kezeka wrote:
Extrapolations: We really need to keep in mind that despite what forum goers say about mirrorless being the next coming of Jesus - the market has shown no large desire to move into the segment. Nor are they showing any real desire to invest in Sony.
Hmm. Is the contention that Flickr data you posted shows DSLRs aren't losing users? Let's revisit the data but with a little broader perspective. Where are the most average daily users on Flickr?
it seems the second coming ain't mirrorless...it's the cell phone!
Keep in mind that this is just on flickr, which is a photography enthusiast website and likely more skewed towards the fredmiranda/photoforum aspects than the entirety of the marketplace.
Based on the data above, that assessment might be worth revisiting....
gdanmitchell wrote:
Indeed. And "back in the day" there were no doubt more Brownie cameras than TLRs... ;-)
The analogy might hold true if we were comparing, say, point-and-shoots to DSLRs, or even Rebels to 1DXs. Traditionally the casual consumer has gravitated towards the least expensive product that fulfills a capability, with the pricier gear the domain of professionals and enthusiasts. But the modern smart phone is a uniquely disruptive technology, thanks both to its ubiquity and its multi-functionality. There are a lot of a compact cameras that cost less than a cell phone, but more people buy a phone instead. The reason obviously is that they do more than just photography with it. And once they've bought the phone, there is a lot less incentive to buy a dedicated camera if that functionality is already fulfilled with another device which they already carry with them all the time anyway.
I'd guess DSLR sales are impacted by this less than compact cameras, but the trend in all camera sales recently has been downward. Maybe that's why Canon's "Impossible" was trying to focus on people instead of gear. Maybe they think that if their marketing campaign shows off cool photos and videos people make with their cameras, other people will become inspired and want to buy a full-blown dedicated camera again.
In any case, my hypothesis is cell phone cameras will continue to improve, the entry level end of the camera market will continue to erode, and camera manufacturers are going to have to focus more heavily on the more demanding higher end professional and enthusiast market. And for me, what that means is if they want to sell me another camera to replace the current excellent gear I already have, it'd better do something substantially better or have notably innovative features that will make me take notice.
Matt Grum wrote:
I've owned and used* both an A7R and 5D3 side by side so I'm speaking from a position of experience. Neither resemble a "toy" in any way with regards to build quality. "Poorly functioning" could be applied to either depending on what your priorities are.
*I say "used" because having experienced the future of everything-but-sports cameras, the 5D3 went straight on eBay.
So have I. The A7 is a plastic toy with slow reflexes, poor button layout, and heinous ergonomics.
kezeka wrote:
The A7 is a plastic toy with slow reflexes, poor button layout, and heinous ergonomics.
I just don't understand where you're coming from with this. The body is all metal, the two main control dials are knurled metal with a very positive feel if you turn them, the shutter release is metal. There are some plastic components, but no more than you get on a 5D.
Buttons can be reassigned, I've got two dedicated dials for shutter speed & aperture, a dial on the back for ISO which also functions as a directional pad to move the AF spot / magnify for manual focus, and a shutter button to take photos. It took me about an hour to get used to.
It's not perfect, maybe the layout size of the body is difficult if you have very large hands, if you come at it trying to find faults then I'm sure you will, you certainly seem to have had a very bad experience. Whatever the reason then there are fortunately other cameras out there if you found one that's better that's awesome but I wouldn't band around words such as "toy"* or "poorly functioning" lightly.
*Holga make toy cameras. They are all plastic and don't happen to produce stunning images with more resolution and dynamic range than anything currently on offer from Canon.
artd wrote:
The analogy might hold true if we were comparing, say, point-and-shoots to DSLRs, or even Rebels to 1DXs.
Traditionally the casual consumer has gravitated towards the least expensive product that fulfills a capability,
with the pricier gear the domain of professionals and enthusiasts. But the modern smart phone is a uniquely
disruptive technology, thanks both to its ubiquity and its multi-functionality. There are a lot of a compact cameras
that cost less than a cell phone, but more people buy a phone instead. The reason obviously is that they do more
than just photography with it. And once they've bought the phone, there is a lot less incentive to buy a dedicated
camera if that functionality is already fulfilled with another device which they already carry with them all the time
anyway....Show more →
As far as marketshare is concerned the days of the dedicated camera, no matter how good, are over. The ever
increasing numbers of smartphones out there have dwarfed everything else to maybe 1%. Further advanced by
the telecom's ability to spread the cost out over time with plans. You will never compete with that unless you are
in the cell phone business yourself.
That's the reason why Sony and Samsung have a big advantage going forward. They are already in the new high
volume market that can generate revenue for other pursuits.
