Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: thierrylegros396 on February 05, 2014, 01:01:18 pm
-
Canon, where are you ??? ;)
Really impressive, Canon was the absolute master a few years ago, but now, we have far more choice among manufacturers.
And it seems that Fujifilm, Olympus, and Sony are growing.
Canon seems to loose some customers.
But only for professional market, or overall?
-
I have no interest in Canon but I don't think that graph is that representative; from what I hear the Canon still sells well.
-
Hi,
My best friend is pro and shoots with Canon 5DIII.
I personally use Sony Alpha 99 and Phase One P45+, neither makes me a better photographer than my friend, nor a worse one.
Images don't care about the equipment that has been used to shoot them.
Best regards
Erik
Virtually every pro I know uses Canon.
-
Hi Keith,
I was more responding to the thread than to your posting. Excuse me if my tone was harsh, not my intention at all!
It is more like that I feel that most cameras we have around make perfectly good pictures. I guess that most of the best pictures are taken with Canons while they are used most.
Some cameras are better in some sense than some others, but it is seldom it really matters. As a matter of fact I feel that I made my best pictures with an 12 MP APS-C camera. Not because it was the best camera I had, but because photo opportunities came my way when I had it.
So I feel that we should enjoy the stuff we have and learn to make the best use of them.
Just some examples:
- The Sony Alpha 99 I have has pretty good dynamic range, but of the 75000 pictures I have on my computer DR has been an issue on perhaps a dozen.
- I saw little difference in A2 size prints between the 12 MP Sony Alpha and the 24 MP cameras. I normally print A2, seldom larger. 24 MP is nice, but if I don't see the difference, does it matter?
- I see little difference in A2 size prints between the 24 MP Sony Alpha and the 39 MP P45+
I never had a Canon, but the good images from Canon cameras I saw were as good as anything else. On the other hand, crappy pictures are crappy pictures independent of equipment
Best regards
Erik
Erik, I was reporting what they use, not why.
-
That DP Review bar graph measures the number of clicks on a camera for the current day or two. Every time a new camera is introduced, it goes to the top of the list because people are curious and want to read its description. It so happens that Fuji brought out a number of cameras at CES trade show in late January.
-
That is one of reveal measures at DPR that its readers are more enthusiastic about recent products from Fujifilm, Olympus and Sony than form Canon and Nikon; another is the results of its "Readers' Choice: Best Gear of 2013 Awards" (http://www.dpreview.com/news/2014/02/03/readers-choice-best-gear-of-2013-awards-final-results) poll.
But there is a big gap between these measures forum reader enthusiasm and actual sales results, where is it still 1) Canon 2) Nikon as far as I know. Usage is a "lagging indicator" of current customer choices, so is skewed even more toward the entrenched industry leaders.
Maybe a lot of this is due to the fact that Canon and Nikon dominate in the mature product category of DSLRs, where new models are not so novel and exciting (and do not have to be, because last year's models were already very good), but which for now still dominate sales of interchangeable lens cameras, whereas companies like Fujifilm, Olympus and Sony are (out of necessity?) exploring alternatives like mirrorless system cameras, which are more exciting for many forum readers. Will this play out like PC makers vs smart phone and tablet makers has in recent years? Note that Canon's DSLR sales volume dipped slightly for the first time in 2013 (and Nikon and Pentax are doing worse than Canon for sales volume) so maybe DSLRs have peaked?
-
Maybe a lot of this is due to the fact that Canon and Nikon dominate in the mature product category of DSLRs, where new models are not so novel and exciting (and do not have to be, because last year's models were already very good), but which for now still dominate sales of interchangeable lens cameras, whereas companies like Fujifilm, Olympus and Sony are (out of necessity?) exploring alternatives like mirrorless system cameras, which are more exciting for many forum readers.
In my view, the volume market still buy DSLRs mostly for the following reasons:
- mirrorless cameras are more expensive and their only real advantage is compactness,
- DSLR still have the edge in image quality where it matters for casual shooting, that is indoors during family gatherings - which means very high ISOs on typical consumer zoom lenses that are not that bright - and 99% of people only use zoom lenses,
- they already own Canon/Nikon lenses,
- AF is a concern for moving subjects and who doesn't hate blurry kids pictures?
- Canon and Nikon are here to stay and they are somehow expected to continue to release better cameras and lenses, which is less certain for smaller players.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
My opinion:
1. To much a do about nothing, after all, do you take as serious and representative data a graph that plots the 2hits" and "likes" from dpreviewers??
2. In all photo stores I go into, Canon and Nikon have prime real estate space just for them. So much for the "death of the DSLR" and other bs...
-
My A7r was some $800 cheaper than the D800E and is much lighter.I was prepared to buy the Sony where I never seriously considered the Nikon.
When is Nikon going to start making its 35mm cameras so that I can use lens I wish to ?
-
My opinion:
1. To much a do about nothing, after all, do you take as serious and representative data a graph that plots the 2hits" and "likes" from dpreviewers??
2. In all photo stores I go into, Canon and Nikon have prime real estate space just for them. So much for the "death of the DSLR" and other bs...
While (especially) Canon seems to be in a good state at the moment, I think that things can change fast.
If "prominent" users start leaving your brand (or mock your product annoncements), this can affect (or be an indicator of) changes in the "bread and butter" sales to Joe Average. Having large white lenses at the Olympics (and local soccer matches) probably means a lot to the purchase practices of typical low-end system-camera buyers.
With the sole exception of the 70D, the Canon announcements during the last 4 years have (in my view) been decidedly yawn-worthy.
-h
-
...
When is Nikon going to start making its 35mm cameras so that I can use lens I wish to ?
This is a joke? Please reassure me.
It would be interesting to know just how many dedicated Nikon mount lenses are available out there. It's probably in the hundreds even discounting the use of adaptors. But you're effectively restricted by the non-availability of suitable lenses? Please explain.
Roy
-
This is a joke? Please reassure me.
It would be interesting to know just how many dedicated Nikon mount lenses are available out there. It's probably in the hundreds even discounting the use of adaptors. But you're effectively restricted by the non-availability of suitable lenses? Please explain
I believe that this gentlemen is speaking about his Canon glass.
But, besides for some niche glass like the 17mm T/S, the Nikon and Canon line ups are so close nowadays that it makes a lot more sense to invest in F mount lenses that you'll be able to mount on Canon bodies via adapters than to invest in Canon glass that is impossible to mount on Nikon bodies. ;) This gives you the freedom to select whatever body has the higher performance at a given point in time.
