away they cannot afford.
But people like you would buy it anyway… so maybe its better to be the first in that segment…
This is in reply to your last comment: You are totally out of your mind, bro.
I use a 70-210/3.5 Zeiss with a Speed Booster on a NEX-7, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the handling except the fact that the focusing range is a little too long at close distances, but that has nothing to do with the body.
The from the looks of it the NEX system is going to include in-body stablization, extra electronics on the lens not only adds to weight, it creates low density cavities inside the barrel making the lens take up more space and feel cheapish, and possibly increase thread size making filter matching expensive, and moreover, adding more parts where your lens could go wrong and malfunction. Your body should come and go, your lens are supposed to last a lifetime. But ah well what do the profiteer manufacturers of today know of durability?
You know why Sony develops AF? Because there are people whose next meal depend could on getting a successful shot. This is called work, these people are in fact the only true “professionals” because photography is their “profession”. For people like this, efficiency is of utmost importance, because, as I said, their next meal could depend on it. They take photos even when they don’t like it, have absolutely no urge to take it, but their clients demand it. They would take photos of crap if that’s gets them paid. This need for every successful shot demands AF, it’s also why they prefer zooms to primes.
If you shoot for yourself, for your own pleasure, then almost everything could be done without AF. When you use a completely manual lens for your shots, the sense of involvement and participation is irreplicable, in other words, it’s simply much more fun.
As for the SLT system, it’s just a temporary solution for the time being. Everything will go mirrorless sooner or later. Millions to a company like Sony is nothing. Its HQ building was worth more.
And for your information, the 500mm reflex by Minolta now rebranded Sony for the A system is the only 500mm (and the only reflex) in the world with AF, many many others using other systems have to do without it, so what’s your point?
Also, optics has advanced over these years, it’s just that most advances aren’t made available to you without serious compromises. Even highly praised Contax lens starting production from the 60s started using cheaper glass due to advances in coating. Earlier Contarex glass is generally superior. Spyglasses with focal range longer than 300mm and an aperture of F/1 made by Leica were avaliable on U-boats in WWI, do you see anything other than 50/1s in today’s market? Even rare 50/0.75 lens for industrial purposes(mind you, industrial lens have tighter error tolerances) are too soft, but nearly 100 years ago there were useable F/1 super-telephotos. Today’s technology would bring you marvels, but only if you pay an immensely high price, consumer(yeah, the so called “professional” still goes here) grade optics just aren’t so.
Manufacturers with conscience have all died out, because conscience doesn’t make money, like voigtlander, once pioneer of optics, creator of marvels, with uncomprimising quality, then sold and resold until it’s just a brand name under Cosina, it’s the same with Zeiss, although still in buisness, Cosina Zeiss is not a good representation of true Zeiss quality, but it still maintains the Zeiss pricing. The only major player who still cares about good glass is Leica, but it’s pricing is over the roof, and even it is starting to mimic some cheap techniques first applied by Japanese vulgarians.
You know nothing. Shut your trap.
Ok, there is so much nonsense in your post, i dont know where to start, ok
> 70-210/3.5
What the fuck is that lense? Every 70-200 in existense goes f/2.8 over the full range, why 3.5, does Zeiss really every made such a shitty lense?
But anyway, you dont have image stabilisation so you loose 1 f-stop of light and 4 f-stop because the image stabilisation.
So when i can shoot ISO 100 you have to go up to 3200, but hey you save 200g!!! That totally worth it!!!
Oh wait, you have the speedbooster, you dont save any weight… but hey, you dont waste 0,5 EV in light because the SLT mirror, that worths! oh wait, you loose 5 f-stops because your lense and the lack of IS… hmmm seems like you saves nothing but hey! You paid more because the NEX is more expensive and you had to buy a speed booster, you really can brag about that!
Now about the other nonsense you wrote.
Do you know why they no longer build lenses with f/1 and f/0,75 and so on?
They were shit! Thats why! When such lenses were made most analog films had a maximum sensitivity of ISO 50 or maximum ISO 75
As soon film were invented which go up to ISO 400 they stopped creating such lenses because pushing the ISO gave much better image Quality, also a lot of glasses where radioactive (no joke).
