Sony Mirrorless Market Share Down

[SZRitter]

I did the measurements a couple of years ago, and m43 basically allowed you to carry a four lens kit in the space ANY APS-C system needed for a 3 lens kit. Although, this may not hold true with f2.8 zooms as your three lens kit.

If you are doing a single body and single consumer zoom, the weight savings are negligible.

The one thing I think that APS-C has going for it over m43 is the image ratio. I am willing to bet more people are comfortable photographing in 2:3 then 4:3. And HD video (16:9) is a much easier crop to visualize from 2:3.

How many MP are in the 2:3 crop on the new 20mp m43 sensors?

[Internaut]

Sony have concentrated on building out their new full frame system.  This makes sense.  There may not be market share, at the high end, but there is money .

Hopefully, the A6300 is a sign of good things.  I think smaller format matters more than ever, and the lastet body has some amazing tech.  Pity about the overall system, in this respect. 

[BJL]

Zorki5 and SZRitter both have a point: the size and weight trade-offs depend on things like how much "reach" you want, and how many lenses one wishes to carry.

At one extreme, if carrying just a normal or wide prime, or a small, slowish 3x kit zoom, the size difference is not much, and the balance shifts towards the advantages of a larger sensor.  At the other extreme are people like me who often want a lot of telephoto reach - I carry a 70-300mm with my MFT kit, for that "up to 600mm field of view", and so of course need at least one other lens for the more normal shots, and also like to have a macro lens with me. That FOV range definitely benefits from a smaller format, or to be pedantic, from smaller photosites.  Even when I carry just one lens, it will be one with more reach than a 3x kit zoom; say the Olympus 12-50, and that is distinctly more compact than any 4X zoom I know of in larger formats.

I can even see photographers like me moving towards 1" format as the technology and lens systems develop.

[Zorki5]

say the Olympus 12-50, and that is distinctly more compact than any 4X zoom I know of in larger formats.

That Olympus (24-100 equivalent) is 3.5..6.3 and measures 57 x 83mm, while a tiny bit faster/longer Sony/Zeiss 16-70/4 (24-105) is 67 x 75mm; that is, their sizes are basically the same. Zeiss is 50% heavier though, due to metal construction.

More importantly, though
1) Zeiss 16-70 (which I own) is already as compact as I need,
2) if I needed its closest equivalent in Olympus land, I'd get 12-40/2.8 Pro, which is both bulkier and (by some 30%) heavier.

What is sub-par is Sony's telephoto options for APS-C... When I need reach, I have to lug around Canon 70-300 DO plus Metabones IV. That combo is at least 2x bulkier and heavier than what I would have liked -- or what Sony could produce if they gave APS-C enough attention, which is currently not the case.