This is especially true for Manual focus lenses like the Zeiss. I am unclear why anyone would want to buy a Zeiss lens in Canon mount.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
In my view, the volume market still buy DSLRs mostly for the following reasons:
1. mirrorless cameras are more expensive and their only real advantage is compactness,
2. DSLR still have the edge in image quality where it matters for casual shooting, that is indoors during family gatherings - which means very high ISOs on typical consumer zoom lenses that are not that bright - and 99% of people only use zoom lenses,
3. they already own Canon/Nikon lenses,
4. AF is a concern for moving subjects and who doesn't hate blurry kids pictures?
5. Canon and Nikon are here to stay and they are somehow expected to continue to release better cameras and lenses, which is less certain for smaller players.
I agree with parts of this, especially 3, 4 and 5, but:
a) "mirrorless cameras are more expensive"? Entry level mirrorless cameras start at lower prices that entry level DSLRs, even if you restrict to ones with sensors of the same "APS-C" size as entry level DSLRs. Those low priced mirrorless cameras are mostly what I will call "LCD cameras", the ones without an eye-level viewfinder, so maybe you are thinking only about "EVF cameras", which do start at higher prices than either "LCD cameras" or "OVF cameras" (which in the entry-level or mainstream consumer price range means DSLRs with penta-mirror viewfinders and roughly APS-C sized sensors).
b) If you
wish to consider only "EVF cameras" in your price comparison, then I have to disagree with your next comment, that "their only real advantage is compactness".
Because compared to the small, sometimes dim image in the penta-mirror OVF of an entry-level OVF camera (especially when combined with a not-so-bright entry-level zoom lens), the EVF cameras have some significant advantages in viewfinder performance and features (see hundreds of posts in these forums on that debate!). Also, let's face it: in situations when live view is wanted --- like videos of those kids you mention! --- a DLSR's mirror-up, rear-screen live view is far less convenient than what you get with a dedicated live view camera, even on the rear-screen and more so when you can get it through an eye-level EVF.
c) "DSLR still have the edge in image quality where it matters for casual shooting ... very high ISOs". This is clearly not true for mirrorless systems cameras as a whole; after all, many of them use sensors of the same size as entry-level DSLRs. And given there overwhelming acceptance of phone-camera IQ, I very much doubt that most purchasers of "cameras for documenting the kids" are agonizing over differences in low-light performance between the various consumer priced system camera options; that is mostly an issue for more dedicated photographic enthusiasts and for internet forum gear-heads.
-
Some data points based on Japanese prices:
- Nikon D5300: 71,000 Yen
- Nikon D3300: 57,800 Yen
- Canon Kiss 7: 51,500 Yen
- Olympus OMD-EM5: 73,500 Yen
- Olympus Pen EP5: 78,000 Yen
- Panasonic GM1: 68,000 as lens kit (couldn't find the price of the body alone)
- Nikon V2: 55,000 Yen
- Canon EOS M2: 57,000 Yen
So, from what I can see, both the Nikon and Canon entry DSLR are at equal price point of cheaper than mirrorless bodies of reasonably close specifications.
As far as expectations go, the people buying those bodies are not people happy with smartphone or digital compact cameras, mostly because of AF and image quality in dark situations. I believe that many of them go to store with a problem they need be fixed and specifically ask for cameras that work well in indoor situations.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That chart seems silly. Anyone living in the real world knows that Canon and Nikon are at the top of the popularity list for amateurs as well as pros. I am always amazed by how many tourists I see lugging around DSLRs from these two brands just to take snapshots. At least once a week I must get asked, "should I buy a Canon or Nikon?" by people I meet after they find out that I make a living as a photographer.
I'm a huge fan of M4/3 cameras but the public seems unmoved by them. I am also shocked at how many local camera stores carry Nikon and Canon but act dumb when I ask about M4/3 cameras. I don't know if the big brands are using leverage to keep the small mirror-less brands out of their stores, or they are really that ignorant.
-
I was looking get US prices, as seen at B&H; maybe Japanese pricing is different.
Or maybe the Japanese market does not get the entry level "LCD camera" models that I was looking at?!
In the USA,
1) Prices for Olympus models start with EPM2 and EPL5 (you have only two more expensive Olympus models).
1) Prices for Panasonic models start with GF6 and G5, not the GM1.
2) Prices for Nikon One start with the "LCD only" J and S series, not the more expensive V2.
3) Sony makes mirrorless cameras too! And prices start with the NEX3, NEX5 and forthcoming a5000.
(It puzzles me that you have no Sony mirrorless cameras in your price comparison, and yet bother with the famously overpriced, underselling Canon offering.)
Some data points based on Japanese prices: [rearranged in order of price -- BJL]
- Canon Kiss 7: 51,500 Yen
- Nikon V2: 55,000 Yen
- Nikon D3300: 57,800 Yen
- Canon EOS M2: 57,000 Yen
- Panasonic GM1: 68,000 as lens kit (couldn't find the price of the body alone)
- Olympus OMD-EM5: 73,500 Yen
- Nikon D5300: 71,000 Yen
- Olympus Pen EP5: 78,000 Yen
-
Or maybe the Japanese market does not get the entry level "LCD camera" models that I was looking at?!
In the USA,
(It puzzles me that you have no Sony mirrorless cameras in your price comparison, and yet bother with the famously overpriced, underselling Canon offering.)
I never meant this list to be comprehensive, hence the "data point" wording.
As far as lower end mirrorless goes, to me they don't really compete with DSLRs, they are more overgrown compact in nature.
But anyway, let's agree to disagree on this one. You don't think that mirrorless prices are a hindrance to their more widespread adoption, I do based on my own experience, no big deal. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
As far as lower end mirrorless goes, to me they don't really compete with DSLRs, they are more overgrown compact in nature.
Methinks you are changing the question in order to get the answer you want. Your comment was about sales volume of CSCs [all of the category] vs DSLR's, for which it does not matter whether they "really compete with each other"; all that matters is how many people find the respective categories provide the best choice for whatever it is they want out of a camera, and your argument needs to apply to the whole CSC category, not some cherry-picked higher examples.
Anyway, the idea of not coppering is dubious to me: avoid the fallacy of that "product B does not match most or all the capabilities of product A, so it is not competing with product A", because that was the reasoning of the computer industry about the iPad and Android tablets not competing with netbooks. A product does not have to compete with an alternative on all specs; just on the ones of interest to the particular customer. For example, even the cheapest CSCs compete far more closely with DSLRs in consumers' purchasing decisions that camera-phones do with compact digital cameras, and yet clearly a good many people are choosing to pay extra for a phone with decent photographic performance, and are therefore not buying as compact camera. I am fairly sure that likewise, many people have traditionally bought an SLR rather than using a compact or phone primarily for two reasons:
(a) the bigger sensor,
and
(b) the ability to use more than one lens,
and some millions of people are now finding that a CSC does that job for them.
-
As far as lower end mirrorless goes, to me they don't really compete with DSLRs, they are more overgrown compact in nature.