It will be interesting to watch Canon/Nikon pricing as time moves on. As cell phone technology gets better and better
where will they get their revenue to drive advances? I doubt any of Canon or Nikon's high end gear is currently self
sustaining.
alundeb wrote:
The build quality of the A7r is higher than that of the A7. They are not just the same camera with different sensors.
As far as I know it's just the front panel that's different, that's not a part you touch very often so shouldn't really affect how the camera feels.
ggreene wrote:
It will be interesting to watch Canon/Nikon pricing as time moves on. As cell phone technology gets better and better
where will they get their revenue to drive advances? I doubt any of Canon or Nikon's high end gear is currently self
sustaining.
They will go up in price, for sure. And manufactures will have to offer something genuinely new to get people to upgrade, no more small incremental updates!
Matt Grum wrote:
They will go up in price, for sure. And manufactures will have to offer something genuinely new to get people to upgrade,
no more small incremental updates!
I agree which is probably going to mean longer time cycles between upgrades. Companies battling for fractions of a percentage of marketshare can't take as many chances as those who are in the high volume game and can quickly recover from missteps.
ggreene wrote:
It will be interesting to watch Canon/Nikon pricing as time moves on. As cell phone technology gets better and better
where will they get their revenue to drive advances? I doubt any of Canon or Nikon's high end gear is currently self
sustaining.
Agreed. Dedicated cameras are going to dwindle to be more of a specialized niche product. The likely way to make up for the loss in volume would be to have more higher end products that cost more.
alundeb wrote:
The build quality of the A7r is higher than that of the A7. They are not just the same camera with different sensors.
This is true but you cannot tell the difference in actual use. I've had both. Literally cannot tell the difference.
Obviously not everyone has an open mind on the subject of sony
What else is new?
This thread is tame compared to the ALT discussions which proceeded the first shipments of A7. Almost all the virulent nay-sayers actually ended up buyin the camera
As to the flickr user numbers, again they look great for a brand new FF line, without much glass .
Imagine what they would be if the sensor topping was half as thick and all the M wides worked as well as on the M240.
That door remains wide open.
Meanwhile, I am loving the M9 I bought last Jan after A7 UWA performance became clear in my own use.
M9 and A7 are close in footprint once the lens is on---with a few exceptions. What I would really like is a nice simple nex-5 sized FF with M friendly sensor.
But M9 is so fun to shoot with and files so gorgeous I can wait
artd wrote:
Agreed. Dedicated cameras are going to dwindle to be more of a specialized niche product. The likely way to make up for the loss in volume would be to have more higher end products that cost more.
But there are genres* of photography that would be cellphone resistant. The genres require specialist requirements and the one body fits all appear to cause compromises/conflict. Canon have a suit of tried and proven bodies/UI to spec them for a 'horses for courses' line up of cameras. Hopefully in a mature market Canon can exploit the niches with bodies and lenses.
Jon Tainton wrote:
But there are genres* of photography that would be cellphone resistant. The genres require specialist requirements and the one body fits all appear to cause compromises/conflict. Canon have a suit of tried and proven bodies/UI to spec them for a 'horses for courses' line up of cameras. Hopefully in a mature market Canon can exploit the niches with bodies and lenses.
artd wrote:
The analogy might hold true if we were comparing, say, point-and-shoots to DSLRs, or even Rebels to 1DXs. Traditionally the casual consumer has gravitated towards the least expensive product that fulfills a capability, with the pricier gear the domain of professionals and enthusiasts...
Perhaps my point wasn't clear. The cameras in cell phones, in terms of photographic use, almost always replace the functionality of point and shoot film/digital cameras, and do not replace the kinds of cameras in that list. (And, yes, there are a few people who do "serious" photography with cell phones, but that is very much an outlier approach.)
So, cell phones don't really challenge "expensive" (from the consumer point of view) DSLR and mirrorless cameras and, in fact, the market on which their effect has been most devastating has been the digital point and shoot market. Lots of folks who shot or would have shot those cameras have found the very small, very convenient, and already accessible cell phone cameras to be more appealing than carrying a second device — and the fact that the smart phone camera is also part of a system that allows easy sharing is a plus.
In the "pricier domain" I think that the major impact on DSLR sales to enthusiast through "professional" photographers is more likely to come from mirrorless cameras.
Jon Tainton wrote:
But there are genres* of photography that would be cellphone resistant. The genres require specialist requirements and the one body fits all appear to cause compromises/conflict. Canon have a suit of tried and proven bodies/UI to spec them for a 'horses for courses' line up of cameras. Hopefully in a mature market Canon can exploit the niches with bodies and lenses.