Some lenses looked like they had a bunch of vaseline or creme on the front-lense.
And you really want those lenses back? You rather use a shitty 0,75 prime instead of accepting that the NEX System is not better only because its “Smaller” (not lighter or more compact, _only_ smaller).
It seems like you really fell in love with the NEX system and instead of buying an a99 which is one of the best cameras in existence and taking on of the most awesome photos of your life, you are wining about a NEX FF and use inofficial 3rd party adapters to use full-frame lenses 😀
Really man, nothing more amusing than NEX-Users but hey again and again and again
No matter how much you love the NEX, Sony will _never_, and i repead _never_, be able to break the law of physics!!! accept that!!!
Stop whining about that. If Sony would be bossble to create an fast 16-50mm for the NEX they would already done it, but they are not because such a lense would no longer be compact or small or light.
If you want the best Image Quality you dont buy a NEX, easy as that.
Either you have no fast lense, _or_ you dont have image stabilisation (which will cost you up to 4,5 f-stops of ISO increase)
– Fast lense without IS or non-fast lense, that really doesnt sound like the NEX System was created for best image quality.
And it wasnt, never. It was designt to have a cool, good loking design and to be small.
Ah, a more tangible example: Minolta, also once pioneer of optics, who created the VFC, the STF, and the AF reflex, also went out of business, was sold to Konica, who created the best fixed lens rangefinder-the Hexar (matching a renowned special 35/2 Hexanon), who also quickly went out of business, and was sold together to Sony, who made no more major improvements in optics. The only major improvement of Minolta’s legacy under Sony would be creating the NEX system, which should count as electronics.
Even Leica wasn’t always the symbol of quality, it started off copying a Zeiss design.
Look what Hasselbald, whose equipment has gone to the moon, has gotten itself into, selling rebranded crap like the Lunar?
If you look at the history of optics, it’s practically a game of merchants taking out artists, plastic with money stench replacing brass brimming with craftsmanship, since Japan joined in.
Read my last post (and sorry for the spelling errors, im writing on a phone and those stupid keyboards really pisses me off!)
Holy shit. Even with your feeble knowledge, you didn’t even bother to check, and by showing your ignorance of the 70-210/3.5 specification, you gave away the fact that you don’t know shit about lenses:http://www.ebay.com/itm/Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Sonnar-T-70-210mm-F3-5-FAST-Zoom-Lens-Contax-C-Y-Mount-/300941024186?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item46117b9bba
and I don’t lose 5 stops, I get completely usable results at 1/15s wide open hand-held, which covers everything from dawn to dusk, and FYI I never use anything above ISO1600, another reason I’m getting FF NEX, I don’t count ISO3200 on NEX-7 as usable.
There was never a mass-produced F/0.75 made for photography you dimwit.
The current Noctilux certainly isn’t shit, and do you see the price of that thing? It’s enough to buy a car. Modern optics certainly will get you a completely usable F/1 or F/0.75, it’s just that they don’t think it would sell enough to make money.
Wider aperture doesn’t get you higher IQ from F/8 and larger, nobody makes large aperture lenses because of IQ. Most enlarger lens are F/5.6 wide open to maintain sharpness.
Of course lots of lenses were radioactive, but did you see their radiation readings? Close to 0. It wouldn’t harm you in any way unless you take it up to your eye instead of mount it on a camera.
And I don’t trust most modern glass, I will indeed buy a FF NEX, which would most probably have IBIS, which you have repeatedly chosen to ignore, or chosen to skip because you’re too stupid to learn English?
Again, even without IBIS I will not lose 4-5 stops of ISO, moving objects are impossible to take with shutter speeds like 1/5 and 1/3, even though IBIS will keep the sensor steady for that long. So the use of your so called “4-5 stops” is limited.
As nothinig you wrote proves neither im wrong nor is related to our subject, could you please stop with that.
Maybe you are the only one who can take with an 210mm Lense at 1/15s a photo which is tick sharp, you are still the only one. Sony doesnt produces cameras just for you.
Even with Image Stabilisation i have problems keeping 200mm sharp with 1/15s so i just dont believe you, sorry for that.
Anyway, we talked about NEX beeing the ultimate system as its compact and delivers the same quality.