Cheers,
Bernard
I think that even low end mirrorless will trounce the vast majority of compacts for image quality. Is there a compact camera (and by that I mean a tiny sensor shirt pocket thingy) that can compete with a low end CSC for image quality? If there are any I bet you can count them on your thumbs.
-
Methinks you are changing the question in order to get the answer you want. Your comment was about sales volume of CSCs [all of the category] vs DSLR's, for which it does not matter whether they "really compete with each other"; all that matters is how many people find the respective categories provide the best choice for whatever it is they want out of a camera, and your argument needs to apply to the whole CSC category, not some cherry-picked higher examples.
Again, I don't care about being proven wrong or about mirrorless sales, I don't have any stake in this debate. ;)
I am just trying to find a reasonable explanation as to why mirrorless sales have been a lot less successful than many thought they would be compared to lower end DSLRs, as the current sales figure clearly show.
The reason why I am not taking into account lower end mirrorless in my price comparison is because the experience of the photographer is IMHO closer to that he has been having with the compact digital camera he/she is typically coming from, mostly in terms of lack of viewfinder (be it electronic or optical) and also in terms of form factor.
So what I mean is that the mirrorless camera offering a shooting experience similar to that of low end DSLRs are typically in the same price range or more expensive and I believe that many compact upgraders want something different than a larger compact looking camera.
That's probably the reason why Fuji has adopted a DSLR like formfactor in their new higher end camera btw.
Feel free to disagree.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that even low end mirrorless will trounce the vast majority of compacts for image quality.
How could anyone remotely sensible disagree with that statement? Isn't it totally obvious that I never meant that lower end mirrorless had no image quality advantage over compact cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Again, I don't care about being proven wrong or about mirrorless sales, I don't have any stake in this debate. ;)
I am just trying to find a reasonable explanation as to why mirrorless sales have been a lot less successful than many thought they would be compared to lower end DSLRs, as the current sales figure clearly show.
And as I said, you have given three plausible reasons! The majority of which revolve around inertia: the inertia of a large proportion of people preferring or trusting more the biggest and most familiar brands of interchangeable lens cameras (I doubt that Sony ever built that image for DSLRs, despite being well-known for compact digital cameras), and/or already having lenses for SLRs.
P. S. The other plausible argument is "CAF": autofocus performance on moving subjects. But advances like on-sensor PDAF seem to be rapidly closing that gap, and I wonder how much more improvement will come from Panasonic's new "Depth from Defocus" idea launched in the GH4. Its goal is to know the direction in which to move focus right from the start, which PDAF also knows but CDAF does not.
-
Well, compact cameras are mirrorless, too. The Sony RX-1 will probably trounce most other mirrorless cameras if a 35 mm lens is all you need. I would argue that the RX-1 is a compact.
Best regards
Erik
How could anyone remotely sensible disagree with that statement? Isn't it totally obvious that I never meant that lower end mirrorless had no image quality advantage over compact cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Well, compact cameras are mirrorless, too. The Sony RX-1 will probably trounce most other mirrorless cameras if a 35 mm lens is all you need. I would argue that the RX-1 is a compact.
Hello Erik,
Feel like playing with words today? ;D
I am sure you had understood that what I meant by "compact" in the context of this discussion are cheaper cameras with smaller sensors and without interchangeable lens from which people typically consider upgrading to a higher end model, either a low end DSLR or a mirrorless camera.
The discussion is about why not more of them decide to pick a mirrorless camera and appear to go instead in masses towards lower end DSLRs.
I think that one obvious reason is that the price of higher end mirrorless cameras (those offering a DSLR like shooting experience) is too high, our friend BJL disagrees. I am not sure how the Sony RX1 costing 3 times the price of these cameras is relevant here... ???
Cheers,
Bernard
-
I think that one obvious reason is that the price of higher end mirrorless cameras (those offering a DSLR like shooting experience) is too high, our friend BJL disagrees.
Now you are the one playing with words: I never claimed anything abut the prices specifically of "higher end mirrorless camera", and your original claim which I disagree with was about prices of mirrorless system cameras as a whole, with no limitation to "higher end" ones either then or when you listed your selected price comparisons.
Where I disagree with you is that the sales record of mirrorless system cameras as a whole, from the entry level up (where the majority of sales probably are) can be explained by looking at only the prices of the "higher end" models. I could play that game the other way around, by claiming that the lower end DSLRs do not compete with those higher level mirrorless models, because the latter tend to have weather sealing, a VF image that is far larger, and far easier to see in low light conditions, and that can be magnified for more accurate manual focusing ...
See how easy this silly comparisons game is if one declares that the differences in favor of one alternative are decisive while ignoring or dismissing the differences that favor of the other?
Look at it this way: AFAIK, when Olympus, Panasonic, Sony etc. were making DSLRs, the sales advantage of Canon and Nikon was even greater than it is now. If so, the difference DSLR vs CSC seems irrelevant: the phenomenon is adequately explained by Canon and Nikon's "brand strength" alone --- combed with what seem to be deliberately "restrained" attempts at mirrorless systems from the three remaining SLR makers (Canon, Nikon and Pentax).
-
A photographic truism: The camera in your hand beats two on a dealer's shelf.
-
Now you are the one playing with words: I never claimed anything abut the prices specifically of "higher end mirrorless camera", and your original claim which I disagree with was about prices of mirrorless system cameras as a whole, with no limitation to "higher end" ones either then or when you listed your selected price comparisons.
Where I disagree with you is that the sales record of mirrorless system cameras as a whole, from the entry level up (where the majority of sales probably are) can be explained by looking at only the prices of the "higher end" models. I could play that game the other way around, by claiming that the lower end DSLRs do not compete with those higher level mirrorless models, because the latter tend to have weather sealing, a VF image that is far larger, and far easier to see in low light conditions, and that can be magnified for more accurate manual focusing ...
See how easy this silly comparisons game is if one declares that the differences in favor of one alternative are decisive while ignoring or dismissing the differences that favor of the other?
Look at it this way: AFAIK, when Olympus, Panasonic, Sony etc. were making SSLRs, the sales advantage of Canon and Nikon was even greater than it is now. If so, the difference DSLR vs CSC seems irrelevant: the phenomenon is adequately explained by Canon and Nikon's "brand strength" alone --- combed with what seem to be deliberately "restrained" attempts at mirrorless systems from the three remaining SLR makers (Canon, Nikon and Pentax).
Sorry if I wasn't clear in my initial statement, I always had in mind higher end mirrorless as I clarified a few posts ago, just after I saw your answer in fact. If you go back, you'll see that the models I listed are all high end, my point has always been the same.
You were surprised by this and I clarified my intent.