All of those are better suited by medium format, or even scanning backs in some cases. DSLRs are a cheap alternative for these photographers, but really shine for sports, wildlife, and events.
Jon Tainton wrote:
Hopefully in a mature market Canon can exploit the niches with bodies and lenses.
* Astrophotography/architecture/macro/landscapes/fashion/product etc
All of that is very low volume niches though so in the future you could see some very high pricing.
gdanmitchell wrote:
So, cell phones don't really challenge "expensive" (from the consumer point of view) DSLR and mirrorless cameras and, in fact, the market on which their effect has been most devastating has been the digital point and shoot market.
Not yet but Apple and Samsung are very aggressive competitors in the cell phone business. Their update schedule is unrelenting and they constantly press component suppliers to offer better features for less. It's not going to be as long as many think before cell phone cameras are pushing low entry DSLR's and ML cameras. You take that away from the camera makers and that's not leaving a whole lot of users left for them to get revenue from.
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps my point wasn't clear. The cameras in cell phones, in terms of photographic use, almost always replace the functionality of point and shoot film/digital cameras, and do not replace the kinds of cameras in that list. (And, yes, there are a few people who do "serious" photography with cell phones, but that is very much an outlier approach.)
So, cell phones don't really challenge "expensive" (from the consumer point of view) DSLR and mirrorless cameras and, in fact, the market on which their effect has been most devastating has been the digital point and shoot market. Lots of folks who shot or would have shot those cameras have found the very small, very convenient, and already accessible cell phone cameras to be more appealing than carrying a second device — and the fact that the smart phone camera is also part of a system that allows easy sharing is a plus.
In the "pricier domain" I think that the major impact on DSLR sales to enthusiast through "professional" photographers is more likely to come from mirrorless cameras.
YMMV.
Dan ...Show more →
I agree with all of that too. I was just basically calling into question the method of using the average daily users on Flickr to postulate on market trends as they pertain to DSLRs. Particularly since it was suggested that Flickr would be skewed towards the types of users you see on Fredmiranda than the "general marketplace"...which given the high cell phone usage on Flick, I don't think is the case.
(As an afterthought, I will postulate that the effect of cell phones on DSLR sales is not necessarily zero, and I think there could be at least some small influence. For instance, there have always been those consumers who wanted to buy a camera, but didn't want to buy a cheap one...so they would just walk into their local big box retailer and buy a DSLR because, well, it had to be "better" than the other cheap cameras sitting there on the shelf. As we all know, some people buy cameras that are way beyond what their actual needs are. But, now that everyone has a cell phone in their pocket, there is less motivation to actually go to the store and pick something off the shelf at all, because folks are happily snapping away with their phones and their needs are fulfilled just fine.)
gdanmitchell wrote:
Perhaps my point wasn't clear. The cameras in cell phones, in terms of photographic use, almost always replace the functionality of point and shoot film/digital cameras, and do not replace the kinds of cameras in that list. (And, yes, there are a few people who do "serious" photography with cell phones, but that is very much an outlier approach.)
So, cell phones don't really challenge "expensive" (from the consumer point of view) DSLR and mirrorless cameras and, in fact, the market on which their effect has been most devastating has been the digital point and shoot market. Lots of folks who shot or would have shot those cameras have found the very small, very convenient, and already accessible cell phone cameras to be more appealing than carrying a second device — and the fact that the smart phone camera is also part of a system that allows easy sharing is a plus.
In the "pricier domain" I think that the major impact on DSLR sales to enthusiast through "professional" photographers is more likely to come from mirrorless cameras.
I quite enjoy composing through a FF OVF and not worrying about the battery level/life. As far as I know, no one has ever declared that recharging batteries is an interesting or enjoyable activity, it's a tedious chore at best. There's also nothing more irritating than having to change batteries when the warning light starts flashing and anything that minimises having to dig out a spare is welcomed. Oh, I also prefer viewing the real world through a FF OVF the same can't be said about my experience with an EVF.
Canon can make an external EVF accessory that fits into a hot shoe for those times an EVF bests an OVF.
uhoh7 wrote:
Meanwhile, I am loving the M9 I bought last Jan after A7 UWA performance became clear in my own use.
M9 and A7 are close in footprint once the lens is on---with a few exceptions. What I would really like is a nice simple nex-5 sized FF with M friendly sensor.
But M9 is so fun to shoot with and files so gorgeous I can wait
Thanks-I finally understand what Canon meant when they said "we see impossible"...
What they see is that it's "impossible" for me to even dream of being able to afford a Leica M9... And because of that they remain confident that I'm "stuck" with my Canon gear!
but I wouldn't band around words such as "toy"* or "poorly functioning" lightly.