Thats wrong. Its compact and delivers less quality or it delivers the same quality and is no longer compact.
So Sony will never take the step and replace the A-Mount Line with the E-Mount Line.
They may remove the SLT Mirror from the A-Mount Line but thats everything.
I dont know how you can handle the NEX-7 the same way you can handle the a77. The NEX-7 have less buttons which you cannot completely customize but maybe you programmed an firmware hack and brazed new buttons onto your NEX-7.
Also the NEX-7 is designed to be compact while fitting good in the hand where the a77 is design to fit in the hand as perfect as possible. But maybe you also deformed the body of the NEX-7, who knows.
But a default customer with a default NEX-7 and default E-Mount lenses will always have the compromise of either having slow lenses or fast lenses without OSS. And _that_ is a compromise of quality which i dont take and the compromise is much larger than the 0,5 EV the SLT Mirror takes away.
So if those 200g the NEX weight is less really are the reason why the E-Mount System takes over the A-Mount system, im back at Canon or Nikon or whatever camera producer doesn’t do such crazy shit.
The NEX was not designed to fit into your hand as good as possible.
The NEX was not designed to deliver fast lenses with OSS
Physics just have there limitations, why dont you just accept that rather than trying to convince me im wrong.
A Body in the Size of the NEX-7 can’t fit perfectly into your hand, its impossible. And with a 3kg 500mm Lense it wont be better 😀 really im still not sure if your are serious or just joking.
The A-Mount delivers cheaper fast lenses with Body-Image Stabilisation, so why should i take the E-Mount System instead? For those 200g? Really thats not serious.
The E-Mount is a completely different target group. In fact its 2 target groups.
– People who want a compact camera with better Quality and accept that an NEX is not an DSLR/SLT
– People which just have money to burn and want a good looking fancy camera to brag about with a lot of branded primes.
Everyone else dont really want the NEX System so i still dont see the reason for a Full-Frame NEX as only group 2 will buy it.
But Only group 2 will buy the RX1 and there are enough that Sony produced it. So i think the FF NEX will come and exist, but not for the sake of high quality images, it will be for group 2 so they wont ever replace the A-Mount with E-Mount.
So… Long Live A-Mount 😀
The only reason you say I don’t prove you wrong is because your English is that limited, that’s all.
I mentioned my combo, the Zeiss with Speed Booster and NEX-7 because it’s an extreme example that you might actually use against me to argue that the NEX system has bad handling, because the lens is so much heavier than the body, but in real practice there’s nothing wrong with that. Also zoom, focus, and aperture is all on the lens instead of the body, there’s enough buttons and dials on the body to get everything else going fine. And you’re now saying that’s all off the subject after you’ve exposed your naivete on it.
I am certainly not the only one who can take a usable shot at 210mm and 1/15s. I don’t know about amateurs like you but for some people who are serious about photography, they excercise by holding heavy dumbbells very still for extended periods, and in turn could get shots with over 100mm at 1s and longer, that’s holding it to eye level using traditional DSLRs and OVFs. I compose at waist level and this makes holding the camera much easier.
You’re wrong. It’ll deliver the same quality, possibly better with better sensor compatibility with symmetrical lenses(Biogon is much more compact,and has lower distortion, compared to retrofocus designs designed for long flange range systems like the A-mount, as many have already pointed out), and be relatively compact. A Summilux 35/1.4 is only about half the size as a Distagon 35/1.4, while delivering superior performance, it would fit on a FF NEX, but never an A99. Don’t tell me the Summilux is too expensive to count, Sony could easily replicate one to 80% of the performance and add AF with 1/3 of the price, it’s just a double gauss, nothing special about the design, it’s the glass that makes the difference.
How old is the E-mount?I’m not saying handling on the NEX-7 is the same as on the A99, no two camera of different mounts could have the same handling. I take NEX-7’s handling as generally pleasing, but obviously Sony hasn’t had much time with it and still has much to improve on its firmware, not that I’d be using most of those improvements that’s all.
Nevertheless I never said anything about E-mount replacing A-mount. Stop hallucinating.
And again, due to who-knows-what part of your brain is malfunctioning, you choose to ignore IBIS. Stop making a fool of yourself.