My comment is valid for high end mirrorless because my view is that many of the photographers upgrading from compact digital naturally tend to consider them first since they feel closer to DSLRs.
I agree that mirrorless did eat some sales away from Canon and Nikon, but the whole point of this thread IMHO is that they did a much smaller dent than could have been expected.
You seem to see my comments as not acknowledging the value of mirrorless but that it is not my point (I do think many of them are excellent photographic tools). I am only trying to put myself in the shoes of those people likely to grow the market. Where does my information come from? From people around me in Japan and central Europe. Most of them don't care much about the size of the viewfinder or about the ability to get perfect focus on static objects thanks to focus peaking. What most of them care about is to see the issues they have with their current compact digital camera fixed.
What are these issues? Ability to focus on moving subjects and to get a decent image in dark indoors situations. Those who don't have these issues... they stick with a smaller compact digital camera. Like it or not, a NEX5 with a zoom lens is considered too large by most of those guys anyway. Between a little too large with a NEX5 and a little bit more too large with a D3300, many end up thinking... I might as well get the real deal, a camera with a viewfinder (again EVF or OVF)... because that remains what a real camera is for a large part of the population.
And when you get to that point, the DSLR is typically cheaper than the higher end mirrorless fitting in that category.
Final clarification from me in this thread.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That DP Review bar graph measures the number of clicks on a camera for the current day or two. Every time a new camera is introduced, it goes to the top of the list because people are curious and want to read its description. It so happens that Fuji brought out a number of cameras at CES trade show in late January.
I to to DPR on a daily basis, primarily to see what the bar chart reveals - it seems to me that the graph supports the comment made by Nancy.
-
I think the price level of the OMD and GH3 families have to drop if they need to compete even with entry level DSLRs from Nikon or Canon. The new OMD-10 looks like a good start. I think most pro's realize how great these little cameras are but it's the consumer market that needs to start buying them. And from what I see, consumers, so far, are just not doing that. I see so many reasons they are not selling up to expectations and I'm not sure Olympus or Panasonic can ever overcome them without throwing billions into advertising, marketing, training etc. Hopefully they will survive and prosper with the market they have, because given enough time, I think people will catch on and their market will grow.
-
I think the price level of the OMD and GH3 families have to drop if they need to compete even with entry level DSLRs from Nikon or Canon. The new OMD-10 looks like a good start.
I agree that it would be good for the "EVF cameras" to spread down in to the lower price realms currently occupied by the "LCD cameras" that are more aimed at people stepping up from compacts with far smaller sensors and a fixed lens. The Olympus OM-D E-M10 (get all those letters right!) joins the Sony A3000 and perhaps the Panasonic G5 in that trend.
... the consumer market that needs to start buying them. And from what I see, consumers, so far, are just not doing that.
As I said above, I am fairly sure that Olympus, Panasonic and Sony are selling more of their CSCs [mirrorless cameras] than they sold of DSLRs: Sony's continuing push of its APS-C format offerings towards mirrorless E-mount cameras and away from mirrored alpha-mount cameras [SLR and SLT] is the latest evidence of this. That suggests to me that the "DSLR vs CSC" market share split is primarily due to a "Canon and Nikon vs the smaller brands" (*) split, more than a market judgment on CSCs. A large proportion of people buying an interchangeable lens camera do not look beyond Canon and Nikon, due to their reputation as sector leaders, dominant presence in retail outlets, widespread ownership of Canon or Nikon lenses, etc. That lens ownership issue is of course also an "inertia" advantage for SLR's, though one that will fade with time.
(*) Sony is a big digital camera brand, but in the interchangeable lens camera sector, I do not think it has come close to matching Canon and Nikon for either market share or consumer "mind share".
-
Canon is on a collision course... with earth
http://fstoppers.com/bestbuy-leaks-the-canon-powershot-g1-x-ii
???
-
Canon is on a collision course... with earth
http://fstoppers.com/bestbuy-leaks-the-canon-powershot-g1-x-ii
???
I bet you that this G1X MKII will sell like hot cakes. Why? Because it is a good improvement over the MKI: faster zoom lens, and starts at 24mm too. Faster AF, and smaller minimum focusing distance, which were two of the main criticisms of the MKI.
This is an "all in one" camera, with sensor larger than 4/3, and fixed zoom lens.
-
Well Sony isn't allowed by Apple to acknowledge that they provide the photo senor unit for iPhones let alone provide details about the number of units provided ( about 100 million this last year ? )
So depending on your definition of what a P & S camera is - depends who is king of the castle.
It also is a contributing reason to why Sony bankers are not overly concerned about loses suffered over the last couple of years.
-
How could anyone remotely sensible disagree with that statement? Isn't it totally obvious that I never meant that lower end mirrorless had no image quality advantage over compact cameras?
Cheers,
Bernard
Well, what you actually said was "As far as lower end mirrorless goes, to me they don't really compete with DSLRs, they are more overgrown compact in nature.
Cheers,
Bernard"
You may be playing with words but the impression I get from your posts is that you are perhaps not fully appreciating the image quality it's possible to get from CSC's.
-
It will sell better than MkI cause this one was a bad seller. This version is so different in character that it should be called something else. It is more akin to Sony RX100 than to the original G1X. Canon is doing its own projects very weakly and now looking somewhere else for success stories. Canon following Sony! :D I sold my G1X and bought a Nex 6. I don't regret it especially now that the Nex 6 successor is practically the same thing. It is that good!
Eduardo
I bet you that this G1X MKII will sell like hot cakes. Why? Because it is a good improvement over the MKI: faster zoom lens, and starts at 24mm too. Faster AF, and smaller minimum focusing distance, which were two of the main criticisms of the MKI.
This is an "all in one" camera, with sensor larger than 4/3, and fixed zoom lens.
-
Canon is still the No.1 camera manufacturer. The question is that they didn't have attractive new flagship while other manufactures (especially sony a7) does a great job in it.
-
Well, what you actually said was "As far as lower end mirrorless goes, to me they don't really compete with DSLRs, they are more overgrown compact in nature.
Cheers,
Bernard"
You may be playing with words but the impression I get from your posts is that you are perhaps not fully appreciating the image quality it's possible to get from CSC's.
Nope, I wasn't speaking about image quality. Only about user experience.
For what it is worth, I currently use a Sony RX100, Nikon V2, Sigma DP2m and Nikon D7100 (at least used to until recently) besides the larger camera. I also used to own a Canon G10 and S90 before they both died on me due to some quality issues.
That pretty much covers all the possible sensor sizes besides 4/3 and I know for a fact that the image quality of the RX100 is excellent with a sensor smaller than 4/3.
There is no way I could not acknowledge that lower end mirrorless cameras have an image quality significantly superior to that of most compact digital cameras.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
BJL,
Quote from the latest article by Thom Hogan about the state of mirrorless:
Price — If you want to know what's holding mirrorless back from gaining significant market share against DSLRs, this is the item, with maybe one exception. Canon and Nikon just dominate the US$500-800 price range with DSLRs. Plenty of DSLRs. Highly competent DSLRs. DSLRs that use lenses that people may already have in their closets, and for which almost any lens you'd ever desire has been made. Meanwhile, the best of the mirrorless bunch, like the E-M1 and X-T1, sell for more than the Nikon D7100, which is a supremely competent DSLR. Basically, you pay a lot of money for smaller size and weight. Meanwhile, for less money than mirrorless you can get more and better pixels generally (24mp in crop sensor DSLRs at reasonable prices, for example). Mirrorless hasn't cracked the DSLR defenses yet. The exception might be the Sony A7 and A7r. These are lower-than-DSLR price full frame mirrorless cameras. They have a size and weight advantage over the full frame DSLRs with no image quality penalties. Where they fail at equalling the DSLRs is in focus and frame rate performance, particularly with moving subjects. And where Sony is particularly vulnerable for the time being is in lens choice.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-new-state-of-mirrorless.html
It seems that the most competent camera market analysis I know of agrees with me on that one... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Hi,
That is now, but times may be changing.
Personally, I don't think reflex viewing makes a lot of sense in the long run.
Best regards
Erik
BJL,
Quote from the latest article by Thom Hogan about the state of mirrorless:
Price — If you want to know what's holding mirrorless back from gaining significant market share against DSLRs, this is the item, with maybe one exception. Canon and Nikon just dominate the US$500-800 price range with DSLRs. Plenty of DSLRs. Highly competent DSLRs. DSLRs that use lenses that people may already have in their closets, and for which almost any lens you'd ever desire has been made. Meanwhile, the best of the mirrorless bunch, like the E-M1 and X-T1, sell for more than the Nikon D7100, which is a supremely competent DSLR. Basically, you pay a lot of money for smaller size and weight. Meanwhile, for less money than mirrorless you can get more and better pixels generally (24mp in crop sensor DSLRs at reasonable prices, for example). Mirrorless hasn't cracked the DSLR defenses yet. The exception might be the Sony A7 and A7r. These are lower-than-DSLR price full frame mirrorless cameras. They have a size and weight advantage over the full frame DSLRs with no image quality penalties. Where they fail at equalling the DSLRs is in focus and frame rate performance, particularly with moving subjects. And where Sony is particularly vulnerable for the time being is in lens choice.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-new-state-of-mirrorless.html
It seems that the most competent camera market analysis I know of agrees with me on that one... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
That is now, but times may be changing.
Personally, I don't think reflex viewing makes a lot of sense in the long run.
Erik,
Yes, this is now. Prices do change with time.
But it is not easy to just lower prices for the mirrorless guys. Most of them appear to be losing money at the present time.
Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.
This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
BJL,
Quote from the latest article by Thom Hogan about the state of mirrorless:
Price — If you want to know what's holding mirrorless back from gaining significant market share against DSLRs, this is the item, with maybe one exception. Canon and Nikon just dominate the US$500-800 price range with DSLRs. Plenty of DSLRs. Highly competent DSLRs. DSLRs that use lenses that people may already have in their closets, and for which almost any lens you'd ever desire has been made. Meanwhile, the best of the mirrorless bunch, like the E-M1 and X-T1, sell for more than the Nikon D7100, which is a supremely competent DSLR. Basically, you pay a lot of money for smaller size and weight. Meanwhile, for less money than mirrorless you can get more and better pixels generally (24mp in crop sensor DSLRs at reasonable prices, for example). Mirrorless hasn't cracked the DSLR defenses yet. The exception might be the Sony A7 and A7r. These are lower-than-DSLR price full frame mirrorless cameras. They have a size and weight advantage over the full frame DSLRs with no image quality penalties. Where they fail at equalling the DSLRs is in focus and frame rate performance, particularly with moving subjects. And where Sony is particularly vulnerable for the time being is in lens choice.
http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-new-state-of-mirrorless.html
It seems that the most competent camera market analysis I know of agrees with me on that one... ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
The part of Thom's argument I agree with is really the argument for why Canon and Nikon dominate the market for interchangeable lens cameras, irrespective of whether the have OVFs, EVF's, or just far LCDs: those two have dominated this sector for many years, which give them advantage in economies of scale, retail presence, lens ownership by potential customers, and name recognition/prestige, and one consequence of this is that they have a volume-related cost advantage. To echo something I said before, this cost advantage or C&N already existed when Olympus, Panasonic, Fujifilm and Sony were trying to compete against C&N with SLR's too. This is of course exacerbated (albeit temporarily) by the fact that the newer CSC systems have more R&D costs to defray compared with the incremental development that Canon and Nikon are making in their APS-C format SLRs and lens for them.
That leaves one part of the argument that is more specifically about CSCs
... for less money than mirrorless you can get more and better pixels generally (24mp in crop sensor DSLRs at reasonable prices, for example).
And here, Thom Hogan does a similar thing as you: to argue pixel counts are a decisive advantage for DSLRs over CSCs, he compares only Nikon's 24MP to Olympus' and Fujifilm's 16MP, somehow overlooking both Sony which offers CSC's at up to 24MP and the fact that the great proportion of Canon's DSLR sales are cameras of 20MP our less. That is: Canon's EF-S system's big lead over Sony's E-mount models cannot be based on a pixel count advantage (Indeed I do not see much case for any claim of sensor superiority for Canon over Sony in this sector!)
Anyway, I am more interested in what is to come, and the recent trend of somewhat less expensive EVF camera models like the Sony A6000 and Olympus E-M10 seems promising. Especially if the A6000's PDAF lives up to the promise of specs like subject tracking AF at 11fps with 196 AF points, which hints that on-sensor AF is on its way to surpassing mirror-based PDAF, to go with EVFs that are overall superior to the OVF's in their price range.
-
Erik,
Yes, this is now. Prices do change with time.
But it is not easy to just lower prices for the mirrorless guys. Most of them appear to be losing money at the present time.
Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.
This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
Very good points. The critical one is this:
"Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices."
This is both their short term strength and their long term weakness. They are very wedded to their current profit lines and are loath to disrupt their cash flow. But in the long run, it will end. The question is will they be the dominate players in the post-DSLR world, or will it be someone else.
The camera line Canon needs to make:
A mirror-less body with a brand new, 24x24mm 24mp sensor. The 24mm is chosen because a: it's big enough, and b: the current EF lenses are internally baffled so that they can't use a 36x36 sensor.
A new line of lenses to take full advantage of the sensor.
EF and EF-S fully supported via an adapter.