The grip of NEX-7 is in fact is very well designed. I can say with confidence that my hands are of average size, and that I can take the whole NEX+Speed Booster+Zeiss 2kg combo just by lightly clinging to the grip. Maybe you’re a gorilla?:D
As for your nonsense about E-mount, you again choose to ignore a vast variety of legacy lenses made using superior glass. It must be beyond your understanding. Sorry to have pushed it on you.:D
From the link above:
http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/7652/cameras-sales-including-june-reports
and follow this thru to:
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/tech/2013/08/133_140729.html
“Korea’s one trillion camera market consists of … ”
– That puts some perspective on a declining US MLC market.
Also:
““In the first half (of this year), DSLR and mirrorless cameras both with interchangeable lenses formed a market of 274,400 units (in Korea),” Sony spokeswoman Jang Ji-na said. “Mirrorless cameras are in high demand.”
The Korean mirrorless camera market is estimated to exceed 200,000 units this year, jumping from 8,537 in 2010, Sony said citing IDC data. Globally, IDC expects the mirrorless market to grow ten times to 13.11 million units in 2014 from 1.3 million in 2010.”
If we even come close to those numbers, (13 million units next year) then this would be a good year to position yourself for the future.
/E
To me as a consumer Nikon is simply giving away their market share on the mirrorless by introducing the stupid Nikon 1 cameras. I felt cheated by Nikon after I bought the J1, it won’t allow my vintage lens to meter use the aperture mode like my then D300 (which was replaced by the D600 earlier this year), the high speed shooting is simply rubbish with a limit of 60 frames, at 60 fps I can only record one second of action, I can’t even record my entire golf swing at 30fps. My solution was, I threw it away and got a NEX7 which is so much better than the J1. The problem with Nikon engineer is that they pioneer a line of product which had market potential but they never design for the users, their design is mean and unfriendly, if not hostile. While Sony charge more but their design let the users (average photo takers, not even photographers) take photos with enjoyment. There is a huge group of photographers using vintage lenses and growing, I will not let Nikon limit my love towards using my old vintage lenses, the more Nikon try to limit their customer, the more market share they give way, it’s as simple as that.
I have used a Nikon 1 on a trip to Europe.
It absolutely sucked, plain and simple–from usability to ultimate results, it sucked.
I had borrowed it from a friend, because my trusty old Canon A95 travel camera died.
I gave it back, and immediately bought another A95 on Craigslist for $35, and it gives better results than did the Nikon 1.
It’s really a POS, especially compared to, say, the Canon G-series, or many of the Sony’s, and I’m talking things with really small sensors compared to the Nikon.
Pure crap. The friend I borrowed it from is a fashionista who purchased it no doubt because of the Ashton Kutcher ad campaign.
Even she immediately went out and bought a DSLR after having received the Nikon–a Canon unfortunately, against my advice. She now regrets the decision and will migrate to Sony when her Canon dies.
It looks like the bump in the mirrorless graph can be attributed to the release of the Cannon EOS-M in Oct of 2012.
The time scale of the graph is insufficient to elucidate the true impact of the mirrorless market. Most of the significant mirrorless releases were in 2010 and 2011 and it’s impossible to see their impact on the market on a graph that starts in the beginning of 2012.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Oct-08
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 Apr-09
Olympus PEN E-P1 Jul-09
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF1 Sep-09
Olympus PEN E-P2 Nov-09
Olympus PEN E-PL1 Feb-10
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G10 Mar-10
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G2 Mar-10
Sony NEX 3/5 May-10
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Sep-10
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 Nov-10
Olympus PEN E-PL1s Nov-10
Olympus PEN E-PL2 Jan-11
Panasonic Lumix DMC-G3 May-11
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF3 Jun-11
Olympus PEN E-P3 Jun-11
Olympus PEN E-PL3 Jun-11
Olympus PEN E-PM1 Jun-11
Sony NEX c3 Aug-11
Sony NEX-5n Sep-11
Nikon V1/J1 Oct-11
Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX1 Nov-11
Sony NEX-7 Nov-11
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Feb-12
Sony NEX-5r Aug-12
Canon EOS M Oct-12
Sony NEX-6 Nov-12