Selectable format with native and EF lenses, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, 3:4, 2:3. EF-S lens only in 3:2, the camera will auto-crop the sensor output to the current APS-C size.
State of the art EVF.
This wouldn't be and shouldn't be a cheap camera. About 7D price. This should be Canon stating "This is the future, get on board or be left behind". Most of the native lenses, at least in the beginning, should be in the wides to normal range, the EF legacy lenses can handle the longer stuff.
-
Both Canon and Nikon have really been pushing their low to medium DSLR ranges for the last couple of years. Whether this was a deliberate ploy to get as many people committed to their lens systems or just to keep the money flowing in the door,doesn't really matter. They have a somewhat committed audience for the next few years. Plus what ever incentives provides to sales staff and magazine advertising. Their names are still out there in bright lights.
It is more likely the dedicated photographer whether paid or not, who is currently interested in the Sony Nex ( don't care if Sony doesn't like me using the name ) and A7 and still mostly using their previous lens system. And pwho will robably doing more mix and matching into the future. These photographers will be more likely to decide to shift their purchasing decisions in the future. The Sony product won't have to be better and cheaper but suitable.
This is not the mass market dollars but it does eat into money that Canon and Nikon have received in the past. And as has been pointed out these support networks and camera systems are expensive to maintain. Every RX, Nex and A7 camera ( apart from old guard Minolta and Sony buyers ) is money that the current duopoly are not getting. A likely knock out soon, no. But I don't think Canon and Nikon are enjoying things right now. And all Sony and of course Olympus etc have to do is stay in the fight.
-
Anyway, I am more interested in what is to come, and the recent trend of somewhat less expensive EVF camera models like the Sony A6000 and Olympus E-M10 seems promising. Especially if the A6000's PDAF lives up to the promise of specs like subject tracking AF at 11fps with 196 AF points, which hints that on-sensor AF is on its way to surpassing mirror-based PDAF, to go with EVFs that are overall superior to the OVF's in their price range.
Yep, the A6000 is a very interesting camera. It seem to be getting many things right.
The one thing I don't know about is the look of the lenses. I am sure that they are OK technically, but how nicely do their render?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The camera line Canon needs to make:
A mirror-less body with a brand new, 24x24mm 24mp sensor. The 24mm is chosen because a: it's big enough, and b: the current EF lenses are internally baffled so that they can't use a 36x36 sensor.
The response of 90% of enthusiasts might be: "is it FF? Nah, then I don't want it". A good 9% more might say "can it deliver 16:9 images for my 4k tv without cropping?".
I fail to see why Canon should not make a 24x36mm mirrorless when Sony clearly can, and the Canon catalog of lenses is optimized for this format. The only valid reason would be if 24x24mm sensors are significantly cheaper to manufacture than 24x36mm, but that is the line of thought that brought us 1.6x and 1.3x crop systems in the first place. Users and manufacturers seems to be moving away from that idea.
A new line of lenses to take full advantage of the sensor.
Easy to say, apparently costly to do.
EF and EF-S fully supported via an adapter.
Selectable format with native and EF lenses, 16:9, 3:2, 4:3, 1:1, 3:4, 2:3. EF-S lens only in 3:2, the camera will auto-crop the sensor output to the current APS-C size.
State of the art EVF.
You seem to be asking for some sort of EOS-M pro done right. It is hard to disagree that a Canon competitor to the Sony A7/r with optimal EF lens and flash compability, tailor-made lenses (wherever the geometry allows significant advantages over EF), the kind of ergonomy/ui that Canon users are comfortable with, good video etc would have been nice. With the on-sensor PDAF technology of the the 70D it might even be better for moving targets.
One problem is that you would get a level playing field. Canon would have to have sensors that matched Sony to be able to compete in such a product. At high ISO they do (I believe). If you are pitching this as some low-ISO wide-angle color-critical highly portable landscape camera, I don't think that Canon have (so far) delivered the sensors.
-h
-
Indeed the old Canikon fort is still holding strong, and I also agree with the fact that today, ANY entry to mid level DSLR is a tremendous picture taking machine, and serves the majority of people. I am always surprised when I go abroad, and see the majority of tourists with such DSLRs.
Also, lets not forget that, for example, you can build a fantastic and light FF kit say, with a Canon 6D, and cheap trio of lenses like 24, 50, and 100mm. Say you want to build a similar kit with Olympus or Fuji, and the whole thing is very expensive.
-
The response of 90% of enthusiasts might be: "is it FF? Nah, then I don't want it". A good 9% more might say "can it deliver 16:9 images for my 4k tv without cropping?".
I fail to see why Canon should not make a 24x36mm mirrorless when Sony clearly can, and the Canon catalog of lenses is optimized for this format. The only valid reason would be if 24x24mm sensors are significantly cheaper to manufacture than 24x36mm, but that is the line of thought that brought us 1.6x and 1.3x crop systems in the first place. Users and manufacturers seems to be moving away from that idea.
Well, my thinking is that the 3:2 format being so dominant is really just an accident of history. If you were designing a camera system from scratch would you pick that format? I wouldn't either. :) Canon (or Nikon) has a window of time right now where they can try and dictate the future direction of mass market photography, and install themselves as the leader.
The 24x24 is a compromise, but one that I think makes some sense. It's certainly large enough to produce really good images and it lets Canon leverage much of their existing lens base. Also think that a lot of casual photographers would love being able to change formats on the fly. And it would give Canon a great marketing angle, offering something that no one else has.
...You seem to be asking for some sort of EOS-M pro done right. It is hard to disagree that a Canon competitor to the Sony A7/r with optimal EF lens and flash compability, tailor-made lenses (wherever the geometry allows significant advantages over EF), the kind of ergonomy/ui that Canon users are comfortable with, good video etc would have been nice. With the on-sensor PDAF technology of the the 70D it might even be better for moving targets.
Exactly.
One problem is that you would get a level playing field. Canon would have to have sensors that matched Sony to be able to compete in such a product. At high ISO they do (I believe). If you are pitching this as some low-ISO wide-angle color-critical highly portable landscape camera, I don't think that Canon have (so far) delivered the sensors.
It would have to check all the boxes, sensor-wise, for sure.
-
The camera line Canon needs to make:
A mirror-less body with a brand new, 24x24mm 24mp sensor.
Why do so many people keep hoping for square format sensors when the photographic industry has solidly moved away from square formats ever since eye-level viewfinders took over from the top-down viewfinders of earlier medium format cameras? The vast majority of photographs are in oblong shapes ranging from 5:4 to 3:2, and in fact this is also true of the vast majority of artistic still images made over the last millennium, be they paintings, drawing or photographs. Thus a square format mostly just imposes more cropping, so that a 24x24mm sensor would mostly give usable image sizes in the range 24x16m (3:2) to 24x18mm (4:3). Against this there is the idea of some huge advantage to not having to rotate the camera for verticals. Clearly that has not been enough of an argument so far, but let me throw up the speculation that an "EVF camera" could have a rotating sensor, or a vertical grip option that includes a second EVF for use in vertical mode, or the EVF could be separate and usable on either "top" or "side" mounting points.
The roughly 29x19mm format that Canon used in the 1D Mark II was based on being the largest sensor that it could make without the extra expense of on-wafer stitching, and yet it was eventually abandoned, I think in part because Canon never saw enough reason to provide lenses adapted to that format, so those cameras suffered from cramped wide-angle coverage. (Also, it its price range, 36x24mm sensors became adequately affordable) Likewise, I see very little hope that Canon would develop new lenses for yet another format which would in most case produce images (after cropping almost every one) that are just slightly different in size than its current 22x15mm "EF-S" system gives.
I fail to see why Canon should not make a 24x36mm mirrorless when Sony clearly can, and the Canon catalog of lenses is optimized for this format. The only valid reason would be if 24x24mm sensors are significantly cheaper to manufacture than 24x36mm, but that is the line of thought that brought us 1.6x and 1.3x crop systems in the first place. Users and manufacturers seems to be moving away from that idea.
I can see Canon and Nikon moving to mirrorless in their current format of 36x24 and "APS-C", particularly if on-sensor PDAF fulfills its promise of enabling full AF functionality with their existing lens systems. However, the idea that user and manufacturers are moving away from the smaller ILC formats is bizarre: the sub-35mm (no stitching required) formats continue to account for the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera [ILC] sales. The predominantly high-end enthusiast and professional participants of this forum need to note that even the cheapest 36x24mm digital camera models cost far more than most ILC buyers have ever payed, and far more than most current DSLRs and CSCs sell for.
-
Bernard, we seem to have converged!
Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.
This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.
Also,
Yep, the A6000 … The one thing I don't know about is the look of the lenses.
As far as I can tell, the latest on-sensor AF technology should be highly compatible with adaptor-mounted SLR lenses as a transitional measure, so that helps the lens selection and quality a lot. But it seems that in the longer run, CDAF- and video-friendly linear stepper motors will take over: Canon has even put such AF motors (under the name STM) in most of its recent SLR lenses. (Pioneered in still cameras by Olympus AFAIK, but Canon's recent moves testify to the big two's ability to come from behind when they see a need to.)
-
Why do so many people keep hoping for square format sensors when the photographic industry has solidly moved away from square formats ever since eye-level viewfinders took over from the top-down viewfinders of earlier medium format cameras? The vast majority of photographs are in oblong shapes ranging from 5:4 to 3:2, and in fact this is also true of the vast majority of artistic still images made over the last millennium, be they paintings, drawing or photographs. Thus a square format mostly just imposes more cropping, so that a 24x24mm sensor would mostly give usable image sizes in the range 24x16m (3:2) to 24x18mm (4:3). Against this there is the idea of some huge advantage to not having to rotate the camera for verticals. Clearly that has not been enough of an argument so far, but let me throw up the speculation that an "EVF camera" could have a rotating sensor, or a vertical grip option that includes a second EVF for use in vertical mode, or the EVF could be separate and usable on either "top" or "side" mounting points.
The roughly 29x19mm format that Canon used in the 1D Mark II was based on being the largest sensor that it could make without the extra expense of on-wafer stitching, and yet it was eventually abandoned, I think in part because Canon never saw enough reason to provide lenses adapted to that format, so those cameras suffered from cramped wide-angle coverage. (Also, it its price range, 36x24mm sensors became adequately affordable) Likewise, I see very little hope that Canon would develop new lenses for yet another format which would in most case produce images (after cropping almost every one) that are just slightly different in size than its current 22x15mm "EF-S" system gives.
I can see Canon and Nikon moving to mirrorless in their current format of 36x24 and "APS-C", particularly if on-sensor PDAF fulfills its promise of enabling full AF functionality with their existing lens systems. However, the idea that user and manufacturers are moving away from the smaller ILC formats is bizarre: the sub-35mm (no stitching required) formats continue to account for the vast majority of interchangeable lens camera [ILC] sales. The predominantly high-end enthusiast and professional participants of this forum need to note that even the cheapest 36x24mm digital camera models cost far more than most ILC buyers have ever payed, and far more than most current DSLRs and CSCs sell for.
I actually quite like square photos. I crop a lot of my DSLR shots to square, and I really wish I had a set of square guidelines in my 6D finder.
But one of the best things about a square frame is that the camera never has to change orientation. You hold it the same way for portraits that you do for landscapes, meaning only one tripod foot, one shutter release, etc., etc.
-
Why do so many people keep hoping for square format sensors when the photographic industry has solidly moved away from square formats ever since eye-level viewfinders took over from the top-down viewfinders of earlier medium format cameras? The vast majority of photographs are in oblong shapes ranging from 5:4 to 3:2, and in fact this is also true of the vast majority of artistic still images made over the last millennium, be they paintings, drawing or photographs. Thus a square format mostly just imposes more cropping, so that a 24x24mm sensor would mostly give usable image sizes in the range 24x16m (3:2) to 24x18mm (4:3). Against this there is the idea of some huge advantage to not having to rotate the camera for verticals. Clearly that has not been enough of an argument so far, but let me throw up the speculation that an "EVF camera" could have a rotating sensor, or a vertical grip option that includes a second EVF for use in vertical mode, or the EVF could be separate and usable on either "top" or "side" mounting points...
On a non-square format something is always cropped or wasted, either the lenses image circle or the sensor. It's not that I'd shoot a square image all that often, but the ability to change formats on the fly would certainly be a convenience. And sensors are much cheaper than a collection of lenses, so to me it makes more sense to waste that area.
Again, I think the average APS-C DSLR buyer would love to have that ability, and more savvy users could either use it or just crop in post, whatever was easier for them.
But there's no way Canon is going to build anything like this anyway. :)
-
I actually quite like square photos.
I also like them in a few cases (and also prefer 5:4 and 4:3 over 3:2 for the majority of my images.) My point was that a square format camera is extremely unlikely, and certainly not what Canon "needs to do"; not that there is no one who would want one. The evidence I already mentioned shows that "square picture fans" are and always have been vastly outnumbered by "oblong picture fans", so it does not make much sense for a company like Canon to develop a new cameras format that is better for that tiny fraction of potential customers but worse for most.
But one of the best things about a square frame is that the camera never has to change orientation.
Which I already mentioned; I even proposed some partial alternative solutions. But again, if the question is "will it happen?" as opposed to "would a few people like it to happen because for them the advantages outweigh the disadvantages that would drive most customers away?", the answer seems clear.
-
On a non-square format something is always cropped or wasted, either the lenses image circle or the sensor.
Nonsense: with a format like 4:3 or 3:2, many photographs need little or no cropping and even the ones that do need cropping usually need far less than would be required with a square sensor.
As to "lens image circle" cropping:
1) This issue is vastly over-rated: most lenses at most focal lengths have an optical design that produces an image circle larger than necessary, which is then cut down to the format in use by a combination of internal baffles in the lens and by the sensor itself. It is mostly only wide to normal lenses and zoom lenses at their shortest, wide-angle end that are "tight" for image circle coverage. The niche for square wide-angle images is even tinier, and even less likely to dictate the choice of sensor shape.
2) Comparing square and oblong sensors that fit the same image circle, an oblong sensor is wider (and less high), and so when composing for any shape other than square, it is the square sensor that records a smaller part of the image delivered by the lens. (Alternatively, the square sensor could be as wide as the oblong one by going beyond the image circle, but that just raises the cost even more: a fairer comparison is between sensors of equal size and thus of roughly equal cost.)
3) What is that point of recording more of the image circle by recording a square (or circle; don't forget the lobby for circular sensors!) if it is then cropped in almost all cases because the desired composition is oblong, not square?
One more point about those internal baffles: they are there to reduce flare, and if the baffles are widened to admit a square image, they let more unwanted light in, degrading some images. The extreme case is where a bright light source like the sun is just outside the desired (non-square) framing, but within the square covered by the sensor. So once again, the benefits for the relatively rare square images come at the cost of potentially degrading the vast majority of images.
-
I personally like the square format as one option, especially because, probably thanks to its rarity, it seems to bring coherence for a series of images in a portfolio. The value would be lost in a split second if we had square sensors. ;)
Now, do we need square sensors? Not sure we do because IMHO more images end up working better in a non square aspect ratio. We would end up wasting more pixels overall with square sensors.
Besides, cropping a 36mp image to square still keeps 24mp, which is sufficient for very large prints when everything is done right.
When more is needed it is often possible to perform a 2 shot stitch to reach a 48mp square image. It would be very easy for landscape shooters interested in square images to shoot everything using a pano head. Which is what I have been doing for a few years in fact.
Now, I would be more in favor of circular sensors using the full potential of the image circle, but that would be a poor usage of wafers, wouldn't it?
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Erik,
Yes, this is now. Prices do change with time.
But it is not easy to just lower prices for the mirrorless guys. Most of them appear to be losing money at the present time.
Canon and Nikon have put in place at great cost a very efficient machine from design to production that enables them to release extremely high performance DSLRs at extremely low prices.
This discussion is not about technology, it is about excellence in execution and the impact thereof on the ability of companies to release products at the right price point relative to their competition.
Cheers,
Bernard
It's a margin grab from ILC makers from what I can see, and I can't blame people for carrying on buying DSLR's.
Why pay more for less?
ILC's have been out for quite some time and they are not cheaper or as competitive as DSLR's. Due to less parts and quicker assembly there is every reason to expect ILC's to be cheaper to buy. Even more so the ones without a viewfinder.
Until mirror less makers start to share some of the saved costs, they'll be fighting an uphill battle against DSLR's
People complain about Canon being slow and using old sensors, chanting death to the mirror, calling old tech for dinosaurs etc etc. Reality is Canon are doing just fine sitting on what is a vast system. That's the reason Thom Hogans article strikes a cord with many. It's a little late in the day for ILC makers to try to take on the top dog. Where were they 7-8 years ago when they might have had a chance?
-
It's a little late in the day for ILC makers to try to take on the top dog. Where were they 7-8 years ago when they might have had a chance?
This makes me think back to the days when Kodak was top dog. Where's Kodak now?
My point is... you never know what the future may bring :D
-
ILC's have been out for quite some time and they are not cheaper or as competitive as DSLR's. Due to less parts and quicker assembly there is every reason to expect ILC's to be cheaper to buy. Even more so the ones without a viewfinder.
Perhaps you missed the part of this discussion were I pointed out that the CSC's(*) without EVFs do start at distinctly lower prices than DSLRs and that Bernard's list consisted only of "EVF cameras", and Bernard then explained that he was thinking only of them in his price comments, as being more direct competitors to DSLRs.
In fact the Sony A3000 is an EVF camera priced below recent models of DSLRs (and even matching price with older end-of-life entry level DSLR models with previous generation sensors.)
(*) "CSC" or "mirrorless" or "EVIL", but not ILC, since "interchangeable lens camera" includes both SLR and CSC.
-
Perhaps you missed the part of this discussion were I pointed out that the CSC's(*) without EVFs do start at distinctly lower prices than DSLRs and that Bernard's list consisted only of "EVF cameras", and Bernard then explained that he was thinking only of them in his price comments, as being more direct competitors to DSLRs.
In fact the Sony A3000 is an EVF camera priced below recent models of DSLRs (and even matching price with older end-of-life entry level DSLR models with previous generation sensors.)
(*) "CSC" or "mirrorless" or "EVIL", but not ILC, since "interchangeable lens camera" includes both SLR and CSC.
Have you tried the A3000? I have and it's an embarrassingly poor camera with a fairly good sensor trapped in there.
The EVF is bridge cam small and poor resolution, E mount has far fewer lenses than A Mount let alone Canikon which both have huge systems, the body has a low res rear LCD and fairly leisurely AF at that.
For the sake of saving £50 (v super budget DSLR's) I think it's a waste of time myself unless you have a bunch of e mount bodies and want a super cheap body.
If you fall into the might buy a compact premium model and want a sensor then like the Nikon one on blowout discounts it might be worth a shot.
As a system camera though it doesn't stand a chance
-
I'm not sure where any camera maker will be in the future. The masses shoot with phones, heck even I these days when I'm out and about just use me iPhone. My everyday camera once was a Makina 67. A phone covers the day to day things really well.
It looks like an over saturated market that is probably diminishing in support. I just wonder wether enough people will be around willing to invest in dedicated picture computers to support the number of companies and the huge variety of products they produce.
The typical smart phone out shoots most of the consumer cameras of a few years ago. There will always be some that are enthusiastic about the "art" and willing to pay, not as many as there once was. I can only see room for the upper end surviving long term and I bet Canon will be one of them….probably.
Today Canon make top notch cameras as do Nikon, Sony etc. the differences are small even if the DXO numbers are big. The cover story on the Fuji X made me smile. He shot jpg in Velvia style, there goes your DR and income your jpg limitations, all things that get evaluated to death to decide which is the best camera. Shooting like that would more than level the field amongst any pick of cameras. But it worked so you can't knock it. Seriously stop reading the pointless lab data to decide if a camera is any good.